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

Summary

All three states have a general vision of reform that calls for more challenging standards for all students, but these visions differ on the nature of the desired student outcomes, the disciplinary base of the standards and the role of the teacher in reform. The states also differ in how their vision is articulated to teachers, school districts and the public, but all of the districts in our sample had, or were in the process of developing, outcomes in mathematics and language arts that reflect their state's reform vision. Yet, both professionals and the public are uncomfortable with giving up the old ways of teaching students how to read, write and do mathematics. Some state and local policy makers addressed these concerns through concerted public outreach activities. In California, a failure to build broad public support for its reform efforts contributed to the demise of a major component of its systemic reform strategy the--CLAS assessment.

All three states have also taken major strides in developing a more coherent policy structure, but all face four major challenges in this task: (1) curricular challenges, including a lack of curriculum alignment across grade spans, a tension between presenting curriculum in a disciplinary or interdisciplinary structure, and implementing multiple curricular reforms at the elementary level; (2) aligning the curriculum taught and the assessments used to measure students' knowledge of that curriculum; (3) linking teacher preparation and professional development with other reform activities; and (4) creating the stable political environment necessary to nurture and maintain state reform efforts.

The third major component of systemic reform is a restructured governance system. The schools, districts and states in our sample were taking steps to devolve authority and restructure schools to foster innovation and education reform. We found that leadership and a culture committed to and supportive of change at both the school and district levels were major factors in facilitating educational change. Yet, several issues emerged in our sites. First, state and local reform policies and practices are not clear about the role(s) the district office and schools should play in building capacity and supporting teacher and school reform. Second, restructuring the school day and/or school week to free time for school planning and professional development activities is not always sufficient given the complexity of the changes teachers are being asked to make and competing demands on their time. Finally, bureaucratic constraints, such as continued district control over the use of professional development time, can constrain reform efforts at the school level.

Finally, a well-designed reform strategy must increase educational opportunities for all children. The sites in our study developed strategies at all levels of the system to address the needs of children who bring the challenges of poverty, limited English proficiency or disabilities to the school house door. These included moving away from categorical program structures, targeting resources on low-performing and/or high minority schools and school districts and their staff, restructuring schools and restructuring curriculum to promote equity.

How have these policy changes affected classroom practice? The next chapter describes the reported instructional practices of a sample of teachers in our sites, the factors they feel influence their instruction, and the kinds of learning opportunities available to them.
-###-

[Addressing Diverse Student Needs]

[Chapter 5: Teachers' Practice and Opportunities to Learn]