Since Congress passed the Goals 2000: Educate America Act in 1994, the program has supported efforts to implement standards-based reform in more than one-third of all districts in the nation. This study highlights the policies, practices, and procedures of several Goals 2000 subgrantees as examples of systemic standards-based reform. It describes how districts used Goals 2000 and/or Technology Literacy Challenge Fund (TLCF) funds to start, support, and sustain reform efforts. It draws detailed, real-life examples of how standards-based reform can be implemented and function at the local level from nine districts that states and researchers recommended.

Findings

Several common elements permeated efforts to improve teaching and learning. The use of Goals 2000 funds generally fit seamlessly into the subgrantees' efforts to develop and implement standards-based reforms. The multiple efforts focused on:

• Integrating standards, curriculum, instruction, and assessments, with assessments as the indicator of student growth and as the driver of instructional change.
• Engaging teachers and district-level personnel in the creation of local standards, benchmarks, and curricula, a process that was usually considered professional development.
• Adopting research-based methods of professional development that actively engage teachers in job-embedded in-service activities. Activities included curriculum and assessment development, collaborative unit and lesson planning, the use of technology, and performance-based instruction and assessment.
• Developing positive relationships with the school community.
• Additional characteristics served to make the overall reform effort cohesive, including: a strong superintendent; reliance on research-based methods; systemwide movement toward performance-based instruction and assessment; focus on continuous improvement; increased use of technology as both a management and instructional tool; and increased use of data to drive decisions about instructional focus.

The subgrantees use several indicators as evidence that their reform efforts are successful.

All of the districts reported that increased student achievement was a primary goal of their reform efforts. But, recognizing that reform efforts require extended time to have an effect, the districts also have implementation goals related to the alignment of standards, curricula, assessment, and instruction; teacher change; and involving families and communities in schooling.

Key indicators suggest that the subgrantees are realizing student achievement goals.

• Student achievement scores are increasing. All of the subgrantees highlighted improvements in state assessments ( and some in local assessments), generally in the areas where reform efforts (and Goals 2000 funds) were concentrated. For instance, Kent County Public Schools in Maryland concentrated its reform efforts at the middle school level and made gains at that level in all subject areas on the state assessment.
• Districts are working to improve the educational outcomes of all students. Subgrantees recognize their responsibility to provide quality educational experiences to all students, including students who are economically disadvantaged, students with disabilities and students with limited-English proficiency (LEP). For example, in Wichita Public Schools, Kansas, administrators are testing most special education students using the same exam taken by regular education students and assessing the scores of special education students to identify weaknesses and ways to address them.
• Cohesive systems are emerging. In the nine subgrantees studied, state and local standards and benchmarks set districtwide expectations for student learning and district administrators, principals and teachers are working to make all components of their system revolve around the standards. Generally, the districts provide the leadership in this effort through the development and implementation of a strategic plan.
• Student assessment is a key element in reform activities. Most of the subgrantees studied are developing and administering exams that include performance-based assessments.

Subgrantees continue to face a number of challenges to the successful implementation of standards-based reform.

• Teacher capacity to implement standards-based reform is not fully developed. The types of staff development necessary to successfully implement standards-based reforms are costly and time-consuming, particularly for teachers already charged with multiple responsibilities during and after the school day.
• Teacher "buy-in," or willingness to participate in the reform effort, is not universal.
• Making changes to basic components of the educational system is technically challenging and difficult to implement systemwide. For instance, the districts in the study are requiring that teachers adopt performance-based instruction and assessment. Shifting to new methods of assessment, particularly performance assessment, raises scoring reliability issues and requires additional time and training for school staff.
• Serving the needs of all students is a concern, particularly with respect to special education students who may have to overcome greater academic obstacles to achieve the high standards set by the district and/or state and with respect to students who fail to achieve established standards.
• Districts need to sustain the momentum of the reform effort. Some districts have already accomplished significant change in content areas such as language arts, mathematics, and/or science. However, district officials acknowledged that other subject areas, such as art and social studies, will require similar attention.

The nature of Goals 2000 subgrants -- flexible while designed to support systemic, standards-based reform -- enables districts to spend the funds on their reform priorities as outlined in their strategic plans.

Some subgrantees use a strategic budgeting process that identifies and prioritizes all of the district's programs and initiatives as well as funding sources. They then make decisions about spending based on their priorities and the availability of funding. Many of the subgrantees reported an increase in blended funding in the last few years. Some of the subgrantees submit consolidated applications for federal programs, while others are moving in that direction. Because Goals 2000 subgrants are so flexible, they add to the overall capacity of these and other districts to fund programs that support their strategic plans.

Policy Implications

• Districts play a significant role in directing the overall implementation of systemic, standards-based reform. This finding suggests that district leaders require continual training in developing and implementing key elements of standards-based reforms.
• Superintendents who emphasize improving curriculum and instruction are able to provide and support a coherent vision for standards-based reform, a finding which suggests that it may be constructive to provide professional development activities for superintendents that focus on curriculum and instruction as well as to encourage superintendents and districts to emphasize issues of curriculum and instruction.
• Districts need flexible funding tied to clear program objectives -- such as Goals 2000 in its support for systemic, standards-based school improvement - to support their efforts to implement systemic, standards-based reform.
• Exemplary subgrantees implement research-based reform efforts, demonstrating the importance of developing and disseminating best-practices research.
• Some subgrantees used strong evaluation methods to assess their progress in implementing standards-based reform, but many did not, suggesting that districts need technical support in evaluating standards-based reform.
• Successful reform requires that teaching change, particularly with a shift to more performance-based instruction and assessment. It would be helpful to incorporate new methods of teaching in preservice training and to provide professional development that engages teachers in the development and scoring of performance-based work.