Approaches to School Reform

Anyone engaged in school reform quickly learns that everything is connected. Similar to the interconnectedness that exists at an environmental level, where an alteration in one link of the food chain has implications throughout the chain, the ripples of school change are often far-reaching as well. Public education has a wide range of stakeholders with conflicting interests, from parents to teachers to legislators, with a host of interest groups lobbying from the sideline. Reformers may be able to carve out protected zones for small incremental changes, but these innovations tend to remain isolated and fragile. Increasingly, school critics have called for systemic reform--changing the whole system simultaneously.

In the last decade, four major systemic strategies have emerged: standards-driven accountability, whole-school reform, market strategies, and shared decision-making.

Standards-Based Accountability. Without question, the dominant state-level strategy today is standards-driven accountability. By establishing clear performance outcomes and systematically testing student progress, states believe teachers and students will be stimulated to focus their efforts in the right direction.

The Southern Regional Education Board has identified five key elements in a standards-based system: concise and understandable content standards; valid testing directly aligned with the standards; professional development keyed to the standards; timely, accurate, and understandable reporting of results; and appropriate rewards, sanctions, and targeted assistance (James Watts and colleagues 1998). Education Week, synthesizing ideas from a national survey, includes many of these concepts in its ten guidelines for a credible, effective accountability system (Lynn Olson 1999a).

Despite the appeal of standards-driven accountability, and the widespread efforts to implement it, many observers are reserving judgment on its ability to generate significant change. The standards vary widely in content, depth, and rigor (American Federation of Teachers 1998; Chester Finn and colleagues 1998). While forty-eight states test their students, only a minority publicly rate school performance, require students to pass tests for graduation, authorize reconstitution of failing schools, or provide monetary incentives for high performance (Olson 1999a).

Others have raised concerns about the fairness, validity, and effectiveness of testing and the dangers of making policy decisions based solely on test scores (Olson 1999b). Still others have wondered whether states will muster the political willpower to stay the course when the going gets rough (Robert C. Johnson 1999).

Whole-School Reform. Traditionally, school reforms have been incremental, targeting specific policies, structures, or instructional methods. While limiting the scope of reform makes it easier to muster resources and political support, the result is often fragmented and temporary. Therefore, recent efforts have aimed at achieving comprehensive schoolwide reform.

Descriptions of the models are available in the report, as well as in a more detailed guide available from Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory. Other descriptions are available from New American Schools, and a state-by-state listing of comprehensive projects and developers is available from Education Commission of the States. See our extensive list of programs, which provides telephone numbers, email addresses, and website links.

Market Strategies. A persistent thread in the last decade of reform has been the call for parental choice. Conservative critics have argued that public schools have little incentive to improve as long as they possess an effective monopoly on schooling. By making it easier for parents to choose among alternatives, they assert, a marketplace is created in which competition will force schools to improve their performance.

The strongest market approach uses tax-funded vouchers with which parents can pay for education at any school, public or private. Inherently controversial, this approach has thus far been used in only a few locations, such as Milwaukee and Cleveland, with Florida recently launching a statewide voucher plan. These initial voucher efforts focus on children in low-income areas or in failing schools. Florida, for example, will provide vouchers worth up to $4,000 for children currently attending schools identified as "failing" (Jessica Sandham 1999).

Beyond these state-sanctioned plans, a few wealthy businessmen have begun to finance vouchers from their own pockets. One of the largest efforts, the Children’s Scholarship Fund, began with a $100 million bankroll that attracted another $70 million in matching donations, enabling the Fund to offer 40,000 private school scholarships for which 1.25 million children applied (Jeff Archer 1999).

Although vouchers are growing in popularity and public acceptance, the use of vouchers has not yielded immediate or consistent improvements, and the early research is limited and controversial. Two separate studies of Milwaukee’s voucher system reached conflicting conclusions, while a more recent study in Cleveland found slight improvements in some subjects for students who transferred to established private schools but much less achievement for students who entered new private schools (Lynn Olson 1996, Mark Walsh 1998).

A less radical, but still controversial, approach involves charter schools, which are public schools designed around unique philosophies and freed from many of the usual regulations. Because they can succeed only by attracting a sufficient number of students, they essentially operate in a marketplace. During the 1997-98 school year, 693 charter schools were operating in twenty-three states and the District of Columbia (U.S. Department of Education 1998b).

As with research related to vouchers, early studies have not shown clear evidence of improved achievement (SRI International 1997, Center for Applied Research and Educational Improvement 1997). However, most charters are just a few years old and still working through the inevitable startup problems. In addition, achievement differences may be obscured by the diversity of charter schools' instructional, assessment, and reporting practices.

However, the early research has generated some interesting data on the composition and impact of charters. A number of studies indicate that charters seem to serve roughly the same populations as typical public schools, although concentrations vary because some charters are dedicated to serving special populations. Charter missions and programs are highly diverse, and adherence to accountability plans is inconsistent and no greater than for noncharter schools (SRI International Center for Applied Research and Educational Improvement). A study based in California also found that charters were exerting little competitive pressure on public schools (Amy Stuart Wells 1998). Perhaps the least disputed finding came from a Minnesota study that concluded, "Starting a new school is very hard work" (Center for Applied Research and Educational Improvement).

Shared Decision-Making. A final systemic strategy focuses on empowering teachers and administrators at the school level. The rationale is that the people who know students best should have the autonomy to create and implement responsive educational programs. This approach, which goes by a variety of names, from site-based management to shared decision-making (SDM), focuses on process rather than any particular product of reform.

Shared decision-making generated great enthusiasm in the early 90s, but the emerging research picture that emerged in mid-decade revealed a more complex picture. Generally, shared decision-making generates positive feelings among teachers (Lynn Liontos 1997 and Larry Lashway 1997). However, it does not seem to automatically lead to improved instruction. In the early stages, teacher attention may be focused more on peripheral issues than on classroom matters (Kent Peterson and colleagues 1996). SDM also adds complexity and ambiguity to the principal’s role. Lines of authority are often blurred, and leaders are caught between images of take-charge leadership and facilitative listening (Liontos and Lashway). Thus, while SDM continues to be a key reform element in many schools, it is not an end in itself, and it requires considerable energy, attention, and adaptability.

Laying a Foundation for Reform

Macro reform issues engage the attention of legislators, theoreticians, and policy-makers. For school leaders, the questions are very different, but just as challenging. Lacking the authority to reconstitute schools, redirect funding, and rewrite policies, principals must nonetheless find ways to move their institutions forward.

The possibilities are almost endless. David Conley (1997) has identified twelve major dimensions of reform, any of which can serve as the foundation for significant restructuring: learning standards, curriculum, instruction, assessment, learning environment, technology, school-community relations, teaching and learning time, governance, teacher and principal leadership, personnel, and contractual relationships. These dimensions interact with one another, which raises the issue of whether reform can be done incrementally through a series of small-scale changes, or whether it is best done systemically. Small-scale changes can be easily overwhelmed and reabsorbed into the existing system. On the other hand, trying to change everything at once can be almost unmanageable. Conley suggests that learning standards, curriculum, instruction, and assessment should be at the core of any change; the other dimensions can be viewed as "enabling" or "supporting." However, it may be possible to begin with an enabling dimension in the hope that it will lead to change in the core dimensions.

At the school level, restructuring is as much a human as a technical process, one that requires considerable planning and preparation. Because school leaders are often "presold" on the need for change, they may underestimate the amount of preparation time required by others. Readiness can be fostered by visiting schools, social agencies, and businesses, as well as through study groups, task forces, conferences, and data gathering. According to Conley, ten major commitments are required for successful restructuring. For example, the school community must agree to base decisions on objective data, view students as individuals rather than just students, view parents as equal partners, and establish a common vision.

A key step in restructuring is the development of a vision that reflects the values and commitments of the school community. A persuasive vision will energize support for change and establish a standard of excellence that people can rally around. However, most studies of school change show that vision is not a one-time event or a static statement of intent; rather it continually evolves through trial and error (Lashway).

Other crucial contributors to restructuring are professional development activities, adequate time, and skillful, committed leadership. For the principal, the most difficult task may be the balancing act between firm decision-making and facilitative leadership (Conley).

Schools undertaking significant reform should be prepared for uncertainty, missteps, and surprises. The potential obstacles are numerous. Eugene Schaffer and colleagues (1997) identified a number of major barriers, including unstable financing, lack of principal leadership, lack of commitment from teachers, negative public perceptions, staffing, curriculum, political or racial conflicts, lack of facilities, and inadequate communication. Conley identified nine pitfalls, ranging from lack of vision to "analysis paralysis."

Building Capacity for Reform

Most reformers recognize that significant change requires more than a positive attitude; schools must also have the capacity to change. Capacity involves both individual and organizational factors (Jennifer O’Day and colleagues 1995). On the one hand, teachers must have the knowledge, skills, dispositions, and views of self that allow them to deliver improved instruction to students. On the other hand, individual capacity will blossom only in a supportive environment that includes thriving communities of practice and organizations that have the vision, structures, and resources to support reform.

In an eight-state study, Diane Massell (1998) identified seven elements of capacity: teacher knowledge and skills; student motivation; curriculum materials; quality and types of people supporting the classroom; quality and quantity of interaction within and between organizational levels; material resources; and organization and allocation of district and school resources.

Financial resources are a particular source of frustration for would-be reformers. Because school finance has traditionally been based on broad inputs such as enrollment, there is no guarantee that funds will flow to necessary reforms. Allan Odden (1998) recommends a shift from "equity" to "adequacy." He proposes having states determine what spending level is needed for an average child to achieve high standards, and then supplementing this with an additional amount that will allow low-income, disabled, and LEP students to achieve those same standards. Once in place, this system would be automatically adjusted for inflation to prevent slippage.

While financial issues must ultimately be addressed at the state level, local districts can take their own steps to relate budgetary considerations to reform goals. Odden suggests three strategies: providing local schools with greater budgetary discretion, linking teacher compensation to reform goals, and providing school-based performance incentives.

While the current trend is to focus on the school as the center of reform, the district may also play a crucial role. Cyrus Driver and colleagues (1997) found numerous cases where restructuring was hindered by district-level neglect or "inadvertent sabotage." In particular, a district focus on control and compliance will undermine a restructuring school’s need for autonomy.

Examining the experience of "accelerated schools," Driver and his associates found that "when districts exhibit high levels of support, the development of accelerated schools is comparatively smooth and rapid." When districts fail to provide support, or actively interfere, they become major obstacles. The interference includes such things as dictating staff development activities, arbitrarily transferring principals, and mandating new curriculum that undermines the spirit of the restructuring.

Driver and his associates suggest that if districts accept the responsibility of assisting restructuring schools, they are well positioned to provide significant support. District-level support can take the form of offering information, helping schools build capacity through staff development and financial management, negotiating waivers of state requirements, and ensuring accountability.

Dissenting Voices

While the need for school reform is generally taken for granted, a few educators have expressed reservations about current trends, mostly because of fears that reform will be driven by conformity to policy mandates rather than the educational needs of children, thus narrowing rather than broadening the range of educational opportunities. John Goodlad (1999) observes, "The language of school reform virtually eschews reference to the maturing of the self into greater wisdom, civility, civic-mindedness, democratic character, and participation in the whole of the human conversation."

In addition, some observers have noted that the current reform movement contains inherent contradictions. For example, Conley notes that increased professionalism for teachers may clash with greater community involvement, and that constructivist philosophies of teaching that seek to empower students may conflict with adherence to predetermined standards. Such contradictions may ultimately be resolved, but they also suggest that the reform movement may never be able to accomplish everything that reformers intend.

Job Search