A r c h i v e d I n f o r m a t i o n

Systemic Reform in the Professionalism of Educators - September 1995

E. Executive Summary

Goals and Objectives of the Study

The overall goal of this study was to provide a systematic means of learning about the design, implementation, and impact of systemic reform efforts to enhance the professionalism of educators. We conducted in-depth case studies of three school-university partnerships that have undertaken comprehensive reform initiatives to redesign the teaching and learning process for professional educators throughout their careers — specifically by focusing on preservice training, inservice training, and the working conditions of educators. Our intent was not to validate model programs, but rather to produce examples, insights, guiding principles, and lessons learned for those engaged in or thinking about initiating similar large-scale education reforms.

The four overarching questions guiding the study were as follows:

What was the nature of the systemic reform effort, including the objectives, structures, roles, and strategies employed?
How has research and other knowledge been used in the systemic reform efforts?
What have been the prominent outcomes of these partnerships’ efforts? In particular, what has been the impact on teacher professionalism, and to what extent have these reforms been institutionalized?
What are the important factors that help to explain productive school- university relations?

Scope of the Study

An 18-month exploratory field study was designed to look more intensively into these questions. The cases varied on several dimensions of interest: interorganizational structure (ranging from a top-down hierarchical structure to a more grassroots egalitarian collection of educators), location, context, and scale, approach to professional development, and the nature of interorganizational linkages used to implement reform. What each of these school-university partnerships had in common was a commitment to the simultaneous renewal of teacher education and schools, and the creation of a new organization to jointly manage and fund their reform initiatives. Each partnership has invested heavily in teacher development as a strategy for improving student learning in schools. In addition, each partnership has been in existence for at least five years, long enough to begin to see the effects of their efforts.

Conceptual Framework

The school change literature (Fullan, 1991; Fullan & Miles, 1992; Louis & Miles, 1990), which identified the critical Elements of reform, provided the basis for the design of the study. In each case, the study examined those elements: the vision guiding them; the leadership driving them; the knowledge and research/inquiry foundation upon which they are built; the opportunities for learning needed to sustain them; the mechanisms for communication used to coordinate them; the organizational arrangements designed to support them, and the strategies used to implement them.

School-university partnerships were the vehicles through which the three reform initiatives were organized. For the purposes of our conceptual framework, we have defined the "system" by the entities within the "boundaries" of school-university partnerships, recognizing that there are many other organizations that affect these initiatives (e.g., teacher unions, government policymakers). The intersection of all the component parts is found in the school/university partnership organization. Personal and professional relationships provide the connections within an individual school, between schools within a school district, between districts, between schools or districts and the University, and within the cross-site organization.

The impact on student learning was a dominant interest in the original conceptualization of the study, and served as an important site selection criterion. A vision of successful student learning was found to be a motivating force in each of the reform initiatives. While of considerable interest where data were available, an assessment of the impact of these reforms on student learning was beyond the scope of this study.

Other influences impacting on the reform initiatives are many and varied, depending on the sociopolitical context within which the school-university partnership is located. They include, among others, teacher unions, government policies, professional networks, and outside funders. Although not the primary focus of the study, where these outside influences were particularly influential their impact was explored.

Educator professionalism is the overall dependent variable. The theory underlying the press for educator professionalism, according to Darling-Hammond (1989), is that strengthening the structures and vehicles for creating and transmitting professional knowledge will prove a more effective means for meeting students’ needs and improving the overall quality of education. The theory is based on a conception of teaching as complex work requiring specialized knowledge and judgment in nonroutine situations, and on a conception of learning as a highly interactive and individualized process.

The outcomes of interest in this analysis were five different characteristics of educator professionalism (Darling-Hammond, 1989): a culture of inquiry; teacher development; collaborative culture; professional networks; and client orientation. In addition, there was concern for the durability or "institutionalization" of these reforms.

Design and Methodology

The study focused on three sites defined by the overall school-university partnership. Each partnership represents a single case. The three sites profiled in our research are the Learning Consortium at the University of Toronto, the Southern Maine Partnership and the University of Southern Maine Extended Teacher Education Program (ETEP), and the Benedum Project at West Virginia University.

Within each site, there are multiple embedded or nested cases, a sample of which were examined. The school-university partnership was the primary focus as well as its intersection with each of the member organizations: the College of Education’s teacher education program, school districts, individual schools, supervising teachers and a sample of student teachers who did their student teaching in those schools. In Toronto and Southern Maine, the study sample included one high school and one elementary school in each of two districts. In West Virginia, where the total number of schools is much smaller, one high school and one elementary school were selected.

Data were collected over an 18-month period through a series of site visits, totaling 15 - 20 days per site. Most data were collected through semistructured open-ended interviews covering the principle research questions. These data were supplemented with on-site observations, existing documents, and a collaboratively constructed "journey," (Cox & deFrees, 1991) or historical time line of each site’s development.

To provide as completely descriptive an overview of each partnership as possible a common framework was used to address a common set of research questions. Data collection followed a sequence of progressive focusing. Interview data were obtained from multiple interviews with key informants in each site. The interview sample then "snowballed" based on recommendations and the identification of key participants by key informants. From the compilation of interview data, a set of some 25 causal variables common to all three cases emerged. Preliminary findings from all sites were fed back to site informants for verification.

Data Analysis

Field notes were transcribed and coded using a coding scheme derived from the principal research questions. The research project had two major components. The first component was a profile of each of the three sites. The second component was the cross-case analysis. The goal of the first portion of the study was to create a narrative record of the evolution of the reform initiative and to analyze the key forces affecting the reform process for each organization within the partnership. A list of approximately 25 common variables was developed to generate causal flowcharts for the three sites (Miles & Huberman, 1994), which could then be compared to isolate "streams" of antecedent and intervening variables leading to the principal outcomes. Similarly, cross-case analysis began with a review of the three narratives for common or contrasting themes, outcomes, and mediators. A list of these variables was then compared across sites. A number of themes emerged from these comparisons, revealing the importance of: 1) personal and professional relationships as the foundation for these partnerships; 2) access to a variety of professional development opportunities; 3) stability of leadership; 4) resource availability; and 5) goal congruence and the alignment of organization arrangements to achieve their goals; and 6) the inherent tensions endemic to school-university partnerships.

Overview of the Three Cases

The three school-university partnerships represent disparate approaches to the simultaneous renewal of schools and teacher education. The Learning Consortium is a formal arrangement between four large school boards and two institutions of higher education in a large diverse urban center. The distinguishing features of the reform efforts in Toronto are the extensive formal structure developed to provide professional development, the prominent role of a few highly visible leaders in the reform effort, and the changing identity of the Faculty of Education at the University of Toronto. The primary strategy for reform has been a sustained focus on teacher development. The Consortium offers an extensive menu of professional development programs through institutes, workshops, and conferences. The member boards provide the infrastructure for disseminating and expanding these opportunities to the individual school level.

In contrast, the Southern Maine Partnership is a relatively informal grass-roots operation designed to bring educators together to address issues of concern to K-12 and university educators. The most distinguishing feature of the reform efforts in Southern Maine is the substantial integration of multiple reform initiatives across multiple organizations. The reflective culture that developed early in the SMP has permeated the professional lives of educators in the schools, school districts, and teacher education program at the University of Southern Maine. In addition, the emergence of broad-based leadership has facilitated curriculum and assessment articulation across the K - 12 system and the teacher education program, and has helped the partnership thrive, even in the face of numerous changes of leadership.

The Benedum Project was created with the dual agenda of improving schools using the Professional Development School (PDS) model, and the renewal of teacher education. The two distinguishing features of the Benedum Project are that it was initiated as a university-wide project, with substantial participation from academic disciplines across campus, and that it has evolved as almost two separate reform agendas: the development of PDSs and the reform of teacher education. Although there is significant involvement of some school faculty in the teacher education reform, and significant involvement of some university faculty in the school reforms, the two efforts remain fairly separate.

The Array of Outcomes

The principal outcomes examined in this study were of two types. Five different indicators of professionalism were assessed: a culture of inquiry; teacher development; collaborative cultures; professional networks; and client orientation. In addition, the durability of changes made was examined to assess the degree of "institutionalization." The focus was less on the permanence of the partnership arrangements themselves than on the persistence of new practices, ways of working, and the cultural norms of the member organizations.

Long-term continuance (institutionalization) appears to be built on four elements:

sustained support from the district, which is manifested in attitudes, behavior, and dollars/resources;
a like kind of support from the university;
a continuing and evolving (adapting) program of activities in which both school and university personnel are mutually engaged or find mutual benefit;
and stable leadership, demonstrated through continuity of strong leaders who are able to transition from the initial leader to succeeding leaders who have the energy and clout necessary to maintain commitment.

Causal Analysis - For analytic purposes, it is useful to divide the sequence of events in the evolution of the partnerships into three phases.

Causes of development (antecedents) - Five factors that were critical to the development of all three partnerships were: (1) political support for reform; (2) leadership from higher education; (3) school or district leadership; (4) availability of both internal and external funds; and (5) a shared vision of the potential advantages.
Contributors of Development (intervening) - Eight factors were identified as being critical to support continued development: (1) a high level of commitment across organizations; (2) stability of leadership; (3) strong emphasis on professional development; (4) shared decision making; (5) strong relationships between the university and schools; (6) availability of funding; (7) knowledge resources; and (8) the intensity of linkages with other professionals.
Causes of Increased Professionalism (outcomes) - The major contributors to increased professionalism were multiple learning opportunities, and the development of a collaborative culture that fosters questioning toward the goal of continuous improvement.

General Implications:

Substantial benefits can be derived from these partnerships for teachers, schools, school districts, and for university education programs, student teachers, and the university faculty.
Initial development seems to require an energetic and inspirational leader who has clout within the university system.
Money is important; these reforms require both human and financial resources.
Partnerships must be built on the perception of mutual advantage, mutual trust, and respect.

Implications for Funding Agencies and Policymakers:

All new enterprises have special start-up costs and continuing costs. The strength of the initial infrastructure is critical to sustaining the partnership.
Long-term support issues must be addressed in some way, i.e., there should be a realistic prospect that long-term funding can be arranged.

Implications for Universities:

Attention must be paid to how research and evaluation activities can be melded with service activities of faculty members.
Leadership from tenured faculty members and the administration is essential.
There is a need to address faculty development in the areas of teaching skills, course content, and comfort with working in schools.
There is a need to address the preparation of future teacher educators so new university faculty will enter the profession with the knowledge and skills necessary to work effectively with schools.

Implications for Schools/School Districts:

There is a need to build in mechanisms to support educator learning, including opportunities to connect with colleagues within and beyond their own institution.

Implications for Development and Research:

Formative evaluation procedures and instruments are needed to assist partnerships in evaluating and monitoring their progress toward achieving their goals, and to inform future planning.
Additional research is needed on the real costs of education reform, especially the reform of teacher education.
Additional research is needed on the development of leadership skills within all sectors of education.
Additional research is needed on understanding the issues of faculty development within higher education.

-###-

[Acknowledgments]

[Summary Review of Literature]