What We Learned about Research on School Reform: Considerations for Practice and Policy

Abstract

Background/Context

The U.S. federal government has been interested in improving the performance of students who come from low-income homes since the time of Lyndon Johnson's “Great Society” initiatives in the 1960s. The current administration strongly supports the belief that good schools can be created and has funded the Comprehensive School Reform (CSR) program to support these beliefs. This article provides information about recent school reform research and conditions of schooling. The article then reviews our research findings (drawing on all the preceding articles in the special issue) and considers implications for policy makers, principals, teachers, teacher educators, and researchers.

Purpose

The basic intent of this study was to inform working theories of learning, motivation, and social/emotional development in school contexts in Grades 3–5. We hoped that an emphasis on theory, contextual enactment, and participant mediation would yield a richer picture of classroom practices and motivational dynamics that might underlie student achievement and CSR effectiveness. This study focused in particular on perspectives (principals and students) and classroom practices associated with CSR programs in elementary schools in the state of Arizona.

Research Design

The research program includes interview (with principals), observation (of classroom practices), and survey measures, and an adaptation of Thematic Apperception Test procedures (with students).

Conclusion/Recommendations

School reform initiatives can profit from more research on participant perceptions, actual classroom practices, and student mediation of those practices. These understandings can better link program design and student achievement to enhance the effectiveness of CSR initiatives. We believe that it is now possible to conduct field experiments for improving normative (typical) practice in elementary school classrooms. We offer considerations for doing this research and suggest the need for attention to students, both as social beings and learners, while altering classroom practices in small measured steps.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Baldi

, Jin

, Skemer

, Green

P. J.

, and Herget

(2007). Highlights from PISA 2006: Performance of U.S. 15-year-old students in science and mathematics literacy in an international context (NCES 2008-016). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

Balfanz

, Legters

, West

T. C.

, and Weber

L. M.

(2007). Are NCLB's measures, incentives, and improvement strategies the right ones for the nation's low-performing high schools? American Educational Research Journal, 3, 559—593.

Biddle

(1997). Foolishness, dangerous nonsense, and real correlates of state differences in achievement. Phi Delta Kappan, 79, 8—13.

Borman

G. D.

, Slavin

R. E.

, Cheung

A. C. K.

, Chamberlain

A. M.

, Madden

N. A.

, and Chambers

(2007). Final reading outcomes of the national randomized field trial of Success for All. American Educational Research Journal, 3, 701—731.

Center on Education Policy. (2006). From the capital to the classroom: Year 4 of the No Child Left Behind Act. Retrieved September 21, 2007, from http://www.Cep-dc.org/_data/global/nidocs/CEP-NCLB-Report-4.pdf

Cross

C. T.

(2004). Putting the pieces together: Lessons from comprehensive school reform research. Washington, DC: NCCSR.

Darling-Hammond

(2007). The flat earth and education: How America's commitment to equity will determine our future. Educational Researcher, 36(6), 318—334.

Elawar

M. C.

, and Corno

(1985). A factorial experiment in teachers’ written feedback on student homework: Changing teacher behavior a little rather than a lot. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 162—173.

Good

T. L.

, and Nichols

S. L.

(2001). Expectancy effects in the classroom: A special focus on improving the reading performance of minority students in first-grade classrooms. Educational Psychologist, 36, 113—126.

10.

Jackson

(1968). Life in classrooms. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

11.

Kennedy

(2005). Inside teaching: How classroom life undermines reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

12.

Ladson-Billings

G. J.

(2006, April). From the achievement gap to the education debt: Understanding achievement in U.S. schools. Presidential address at the American Educational Research Association annual meeting, San Francisco, CA.

13.

McCaslin

(1996). The problem of problem representation: The Summit's conception of student. Educational Researcher, 25(8), 13—15.

14.

McCaslin

, and Good

(1996). The informal curriculum. In Berliner

, and Calfee

(Eds.), The handbook of educational psychology (1st ed., pp. 622—670). New York: American Psychological Association/Macmillan.

15.

McCaslin

, and Good

T. L.

(2008). A study of Comprehensive School Reform programs in Arizona. Teachers College Record, 110(11).

16.

McCaslin

, Good

T. L.

, Nichols

, Zhang

, Wiley

C. R. H.

, and Bozack

A. R.

. (2006). Comprehensive School Reform: An observational study of teaching in Grades 3 through 5. Elementary School Journal, 106, 313—331.

17.

Miller

R. T.

, Murnane

R. J.

, and Willett

J. B.

(2007). Do teacher absences impact student achievement? Longitudinal evidence from one urban school district (NBER Working Paper No. 13356). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.

18.

Moll

L. C.

, Amanti

, Neff

, and Gonzalez

(1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect home and classrooms. Theory Into Practice, 31, 132—141.

19.

National Association of School Boards of Education. (2007, October). Meeting the challenge: The state's role in improving low-performing schools. The Report of the SASBE Study Group on Models of Success for Reconstitution. Alexandria, VA: Author.

20.

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development–Early Child Care Research Network. (2005). A day in third grade: A large-scale study of classroom quality and teacher and student behavior. Elementary School Journal, 105, 305—323.

21.

Natriello

(1996). Diverting attention from conditions in American schools. Educational Researcher, 25(8), 7—9.

22.

Nichols

S. L.

, and Good

T. L.

(2004). America's teenagers–myths and realities: Media images, schooling, and the social costs of careless indifference. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

23.

Oakes

, Ormseth

, Bell

R. M.

, and Camp

(1990). Multiplying inequalities: The effects of race, social class, and tracking on opportunities to learn math and science. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

24.

Porter

A. C.

(1989). A curriculum of balance: The case of elementary school mathematics. Educational Researcher, 18(5), 9—15.

25.

Porter

, Floden

, Freeman

, Schmidt

, and Schwille

(1989). Content determinants in elementary school mathematics. In Grouws

D.A.

, and Cooney

T.J.

(Eds.), Effective mathematics teaching (pp. 96—113). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

26.

Scarpinato

(2005, March 28). Two “failing” schools chart the future. Arizona Daily Star. Retrieved March 28, 2005, from http://www.dailystar.com/

27.

Socias

, Chambers

, Esra

, and Shambaugh

(2007). The distribution of teaching and learning resources in California's middle and high schools (Issues & Answers Report, REL 2007-No.023). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Educational Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory West.

28.

Stevenson

, Schertzer

S. T.

, and Ham

D. E.

(in press). No Child Left Behind: Intent and requirements. In and and Good

T.L.

(Ed.), 21st century education: A reference handbook. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

29.

Waller

(1961). The sociology of teaching. New York: Russell and Russell. (Original work published 1932)

30.

Weick

K. E.

(1984). Small wins: Redefining the scale of social problems. American Psychologist, 39, 40—49.