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

Systemic Reform - October 1996

Executive Summary

The reform of education has been a major focus of policymakers at the local, state and federal levels since the publication in 1983 of A Nation at Risk. In the mid-1980s, states responded to this most recent call for education reform by raising course work standards for high school graduation, implementing and/or expanding their assessment programs, and raising standards for prospective teachers. A counter movement of "bottom-up" reform emerged later in the decade that focused on reforming and restructuring schools and the professionalization of teachers. The "top-down" mandates of the 1980s did little, however, to change the content of instruction (especially its focus on basic skills) or to alter the reigning notions of teaching and learning because, as some argued, fragmented and contradictory policies diverted teachers' attention and provided little or no support for the type of professional learning necessary. This same fragmentation also made it difficult to sustain or spread the very promising reforms taking shape in individual schools or groups of schools.

A more systemic approach to education reform emerged in the 1990s as one way of addressing policy fragmentation. As used in this study and in developing approaches in many states, systemic reform embodies three integral components: the promotion of ambitious student outcomes for all students; alignment of policy approaches and the action of various policy institutions to promote such outcomes; and restructuring of the public education governance system to support improved achievement. This study, conducted by the Consortium for Policy Research in Education (CPRE), in conjunction with the National Center for Research on Teacher Learning (NCRTL), was designed to (1) expand our knowledge of state approaches to systemic education reform, (2) examine district, school and teacher response to state reform policies in a small number of reforming schools and school districts, (3) identify challenges at the state, district, school and classroom levels to reforming education, (4) study the capacity of the educational system to support education reform, and (5) provide guidance to policymakers at all levels of the education system as they design and implement education reform policies.

Our findings, which are summarized below, are based on case studies of twelve reforming schools located in six reforming school districts in three states that are taking somewhat different approaches to systemic reform--California, Michigan, and Vermont. In addition to interviewing educators, administrators and policymakers at the school, school district and state level, we surveyed and interviewed 60 teachers in our sample schools. We present our findings with two cautions, however. First, our sample of districts and schools was purposive, drawn to capture the policies and practices of reforming schools and districts located in reforming states. On the one hand, this means we must be careful in generalizing our findings to other schools within each of our districts or to other districts within each of the three study states. On the other hand, to the extent that these states, districts and schools which have different fiscal, political and demographic characteristics face similar challenges in reforming their educational practices, we have reason to believe that what we are observing in our sample sites will have applications to other states, schools and school districts. Second, it is too early in this reform movement to assess the impact of any particular state, district and/or school strategy. Although California initiated some components of what has become known as "systemic reform" ten years ago, some linkages are incomplete (like professional development and assessment) or weakly specified (like pre-service education). Michigan and Vermont have been at their reforms for only four or five years. Therefore, this is not a report of "what works" in systemic reform. Rather, it describes the approaches used by educators and policymakers as they undertake major reform efforts in diverse settings and the challenges that confront them, discusses how those moving in directions consistent with systemic reform see the contributions of state policy to their efforts, and describes how our study sites are using elements of standards-based reform to enhance systemic capacity.

Challenges to Implementing Systemic Reform

Developing a Reform Vision

Although the three states in our study are taking different approaches to systemic reform, reflecting variations in their demographic, economic and political contexts, all have developed a general vision of reform that calls for more challenging standards for all students. These visions differ, however, 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 in all our sites, we found evidence of a tension between enacting the reform vision and maintaining current practice. Some state and local policymakers 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.

Struggling for Policy Coherence

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.

Restructuring the Governance Structure

The schools, districts and states in our sample also 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. Third, bureaucratic constraints, such as district control over the use of professional development time, have the potential to inhibit reform efforts at the school level.

Addressing Diverse Student Needs

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.

Teachers' Practices and Influences on Their Practice

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. And our sample of teachers in these districts reported a pattern of classroom practice that is moving toward the recommendations of reformers. In mathematics, 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 complete shift. Teachers' desire to mix old and new practice is consistent with their reports that state policy instruments were only one of several influences on their instruction, and that their own beliefs and knowledge about the subject and of their students were generally a greater influence. It also reflects the considerable control they feel they have over curricular and instructional decisions.

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, such as Vermont teachers who receive released time from teaching to participate in the mathematics teacher networks. We also found 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.

Capacity Building and Systemic Reform

If all students are to learn to new standards, not only teachers, but administrators, teacher educators and other participants in the education system must change their roles and expectations. Educators, researchers, and policymakers are beginning to explore different ways to enhance the ability of the system and its teachers to improve student learning. But before they can design effective policies, policymakers must determine what capacities are needed and what mechanisms and strategies might foster their development. Most capacity-building strategies in education today are targeted on individual teachers and are designed to enhance their knowledge and to improve their instructional skills through the provision of workshops and university courses. Yet, our data and that of other researchers suggest that the traditional model of professional development reflects a limited conception of the dimensions of teacher capacity necessary to support and sustain instructional reform and ignores the role of the school and other communities of practice in teacher learning and educational improvement.

Dimensions of Capacity

Our framework for thinking about the nature of teacher and organizational capacity in the context of educational reform is organized around three central themes. First, we argue that teacher capacity, and the capacity of other participants in the educational system is multidimensional, encompassing knowledge, skills, dispositions and views of self. In addition, these dimensions are interdependent and interactive. Second, individual capacity interacts and is interdependent with organizational capacity. Teacher capacity, for example, is developed through both individual activities and through interaction with communities of practice and with others in their school. School, or organizational capacity, is also multidimensional, and reflects vision and leadership, collective commitment and cultural norms to realize the vision, knowledge or access to knowledge, organizational structures and management conducive to learning and improvement, and resources (human, material and temporal). Third, organizational capacity, like individual capacity, can be galvanized and nurtured through infusion of ideas and perspectives from outside its ranks.

Systemic Reform as Capacity Building

The literature advocating systemic reform and our study suggest five potential avenues building capacity within the broader systemic reform strategies. 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. These tools, however, are only as good as their use. A lesson gleaned from our three states is that both the design and strategic use of systemic tools, such as assessment and professional development, can increase or decrease their effectiveness for capacity-building. For example, the use of state assessment as an instrument of accountability may be in tension with its potential use as an instrument for teacher and system learning. Similarly, for professional development to contribute to long range capacity building, states must develop multi-faceted approaches for teacher development and schools and school districts must develop strategic approaches for connecting the professional development of teachers and organizational development and school change.

Continuing Challenges

Finally, we identified a set of challenges to building systemic capacity. First, learning must be placed at the center of all reforms--not only improved learning for students but for the system as a whole. Second, resources are a critical aspect of both individual and organizational capacity. In these times of fiscal constraint, policymakers and educators must look to creative ways of expanding human, material and temporal resources, such as restructuring and reconfiguring school schedules to free teacher time for professional development, and building partnerships with professional organizations, universities and other institutions, such as museums. Third, teachers participate in many and varied professional development activities. While having the advantage of accommodating teachers' multiple interests and different levels of knowledge and skills, districts must develop strategies for managing the inherent fragmentation posed by the variety of opportunities and providers. Finally, policymakers must attend to building public capacity and attend to the needs of students outside of their schools.

Implications for Policy and Policymakers

Our study suggests a set of lessons for states and localities to consider if they choose to take a standards-based approach to instructional improvement. Among these lessons are the following:

Coherence among the elements of state education policy seems to facilitate reform in districts and schools. But 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.
Communication about the reform agenda cannot be accomplished just from the center. Teachers and administrators who were knowledgeable about the reform goals and strategies were those who were involved in using them.
It takes time for educators to learn new content and approaches and for institutions to change to facilitate new instruction. The experience of our study states demonstrates the importance of developing strategies and mechanisms that allow for consistency over time, even in the face of political and fiscal changes. Reformers should attend to building stable alliances among policymakers, developing strategies for public learning and involvement, developing supportive mechanisms outside the political and bureaucratic system, paying careful attention to the sequencing of reform elements, and designing reasonable and appropriately-timed accountability systems.
The goals of the reform may need to strike a balance between current and desired practice, between old and new ways.
Deliberate, consistent, and pervasive strategies to ensure equity are necessary if the reforms are to be for all students.
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, and must address the multiple dimensions of both individual and organizational capacity. In addition, individual and organizational capacity benefit from on-going, outside support.
Consistency, alignment and coherence can provide opportunities for learning throughout the system, but states and school districts must design and use these systemic tools strategically to increase their effectiveness for capacity-building .
Capacity-building strategies need to recognize that there are multiple levels for involvement of both teachers and administrators. Mechanisms that allow participants to move in and out of professional development activities as appropriate over time will be important for sustaining involvement.
Capacity building strategies and activities, like all other aspects of reform, must pay attention to diversity. These strategies 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.
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.

-###-

[Acknowledgments]

[Chapter 1: Summary Review of the Literature]