This paper explores an instructive case in which two potentially opposed reform theories converge on schools, in order to understand how productively or unproductively the two theories coexist. We attempt to answer the following questions: Can these two reform theories coexist, or do they get in each other's way? In what ways, if any, do the two complement each other? Separately, or together, how do they affect instructional practice and the school-level conditions that support teaching and learning? Finally, can policies and leadership, in this case reflecting two such different reform theories, provide mutually supporting conditions for teaching and learning in urban schools?
Setting
The theories are analyzed as they occurred over the 1990s and into this century in three middle schools in one New York City Community School District.
Research Design
The study utilized a qualitative multiple case study design. Three middle schools within one district were sampled using criteria related to student population, school structure, and configuration of resources such as time and staff. Data were collected over three years during three site visits per year and included extensive interviews, observations, and analysis of pertinent documents.
Conclusions/Recommendations
We argue that the reform theories primarily complemented one another in this case. In the schools, differences in steps taken by school leaders and staff to realize the first reform theory enabled schools to respond productively to, rather than resist, district initiatives based on the second theory. The sophistication of the district's vision for teaching and learning (both for students and adults), combined with a flexible approach to implementing the second reform theory, reduced the likelihood of conflicting reform messages.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AncessJ. (2000). The reciprocal influence of teacher learning, teaching practice, school restructuring, and student learning outcomes. Teachers College Record, 102, 590—619.
2.
ArgyrisC., and SchonD. A. (1982). Theory in practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
3.
AtwellN. (1998). In the middle: New understanding about writing, reading, and learning. (2nd ed.), Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook Publishers.
4.
BerendsM., BodillyS. J., and KirbyS. N. (2002). Facing the challenges of whole-school reform: New American Schools after a decade. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
5.
BerendsM., ChunJ., SchuylerG., StocklyS., and BriggsR. J. (2002). Challenges of conflicting school reforms. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
6.
BrykA., SebringP., KerbowD., RollowS., and EastonJ. (1998). Charting Chicago school reform. Boulder, CA: Westview Press.
7.
ChristmanJ. (2001). Powerful ideas, modest gains: Five years of systemic reform in Philadelphia middle schools. Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
8.
CoburnC. E. (2005). The role of non-system actors in the relationship between policy and practice: The case of reading instruction in California. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 27, 23—52.
Cross-City Campaign for Urban School Reform (1995). Reinventing central office. Chicago: Author.
11.
Darling-HammondL. (1997). The right to learn: A blueprint for creating schools that work. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
12.
Darling-HammondL., AncessJ., and FalkB. (1995). Authentic assessment in action: Studies of schools and students at work. New York: Teachers College Press.
13.
Darling-HammondL., HightowerA. M., HusbandsJ. L., LaForsJ. R., YoungV. M., and ChristopherC. (2005). Instructional leadership for systemic change: The story of San Diego's school reform. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.
14.
Darling-HammondL., and SnyderJ. (2003). Organizing schools for student and teacher learning: An examination of resource allocation choices in reforming schools. In PleckiM. L., and MonkD. (Eds.), School finance and teacher quality: Exploring the connections. The 2003 Yearbook of the American Educational Finance Association. Larchmont, NJ: Eye on Education.
15.
DavidJ. L., and ShieldsP. M. (2001). When theory hits reality: Standards-based reform in urban districts. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
16.
ElmoreR. F., and BurneyD. (1997). School variation and systemic instructional improvement in Community School District #2, New York City. Unpublished manuscript, University of Pittsburgh, Learning Research and Development Center.
17.
FinkE., and ResnickL. (1998). Developing principals as instructional leaders. Phi Delta Kappan, 82, 598—606.
18.
FirestoneW. A., and ShippsD. (2003). How do school leaders create effective programs for school improvement out of conflicting accountabilities? Presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL, April 21–25.
19.
FliegelS. (1993). Miracle in East Harlem: The fight for choice in public education. New York: Random House.
20.
FullanM. (1994). Coordinating top-down and bottom-up strategies for educational reform. In ElmoreR.F., and FuhrmanS.H. (Eds.), The governance of curriculum. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
21.
FullanM. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
22.
FuhrmanS. (Ed.) (2001). From the capitol to the classroom: Standards-based reform in the states– One hundredth yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education(NSSE). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
23.
HatchT. (1998). Differences in theory that matter in the practice of school improvement. American Educational Research Journal, 35, 3—32.
HenigJ. (1994). Rethinking school choice: The limits of the market metaphor. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
26.
HessF. M. (1999). Spinning wheels: The politics of urban school reform. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
27.
HightowerA. (2002). San Diego's big boom: Systemic instructional change in the central office and schools. In HightowerA., KnappM.S., MarshJ.A., and McLaughlinM.W. (Eds.), School districts and instructional renewal (pp. 76—93). New York: Teachers College Press.
28.
HillP. T. (Ed.). (2002). Choice with equity–An assessment by the Koret Task Force on K–12 education. Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press.
29.
HillP. T., and CelioM. B. (1998). Fixing urban schools. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
30.
HillP., FosterG. E., and GendlerT. (1990). High schools with character. Santa Monica, CA: The Rand Corporation.
31.
HubbardL., MehanH., and SteinM. K. (2006). Reform as learning: School reform, Organizational culture, and community politics in San Diego. New York: Routledge.
32.
JenningsN. E. (1996). Interpreting policy in real classrooms: Case studies of state reform and teacher practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
33.
KimbroughJ., and HillP. T. (1981). The aggregate effects of federal education programs. Santa Monica, CA: The Rand Corporation.
KnappM. S., BamburgJ. D., FergusonM. C., and HillP. T. (1998). Converging reforms and the working lives of frontline professionals in schools. Education policy, 12, 397—418.
36.
KnappM. S., StearnsM. S., TurnbullB. J., DavidJ. L., and PetersonS. M. (1991). Cumulative effects of federal education policies at the local level. In and and OddenA. (Ed.), Policy implementation (pp. 105–124). Albany: SUNY Press.
37.
LeCompteM. D., and PreissleJ. (1993). Ethnography and qualitative design in educational research (2nd Ed.). San Diego: Academic Press.
38.
LeeV., BrykA., and SmithJ. (1993). The organization of effective schools. Review of Research in Education, 19, 171—268.
39.
LeeV., and SmithJ. (1995). Effects of high school restructuring and size on early gains in achievement and engagement. Sociology of Education, 68, 241—270.
40.
LiebermanA. J., and SostreL. (1998). Implementing public school choice. New York: Center for Educational Innovation, Manhattan Center.
41.
LittleJ. W. (1999). Organizing schools for teacher learning. In Darling-HammondL., and SykesG. (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 233—262). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
42.
MalenB., CroningerR., MunceyD., and Redmond-JonesD. (2002). Reconstituting schools: “Testing” the “theory of action.” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24, 113—132.
43.
MassellD., and GoertzM. (2002). District strategies for building instructional capacity. In HightowerA., KnappM.S., MarshJ.A., and McLaughlinM.W. (Eds.), School districts and instructional renewal (pp. 43—60). New York: Teachers College Press.
44.
McDonaldJ. (1996). Redesigning school. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
45.
McLaughlinM. W., and TalbertJ. E. (2002). Reforming districts. In HightowerA., KnappM.S., MarshJ.A., and McLaughlinM.W. (Eds.), School districts and instructional renewal (pp. 173—192). New York: Teachers College Press.
46.
MeierD. (1995). The power of their ideas: lessons for America from a small school in Harlem. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
47.
MerriamS. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
48.
MilesM. B., and HubermanA. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: 2nd edition. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
49.
MurphyJ., and HallingerP. (1988). The characteristics of instructionally effective school districts. Journal of Educational Research, 81(3), 175—181.
50.
MurphyJ., and HallingerP. (1986). The superintendent as instructional leader: Findings from effective school districts. Journal of Educational Administration, 24(2), 213—236.
51.
NewmanF. (1996). Authentic achievement: Why are some schools more successful than others?San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
52.
PetersonG. (1999). Demonstrated actions of instructional leaders: An examination of five California superintendents. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 7(18); on the Web at: http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v7n18.html.
53.
PortinB. S., BeckL., KnappM. S., and MurphyJ. (2003). The school and self-reflective renewal: Taking stock and moving on. In Authors (Eds.), Self-reflective renewal in schools: Local lessons from a national initiative (pp. 179—200). Westport, CT: Praeger.
54.
RaywidM. A. (April, 1996). Taking stock: The movement to create mini-schools, schools-within-schools, and separate small schools. New York: ERIC Clearinghouse on Urban Education. Available: http://eric-web.tc.columbia.edu/monographs/uds108/
55.
ResnickL. B., and GlennanT. K. (2002). Leadership for learning: A theory of action for urban school districts. In HightowerA.M., KnappM.S., MarshJ.A., and McLaughlinM.W. (Eds.), School district and instructional renewal (pp. 160—172). New York: Teachers College Press.
56.
SmylieM. A., WenzelS. A., AllensworthE., FendtC., HallmanS., LuppescuS., and NagaokaJ. (2003). The Chicago Annenberg Challenge: Successes, failures, and lessons for the future–Final technical report of the Chicago Annenberg Research Project. Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research.
57.
SnipesJ., DoolittleF., and HerlihyC. (2002). Foundations for success: Case studies of how urban school systems improve student achievement. Washington, DC: Council of Great City Schools.
58.
SteinM. K., and D'AmicoL. (2002). Inquiry at the crossroads of policy and learning: A study of a district-wide literacy initiative. Teachers College Record, 104, 1313—1344.
59.
TogneriW., and AndersonS. E. (2003). Beyond islands of excellence: What districts can do to improve instruction and achievement in all schools. Washington, DC: Learning First Alliance.
60.
WeilerH. N. (1990). Comparative perspectives on educational decentralization: An exercise in contradiction?Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12, 433—448.
61.
WeissC. (1995). Nothing as practical as good theory: Exploring theory-based evaluations for comprehensive community initiatives for children and families. In ConnellJ., KubitschA., SchorrL., and WeissC. (Eds.), New approaches to evaluating community initiatives, concepts, methods, and contexts (pp. 65—92), Washington DC: The Aspen Institute.
62.
YinR. K. (2003). Case study research. (4th ed.). Newbury Park: Sage Publications.
