![[Table of Contents]](/icons/up.gif){kind=icon}
One issue that emerged in our interviews was the lack of curricular alignment across grade spans, particularly between elementary and secondary school. Although subject area reforms cover grades kindergarten through 12, and emphasize articulation across the grade levels, this coordination has been difficult to achieve, particularly with the high school. Two factors appear to have contributed to this situation. First, many of the reform efforts in language arts and mathematics have focused on elementary and middle school teachers. The structure and context of high school courses have been slow to change, causing a potential discontinuity between the middle and high school grades. Middle school language arts teachers in our study were concerned, for example, that students who are taught process writing will face more regimented instruction when they enter high school. In the words of one teacher:
The high school wants to tell grades 6-8 what to do. Like teach a five paragraph theme. Thank you, no.... Seventh and eighth graders don't need that at this point. We want to create kids who like writing, know something about the writing process.In Vermont, this disjuncture is aggravated by the required use of writing portfolios in the eighth grade, but none in the higher grades. Second, districts have typically developed curriculum by grade span (e.g., primary, upper elementary, middle and high school). Each development effort involves only teachers in those grade spans, and often occurs in different years. Teachers have little or no knowledge of what is taught or tested at other levels.
Three of our districts (MI1, MI2, VT1) are addressing the lack of K-12 articulation within their curriculum by having district-wide task forces develop objectives, or performance indicators, for each grade or grade span in each core curricular area. In MI1, for example, mathematics objectives are being established for each of the NCTM strands over four grade spans, K-12. In one California district (CA1), the need for a similar task force has been discussed, but it has not materialized due to other pressing needs of the district.
This lack of curricular articulation extends into post secondary education. Although this was not a focus of this study and we interviewed no high school teachers, several respondents indicated a tension between the K-12 curricular reforms and the demands and expectations of state institutions of higher education. For example, one state leader in California commented:
In California, 85 percent [of professors in higher education] pay no attention to K-12, and the ones who pay the most attention represent a traditional point of view. In mathematics, that means they champion algebraic manipulation skills for incoming freshmen on the belief that students should learn math as an abstract discipline first and then worry about real world applications later on (e.g., in college).A second issue concerns the tension between presenting curriculum in a disciplinary or interdisciplinary structure. The schools in our study varied considerably in the extent to which they emphasized disciplinary versus interdisciplinary instruction. At one end of the continuum, several of the elementary schools (MI2, VT1 and VT2) taught reading, writing and mathematics as separate disciplines, although they were beginning to introduce writing into mathematics and other subject areas. At the other end was an elementary school (CA2) that was moving from a 50 percent project-based curriculum in 1993-94 to all project-based instruction this year. In this latter school, the students chose their projects, which are interdisciplinary and multi-age, and which culminate in a major product, judged by students and teachers against collectively established rubrics and standards. Teachers in this school designed the projects and the overall curriculum themselves. Two other elementary schools (MI1 and CA1) and most of the middle schools were incorporating interdisciplinary units, but on a smaller scale and/or less frequently.
In all of the schools that were using some form of project-based or thematic instruction, teachers discussed the tension between disciplinary and interdisciplinary approaches and goals. In the middle schools, the tension was often expressed in terms of the relative emphasis on (interdisciplinary) teams or families and (disciplinary) departments. Most of the middle schools in our study that have introduced teams or families have retained their department structure. Day-to-day planning is the purview of the families, while more long-range curriculum development and professional development is carried out by the departments. Yet, in some of these schools, teachers feel cut off from their departments, and the content-based support that comes from their disciplinary colleagues, because there is no longer scheduled time for department meetings (their planning periods are now used for daily team meetings) and the team schedule doesn't allow teachers in different teams to have lunch together. In one middle school (CA1), departments were disbanded to allow for family meetings, but recently teachers are moving to pressure the administration to bring back departments to meet their own disciplinary needs and ensure curriculum articulation across grades. Another middle school mathematics department (MI1) addressed this problem by putting together a folder with teaching ideas for all department members to access.
A third and related issue, which was raised at the elementary level in California, was how to absorb and relate disciplinary frameworks in a state that issues a new or revised framework each year. The California SEA has addressed this issue by incorporating and communicating a consistent view of teaching and learning in each of the frameworks. Emphasis on constructivist teaching and the "thinking curriculum" is carried through other reform documents and activities, as well, like the grade level documents and elementary and middle school networks. It's Elementary recommends that schools start with one content area, work on that for a few years and then move over onto another. There are two rationales for this strategy. First, the consistency in approaches to teaching and learning among the frameworks will result in a spillover effect: changes in instruction in one content domain will be a catalyst to changes in another. Second, teachers and schools need more concentrated time to effectively understand, much less incorporate the framework in any single area.
In addition to state-initiated suggestions and strategies, schools have developed approaches of their own to deal with the annual introduction of new frameworks. While teachers agree that an advantage of the California frameworks is their common constructivist approach to teaching and learning, they also note that each has represented a substantial departure from previous practice in a given subject area. Each therefore requires teachers both to learn new disciplinary content and to incorporate new pedagogy into curriculum and instruction. One elementary school in this study (CA2) was addressing this problem by focussing on interdisciplinary projects (with particular emphasis on science); they are aided in this effort in part by the small size of the school and the stability and experience of the teachers. Another elementary school (CA1) had responded with a team effort in which the knowledge and ability of teachers could be pooled for the particular "family" of students.
Vermont is taking a different approach to resolving this tension by developing interdisciplinary state frameworks to guide local reform. The content standards under development in 1993-94 were planned as a single framework, with some general standards and some subject-specific content as well. (In the 1995 draft of these content standards, the four general categories from the Common Core are retained as content applicable to all subject areas. Additional content is specified for each combined area (e.g., mathematics, science, and technology), with further content for specific each specific subject (e.g., mathematics)). These content standards are intended to be a framework for local districts to use in developing their own curricular objectives.
Regardless of which policy instrument leads reform, the respondents in our three states are concerned about the degree to which assessments, which are designed to measure what students know and can do, are aligned with curriculum, which is what students are taught. If curriculum reform precedes assessment reform, teachers are unclear about whether they should teach the new curriculum or teach to the old test, which is often used as an accountability mechanism. The old test may also provide an inaccurate measure of student performance. On the other hand, if assessment precedes curriculum reform, teachers may be unclear about what they are expected to teach and how.
We found a disjuncture between curriculum and assessment in all three of the states we studied. California had addressed the problem by developing a state-of-the-art performance assessment system CLAS that was aligned to the state's curriculum frameworks. Respondents (both teachers and state administrators) generally welcomed CLAS as an assessment headed in the right direction because it tested the types of learning promoted by the instructional reforms. In some cases, CLAS was used as an effective professional development tool as well, enabling teachers to understand what student work consistent with the frameworks looks like and how such work might be assessed to improve instruction (see Chapter 6). However, technical difficulties and poor communication with teachers and the public undercut the legitimacy and acceptance of CLAS. After two years of use, the funding for the assessment system was vetoed by Governor Wilson in September 1994 for both political and technical reasons. The Governor's priorities for individual scores within the next one to two years may force the state to return to easily administered and scored multiple choice testing which would represent a move away from assessment aligned with the intent and substance of the frameworks.
In Michigan, respondents described the assessments in mathematics and reading as aligned with the state's Core Curriculum Objectives and with national reforms in the teaching of these subjects. Because teachers are more familiar with the tests than with the state's written objectives, and because test results are reported to the public and used for school improvement planning, the state assessment program has had the impact of encouraging teachers to change the content of their instruction in these new directions. The tests continue to use a traditional multiple choice format, however, leading several of our teacher respondents to complain that, for example, the mathematics assessment still emphasizes getting the correct answer rather than focusing on the process students use to obtain the answer.
The situation in Vermont is more complex. The current portfolio assessment system is viewed as a cutting-edge attempt to assess outcomes that are in line with national curriculum reforms, and, as we discuss in a subsequent chapter of this report, to enhance teachers' instruction as well as measure student progress. The assessment program, however, focuses on knowledge of discrete disciplines, such as mathematics, while the state is in the process of developing interdisciplinary curriculum frameworks. Although the assessment program is relatively new, the State Department of Education plans to revise the assessments to match the emerging content and performance standards.
The lack of alignment between state curriculum and assessment policy is common across the country. A study of assessment practices in the 25 states participating in the National Science Foundation's Statewide Systemic Initiatives (SSI) program in mathematics and science found that only ten states reported having at least one state assessment in mathematics aligned with the more challenging curriculum content promoted by the SSI (and three of the ten are our study states). The format of the test in five of these ten states was primarily multiple choice, however (Laguarda, Breckenridge, and Hightower, 1994).
Even in states where state assessments are consistent with the general direction of curricular reform, such as portfolios in Vermont and CLAS in California, districts in our study still had to use commercial multiple choice tests, which are not closely matched to state goals and curricular frameworks to (e.g.,) identify students for the federally-funded Chapter 1/Title I programs. Respondents criticized this practice as sending mixed signals to teachers and students about what was important. One California educator spoke of this problem in his state.
The CLAS test is project oriented. The kids need to know more than computation. It's a demonstration of skills rather than a bubble-in. I may be hypocritical, but we have the CLAS and then a week later have the CTBS. We're sending mixed messages to our kids because we tell them that the stuff on CLAS is what's really important and then we give them the CTBS. The CLAS test is a truer reflection of what the curriculum should be, but there are no individual scores, so it doesn't have a lot of credibility. The test is ahead of its time in math. It came out last year at the same time as the new framework.Recent changes in Title I assessment requirements are designed to address this conflict.
The Commission on Teacher Credentialing in California, an independent, professionally-based body, is in the process of revising that state's basic teaching credential requirements and standards to bring them more in line with the frameworks. The changes include a new assessment (a variant of Praxis III) that requires the candidates to write about the content areas and demonstrate entry-level proficiency in several areas of pedagogy. Michigan still uses traditional basic skills and subject matter tests and course work requirements to screen candidates for certification to teach, although state respondents reported that the subject areas tests are consistent with Michigan's content standards in reading and mathematics.
The states also play a limited role in the design and financing of inservice programs generally, and in those linked to the new content standards in particular. Only California has incorporated professional development into its reform strategy, supporting several professional development efforts that are directly linked to the systemic reform efforts. Principal among these are the California Subject Matter Projects (CSMPs) and their associated teacher networks. Built generally on the model of the Bay Area Writing Project, the CSMPs now number over 90 sites in 11 subject areas. The CSMPs are administered by the University of California, in concurrence with the California State University and the Superintendent of Public Instruction, and the state provides about $100,000 to each project site.4 The substance of the projects is generally aligned with the frameworks, although the centrality of the frameworks to the work of the projects differs somewhat by subject area. In addition, the state provides professional development money to districts through a variety of programs, including the mentor teacher and new teacher programs, the School Improvement Program (SIP), and SB 1882 grants for schools not eligible for SIP. Districts make differential use of these opportunities (for example many do not allocate the full eight days for staff development available through SIP), and the state has no data on the extent to which the local efforts are aligned with the frameworks. In addition, of course, districts have their own home-grown professional development programs, often (a for the two California districts in this study) tied to the framework and textbook adoption cycles.
Michigan and Vermont, on the other hand, do not directly fund professional development activities. Rather, they have chosen to broker and support services provided by outside organizations. In Michigan, the State Department of Education co-sponsors 17-part workshops on elementary and middle school mathematics instruction with the Michigan Council of Teachers of Mathematics (MCTM) and the intermediate school districts. In addition, the state provides--small grants to school districts to purchase services from the state's traditional providers professional organizations, unions, intermediate school districts (ISDs), colleges and universities, and commercial vendors--and funds regional, governmental structures outside the SEA, such as mathematics and science centers, to provide support to school districts and teachers. The Vermont state department of education writes grants for organizations outside the department to provide professional development, publishes catalogues of professional development activities and encourages universities to provide summer institutes for teachers.
The strategies used by Michigan and Vermont, however, raise the danger of not connecting the substance and format of professional development to the states' reform visions. In Michigan, for example, while many inservice programs are designed to help teachers teach to the state's content standards, they vary widely in coverage, scope and quality, and most are delivered in a traditional, one-shot workshop mode. They seem intended to enhance teachers' knowledge of the directions of the reform, but not to significantly strengthen their knowledge of the subject area or to develop pedagogical skills needed for major changes in practice. That state is taking two steps, however, to foster changes in the structure and quality of the professional development provided by outside providers. First, the NSF-sponsored Statewide Systemic Initiative has begun to work with the major providers of professional development in mathematics and science to educate them about alternative forms of professional development. Second, the State Board of Education is adopting a set of professional development standards to be used in reviewing and approving local district applications for state professional development funds, and for coordinating professional development funding and activities across the state department of education. The standards, which reflect current research on effective professional development and criteria published by the National Staff Development Council and the U.S. Department of Education, cover the context, process and content of professional development
Another challenge to linking pre- and inservice professional development of teachers to reform visions and to other education policies is the legal and traditional independence of higher education institutions. Our interviews with educators at both the elementary/secondary and postsecondary levels surfaced four issues about the linkage between higher education and K-12 systemic education reform--two related to the preparation and licensing of new teachers and two related to inservice programs.
First, to what extent should higher education be directed by K-12 systemic reform? In our three states, the state university systems are independent of other units of government. Thus, while state departments of education or separate boards of teacher certification license (and relicense) teachers and set teacher education program requirements, they cannot dictate the content of teacher preparation courses this remains securely under the control of the university faculty. This split responsibility can lead to a discontinuity between state content goals for K-12 education and the university's goals for the education of its students. What is the responsibility of the university to redirect its goals? Who should determine what and how prospective teachers are taught? In light of higher education's independence, what strategies can policy makers use to persuade colleges and universities to change their course of action?
Second, state authorities and higher education institutions have overlapping roles in deciding which individuals are qualified to teach. Although the legal division of responsibility is clear (i.e., the state has the ultimate authority to decide on the certification of each individual), the overlaps in practice create tensions and confusions. In each state, a state agency sets the requirements for teacher certification, but as one requirement specifies that the candidate must successfully complete a program in a higher education institution (or other specially designated program, such as that run by the Los Angeles Unified School District). Thus the state gives higher education a role in the certification decision. The programs in higher education must, in turn, be approved by a state agency. State and college must reach agreements, periodically renegotiated, about what individuals must do before they will be allowed to teach. This need for agreement, complicated somewhat by the additional role of national organizations like NCATE, can be either an opportunity for state and college to collaborate on the improvement of education or a locus for disputes to emerge.
Third, questions arise about the degree to which higher education's role in teachers' continuing education should be directed by requests from LEAs. Should schools and districts expect higher education to provide assistance in whatever area and in whatever form they desire? Or should higher education faculty design offerings that best suit their expertise and that seem to them most important for the improvement of education? The patterns of requests and offerings in these states are a mixture of these models, with active speculation about which direction the relationship will move in the future.
Fourth, the tradition of faculty autonomy in higher education stands in tension to attempts to shape course content by centrally established policy. Professors we interviewed sometimes pointed out that they were not changing their courses in response to state mandates, even when the changes they made were consistent with the directions of systemic reform. Faculty are committed to preserving academic freedom even as they are also concerned to promote educational reform. Analysis and formulation of policy will need to take these potentially conflicting aspirations into account.
In contrast, standards-based reform in Michigan has always had the support of a Republican legislature and Governor who have been responsive to business' concern about the quality of education in the state. The threat to education reform in this state comes from the Governor's current push for choice and charter schools and a corresponding repeal of the state education code. A new conservative majority on the elected State Board of Education supports this agenda and has spear-headed a rewriting of the school code that would deregulate most aspects of education, including teacher certification. It is not clear (1) how the proposed deregulation would affect the major components of Michigan's reform the model core curriculum, the state assessment program, and the accreditation system, which are legislatively mandates, (2) how much support the Republican legislature and/or the business community will lend to the rewriting of the code, once the implications of the proposed deregulation become known, and (3) whether the Republicans will drop their ten-year commitment to state-determined student standards and a state assessment system tied to these standards.
Rick Mills, an appointee of the Vermont State Board of Education, has enjoyed the support of the governors and legislators of that state to date, but Mills himself says that he has had to make some "Faustian bargains" with the state legislature. In particular, the legislature wants a clearer picture of the results for student learning, something that has been impeded by difficulties with developing reliable scoring for the state's portfolio assessment. In the year of our study, the legislature was consumed with debates about school finance. Although willing to include some of the additional professional development days recommended by Mills in finance legislation, the legislature was unable to approve any reforms of school finance.
[Restructuring the Governance System]