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

Implications for Policy

General Implications

1. A guiding vision of reform that goes beyond subject-specific content may be important for assisting states, localities, and schools in their efforts to establish and maintain coherent reform efforts. Two of our study states had articulated such visions. State-level informants in Vermont, for example, reported that the Common Core of Learning enabled them to communicate more effectively with both community and school people about the goals and direction of the reform. In addition, this document has become a touchstone in their own efforts to pull together the various activities at the state level and ensure that they keep moving in the intended direction. In California, informants at all levels of the system referred to the importance of the curriculum frameworks reflecting a common vision of learning. Beyond this, the grade level documents help to connect the pieces of reform into a vision of schooling and school change for elementary, middle and high schools in the state. Principles like "teacher as professional" (Alliance for Elementary Education) communicate a philosophical as well as a tactical approach to reform. And both of the California middle schools in this study had been deeply influenced by the model of middle school education articulated in "Caught in the Middle."

2. Coherence among the elements of state education policy (e.g., alignment of assessment with curricular goals and content) seems to help facilitate reform in districts and schools. This coherence was cited in all three states--both in terms of the benefits of coherence and the difficulties encountered (particularly by teachers) when it is lacking. One obvious advantage of policy coherence is that it can result in more consistent (and thus stronger) signals to both teachers and students about what is important for teachers to teach and for students to learn. A second potential advantage is that it may allow for more focused and more efficient instruction. For example, if curricular goals and assessments are aligned, teachers do not have to divide their time between teaching a curriculum that stresses certain knowledge and skills on the one hand and preparing students for standardized tests which assess different skills and knowledge on the other. Finally, coherence among the elements of reform provide additional opportunities for capacity building (see below).

3. Articulating high standards for students and aligning other policies with these learner goals is necessary, but not sufficient, to help all students meet more challenging standards. Many reformers now recognize the tremendous changes the new standards demand of teachers--in what and how they teach and in their role in their classrooms and schools. These changes require teachers not only to learn new content and skills but to unlearn previous, less effective ones. In addition, administrators, teacher educators and other participants in the education of our youth must also change their roles and expectations. Therefore, policymakers must turn their attention to mechanisms for developing the capacity of the system and its teachers to improve student learning. (See Implications for Capacity Building below.)

   Signals from the state--even those that are coherent and thus relatively strong--will not necessarily reach down into schools and to teachers in their classrooms. Our data indicate that communication about the reform agenda is not something that can be accomplished just from the center. Rather, those teachers and administrators who were knowledgeable about the reform goals and strategies were those who were involved in using them. Communication of the reform agenda had occurred over time through face to face interactions with other educators, often in teacher networks or school-based efforts. States may do well, therefore, to incorporate such mechanisms into their overall strategies.

4. The experience of these states demonstrates the importance of developing strategies and mechanisms that allow for consistency over time, even in the face of political and fiscal changes. Nearly all respondents--especially those who had been engaged in reform efforts for an extended period of time--emphasized how long it takes for educators to learn new content and approaches and for institutions to change to facilitate new instruction. This consistency over time may be facilitated through several strategies, including:
   • Stable alliances among policy makers. This is especially important because education policy in most states, including those in this study, is subject to multiple lines of authority (e.g., governor's office, elected or appointed state board, state legislature, elected or appointed chief state school officer, the federal government, and so forth.) Where alliances among the main policy makers are more stable, as in Vermont, there appears to be greater possibility for maintaining the reform effort over time. This stability, of course, may depend on bipartisan support for the reform direction. In California, the partisan battles between the governor and the Superintendent of Public Instruction and within the legislature often have substantially weakened and may eventually maroon--the reform effort.

   • Strategies for public involvement. Our data suggest that if the reforms are to be maintained over time, public involvement must be a consistent goal from the outset. In these three states, a tension between professional and public authority was evident. Vermont used a strategy for managing this tension that places broad public goals at the heart of the reform. These goals are then fleshed out through professionally-based definitions of curricular content. By contrast, in California, involvement of and even communication with the public has been much weaker, with the result that public confusion and dissention (coupled with partisan politics) was a major contributor to the demise of the CLAS assessment last year.

   • Supportive mechanisms outside the political and bureaucratic system. Examples from these states included teacher and school networks, professional associations, and collaborative endeavors and organizations. Such mechanisms may help buffer the reforms from shifting political winds while at the same time avoiding the morass of red tape inherent in most public institutions. In addition, they may also help to broaden the political base for reform. In California, for example, the Subject Matter Projects have developed an independent political base through which they have been able to garner additional funds from the state legislature even during times of general fiscal retrenchment. Similarly, the Michigan legislature appropriated additional funds to expand the number and scope of that state's Mathematics and Science Centers, although it reduced support for the state department of education.

   • Careful attention to the sequencing of reform elements. Our data, and those of other studies (e.g., Fuhrman, Massell et al., 1992; Fuhrman, 1994; and Massell and Fuhrman, 1994), suggest that there are trade-offs regarding the sequencing of reform policies and elements (e.g., the use of state assessment versus frameworks or standards as the leading instrument, the timing of accountability mechanisms, etc.). For example, 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. States embarking on systemic reform need to be aware of and give ample consideration to these trade-offs. In addition, they should give thought to possible incompatibilities between early reform elements and the direction they eventually want to take. For example, beginning with discipline-based assessments, as Vermont has done in their mathematics and writing portfolios, may contradict the long-term goal of interdisciplinary frameworks and instruction. Not all such contradictions can be anticipated, of course, but to the extent possible, states and localities should consider carefully the potential long-term ramifications of the tactics they employ at any given stage of the process.

   • Reasonable and appropriately timed accountability systems. One issue in the sequencing of reform policies concerns the institution of accountability mechanisms, particularly those based on student performance. Although accountability was not a focus of this study, the strong finding that change (both individual and organizational) requires considerable learning and considerable time suggests that in the early stages of the reform efforts more emphasis may need to be placed on incentives and capacity building than on rewards and sanctions for student achievement. It should be noted that respondents in this study were not opposed to being held accountable for student learning, and several argued for the employment of much stronger measures than those currently in use. However, they also stressed in various ways the importance of timing in accountability of giving teachers and others a chance to understand, learn, and change. In Vermont, the chief state school officer recognized early the need for such time, which he successfully communicated to legislators in his state. His success in postponing public accountability for results is seen by Vermont reformers as having been both necessary and helpful, especially given the problems they have encountered with the reliability of the assessment.

5. The goals of the reform may need to strike a balance between current and desired practice, between old and new ways. One reason is that it takes time to change and teachers will inevitably mix old and new approaches and models, whether or not such mixture is encouraged. In addition, the system as a whole is still gaining experience and learning about new approaches. This is true both for content and instruction (e.g., whole language, grouping strategies) and for structure (e.g., teams and departments in middle school). Our lack of knowledge about the effectiveness of such approaches raises the danger of "throwing out the baby with the bath water" if reformers rush toward their exclusive institution in practice. This seemed to be the sentiment of middle school teachers in one California site where the departments had been completely and unilaterally disbanded in favor of an interdisciplinary family structure and to the neglect of teachers' expressed needs for disciplinary support and articulation. Because both teachers and the system are learning as they are reforming, the balance between old and new may shift as the reform evolves and practice changes.

6. Deliberate, consistent, and pervasive strategies to ensure equity are necessary if the reforms are to be for all students. As we saw in our three study states, these strategies are likely to differ depending on the student population and the specific conditions in each state or district. But those strategies might include such elements as:
   • Attention to involving schools with large numbers of disadvantaged students in the reform through special recruitment campaigns, additional resources, coaching and other technical assistance, etc.

   • Curricular content, materials and pedagogical strategies that are sufficiently flexible and appropriate for addressing the diverse needs and background of today's students. Many teachers pointed to the advantage, for example, of interdisciplinary projects as avenues for students with diverse talents to learn and to experience success in school. Others pointed to the need for primary language instructional materials.

   • Recruitment, preparation, and on-going professional development of teachers and other educators who are themselves from diverse backgrounds and/or who have skills to address students with special needs (e.g., limited English proficient students or students with disabilities).

7. Overall reform efforts may be facilitated through strategies that help teachers, schools, and districts pull together individual initiatives and multiple frameworks into a more coherent whole. Developing a vision and school networks for reform at the various grade levels, as in California, is one such strategy. Similar school networks also exist within districts in some states or across states through professional associations or reform collaboratives. Interdisciplinary curricula is another strategy for helping teachers pull together the various reform threads. This seems to be a central aspect of Vermont's state level approach and was evident on a school level in many of the sites in this study, particularly in those that had adopted a project-based approach as part of their reform.

Implications for Capacity Building

1. State leaders must realize that setting out a framework for what should be taught and learned in school will not result in much change if teachers do not know the content or how to teach it. It is critical that states and localities follow guidance given to teachers with the opportunity for them to learn what they need to know to make appropriate use of that guidance. This was a theme across schools, across districts, and across states in this study. Moreover, the need for developing and enhancing capacity exists at all levels of the system, among all actors engaged in education and education reform.

2. Consistency, alignment and coherence can provide opportunities for learning throughout the system, but these opportunities need to be taken advantage of. You can align assessment with frameworks, for example, and hope that teachers by experiencing both will get reinforcement for the desired conceptions of content and pedagogy. But you could go beyond the notion of reinforcing signals by using the assessments (or textbook adoption, etc.) as more direct learning tools. For example, teachers involved in the development and scoring of the assessments in California and Vermont report that the experience was an important and useful professional development opportunity because of the level of discussion and debate over the content and standards required in such processes. Participating in these activities with other teachers also enhanced their sense of themselves as learners and professionals and thus increased their disposition toward change.

3. It is important for teachers and others to have on-going avenues for professional development, both inside and outside the school. Many of our respondents emphasized that their learning deepened over time as they gained experience putting their new ideas into practice and encountering new questions and dilemmas in the process. Teachers noted that they often circled back (sometimes a year or more later) to ideas encountered in a particular learning situation because those ideas had taken on new meaning or salience in light of their changing practice. In this process, teachers noted the importance of having someone to turn to for assistance as their understanding develops and as new issues arise. While this may be another teacher at the school, our data also suggest that it is useful for schools as a whole to have a consistent source of support and guidance from outside the school--a coach or consultant, for example, that follows the school's development and works with the staff over a period of months and years.

4. Universities play a critical role in teacher development and many provide on-going support and guidance to schools as well. While our study did not examine pre-service preparation programs, our respondents raised a number of challenges for policymakers as they work to tie higher education activities more closely to K-12 systemic education reform efforts. For example, states and universities have overlapping roles and responsibilities in deciding what and how prospective teachers are taught and in determining which individuals are qualified to teach. In light of the legal and traditional independence of higher education institutions, and the tradition of faculty autonomy, state policymakers must develop strategies for persuading colleges and universities and their faculty to change their current practice. The shift to a results-oriented program approval process for teacher education programs in Vermont is one such strategy. Similar tensions exist regarding the role of higher education in teacher professional development: What should be the respective roles of teachers, schools, school districts and universities in defining needs and designing professional development activities?

5. Capacity building efforts must take into account the organizational and systemic needs for capacity as well as the needs of individuals within the various units.
   • Individuals at all levels of the system will be taking on new roles and responsibilities--this often requires both learning new content and learning how to perform their jobs in new ways. For example, administrators will need to serve as coaches and facilitators of reform and of adult learning in their buildings and districts, just as teachers need to take on new roles as facilitators of student learning. In addition, everyone needs an understanding of the new learning goals of students if they are to move in this direction.

   • Professional development strategies that focus on individual teachers or administrators, while important, are by themselves not sufficient. Our data indicate that because teachers are actors within complex organizations, their opportunity to learn and their ability to act derive in part from the capacity of their school as a collective body. Without a supportive school environment, an individual teacher's ability to make use of new knowledge or skills to effect real change is limited. Therefore, policy makers would do well to develop strategies that build capacity and support change in the organization (e.g., school) as a whole.

   • A critical part of building systemic capacity is the development of leaders at all levels of the system--particularly leaders with deep knowledge of instruction and instructional issues. Developing and supporting such leaders should therefore be an integral part of any capacity building strategy.

   • Districts are potentially a key force in building the capacity of teachers and schools in their jurisdiction. Yet, state and local reform strategies in our sites were not clear about the role(s) the district office and schools should play in building capacity and supporting teacher and school change. For example, California's teacher and school networks by-pass the school district, making it difficult for the district to spread knowledge and disseminate lessons from these activities to other teachers and schools. Policymakers should think hard about the role of districts in reform and should work with district administrators to develop strategies for enhancing their capacity-building efforts.

   One of our California sites provides an example of how a district can use knowledgeable teacher professionals to build system-wide capacity. This district's strategy coordinates four separate programs into one coherent initiative that provides three levels of professional development: awareness initiatives designed for broad dissemination as a catalyst for change; more intensive and on-going efforts focused on content and instructional strategies in curriculum, assessment, or special problem areas; and finally leadership development efforts to foster the capacity of individuals to play leading roles in the other two initiatives. (See Chapter 6.)

   Some of our data pointed to potential conflicts between teachers' on-going involvement in professional development through networks and activities outside the system and their involvement in facilitating change within the school itself. As in many aspects of this study, what seems to be needed is a balance between activities outside and activities inside the school and district. Effective ways of defining and creating this balance, however, are the subject for further research.

6. Capacity-building strategies need to recognize that there are multiple levels for involvement of both teachers and administrators. Some will be interested and able to approach a particular topic or content area only at the level of awareness--a general knowledge of the main direction and issues. Others will get more deeply involved in the area and still others may be potential leaders at the district, state, or even national levels. Strategies that work on multiple levels will be more likely to lay a firm foundation for long-term change. Mechanisms that allow participants to move in and out of professional development activities as appropriate over time, some as leaders, some as participants, will also be important for sustaining involvement.

7. Capacity building strategies and activities, like all other aspects of reform, must pay attention to diversity. Some of these have been discussed in the previous section on general policy implications. They include targeting teachers and schools serving large numbers of disadvantaged students, targeted attention to the recruitment and professional development of teachers of color, and attention to preparing all teachers to meet the needs of culturally and linguistically diverse student populations.

8. Stakeholders and supporters outside the system must also learn and change if the reforms are to be successful. Therefore, attention should be paid to enhancing the capacity of parents, the public, and community organizations and businesses to understand and participate in the reform efforts.

9. Resources are a critical aspect of organizational capacity, and our respondents identified time as the most critical requirement for these reforms to succeed -- time for teachers to collaborate in planning and assessing their instruction, time for both teachers and administrators to participate in learning opportunities outside the school, and time for the reforms to mature. Our sites provided additional financial support for professional development and/or they reallocated resources through restructured and reconfigured school days and school weeks. They also extended resources and built long-term support for reforms through partnerships with professional associations, local universities and museums and other educational organizations. Policymakers must also ensure that schools have the resources necessary for effective instruction--space for classrooms and libraries, personnel, computers and calculators, and even paper and rulers. Some of the schools in our sample lacked these basic requirements.

-###-

[Chapter 7: Implications of Study Findings for Policy and Research]

[Implications for Research]