The science curriculum guide says to cover electricity and magnetism, but gives little specific guidance for someone like Sonia, a second-year teacher with little science background. She has the batteries and bulbs box (from the district's materials center) and thinks the hands-on activities and worksheets in the box will be a good way to start an electricity unit. She directs her students to pair up, get their materials and worksheets, and work on the tasks outlined on the worksheets. Most of the students quickly figure out how to do the tasks, and Sonia reminds them to answer the questions on the worksheet. The students are enjoying the activities. Some visit other groups to see different strategies, and others extend the ideas by using a metal button or two bulbs. Suddenly, Sonia collects the materials and tells the students to get out their science textbooks. They read aloud from the textbook that uses many scientific terms, and Sonia does not refer back to the activities. She gives the students a reading assignment and questions to answer for homework.

The students were getting noisy, not following the worksheet, and asking questions Sonia felt unprepared to answer. She became unsure of what was happening, so she gathered up the materials and went back to the textbook. Sonia says that the curriculum and standards documents don't really help her decide how to teach electricity. She knows she should use more student-centered hands-on activities, but she doesn't know how to make it work in her classroom. She is confused and disappointed because she knows the lesson was incoherent and did not help students understand the topic.

This is not an uncommon scenario. Teachers are facing an avalanche of frequently disconnected calls to reform, to do things differently. The pressure to change practice may come from many sources at the same time: state adoption of new student assessments, school participation in a reform program, and advocacy of new teaching strategies by a workshop presenter or professional organization. The viewpoints of various educational "experts" about teaching, learning, and classroom practice are often inconsistent or even contradictory. In coming to grips with innovation and reform, teachers like Sonia are challenged to understand new theories of learning, new approaches to teaching, new policies, and a changing social context that affects students and communities.

Some teachers strive to "make sense" of both the inconsistencies and the new ideas when they make daily instructional decisions. Sometimes they are successful and create quality learning experiences for their students; sometimes they throw up their hands in frustration. Many other teachers make their decisions based on their immediate needs to comply, survive, conform, or meet a time constraint. They follow the textbook, teach to the test, give students worksheets to keep them occupied, or do the same lessons year after year. Most teachers follow this easier pathway at least some of the time. However, this path often leads teachers to unintentionally create learning environments that are not fulfilling for either students or the teacher.

Despite the literally thousands of efforts to improve schools since World War II, few have had significant or enduring effects on instruction and student learning (Cohen & Ball, 1999). A recent review of federally-funded research suggests that researchers, educators, and reformers now understand that "when curriculum, instructional materials, and assessments are all focused on the same goals—that is, when the policy systems that frame education are coherent—the prospects for educational improvement are enhanced" (Koppich & Knapp, 1998, p. 2). However, translating policy coherence into improved instructional coherence and student learning seems more elusive and complex than anticipated. As long as reform ideas continue to confuse and frustrate teachers, can we expect significant and enduring improvement in instruction and student learning?

In this paper, we show that policymakers and researchers have changed their views about school improvement and the role of teachers in the process. We suggest that educational reform initiatives challenge classroom teachers to make sense of new policies, ideas, programs, and their own work. We also note, however, that teachers should receive more help in their efforts as new conceptions of reform and teachers' learning become more popular. Finally, we propose that supporting teachers in their development of a stance toward their practice that is focused on learning and learners can promote instructional coherence and improved student learning. Specifically, we examine six dimensions of teachers' work: knowledge, professionalism, collaboration, instruction, agency, and authority.