ERIC ED377562: Challenges in Systemic Education Reform. CPRE Policy Briefs.

10 Pages·1994·0.34 MB·English

by  ERIC

DOCUMENT RESUME
ED 377 562
EA 026 355
AUTHOR
Fuhrman, Susan H.
TITLE
Challenges in Systemic Education Reform. CPRE Policy
Briefs.
Consortium for Policy Research in Education, New
INSTITUTION
Brunswick, NJ.
Office of Educational Research and Improvement (ED),
SPONS AGENCY
Washington, DC.
REPORT NO
CPRE-RB-14-9/94
PUB DATE
94
R117G1007
CONTRACT
NOTE
10p.
CPRE, Carriage House at the Eagleton Institute of
AVAILABLE FROM
Politics, Rutgers University, 86 Clifton Ave., New
Brunswick, NJ 08901-1568.
Reports Descriptive (141)
PUB TYPE
EDRS PRICE
MFO1 /PCO1 Plus Postage.
DESCRIPTORS
*Change Strategies; Educational Assessment;
Educational Change; Elementary Secondary Education;
*Resistance to Change; *School Restructuring; *State
Standards
ABSTRACT
Although educational reform has generated much
excitement and has been associated with many positive classroom
changes, policymakers and educators also face a number of challenges
in designing and implementing the new policies. This publication
examines these challenges and the strategies that states are using to
address them. It draws from the Consortium for Policy Research in
Education's (CPRE's) studies of reform in 19 states and from
discussions with staffs of policymaker associations involved in
providing assistance to other states. Difficulties encountered by the
states include an overwhelming workload, the failure to clearly
articulate the nature and intent of reforms, the lack of strategies
for filling the gap between standards and changed practice, equity,
competing problems (such as crime, desegregation, and finance), and
the lack of sustained leadership. Strategies to address the
challenges included building capacity in new ways; expanding the
meaning of pro,,ssional development; taking sufficient time; being
honest; and taking advantage of the national, secular trend. (LMI)
********************************************************************
Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made
*
from the original document.
***********************************************************************
Reporting on
n e.duidotion
Challenges in Systemic Education Reform
by Susan H. Fuhrman
DEPARTMENT Of EDUCATION
U
Once of F.dor_aironar Research end Immo...intent
EDUCATIONAL. RESOURCES INFORMATION
CENTER (ERIC)
This Oecornmnt his been rOrCrOoco^
Oil
rece.wed Nom int orIrtrOn Or aganaar.on
onginItng it
O 1.4,40, ChInQIIS hive bean made to Irnorov
tent0Ouchon ovNy
Points of %now or op,nonsstattchntnisclottn
ivent do not neCeillifily represent (AV.(
OE RI position Or poky
4
BEST COPY AVAILABLE
1111111011iC
:Re Porting on iqsugs.and research in education policy
Challenges in Systemic Education Reform
by Susan H. Fuhrman
not laid out in blueprint fashion. A more local
By mid-1994, many states claimed to be developing
approach is evident in Florida, where standard -
challenging expectations for student learning and
coordinating other policies so they support the
setting and assessment of progress has been deliber-
ately transferred to local districts. Local direction
expectations.' The Clinton Administration was pre-
paring to grant states and localities support for such
may also come abort unintentionally. In New Jersey,
activities as part of its Goals 2000 program. The
leadership changes stalled state-directed efforts to
reform movement, labelled "systemic" or "standards-
create content standards and curriculum frameworks,
leaving it up to local districts to pursue their own
based" reform, though new, is so prevalent that it is
already possible to study and contrast a variety of
strategies, like conforming math curricula to NCTM
standards or participating in the National Science
approaches.
Foundation's Statewide Systemic Initiatives (SST)
Reform is generating a great deal of excitement and
projects.
energy and is associated with many positive class-
States also vary in the policy instrument they stress
room changes.2 But policymakers and educators are
in systemic reform efforts. In California, the lead in-
also facing a number of challenges in designing and
struments are subject-area frameworks setting out
implementing the new policies. This issue of CPRE
Policy Briefs examines these challenges as well as
expectations for student learning. They have been
the basis for materials adoption, professional devel-
strategies states are using to address them. It draws
opment activity and attempts to improve teacher
from CPRE's studies of reform in 19 states and from
education. Only after ten years of this process did
discussions with staff of policymaker associations
involved in providing assistance to states.`
the state institute performance-based student assess-
ments, matched to the frameworks. Connecticut,
having pioneered development of performance-based
Variation in State Approaches
tasks, relies on assessment and on attracting high
quality teachers. Most other states stress assess-
State approaches to reform vary in several ways.
Susan H. Fuhrman is
professor of educational policy at
While state and local leadership frequently operate
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey. She also serves
in tandem (Fuhrtnan and Elmore 1990), some
as director of the Consortium for Policy Research
in
systemic reform efforts show clear state direction
Education.
while others rely more on local initiative. Two
Dr. Fuhrman is the author of numerous articles, research
varieties of state leadership may he seen in Ken-
reports, and monographs on education policy and finance. Dr.
tucky, where legislation spelled out all components
Fuhrman was a consultant to the Ford Foundation's program
of a comprehensive plan, and Vermont, where
on educational management and finance for 10 years and
reform elements are being integrated by leaders,
served as vice-president of the school board in Westfield,
educators and others involved in the process, but are
New Jersey.
CCONSORTIUM FOR POLICY RESEARCH IN EDUCATION
RB-14.9194
PRE
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
Harvard University
University of Wisconsin-Madison
University of Michigan
Stanford University
1IMMI1111111111IMIIIMIONIP
ments, some intentionally and
states, like California, have relied
and local levels has compounded
both on strong state agency
some not. Georgia,which has a
the problem, reducing staff and
new assessment system and very
leadership and a variety of orche-
discretionary resources for plan-
few other instructional reforms, strated networks; in others, like
ning, development and public
and professional involvement.
Vermont, agency leadership has
and Michigan, which has revised
Often the greatest staff losses
its MEAP assessment for select-
created outside capacity by gen-
occurred among those with the
ed grades and is now developing
erating networks of professionals
a new high school test, placed
working on various development
most expertise related to current
tasks. In Michigan, strong uni-
reformssubject-matter experts
testing first. States like Kentucky
and Delaware, with their com-
versities and professional associ-
and policy generalists on general
ations have provided leadership.
prehensive reform strategies, did
fund support.
not single out assessment, but
because interim assessments
Mounting workloads and reduced
resources have hurt reform ef-
preceded frameworks and other
Difficulties in
reform elementsand attracted a
forts in several ways. Confusion,
Accomplishing the
great deal of attentionassess-
bordering on chaos, is evident in
Reform Agenda
states where various bodies go
ments have become their leading
on meeting independently and
strategies, as well.
then have to go over the same
CPRE research shows that state
State experience differs in part
ground again when they find out
and local policymakers are con-
what others have done; where
simply because some have been
fronting a number of difficulties
high school and elementary
in the reform business far longer
in attempting to carry out ele-
school tests are developed sepa-
than others. In California, which
ments of the reform agenda.
has been working at these re-
rately without assurance of com-
patibility; or where standards
forms for over a decade, a consi-
Overwhelming Work
derable amount of policy inte-
bodies develop frameworks that
Load; Limited
gration has been achieved, and
overwhelm students and teachers.
In some states, scarcity of re-
many observers report that teach-
Resources
ers are trying to change their
sources is reflected in allocation
Current policy activity is com-
of too little time or money for
practice as a result (Cohen 1990;
plex and extremely demanding.
Cohen and Ball 1990). Other
assessment development, despite
States are designing and devel-
states, like Kentucky and Ver-
the centrality of performance as-
oping new drocesses, structures
sessment to the entire reform
mont, are three or four years into
and substantive policy initiatives
enterprise.
reform, and are also beginning to
across a broad range of policy
look for classroom effects, re-
areas. Policymakers are working
Some states are experiencing
lated, for example, to Kentucky's
on standards-based reforms in
serious sequencing difficulties as
ungraded primary program and to
K-12 education at the same time
various elements of reform run
Vermont's portfolio assessments.
they are expanding preschool
on different schedules. Some
Still others, like New Jersey,
programs, experimenting with in-
have new content expectations
have just started.
tegrated social services and em-
but old, norm-referenced, stan-
barking on school-to-work transi-
Finally, states vary in their ca-
dardized tests that do not assess
tion efforts. Most are hoping to
the knowledge and skills now
pacity to marshal technical and
undertake these reforms not just
expected of students. Florida's
policy expertise to carry out high
simultaneously, but in an inte-
math and science efforts, for
quality, well-designed reforms.
grated way. The result is a very
While virtually all state educa-
example, are based on emerging
high level of activity as well as a
tion agencies and many local
national standards, but the state
need to coordinate activities of
has removed all statewide test-
district offices have experienced
bodieslike professional stan-
ing, leaving local districts to rely
cuts during the recent recession,
dards boards, state boards of
some have suffered more than
for the most part on commercial-
education and higher education
ly published tests. New Jersey
others. States also differ in the
governance bodies and institu-
planned to develop new fourth-
number, quality and cooperative-
tionsdeliberately designed to
grade tests to reflect the state's
ness of potential outside sources
operate independently.
new content standards, but put
of assistance, such as universi-
the process on hold in the wake
ties, foundations, networks, asso-
The recent round of recession-
of budget problems and leader-
ciations and other nonprofits. To
related budget cuts at both state
ship changes.
build capacity for reform, some
2
ceeds targets, and the Dallas
and of themselves, can somehow
A different sequencing problem
lead to better teaching and
arises in states that have new
Independent School District has
just implemented a complex
tests, but may not have given
learning.
system to reward schools for
teachers and students adequate
opportunity to learn the new
In states such as Connecticut,
higher than predicted gains. Also
remaining to he explored are a
public confusion is expressed as
material. In Georgia, the use of a
concern that common standards
variety of non-monetary incen-
new high school graduation test
may mean lower standards.
tives such as improving profes-
as a gate had to be postponed be-
Many urban and rural educators
sional opportunities for learning,
cause students were not prepared.
discretionary action and self-
and parents worry that the stan-
In Kentucky, interim assessments
dards discussion means new
regulation. New governance
considerably more demanding
rules without new solutions to
than prior testsare in place, but
approaches, like choice and char-
ters, can alter non-monetary
it is unlikely that sufficient in-
persistent problems of poverty.
In Ohio, Pennsylvania, Kentucky,
structional changes have occurred
incentives.
Virginia, and other states, confu-
at the grades tested. The curricu-
sion has also fueled virulent
In Minnesota there is evidence
lum framework has just been pub-
opposition to outcomes-based
lished, no materials or specific
that choice enhances interest in
standards-based reforms, and
curricula exist and, because of
education, a version of standards
the reform act's emphasis on
reform that frequently includes
schools are competing with one
affective outcomes as well as
another to improve their curri-
ungraded primary schools, pro-
fessional development has fo-
cula and assessment strategies.
academic standards.
Of course, another way to in-
cused mostly on early grades that
crease incentives is to remove
Going Beyond
are not subject to assessment.
current disincentives to change,
Standards and
like finance formulas, program
Yet another sequencing problem
Assessments
regulations or union contract
occurs when new tests are used
Since reformers are having
provisions that lock schools into
before they are technically sound.
trouble conceptualizing the full
Of course these problems are
certain staffing ratios and organi-
extent of required changes, it is
much more serious and visible
zational patterns.
when there are high stakes
not surprising that strategies for
effecting change are lacking.
Professional Development. In-
attached to the testing.
Once processes for standards and
creasingly, reformers are recog-
assessments are in place, it is not
Articulating the Nature
nizing that traditional staff devel-
clear what to do next, and few
opment--one-shot workshops de-
and Intent of Reforms
strategies exist for encouraging
signed to deliver prepackaged
Many policymakers, educators
real change in practice. Filling
knowledgeis incompatible with
and analysts are having problems
the gap between standards and
current reforms (Little 1993). To
assessments at one end and
explaining the role of conerent,
achieve marked improvements in
standards-based policy in pro-
changed practice at the other
classrooms, professional develop-
viding direction and support for
requires significant action in a
ment must be continuous and
changes in teaching and learning.
number of areas, including many
embedded in practice. Teachers
In policy rhetoric, it frequently
in which policy has traditionally
and administrators need many,
appears that reforms consist only
varied opportunities to make
been weak.
of standards and assessments.
sense of new policies and to
Other central components, like
reconstruct practice in light of
Incentives. Policymakers have
support for classroom change
traditionally equated monetary
new expectations and new know-
through focused and enhanced
incentives with payments to en-
ledge about teaching and learn-
teacher education and profes-
courage local participation in
ing. While new formats, such as
sional development, are less
various programs, a concept that
networks and collaboratives, are
has little to do with results of
visible. The broader social agen-
emerging, little progress has been
da, like providing for children's
schooling. But recently, some
made in designing policieslike
health and security, also gets
states are beginning to experi-
revised approaches to certifica-
ment with sizable monetary
short-changed in reform discus-
tion, compensation or instruc-
sions. Public skepticism is under-
rewards for performance. Ken-
tional timethat would support
standable in reaction to messages
tucky will begin distributing as
such formats and give teachers
suggesting that setting standards
much as $3200 per teacher to
time to participate on a continu-
and measuring achievement, in
schools where performance ex-
ing basis.
3
efforts can be found in geo-
Accountability. Most states say
1991; O'Day and Smith 1993).
they are moving toward more
graphic pockets, such as pilot
Indeed, policymakers use equity
arguments in promoting the
sites, or at certain grade levels,
performance-based accountabil-
ity, focusing on reporting cur-
or in certain subject areas. A key
reforms. Congressional debates
riculum-aligned test scores or
challenge is generalizing these
on opportunity-to-learn standards
approaches, especially since
gains at several grade levels and
in Goals 2000 and on reauthor-
ization of the Elementary and
moving from good examples to
on periodic accreditation reviews
more widespread reform has
that center on outcomes. Many
Secondary Education Act suggest
are attaching rewards, such as
been a traditional weakness of
that equity has relatively high
education policy. In a number of
deregulation, and sanctions, such
visibility in standards discussions
states, technical and policy
as peer assistance and eventual
within the Beltway. Its relative
state displacement of local lead-
efforts appear to run on separate
lack of visibility in the states is
ership, to outcome or value-
tracks. Some excellent pilots, in
therefore a surprise as well as a
professional development, for
added measures. However, states
disappointment.
are finding it difficult to move to
example, exist in states that have
Competing Problems
performance-based systems for a
not developed policies to support
number of reasons, such as the
such efforts on a broader scale,
Other problems and issues some-
slow development of good and
while other states have policies
times tend to overshadow syste-
in place, but lack high quality
widely accepted outcome mea-
mic reform efforts. Local educa-
interventions worth generalizing.
sures.
tors frequently mention crime,
not education reform, as their
These examples concern just
Policymakers are also finding it
greatest concern. In most states,
difficult to remove regulations
some of the areas where imagi-
desegregation is seen as a separ-
nation and new approaches are
about inputs and processes or to
ate issue; to our knowledge, only
needed. Despite growing aware-
limit the extent to which accredi-
Delaware has tried to tie stan-
ness that these areas need work,
tation/certification reviews focus
dards-based reforms to desegre-
they typically appear on policy-
on compliance with such regula-
gation. Although school finance
tions. Regulations protect poli-
makers' agendas simply as cate-
litigation served as an opportu-
tically powerful groups, like
gories where efforts are neces-
nity for broader reform in Ken-
categorical program providers
sary. Coming up with strategies
tucky and Alabama, school fi-
and specialty teachers, and parti-
to accomplish and integrate change
nance has been more of a dis-
in these areas is much harder.
cularly needy constituencies, like
traction in many states. This is
disadvantaged children. States
certainly true in New Jersey and
Equity
have historically seen protection
Texas where legislative preoccu-
of students and assurance of
Making equity a central reform
pation with finance has precluded
minimum quality as the corner-
thrust is proving to be a major
other activity. In states such as
stones of their role in education
South Carolina, Wisconsin and
challenge for states and equity is
and are reluctant to abandon
continuing to get less attention
Pennsylvania, proposals to drop
input and process regulations
than it should. Many states
the local property tax for schools
designed to guarantee equitable
include only token representation
might detract attention from sub-
services (Elmore and Fuhrman
of special needs programs in
stantive reform to some extent. It
1994).
can also be argued that, in cer-
standards reform, pay insufficient
attention to achievement gaps on
tain fast-growing states like Cali-
A major dilemma in the design
new tests and fail to provide
fornia and Texas, where demands
of new accountability systems is
are simply overwhelming re-
extra resources and assistance
fashioning interventions that really
special needs schools must have
sources, relatively low spending
improve instruction in low-
if reforms are to succeed. Stan-
is a hindrance to reform.
performing schools and districts.
dards-based systemic reform has
States need to distinguish com-
The Grip of the Past
equity at its philosophical core. It
pliance-driven sanctions, designed
is based, after all, on the notions
for corrupt or mismanaged locali-
Despite the energy going into
that all students can learn to
ties, from improvement strategies
reforms, old ways of doing
much higher levels and that high
designed to influence classrooms
business persist. Many states still
common standards can help
in low-achieving schools.
have all or most of their old
reverse the tradition of advan-
policies on the books. In Ohio,
taged schools aiming high and
Scaling up, In many states,
for example, a ninth grade mini-
less advantaged schools getting
standards-based systemic reform
mum competency test is just
left behind (Smith and O'Day
6
going into effect, after years of
Strategies to Address
their unique relationship to the
development and piloting, just as
formal decision-making hierarchy
The Challenges
the state is moving toward a
in education and because partici-
focus on higher-order skills.
pants say that they broaden sup-
port for reform, particularly
Despite the problems, the energy
California, the state engaged in
and excitement surrounding re-
among teachers and business
standards-based systemic reforms
form is notable. Teachers in Ver-
over the longest period, still has
leaders (Shields et al. 1993).
its hodgepodge of unrelated
mont, Kentucky and other states
speak enthusiastically about trying
categoricals that promote various
Another encouraging sign is the
innovations and experiments.
to change their practice. in many
development of school-level re-
states, hundreds of citizens have
Schools. too, continue to act in
form networks that unite volun-
been involved in reform activi-
familiar ways. For example, they
teer schools in collaborative ef-
zealously adopt model lessons
ties. Some current reform efforts,
forts to improve professional de-
such as curriculum framework
intended to provide examples
velopment and practice. Network
of how standards might be
commissions, involve many more
membership enhances motivation
addressedas if they were re-
for ch:Inge through support,
members of professional associa-
tions and of the public than any
quired.
recognition and increased access
past educational policy activity
to knowledge. It also provides a
in memory. Strategies that gen-
Leadership
mechanism for spreading effec-
erate such energy and involve-
tive approaches. Some networks,
The magnitude of the problems
ment are worth studying and
like the elementary, middle and
that states are encountering high-
emulating.
secondary school collahoratives
lights the importance of leader-
organized by the California State
ship in reform efforts. Skillful
Building Capacity in
Department of Education, are
guidance can steer reforms
eN.plicitly tied to state standards-
New Ways
through difficult technical and
based reforms.
political straits, bUt sudden or
As mentioned previously, hard-
frequent shifts in leadership can
pressed state agencies are finding
Expanding the Meaning
be damaging. Of nine states that
new ways of creating capacity by
of Professional
extending activities into net-
CPRE has followed since 1990,
Development
five have lost their chief state
works, coliaboratives and new
school officers over the last two
bodies. Because they involve so
A related strategy may be emerg-
years. Virtually all the state
many people, these new struc-
ing as the concept of professional
agencies in states CPRE has
tures also serve to broaden parti-
development broadens to include
cipation in design and develop-
studied have reorganized, most.y
other key reform tasks. Pro-
ment efforts and to popularize
into teams aimed at enhancing
fessional development occurs
technical assistance to schools
and promote reform.
through the development of stan-
and districts, but this has also
dards and assessments in states
occurred under conditions of
In a number of SSI states, new
such as Vermont where teachers
quasi- or non-governmental or-
shrinking agency resources. From
are key actors in creating curri-
the local perspective, state
ganizations are playing key lead-
culum frameworks and designing
ership roles. Some of these, like
agency reorganization has meant
and scoring portfolio assess-
confusing desk-shuffling and
the Kentucky Science and Tech-
ments. Professional development
inability to obtain information,
nology Council and the Montana
is also a central purpose of new
even thernost.basic statistics.
Council of Teachers of Mathe-
peer quality-review efforts, such
matics, are not new organiza-
Most agencies--sectioned into
as those in New York, and Cali-
tions, but they are taking on new
offices corresponding to federal
fornia. These reviews also address
and other special programs
responsibilities. Others, such as
incentive issuesby creating
weren't well suited to lead re-
the Council for the Advancement
opportunities for observing and
reflecting on practiceand
of Mathematics and Science Edu-
forms to begin with. Reorganiza-
tion does not yet seem to be
cation in New Mexico and the
provide a self-regulation com-
Connecticut Academy for
improving agency ability to pro-
ponent for new accountability
vide leadership in a systemic
Education in Science, Mathe-
approaches. By enlisting teachers
fashion. It will take time and
matics and Technology are new
to perform essential reform tasks,
sustained staff development to
broad-based collaboratives cre-
states benefit from professional
ated to promote and extend
build the capacity for coor-
expertise, expand resources for
dinated leadership from these
reform. Such organizations are of
reform and provide meaningful
particular interest because of
agencies.
5
staff developmentall at the
Georgia and New Jersey, where
experienced discouraging setbacks.
Others are beginning to over-
little state direction for
there is
same time.
reform, NSF's Statewide Sys-
come obstacles and demonstrate
temic Initiatives is providing
Taking Sufficient Time
real successes that hold promise
important leadership. Publishers
for transforming their educational
Policymakers are generally quick
are beginning to use emerging
systems. The states are providing
to press for results, but states
standards to guide textbook and
examples that will benefit policy-
that are making progress on
test development; national reform
makers throughout the country as
reform have taken longer than
networks and collaboratives
they grapple with the challenges
originally planned, if necessary,
involve thousands of schools,
of systemic reform.
to assure quality and widespread
hundreds of districts, and dozens
participation. Achieving exten-
Endnotes
of states in efforts to improve
sive participation in development
teaching and learning.
and refinement of Vermont's
I. By 1994, 45 states claimed to be
developing challenging standards and
Common Core of Learning, for
These various reform initiatives
assessments see Pechman, E. and
example, took a number of years,
may require special efforts aimed
LaGuarda, K. (1993). Status of New
time many feel was worthwhile
at integration. Unless policy-
Curriculum Frameworks, Standards,
to achieve commitment. Similar-
makers coordinate various funds
A ssessments, and Monitoring Sys-
ly, Connecticut's new perfor-
associated with federal programs
tem s. Washington, DC: Policy
mance-based assessment tasks
such as SSI, ESEA (Elementary
Studies Associates, Inc.
have been piloted for much
and Secondary Education Act)
longer than anticipated. As a
2. Ball, D. L., D. K. Cohen, P. L.
and the Goals 2000: Educate
result, teachers are more com-
Peterson, and S. M. Wilson. (1994).
America Act, for example, these
fortable than they would have
"Understanding State Efforts to
programs are likely to run on
Reform Teaching and Learning: The
been otherwise.
parallel tracks that don't aggre-
Progress of Instructional Reform in
gate or intersect in helpful ways.
Schools for Disadvantaged Child-
Being Honest
But the existence of so many
ren." Papers presented at The Amer-
effortsprofessional and lay,
ican Educational Research Associa-
Since the idea of societal agree-
public and private, school-based
tion's 1994 Annual Meeting in Ncw
ment on student expectations is
and teacher - based sending the
Orleans, LA.
at the core of the current reform
same message about high expec-
movement, the public's role is
3. Representatives from the fol-
tations for all students, provides
key. States have found that
lowing organizations met with CPRE
a reinforcing environment that
"going public" about the chal-
staff and researchers at the CPRE
policymakers can take advantage
lenges of reform, including spe-
State Debriefing Meeting, February
of. The general trend toward
cific problems, is as helpful as
1994. Their help is gratefully ac-
high standards and related con-
strategies to assure public partici-
knowledged.
ceptions of teaching and learning
pation. Open, truthful exchange Association for Supervision and
is an enormously important influ-
of information with the public
Curriculum Development
ence on practice.
Council of Chief State School
such as Vermont's release and
Officers
forthright response to the RAND
Standards-based systemic reform
Education Commission of the States
Corporation's report of problems
National Conference of State
of education is proving to be a
in the portfolio assessment pro-
Legislatures
demanding challenge. It requires
gramcan enhance understand-
National Governors' Association
fashioning processes to develop
ing and reinforce a cooperative
National Association of State Boards
and implement reform; creating
approach to problem solving.
of Education
technical capacity; building pub-
U. S. Department of Education
lic, political and professional
Taking Advantage of the
support; designing policy capable
References
National, Secular Trend
of promoting and integrating
complex reform components;
Ball, D., D. K. Cohen, P. L. Peter-
As important as policy changes
providing adequate financial
son, and S. M. Wilson. 1994.
can be in setting direction for
resources; and conducting so-
and supporting school-level
"Understanding State Efforts to
phisticated research. Analysis of
Reform Teaching and Learning:
reform, changes in teaching and
state activity shows that some
The Progress of Instructional
learning can find encouragement
states have embraced only a
Reform in Schools for Disad-
in many quarters. Fortunately,
fraction of the reform agenda.
vantaged Children." Papers pre-
support for reform is widespread
Some have attempted more and
sented at The American Educa-
and multifaceted. In states like
6
tional Research Association's
Pechman, E. and LaGuarda, K.
Fuhrman, S. H., and R. F. Elmore.
1990. "Understanding Local
1994 Annual Meeting in New
1993.
Status of New Curriculum
Control in the Wake of State
Orleans, LA.
Franc marks, Standards, A ssess-
Education Reform ."Educational
m ents, and Monitoring Systems.
Cohen, D. K. 1990.
"Revolution
Evaluation and Policy Analysis,
Washington, DC: Policy Studies
in One Classroom: The Case of
82-96.
Associates, Inc.
12(1),
Mrs. °tllier."
Educational Eval-
uation and Policy A nalysis.
Shields, P. M., T. B. Corcoran,
Little, J. W. 1993. "Teacher Pro-
and A. A. Zucker. 1993.
/2(3), 311-330.
fessional Development in a Cli-
The
mate of Educational Reform."
Study of NSF's Statewide Sys-
Cohen, D. K., and Ball, D. L.
Educational Evaluation and Pol- temic Initatives (SSI) Program:
1990. "Relations Between Policy
(No. 2):129-151.
icy Analysis-15
Menlo Park,
First -Year Report.
and Practice: A Commentary."
CA: SRI International.
O'Day, J., and M. S. Smith. 1993.
Educational Evaluation and Pol-
"Systemic School Reform and
331-338.
Smith, M. S., and J. O'Day. 1991.
icy Analysis, 12(3),
Educational Opportunity." In
"Systemic School Refoml." In
Elmore, R. F., and S. H. Fuhrman.
S. Fuhrman and B. Malen, eds.,
Designing Coherent Education
1994. "Opportunity to Learn and
Policy: Improving the System,
The Politics of Cutriculunz and
edited by S. H. Fuhrman, 313-
pp. 233-267. Bristol,
the State Role in Education." In
Testing,
The Debate on Opportunity to
PA: Palmer Press.
322. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Learn Standards: Supporting
Washington, DC: Na-
Works.
tional Governor's Association.
*********
New from CPRE
Merit Aid: Students, Institutions, and Society
Measuring Classroom Practice: Lessons Learned
from Efforts to Describe the Enacted Curriculum
Michael S. McPherson and Morton Owen Schapiro
John L. Smithson and Andrew C. Porter
August 1994, 25 pp. (No. RR-030) $10
September 1994, 25 pp. (No. RR-031) $10
This paper draws on recent data sets to pursue answers
This paper addresses issues surrounding attempts to
to several critical questions: What kinds of institutions
describe instructional practices and learning oppor-
invest in merit aid? What kinds of students are likely
tunities. It draws from a study conducted by CPRE for
to receive merit aid? How has the level and distribution
the National Science FoundationThe Reform Up
of merit aid been changing over time? Behind these
Close Study. The study examined the effects of state
essentially descriptive questions lies an important
and district attempts to increase high school graduation
policy question: What are the consequences of merit
requirements and other standard-setting activities in
aid practices for the quality and distribution of
math and science. The paper focuses on the instrument-
educational opportunity in the United States?
ation used, the usefulness of the resulting classroom
descriptions, and the quality of such data as determined
by corroborative evidence.
Carriage House at the Eagleton Institute of Politics
To order CPRE publications write: CPRE
New Brunswick, NJ 08901-1568. Orders must he prepaid,
86 Clifton Avenue
Rutgers University
make your check payable to CPRE. For more information call Pat Michaels at 908/932.1331.
-111111011NINIMP
7
The Consortium for Policy Research
For further information on CPRE publications contact
Pat Michaels at CPRE, Carriage House at the Eagleton
in Education
Institute of Politics, Rutgers University, 86 Clifton
are published occasionally by the
CPRE Policy Briefs
Avenue, New Brunswick, NJ 08901-1568; 90S/932-
Consortium for Policy Research in Education. Thz..
1331.
Consortium operates two separate, but interconnected
research centers: The Policy Center and The Finance
The views expressed in CPRE publications are those
Center. CPRE is funded by the U. S. Department of
of individual authors and are not necessarily shared by
Education's Office of Educational Research. The Policy
the Consortium, its institutional members, or the U. S.
Center of CPRE is supported by grant #0ERI-
Department of Education.
I 7GI007; the Finance Center of CPRE is supported
R I
by grant #OERI -R I 17G10039.
CPRE Management
Members of CPRE are Rutgers, The State University
of New Jersey; University of Wisconsin-Madison;
Susan H. Fuhrman
Director, The Policy Center
Harvard University: Stanford University; and the
Co-Director, The Finance Center
University of Michigan.
Eagleton Institute of Politics
The CPRE Policy and Finance Centers are part of a
Rutgers University
nationwide network of university-based research and
Allan R. Odden
development centers whose mission is to. trengthen the
Co-Director, The Finance Center
performance of A rnerican students by providing useful
Wisconsin Center for Education Research
and sound information. The research agenda for both
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Centers is built around three goals:
William H. Clune
To focus research on policies that foster
hiyh levels
Wisconsin Center for Education Research
regardless of social or
of learning for all students,
University of Wisconsin-Madison
economic background.
David K. Cohen
To conduct research that will lead to
more coherence
School of Education
that promote student
of state and local policies
University of Michigan
learning.
Richard F. Elmore
To study' how policies
in the
respond to diversity
School of Education
needs of students, schools, postsecondary institu-
Harvard University
tions, and states; and to learn more about the
connections between student 001(0/nes and resource
Michael W. Klrst
in schools and postsecondary academic
School of Education
patterns
Stanford University
departments.
11111111A
Non-Profit Ore.
cPREPOLICY BRIEFS
POSTA(k
PAID
Ni
Nev. ftruitvo,
Carriage House at the Eagleton Institute of Politics
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
Pernin No. I57
86 Clifton Avenue
New Brunswick, New Jersey 08901-1568
Printed on recycled paper.