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

Systemic Reform - October 1996

Conclusion

The teachers in our reform-district sample report a pattern of classroom practice that is moving toward the recommendations of reformers. In mathematics, we find that problem solving and communication about mathematics are major areas of emphasis for these teachers, particularly at the elementary school level. At the middle school level, there is more time spent on traditional mathematics topics but, for most teachers, there is also an emphasis on helping students learn to communicate about mathematics. In language arts, teachers' reported practices are also generally consistent with the direction of reform called for in state and national curriculum recommendations. Many of the teachers report a focus on the process of writing, on understanding and analysis, and on encouraging students to construct meaning from texts.

But in both mathematics and language arts content areas, some of the teachers in our sample suggested that they were hesitant to completely give up some of the content they taught in the past. In addition, the reform emphasis on integration of content across subject areas is embraced by some teachers, but not by others. This is not necessarily at odds with the intentions of reformers, who may advocate a mix of content, rather than a radical shift.

In their responses about feelings of control and influence, teachers in our sample generally reported a great deal of control, even more than teachers in other national studies. Teachers' feeling of control offers some support for the idea that, in these districts selected for their reputation for reform, teachers feel that they have an important role in shaping the directions they may take. At least in these reform districts, state systemic reform efforts do not seem associated with teachers' feeling a loss of control over important aspects of their schools and classrooms. This is consistent with the fact that teachers report that state policy instruments were only one of several influences on their instruction, and that their own knowledge about the subject and of their students was generally a greater influence.

Finally, most teachers in our sample report a high level of support for professional development. The support they receive is sometimes consistent with systemic reform initiatives in a particular state, as we see among Vermont teachers who receive released time from teaching to participate in the mathematics teacher networks. We also find that sample teachers' rates of participation in specific activities is consistent with reform initiatives, with more teachers engaged in mathematics-related inservice, where the reforms seem most demanding.

In sum, teachers in these reform districts report feeling considerable control over their curricular decisions and at least some involvement in professional development. They report moving in the general direction of curricular reforms in our focal subjects, while not wishing to move too far. In making their decisions, they feel most influenced by their own knowledge of the subject and of their students. State policy instruments are felt to have some, but lesser, influence.

What does this say about the capacity of these reform districts to improve student learning in mathematics and language arts? What might states do if they wished instructional practice to match state goals more closely? To address these questions, we take a more careful look at what is meant by "capacity" and how it is related to professional development and state policies in the following chapters.

-###-

[Where Do Teachers Turn for Opportunities to Learn?]

[Chapter 6: Capacity Building and Systemic Reform]