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

Systemic Reform - October 1996

Systemic Tools to Enhance Capacity

Our analysis suggests that the system and its various organizations have five central avenues for building the capacity of its members and sub-units. These are: articulating a vision for reform, providing instructional guidance toward the realization of that vision, restructuring governance and organizational structures so as to facilitate learning and more effective delivery of services, providing needed resources, and establishing evaluation and accountability mechanisms that provide incentives for improvement while addressing problems and barriers.

Articulating a Reform Vision

State and local strategies with regard to establishing a vision for reform have been discussed in some detail in Chapter 4 of this report, while the importance of vision as a central component of organizational capacity was outlined in the previous section of this chapter. As it becomes established, this vision, whether at the school or other levels of the system, can provide the frame for both creating and evaluating all aspects of the reform.

In addition, we saw examples of how the process of establishing a common vision can itself be a capacity building endeavor. The public forums and other opportunities for engagement in and comment on the Common Core in Vermont, for example, build knowledge about and garner support for the reforms. They also foster partnerships with various stakeholders that can serve to increase resources available for the reform efforts. At the school level, the process of generating a unifying vision can be an intense learning experience for teachers and others.

We've had to learn about curriculum.... When restructuring came on board, we [set up a group planning process] to look at the curriculum. We looked at the historical philosophy of the school--what it was originally, what it is now, what we want to keep, where we want to be in ten years. For us it was a wonderful thing to be able to sit and talk with one another. We recently had a retreat to extend this...

We looked at different models. [One of our teachers] is on the district team for project 2061 and she was bringing back a lot of information on that.... We also looked at Central Park East and some other models. We invited the parents to participate, and a few came.... The project learning blocks [the basis for our curriculum] are based on the 2061 model. We wrote a 1274 [restructuring] proposal but didn't the grant. But we've implemented it anyway because we believe in the vision.

Instructional Guidance

A central feature of systemic reform strategies is the development of a coherent system of instructional guidance, which at the state level may include such elements as curriculum frameworks, instructional materials, professional development activities, and assessments, all consistent with and reinforcing of the reform vision. (See Chapters 1 and 4.) Ideally, such instructional guidance promotes capacity in two central ways. On the one hand it provides concrete tools for teachers, schools, and districts to use as resources as they construct their curriculum, design instructional strategies, promote professional development, and evaluate progress. Examples of such instructional guidance were plentiful in these data. At the state level they included the frameworks in California and the Essential Goals and Objectives in Michigan, replacement units and textbook adoption criteria in California, and the state assessments in all three states. These and other state activities as well as district level counterparts are discussed in more detail in chapters 3 and 4 of this volume.

In addition to their direct use as resources, these tools can also provide additional opportunities for professional learning. This learning may come directly through activities explicitly designated as professional development, such as the Subject Matter Projects in California, local and state networks of teachers and schools in California and Vermont, and workshops, conferences and local staff development in all three states. Professional learning may also be promoted indirectly in the development and use of other aspects of instructional guidance. For example, teachers engaged in the scoring of state performance assessments in California and Vermont report these scoring activities provide significant learning as do teachers involved in curriculum or textbook committees of their local districts and schools.

Moreover, by all reports, the coherence among the various aspects of professional guidance enhances both their direct effectiveness and their usefulness as avenues for professional learning while lack of coherence tends to undermine any contribution to capacity building (see Chapter 4).

Restructured Governance

By giving teachers and schools discretion over decisions relevant to instruction, the restructuring components of systemic reform can enable educators to organize themselves in ways to increase their ability to address the specific needs of their students, move toward achieving the standards, and provide opportunities for collaboration and learning among educational personnel. Examples of such restructuring are discussed in the previous section of this chapter.

Evaluation and Accountability

To the extent that accountability structures are consistent with the reform goals, they can serve to further focus attention on the attainment of those goals as well as provide useful information on weaknesses that need to be addressed. Several schools in the Michigan and California samples, for example, had used aggregate student scores on state assessments, which were publicly reported, to target specific content areas for further improvement.

In addition, the very processes and mechanisms used for accountability can be designed to promote reflection and facilitate learning on the part of educational personnel. A prime example of this capacity building use of accountability can be seen in the "1274 protocol" developed and used by the schools in the restructuring initiative in California. As a state funded endeavor, evaluation of progress is a requirement of the SB 1274 initiative. Recognizing that evaluation is often a meaningless formality for school staff, leaders in this initiative strove to design the process "so there was a danger people might learn something from it." The following excerpted comments from the state director responsible for this initiative describe the rationale and use of this instrument. The approach represents a new way of doing business for the state and for the schools, one which places capacity at the center.

Learning and change need to be part of the organization on a day to day basis.... [In 1274] we are working from criteria to create a new set of habits. In order to have embedded learning in the system, we have to change habits. The old habits generally are the implementation of fixed solutions. The alternative is to have criteria about what a good solution would look like, and these criteria focus attention on student work...

Our hypothesis is that working from criteria doesn't work unless the criteria are internalized. The criteria can't just be a fat book. The real criteria are what's in people's heads. Keep it simple, even cryptic. Force the school communities to define their own constructivist notion of working from criteria...

In the protocol we invented a sort of end-of-the-year performance assessment [for 1274 schools.] It's really a structured conversation at the school around what are you doing, what are the kids doing, and what are they learning?... To do the protocol, you have to look at student work.... It's a chance [for us] to 'peek in' on the conversation about restructuring. It's a way of doing business, a new culture, rather than the old one of fixed solutions.' It could be a way to learn from mistakes, open up schools for commentary.

It is important to note the modal could in the final sentence of the excerpt above. This respondent went on to point out that, while the protocol is a very promising tool for capacity building at the school, it is not guaranteed that it will be used in this way. An example of an unintended and "negative use," she said, was the way one principal employed the protocol as an instrument for individual teacher evaluation.
-###-

[Systemic Reform as Capacity Building] [Table of Contents] [A Tool Is Only as Good as its Use]