![[Table of Contents]](/icons/up.gif){kind=icon}
District level administrators initiated two of the science case reforms. In both cases, universities studying and/or developing pilot materials sought field test sites. One school was specifically solicited because its faculty members were known at the state level as leaders in reform. The reform initiator at the third site was a teacher/department chair who was also known statewide for his leadership in reform.
Reform in thinking across disciplines is demonstrated in the cases at all levels of initiation. At one site, the district level administration along with community members sought a broad-based change which resulted in principal-teacher alliances at one school that created a demonstration program in history emphasizing higher order thinking skills for all students. The state, through sweeping legislation, pushed an already reform-oriented school toward greater reform efforts at a second site. The third site demonstrates the vision of and mentoring by a principal in school-wide reform that best conceptualized in a unusual interdisciplinary thinking skills program.
Governmental bureaus, federal and state, generally funnel their monetary resource through various agencies. In the reforms studied here these agencies include independent program developers, universities and colleges (individually or cooperatively), and districts. In some cases, federal money is channeled through state agencies and then to one of the middle level sources.
What is passed on to the schools from this middle level may be money but also may include curriculum materials, assessment materials, technology, content and/or pedagogical information, knowledge and skills--and time in professional support, staff development, and inservice training.
Within the school, teachers--individually or as members of a department, an interdisciplinary core or organizational family or the school as a whole--generate and solicit resources of money and materials. They are the premiere contributors of time.
Source patterns in curriculum reform cases. In three case studies--two in science and one in mathematics--funding originated at the federal level with NSF and US Department of Education funds. In each case the funds were funneled through different intermediaries. One NSF grant tied an independent program developer with a university and a district to support teachers field testing a reformed curriculum. In another NSF grant, two universities were networked with a district and school. A third NSF grant funneled money through the state, its university system and the district to the school, gathering additional funds for the project at each level. In general these funds supported curriculum development, teacher training, materials for field testing, and various support services between agencies. Individuals at the sites may or may not have had much in the way of administrative support. A critical time in these sites is when the field test is over and the district and school face the financial and curricular concerns of adoption. At one site the administration did not maintain the modem necessary for program developer support to teachers after the first year of the multiple year testing. In two sites, inservice and teacher training was all but eliminated at the end of the field test, despite teacher needs for continued pedagogical understanding and practice with curriculum and assessment.
One state, through its legislation, has initiated the reform, but has primarily placed the burden of resources on the schools. In this site the district, school, principal and teachers have born the brunt of the funding dilemma through innovative grants, special partnerships, private foundations and a reallocation of existing funds. In this instance as well, the need for appropriate inservice education, although legislated, was not adequately fulfilled.
In one case, the public relations ability of the principal--as well as the community's and district's vision--has fostered reform through with several state funded demonstration programs. These funding sources are an outgrowth of the district led reform in thinking skills, itself financed primarily through district budget allocations. So in this case, the funding pattern is reversed. The district adopted an outcomes-based philosophy and now at least three programs within the study site have been funded by the state as innovative models for other schools. One of the three state-funded grants was for the thinking skills program researched here. Inservice and collaborative interaction is continuing especially under the guidance of the principal and several trainers in the building.
At the school, department and teacher level funding is less readily available. Two case studies were of programs in new schools founded on innovation. The reform leaders in both situations creatively approached the needs and costs of reform. At one site, the funds allocated for textbook purchase financed not only the black line masters and their photocopying of the purchased curriculum but also numerous resource books, manipulatives, classroom sets of graphic calculators, and at least one trip to the curriculum developers for training.
In the second instance, a building decision was made not to hire department chairs and instead to divide the duties among department members with a small stipend per task. To institute this alternative management style a waiver in the district contract was negotiated. The $15,000 savings provides a common pool for professional development time, special assignments, and curriculum development work to name a few. The learning organization qualities present in this environment are a critical element in the evolving innovation at this site.
At the department level, several factors are important in generating funding--a common vision, culture of collegiality, willingness to do necessary ground work, and clear rationale. In one instance, a team of math teachers built a long history of innovation by volunteering for field tests of products they believed served the needs of their students. They pursued technology before its use was common in schools. With that history they applied for district funds for innovative programs and foundation grants for teacher growth initiatives. They collaborated with businesses and the State Department of Education to build a new program complete with teacher training. Another grant purchased "hardware" for their classrooms--graphic calculators, televisions, VCRs, storage cabinets, new tables and chairs for students, and high back chairs for them. These teachers were treated as specialists by the building principal and district curriculum director, both of whom "found the dollars" to support various reform projects within the department.
A leader having the knowledge, personal skills, organizational skills, ideas, persistence and respect of peers and administrators is a resource in himself, especially when this vision is clearly aligned with the state's curricular framework and professional organization recommendations for integration. In one case much of the reform resulted from the hard work of a department chair and collegial interaction of this person and the teachers. In addition to financial support for materials and personnel time, the building administration provided endorsement and advocacy; building level funding was enhanced by some district and state funding.
[Implications for Policy and Practice]