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

Implications for Research

Questions about Systemic Reform

1. Some reform efforts highlight changes in the structure of schooling (e.g., school-based management), while others highlight changes in the content of instruction (e.g., new curriculum frameworks). Are these independent changes, or do changes in structure either lead toward changes in content or at least make such changes more likely? How do these changes ultimately lead to improvement in learning? Peterson, McCarthey, and Elmore (in press) have begun to work on these questions, but much remains to be done.

2. Many of our respondents talked about the need to have a "critical mass" of reform-oriented teachers in a school before the school as a whole (e.g., curriculum, assessment and structure) could change. Their premise was that difficult changes are unlikely to be sustained without substantial peer support. (We see a link here to building the capacity of organizations, rather than only building individual capacity.) What is the empirical evidence for this claim about critical mass? What can we learn about the number or fraction of individuals needed to reach this point?

3. Systemic reform is hard work. Additional research is needed to understand what motivates teachers to invest themselves in this work. While some of the teachers in our study received some kind of extrinsic reward for their involvement in professional development activities (such as stipends or continuing education units), most were driven by intrinsic incentives--a desire to learn more about reforms in the teaching of math and language arts, and to improve their practice in order to become more effective teachers. But, because we chose schools for their involvement in education reform, these teachers, and the schools in which they work, are not representative of the general population of educators and schools. How can other teachers and educational leaders be helped to develop a continued commitment to reassessment and reform? For policy makers, it is important to understand the incentives and disincentives in the educational system.

Questions about Capacity Building

1. As we have noted earlier, capacity building should be thought of in organizational, as well as, individual terms. Many questions remain about the roles of organizational units in capacity building. For example:
   • We need a better understanding of the relationship between what goes on inside the school and what goes on outside the school with regard to teacher learning. In the schools we visited, connections to organizations and projects outside the teacher's school seemed critical in motivating learning and in providing opportunities for teachers to learn about areas such as subject matter and pedagogy. But attention to outside activities draws energy away from school change, creating a tension that was quite salient in some schools. Huberman (1995) proposes a model of how schools can use periodic input and consultation from external experts to facilitate teacher and school change. This model might be used to guide research and manage tensions in this area.

   • Research is needed on the role that school districts do and should play in capacity building. In several of our schools, we found that the district played an important part is encouraging professional development or helping to set its direction. More work is needed to understand what are appropriate and effective roles for the district and how these roles may differ by district size and context.

2. A second set of research questions relates to the opportunities that are available for teachers (and others) to develop new capacities that are central to current reforms, such as how to collaborate with other educators or how to use information from new assessments. Much of the discussion about capacity building focuses on general structural features such as networks and follow-up. But attention is also needed to how capacity building needs to be configured for new capacities such as those just mentioned. It may be, for example, that learning to collaborate is something that is best addressed together with learning about teaching a particular subject, rather than being considered in a separate workshop or course. We give one example of the research questions that might be asked, but parallel questions could be asked about learning to collaborate, learning uses of assessment, or learning other things important to systemic reform.
   • Research is needed to determine what opportunities teachers have to learn how to use student work as a vehicle for reflecting on and changing practice. A call for attention to student work was especially prominent in California, but is also a part of more general reform directions. Where can teachers currently go to develop this new capacity? What might be done to create additional opportunities for learning?

3. As current ideas about capacity building are put into practice, a third set of research questions becomes important. Specifically, what are the effects of changes that currently seem attractive? Do they lead to the expected enhancements in capacity? What are the important unintended consequences. We give three examples of such research questions.
   • "Time" is frequently mentioned as a condition necessary for teachers to learn how to think and practice differently. Interviews reveal both that most actors know that teachers feel the lack of time for discussion and reflection, but that it is often financially or politically difficult to increase time given to such work. When the system is changed to give more time, it is critically important to understand how the time is used, or what leads to one use of time rather than another. Our work in Michigan indicated that reallocated time may sometimes be used for administration and coordination, rather than for focused discussions of teaching and learning. What leads to such an outcome? Are there cases where time is used differently?

   • In some of the sites we visited, plans for teachers' professional development seemed detached from the needs of systemic reform. In Vermont, the system for relicensure had recently been altered to build a stronger connection between the agenda for professional development and that state's reform goals. Policy makers hoped that the changes would lead to closer alignment and ultimately to changes in practice. Strong arguments are often made, however, about letting teachers set the agenda for their own professional development. It will be important to understand how the move to align professional development with school, district and state standards interacts with the commitment to letting teachers set their own learning agenda.

   • State policy makers and others see that a wide range of people and organizations offer professional development for teachers. If "system" suggests order and organization, then those offering professional development do not make up a system they form an open market, in which good information about the quality and usefulness of what is available is often limited. This situation has led some policy makers to work towards greater clarity and organization, at the very least by publishing basic information on providers. Research is needed on the effects of trying to bring order to this "system." If such efforts have a strong positive effect, they should be encouraged. But it might also be that order would bring with it the negative trappings of bureaucracy--slow response, hesitancy to take risks, and so on.

4. Our research, and the research of many others, has focused on the capacity of teachers to improve student learning. In addition, we need to develop a research agenda that looks at the capacity of others in the education system to respond to new expectations for students, and that identifies effective strategies for building the capacity of administrators, policymakers, parents and the public.

[Implications for Policy]

[References]