![Directions of Change](images/heading-2.gif)
Over the past few decades, many different perspectives, ideas,
opinions, philosophies, and policies have been presented as reform.
National, state, district, and local agencies all make educational
policy, leading one researcher to say that "the latter half of the
twentieth century probably witnessed the enactment of more education
policiesmaybe several times morethan the whole prior history of
schooling back to ancient Greeks" (Loveless, 1998, p. 283). In addition,
an astounding number of groups have been involved in changing curriculum,
instruction, assessment, graduation requirements, community involvement,
school structure, teacher education, and the list goes on. For teachers,
it is not easy to decide which directives to listen to and follow.
When making these decisions, teachers may try to respond to too
many diverse messages and dilute the effect of any one idea. They
may choose to listen to the messages of only one reform effort and
miss opportunities to provide students with more effective educational
experiences. Or they may become confused and resentful and refuse
to listen to any of the new messages (Knapp, 1997).
McDermott (2000) states that it is also common for policies and
programs to be partially implemented because of the number of institutional
interests to be served. Political and public pressures increase
the propensity for partial implementation to continue.
Additionally, high staff turnover makes it difficult to apply policy
consistently and changes in school administration often result in
termination of programs associated with the previous administration.
Are there any clear directions emerging in the area of school improvement?
Cohen and Hill (1998) note that by the mid 1980s,
researchers and reformers had begun to argue for more intellectually
ambitious instruction. They contended that teaching and learning
should be more deeply rooted in the disciplines and much more
demanding. Reformers also began to argue that schools should orient
their work to the results that students achieve rather than the
resources that schools receive. (p. 1)
They go on to say that by the early 1990s, "many states were moving
more forcefully on instruction, and many sought coordinated change
in instructional frameworks, curriculum, and assessment" (p. 1).
So, the focus of reform is becoming more clearly aimed at improving
instruction and student learning. One strategy of the last decade
was the push for coherence in educational policy with the expectation
that aligned policy would result in better teaching and learning.
As this strategy proved less effective than hoped, the focus has
shifted to teachers and their preparation, high-quality teaching,
and teacher learning.
The Systemic Approach to School Reform
Systemic school reform, a national focus for educational improvement
during the early 1990s, was promoted to address the lack of cohesion
typical of previous reform periods. According to this approach,
the direction for reform is provided by a common vision informed
by "underlying values concerning intellectually stimulating and
engaging education for all students" and a set of goals (standards
and benchmarks) that can be communicated and measured (CPRE, 1991,
p. 6). Key policies are aligned to support outcome expectations
(student learning goals). Finally, the governance system is restructured
to give schools more flexibility in meeting student needs (CPRE,
1991; Fuhrman, 1993).
Systemic reform, thus, is a policy approach to school improvement
that emphasizes high standards, aligned assessments, an accountability
system, and site-based management. Fuhrman explained that the approach
was "built around two supremely logical notions: societal decision
about outcome goals and coordination of important policy instruments"
(1993, p. 3). Both the scope and coherence of the efforts and the
balance between state and local controls distinguish this approach
to reform from those of previous decades. Using the establishment
of performance-based standards as the organizing principle, policymakers
could evaluate all aspects of the system to see if they promoted
the desired outcomes (Blank & Pechman, 1995).
In her book, Designing Coherent Educational Policy: Improving
the System (1993), Fuhrman shared her understanding of coherent
policy:
The idea of coherent policy is not consistency for its own sake
but consistency in service of specific goals for student learning.
Coherent policy means giving a sense of direction to the educational
system by specifying policy purposes...it means establishing high-quality
goals about what students should know and be able to do and then
coordinating policies that link to the goals. (p. xi)
Systemic reform is based on several premises: that a major constraint
on the quality of teaching is the lack of alignment among elements
of the system; that better teaching will result when there is alignment
with challenging standards; that the lack of alignment is best addressed
at the level at which policies are set; and that systemic reform
strategies are not incompatible with local discretion (Knapp, 1997).
In the early 1990s, it seemed that the teacher had little direct
role in the reform process. The objective was to provide instructional
guidance without actually involving the teacher very much.
Initially, some of the new state and professional standards documents
contributed to the problems they were supposed to solve by being
so "bloated and poorly written÷that almost no one can realistically
teach to or ever hope to adequately assess" them (Schmoker & Marzano,
2000, p. 19). However, these authors contend that "clear, intelligible
standards are a pillar of higher achievement" (p. 19). They explain,
Standardswhen we get them rightwill give us the results we
want÷The lesson of TIMSS should considerably diminish the perceived
risk of downsizing the curriculum. The very nature of organizations
argues that we succeed when all parties are rowing in the same
direction. We will realize the promise of school reform when we
establish standards and expectations for reaching them that are
clear, not confusing; essential, not exhaustive. (p. 21)
|