Archived: Chapter 1 - Summary Review of the Literature

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

Systemic Reform - October 1996

Chapter 1
Summary Review of the Literature

The first activity of this study, conducted in fall 1991, was a review of the extant literature on systemic reform. Because systemic reform was a relatively new concept in the field of education at that time, the identification of relevant literature extended beyond traditional bibliographic sources to the 25 CPRE affiliate organizations, the 25 members of the Policy Center Network, and a dozen states that were undertaking some aspect(s) of systemic reform at the time. Document reviews were supplemented by more than two dozen interviews with education researchers, state and federal policy makers, and staff of national education organizations. CPRE then commissioned four papers on issues raised in the literature review and the original study proposal, and by the project's advisory panel.

This chapter draws on the study's literature review (Levinson, 1992) and four commissioned papers (David, 1993; Gideonse, 1993; Little, 1993; Murray, 1992) to provide a definition of systemic reform that framed this study, and briefly discuss contrasting conceptions of education reform, issues in implementing systemic reform that had been raised in the early 1990s, and state and federal initiatives in systemic reform.

In addition, we drew on literature on teacher learning (e.g., Ball et al., 1994a; Ball and McDiarmid, 1990; and Cohen, McLaughlin and Talbert, 1993), professional communities (e.g., McLaughlin, 1993; and McLaughlin and Oberman, forthcoming) and school organization and change (e.g., Fullan, 1993; and Lawler and Mohrman, forthcoming) in developing a framework for thinking about capacity building and systemic reform. These and related literatures are taken up in our discussion of capacity and capacity building in Chapter 6.

What Is Systemic Reform?

One Conception of Systemic Reform

Systemic reform is a concept that has emerged in education policy over the last five years. As with most general concepts, it is defined and used in different ways by different people and in different contexts. And some engage in it without applying the label. As used in this study, and in developing approaches in a number of states, systemic reform embodies three integral components: (1) the promotion of ambitious student outcomes for all students; (2) alignment of policy approaches and the actions of various policy institutions to promote such outcomes; and (3) restructuring the governance system to support improved achievement.

This conceptualization is based on the writings of Smith and O'Day (1991), who argue that neither the top-down reforms nor their antithesis, the bottom-up reforms, of the 1980s will improve schools or learning. "Systemic barriers to educational change" (p. 236) exist in the form of a "fragmented, complex, multi-layered" system. Policy fragmentation is, in part, to blame for the low quality of the curriculum in most American schools because of the diffuse allocation of responsibility for goal setting, curriculum adoption (where goals are articulated), textbook adoption, and materials production and distribution. Furthermore, because of widely differing curriculum schemes, disjuncture exists between teacher knowledge and teaching practice as well as between content and assessment. What is needed is "a coherent systemic strategy" that takes advantage of the resources of each level of the education system, that adds content to the restructuring movement, and that establishes expectations that all students will acquire deep understanding of subject matter and complex thinking skills.

Smith and O'Day argue that state leadership can yield generalized, rather than merely piecemeal, improvement, that it can ensure broad equity, and, above all, that it can influence policies related to curriculum, materials, teacher preparation and development, and student assessment. States embarking on systemic reform must first agree on a core body of challenging and engaging knowledge, skills and problem-solving capacities as goals for all students. All state policies guiding instruction would than be based on these goals, forming a consistent, supportive policy structure for school improvement. State curriculum frameworks would set out the best thinking in the field about the knowledge, processes and skills students need to know in each core curriculum area. Instructional materials and high quality assessment systems would be tied to these frameworks. Preservice professional programs would shift from an emphasis on credit collection in subject areas to an emphasis on preparing teachers to teach the content expected of students, while inservice professional development opportunities would enable instructional staff to develop and refine their expertise in the content of the state frameworks and in effective pedagogical approaches. School-level personnel would develop specific curricula, programs and pedagogies designed to achieve the statewide goals. To do this job, schools must be given sufficient autonomy and resources to shape their programs to meet local conditions and the needs of their students.

Contrasting Concepts of Education Reform

Levinson (1992) contrasts this concept of systemic reform with the concepts of comprehensive reform, systemwide reform, restructuring, and instructional alignment--reform movements that share characteristics with systemic reform but that differ in critical ways.

Comprehensive Reform

The argument has been made that systemic reform is little different from the efforts that some states made to improve education in the last decade. In fact, many of the areas cited by Smith and O'Day--curricula, teacher certification requirements, and student testing--altered significantly during the 1980s. Four factors, however, differentiate systemic reform from the earlier so-called comprehensive reform movement. First, and above all, the fundamental intention of systemic reform is to improve significantly achievement for all students, a factor not expressly articulated or emphasized previously. Second, while several states worked toward aligning curriculum with other policy areas, most states' actions were fragmentary and, in some cases, contradictory (Odden, 1991; Cohen and Spillane, 1993). Third, governance changes during this era largely centralized authority, rather than redistributing it across the decision-making levels. Finally, state reforms did not usually encompass a strong, sustained pre-service or in-service component, particularly not one linked with a state curriculum.

Systemwide Reform

Researchers, policy makers, and other advocates for systemic reform have broadened the definition to include other public systems in addition to education in order to benefit children and support their ability to learn. The National Governors' Association (NGA) (1991), for example, pointed to the role of adult education and wider social service delivery reform in improving school children's performance. More specifically, in a discussion of school-linked services, Kirst (n. d.) states, "A...complete definition of school-linked services is: a systemic change that enables parents to better consume and tailor public and private services to their special needs. The systemic change links schools and local public and private agencies to meet interrelated children's needs" (p. 1). Others urge the inclusion of school finance reform as an integral element in systemic reform, arguing that performance of all students will not improve until funding is equalized among school districts and, perhaps, even relatively across states.

Restructuring

Because systemic reform embodies restructuring governance arrangements, many reformers tend to equate these two movements. Certainly, close correspondence exists. For instance, the National Governors' Association (1991) asserts that the two need not be differentiated and should, in fact, be merged: "State leaders recognize that restructuring is not piecemeal reform. It is systemic reform" (p. 1). David (1991) argues that restructuring differs from previous reform efforts in two key ways: "it is driven by a focus on student performance;...and it is a long-term commitment to fundamental, systemic change" (p. 11). The two terms are not synonymous, however. Many successful efforts to restructure have been accomplished without the involvement of the state (some might add, only without the involvement of or even despite the state). Furthermore, restructuring focuses on "altering authority and accountability systems" (M. Cohen, 1990, p. 251), running the risk of being content-free, whereas systemic reform begins with the need to revise what students should know and be able to do and bases subsequent changes on these expected skill and knowledge outcomes.

Instructional Alignment

The notion that curriculum and testing should be inter-related is not new. The quest for instructional alignment has existed since at least the 1970s (S. Cohen, 1987). What, then, is new or different about Smith and O'Day's proposals for educational policy improvement? First, instructional alignment has tended to take a technical, behaviorist approach. Second, advocates of systemic reform call for performance-based assessments that can measure and, therefore, encourage a qualitatively higher level of skills than earlier tests, which although criterion-referenced, focused on the basics. Third, while the linkage between teaching and testing characterizes both movements, the earlier one ignored the necessity to prepare teachers in both instruction and testing as well as to alter authority relationships in order to improve student outcomes.

Selected Issues in Implementing Systemic Reform

Our review of the literature in the early 1990s uncovered a number of issues related to the successful implementation of systemic reform. Two which became the focus of our study were policy integration and teacher professional development.

Policy Integration

Systemic education reform requires unprecedented changes in the way we make policy in this country. These reform strategies require the forging of largely unprecedented consensus around learning outcomes, purposeful coordination by independent agencies and policy bodies within and across levels of the system, the implementation of multiple, aligned policy interventions, and a rethinking of traditional governance patterns. Many would argue that these strategies are impossible in a system deliberately designed to maximize variation and frustrate purposeful coordination (Cohen and Spillane, 1993). While other nations typically and purposefully tie the key systemic elements of instructional frameworks, instructional materials, assessment of student performance, and requirements for teacher education and licensure together,

The decentralized organization of American education rendered the connections between policy and instruction inconsequential for most of our history....Similarly, American disdain for intellectually challenging education has left us with only modest evidence on how such education might turn out in this nation's schools (Cohen and Spillane, p. 37).

As a result, "our ingeniously fragmented political system is evident even in efforts to cure fragmentation" (p. 61).

Fuhrman (1993) argues that three other characteristics of the political system contribute to incoherent policymaking: the focus on elections, policy overload and specialization. The emphasis placed on campaigning and elections over policy or institutional improvement goals has led legislators at the state, as well as federal, level to seek legislation with "name recognition," to circumvent controversial issues, and to favor policies with immediate effects and clear benefits over those with longer term and more remote benefits. At the same time, state policymakers are making policy on many more important education issues than in the past, forcing them to pay less attention to each aspect of policy. With increased complexity comes specialization in the legislative process. Specialization creates more arenas in which politicians can claim credit, but specialization contributes to the fragmentation of the system.

Others are concerned about the dangers of regulatory, centralized state control that they see as inherent in the systemic reform movement. Brooks (1991) worries about state-mandated curricula (he does not discuss frameworks and whether or not these are sufficiently different from state curricula to assuage concern) because they lead to mandates on how to teach as well as on what to teach. Similarly, Clune (1993), although agreeing with the basic premises of systemic reform, identifies four basic problems with a mandatory system of strong instructional guidance. First, standardized curriculum will not meet the needs of diverse local school systems and students. Second, attention to high standards may distract needed attention from the problems of delivering more effective instruction, especially in high need communities. Third, in the absence of a realistic delivery system, states will probably rely on high-stakes assessment systems to force instructional changes, yet high-stakes tests bring with them their own sets of problems and unintended consequences. Finally, adoption of a standard curriculum will prove to be impossible in our highly fragmented educational governance structure. He argues that the challenge in systemic reform is to "design policies that combine the high standards of systemic policy with a broad diversity of curricular options and a powerful delivery system" (p. 234).

Teacher Professional Development

Some researchers have drawn attention to the difficult extended learning required by recent instructional reforms (EEPA, 1990). Yet, most professional development strategies and programs do not adequately address the learning needs of teachers (Little, 1993).

The research that was available at the time of our study design indicated that state policies to guide instruction often falter on the issues of teacher knowledge and capacity. For example, one three-state study of the implementation of state curriculum frameworks, assessment and textbook policies in science found that, in addition to the alignment of these instruments, teacher preparation was a critical condition in influencing effects. The authors noted that "...the activity and the science-process focus of all three state frameworks presented a significant change for many districts and a clear need for training" (Armstrong et al., p. 19). Another three-state study that focuses on curriculum-related initiatives that encourage elementary school teachers to teach for understanding and thinking in five content areas found complex interactions between state and district policies. Important influences included the availability and expertise of local subject matter personnel for professional development programs. (Cantlon, Rushcamp and Freeman, 1991). In their study of the implementation and effects of the then new California elementary school mathematics and science frameworks, Marsh and Odden (1991) found that a critical component of implementation were the efforts of the state and districts to train teachers in the substance of the frameworks. In her response to early studies of teacher response to new curriculum frameworks and related state policies, Darling-Hammond (1990) concluded that:

If policymakers want to change teaching, they must pay attention to teacher knowledge. And if they are to attend to teacher knowledge, they must look beyond curriculum policies to those policies that control teacher education and certification, as well as ongoing professional development, supervision and evaluation. (p. 346)

Problems begin early in the preparation process. A basic problem, according to several authors, is that undergraduate prospective teachers do not know the content of the subject areas they are expecting and are expected to teach. Equally important, they do not comprehend the concepts and methods of their fields the understandings that are necessary if they are to help their future students construct knowledge (McDiarmid, 1991; Cohen and Spillane, 1993). Feiman-Nemser and Parker (1990) investigated the extent to which these beginning teachers learn additional content or learn to value content through conversations with experienced, mentoring teachers once they start work. They conclude, "The probability that they will do so during their first year of teaching...is slim" (p. 13).

Even if prospective and beginning teachers were receiving adequate preparation in the content and methods of their teaching fields, however, this condition alone would not prepare them to be adequate teachers in a coherently organized school system. Teachers also need to be steeped in the content and the pedagogical underpinnings of their particular state's curriculum frameworks. A framework that is suffused with and conveys a central organizing principle demands teachers who are prepared in both the knowledge and pedagogy of both the subject-matter and the frameworks. Another key component of systemic reform in which teachers need extensive training is student assessment, particularly as performance-based approaches take hold. Yet a study of teacher preparation in assessment in six western states (Stiggins, 1988) concluded that incoming teachers are not prepared in any assessment techniques from small-scale daily grading to larger-scale alternative methods.

It is clear not only from these publications but also from the flurry of recommendations and efforts in the past several years that teacher preparation needs to change (see for example, The Holmes Group, 1986). The authors of papers commissioned for this study also identified problems with the existing teacher preparation and development system. Gideonse (1993) identified several obstacles in bringing the governance of teacher education into productive alignment with the press for system reform. These include (1) the fragmented structure for developing teacher education policy (e.g., establishing entrance qualifications, nature of the preparation program, exit standards, and teacher licensure), (2) the shared responsibility but diffused authority for the education of prospective teachers between school, colleges and departments of education (SCDEs) and schools of liberal arts and education, (3) the lack of a consensus within the teacher education, teaching and policy communities on what we mean by teaching, teacher preparation or advancing the profession, (4) limited resources in teacher preparation programs and limited incentives for entering teaching, and (5) jaded views of past state regulatory effort. He argues that teacher education policy should rest on the meta-modeling of constructivist theory. Instead of prescribing the content of teacher preparation programs, policy makers, in close collaboration with the profession, should seek to define what constitutes professionalism in teaching and then encourage and support programs committed to professionalism, whatever their approach.

Murray (1992) reports on the work of a group of institutions of higher education who have pledged to reform the relationship between the faculties of SCDEs and liberal arts. The members of Project 30 are developing answers to five issues that bedevil any teacher education program: (1) How should teachers acquire a thorough knowledge of the discipline(s) they are licensed to teach? (2) What should the liberal arts component of the teacher education program deliver? (3) How do teacher education students learn to convert their knowledge of the subject matter into a teachable subject for a wide range of students? (4) How can we develop a curriculum that incorporates multicultural, international and other human perspectives? and (5) How can we increased the number of individuals from under-represented groups in the teaching force?

Little (1993) addresses the lack of a fit between the nature of the task of reform and the prevailing models of professional development in particular, the dominance of a training paradigm built on "knowledge consumption," and the lesser support for an inquiry and problem-solving paradigm built around "knowledge production." Other issues in the design of professional development also center around the sheer complexity of the reform tasks being proposed, and the relative absence of tested principles, policies and practices together with the contradiction across policies and the propensity to seize upon early stage experiments as "models;" and the relative inattention to teachers' "opportunity to learn" within the salaried work day and work year. She offers six principles for professional development that would stand up to the complexity of current reforms and argues that teacher collaboratives and other networks, subject matter associations, school university collaborations targeted at school reform, and special institutes and centers are approaches that incorporate some of these principles. While Little views district-sponsored staff development and union-initiated projects as more problematic, they deserve policy attention because they are so central to teachers' lives and employment.

State and Federal Systemic Reform Initiatives

During the first half of the 1990s, policymakers at the state and federal level began to turn their attention to the results rather than the inputs of education. The National Science Foundation (NSF) has awarded Statewide Systemic Initiative (SSI) grants to 26 states "to encourage improvements in science, mathematics, and engineering and technology education through comprehensive systemic changes in the education systems of the states" (National Science Foundation, n. d.). In order to be eligible, states must articulate their vision of curriculum goals and content, instructional strategies, student assessment, changes in school structure and decision-making, equity, and professional development of teachers and administrators the key components of systemic reform. The Goals 2000: Educate America Act, enacted in 1994, provides resources to support state and local efforts toward systemic reforms. To receive additional funding, states must submit improvement plans that address the development and implementation of challenging academic and occupational skill standards and assessments, professional development for educators, and governance strategies and accountability mechanisms. The 1994 reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, now entitled the Improving America's Schools Act, goes further, requiring states to develop school improvement plans that establish high content and performance standards in at least mathematics and language arts, and assessments aligned with these content standards.

At the state level, over 30 states have begun to develop new curriculum frameworks in various subject areas, joining 15 other states that are already in the process of implementing them (Pechman and Laguarda, 1993). In 1991-92, 28 states reported they were implementing and 6 more were in the process of designing or piloting some form of alternative assessment (Pechman, 1992). Not surprisingly, the shape, content and mix of education policies differ across states. Some states, like California and South Carolina, have a long history of coordinated reform which has been well-institutionalized; they provide examples of trying to push along an established system. Kentucky, by contrast, embarked on perhaps the most far-reaching and comprehensive reform effort ever undertaken, without any prior base. The states also provide variation on the extent to which they are trying to drive the curricular system, and employ different primary mechanisms for doing so. Minnesota and Connecticut, for example, attempted to give local educators much latitude in devising curricular strategies to achieve common state curricular goals. Connecticut and Arizona planned to rely heavily on assessment instruments to guide the educational system, while South Carolina and Georgia focused first on, and gave primary emphasis to, curriculum frameworks (Fuhrman, Massell et al., 1992).

In their early analysis of state systemic reform efforts, Fuhrman, Massell et al. (1992) also posed questions and cautions for researchers and policymakers. Included among some of the issues are the following:

Will local districts and teachers have the capacity to develop rich curricular and instructional approaches to meet the knowledge, skills and behaviors that states have identified?
What effects do categorical programs have on states' systemic reform efforts? How will states design a coherent curriculum system which does not further disadvantage students who by law must receive much 'unaligned' curriculum?
How can states institutionalize systemic reform yet maintain the flexibility to renew these policies over time?
What is the political context of education policy making which hinders or facilitates systemic reform? Budgetary constraints, for instance, can not only slow the development of policy instruments, but can also fracture political coalitions which would otherwise provide solid ground for systemic reforms.

Another issue raised by Fuhrman, Massell and others is the timing and feasibility of radically different assessment systems. Many states are hinging many policies on new authentic assessments. Yet, many technical issues remained to be addressed (Koretz, Stecher and Diebert, 1992; McDonnell, 1994). Furthermore, as Maeroff (1991) notes, authentic assessments may not be viable instruments for broad state accountability purposes.
-###-

[Executive Summary]

[Chapter 2: Study Aims and Study Questions]