Fundamental shifts in American educational practices have been difficult to accomplish and sustain. Most reform efforts that have sought to significantly alter accepted patterns of schooling have emerged in practice as shadows of their original intent. This article reviews four perspectives on educational reform that provide insights into the historical paradox of change without difference. None of those previous perspectives, however, adequately accounts for the complexity of the reform process. A new model of educational reform, the Teacher-Centered Systemic Reform (TCSR) model, integrates the previous perspectives and highlights teacher thinking as a central factor shaped by the interdependent influences of the general context of reform, a teacher’s personal profile, and the structural and cultural contexts of teachers’work within embedded systems. The authors provide examples that illustrate how the TCSR provides a more comprehensive framework for the design and evaluation of reform initiatives.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
American Association for the Advancement of Science
. (1989). Project 2061: Science for all Americans. Washington, DC: Author.
2.
Ball, D. L.
(1990). Reflections and deflections of policy: The case of Carol Turner. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12(3), 247-259.
3.
Ball, D. L.
(1991). Research on teaching mathematics: Making subject-matter knowledge part of the equation. In J. Brophy (Ed.), Advances in research on teaching (Vol. 2, pp. 1-48). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
4.
Ball, D. L.
(1994, November 18-20). Developing mathematics reform: What don’t we know about teacher learning—but would make good working hypotheses? Paper prepared for conference on Teacher Enhancement in Mathematics K-6, Arlington, VA.
5.
Battista, M. T.
(1994). Teacher beliefs and the reform movement in mathematics education. Phi Delta Kappan, 2, 462-470.
6.
Beane, J. A.
(1995). Curriculum integration and the disciplines of knowledge. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(8), 616-622.
7.
Borko, H.
, Eisenhart, M., Brown, C. A., Underhill, R. G., Jones, D., & Agard, P. C. (1992). Learning to teach hard mathematics: Do novice teachers and their instructors give up too easily?Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 23(3), 194-222.
8.
Bullough, B.
(1997). “First year teacher” eight years later—An inquiry into teacher development. New York: Teachers College Press.
9.
Clark, C. M.
, & Peterson, P. L. (1986). Teachers’ thought processes. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 255-296). New York: Macmillan.
10.
Cohen, D. K.
(1990). A revolution in one classroom: The case of Mrs. Oublier. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12(3), 327-345.
11.
Cohen, D. K.
, & Ball, D. L. (1990a). Policy and practice: An overview. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12(3), 233-239.
12.
Cohen, D. K.
, & Ball, D. L. (1990b). Relations between policy and practice: A commentary. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12(3), 331-338.
13.
Cooney, T. J.
, & Shealy, B. E. (1997). On understanding the structure of teachers’ beliefs and their relationship to change. In E. Fennema & B. S. Nelson (Eds.), Mathematics teachers in transition (pp. 87-109). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
14.
Crosswhite, F. J.
(1990). National standards: A new dimension in professional leadership. School Science and Mathematics, 90(6), 454-466.
15.
Cuban, L.
(1988). Constancy and change in schools (1880s to the present). In P. W. Jackson (Ed.), Contributing to educational change (pp. 85-105). Berkley, CA: McCutchan.
16.
Cuban, L.
(1993). How teachers taught: Constancy and change in American classrooms 1890-1990 (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.
17.
Davis, R. B.
(1992). Reflections on where mathematics education now stands and on where it may be going. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 724-734). New York: Macmillan.
18.
DeBoer, G. E.
(1991). A history of ideas in science education: Implications for practice.New York: Teachers College Press.
19.
Doyle, W.
(1986). Classroom organization and management. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 392-431). New York: Macmillan.
20.
Feiman-Nemser, S.
, & Floden, R. E. (1986). The cultures of teaching. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 505-526). New York: Macmillan.
21.
Fennema, E.
, Carpenter, T. P., Franke, M. L., Levi, L., Jacobs, V. R., & Empson, S. B. (1996). A longitudinal study of learning to use children’s thinking in mathematics instruction. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27(4), 403-434.
22.
Fennema, E.
, & Franke, M. L. (1992). Teachers’ knowledge and its impact. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 147-164). New York: Macmillan.
23.
Fullan, M. G.
, & Hargreaves, A. (1996). What’s worth fighting for in your school?New York: Teachers College Press.
24.
Fullan, M. G.
, with Stiegelbauer, S. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. New York: Teachers College Press.
25.
Gess-Newsome, J.
(1999). Teachers’knowledge and beliefs about subject matter and its impact on instruction. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge: The construct and its implications for science education. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer.
26.
Gess-Newsome, J.
, & Lederman, N. G. (1995). Biology teachers’perceptions of subject matter structure and its relationship to classroom practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(3), 301-325.
27.
Gess-Newsome, J., Southerland, S. A., Johnston, A., & Woodbury, S. (2001). The interaction of context, content, knowledge, beliefs, and dissatisfaction: Modeling the enactment of reform. Manuscript in review.
28.
Gitlin, A.
, & Margonis, F. (1995). The political aspect of reform: Teacher resistance as good sense. American Journal of Education, 103, 377-405.
29.
Gregg, J.
(1995). The tensions and contradictions of the school mathematics tradition. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 26(5), 442-466.
30.
Grossman, P. L.
, & Stodolsky, S. S. (1995). Content as context: The role of school subjects in secondary school teaching. Educational Researcher, 24(8), 5-11, 23-23.
31.
Hargreaves, A.
(1994). Changing teachers, changing times: Teachers’work and culture in the postmodern age. New York: Teachers College Press.
32.
Hollingsworth, S.
(1989). Prior beliefs and cognitive change in learning to teach. American Educational Research Journal, 26(2), 160-189.
33.
Hunsaker, L.
, & Johnston, M. (1992). Teacher under construction: A collaborative case study of teacher change. American Educational Research Journal, 29(2), 350-372.
34.
Leithwood, K. A.
(1992). The principal’s role in teacher development. In M. Fullan & A. Hargreaves (Eds.), Teacher development and educational change. Bristol, PA: The Falmer Press.
35.
Little, J. W.
(1993). Teachers’professional development in a climate of educational reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15(2), 129-151.
36.
McLaughlin, M. W.
(1990). The Rand change agent study revisited: Macro perspectives and micro realities. Educational Researcher, 19(9), 11-16.
37.
McLaughlin, M. W.
, & Talbert, J. (1993). Contexts that matter for teaching and learning. Stanford, CA: CRC.
38.
McLaughlin, M. W.
, Talbert, J. E., & Bascia, N. (Eds.). (1990). The contexts of teaching in secondary schools: Teachers’realities. New York: Teachers College Press.
39.
Metz, M. H.
(1993). Teachers’ ultimate dependence on their students. In J. W. Little & M. W. McLaughlin (Eds.), Teachers’ work: Individuals, colleagues, and contexts (pp. 104-136). New York: Teachers College Press.
40.
National Center for History in the Schools
. (1996). National standards for history. Los Angeles: Author.
41.
National Commission on Excellence in Education
. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
42.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics
. (1980). An agenda for action: Recommendations for school mathematics of the 1980s. Reston, VA: Author.
43.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics
. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
44.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics
. (1991). Professional standards for teaching mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
45.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics
. (1995). Assessment standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
46.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics
. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
47.
National Research Council
. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
48.
National Science Board Commission on Precollege Education in Mathematics, Science, and Technology
. (1983). Educating Americans for the 21st century. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.
49.
Office of Educational Research & Improvement (OERI)
& Consortium for Policy Research in Education (CPRE). (1998). Policy brief: What the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) means for systematic school improvement. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
50.
Pajares, M. F.
(1992). Teachers’beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307-332.
51.
Peterson, P. L.
, Fennema, E., & Carpenter, T. P. (1991). Teachers’knowledge of students’mathematics problem-solving knowledge. In J. Brophy (Ed.), Advances in research on teaching (Vol. 2, pp. 49-86). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
52.
Posner, G. J.
(1992). Analyzing the curriculum. New York: McGraw-Hill.
53.
Raymond, A. M.
(1997). Inconsistency between a beginning elementary school teacher’s mathematics beliefs and teaching practice. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28(5), 550-576.
54.
Remillard, J. T.
(1995, April). Can tests drive the curriculum? Assessment and state-initiated educational reform. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association annual meeting, San Francisco.
55.
Remillard, J. T.
(1999). Curriculum materials in mathematics education reform: A framework for examining teachers’ curriculum development. Curriculum Inquiry, 29(3), 315-341.
56.
Richardson, V.
(1990). Significant and worthwhile change in teaching practice. Educational Researcher, 19(7), 10-18.
57.
Romberg, T. A.
, & Price, G. G. (1983). Curriculum implementation and staff development as cultural change. In G. A. Griffin (Ed.), Staff development (pp. 154-184). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
58.
Sarason, S. B.
(1982). The culture of the school and the problem of change (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
59.
Sarason, S. B.
(1993). The case for change: Rethinking the preparation of educators. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
60.
Shen, J.
(1998). The impact of alternative certification on the elementary and secondary public teaching force. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 32(1), 9-16.
61.
Siskin, L. S.
(1994). Realms of knowledge: Academic departments in secondary schools. Bristol, PA: Falmer Press.
62.
Smith, J. P.
(1996). Efficacy and teaching mathematics by telling: A challenge for reform. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27(4), 387-402.
63.
Smylie, M. A.
(1988). The enhancement function of staff development: Organizational and psychological antecedents to individual teacher change. American Educational Research Journal, 25(1), 1-30.
64.
Stein, M. K.
, & Wang, M. C. (1988). Teacher development and school improvement: The process of teacher change. Teaching and Teacher Education, 4(2), 171-187.
65.
Talbert, J. E.
, & McLaughlin, M. W. (1993). Understanding teaching in context. In D. K. Cohen, M. W. McLaughlin, & J. E. Talbert (Eds.), Teaching for understanding: Challenges for policy and practice (pp. 167-206). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
66.
Talbert, J. E.
, & Perry, R. (1994, April 4-8). How department communities mediate mathematics and science education reforms. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association annual meeting, New Orleans, LA.
67.
Thompson, A. G.
(1984). The relationship of teachers’conceptions of mathematics and mathematics teaching to instructional practice. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 15, 105-127.
68.
Thompson, A.
(1992). Teachers’ beliefs and conceptions. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 127-146). New York: Macmillan.
69.
Tyack, D. B.
, & Tobin, W. (1994). The “grammar” of schooling: Why has it been so hard to change?American Educational Research Journal, 31(3), 453-479.
70.
U.S. National Research Center for the Third International Mathematics and Science Study. (1997). A splintered vision: An investigation of U.S. science and mathematics education, Executive Summary. Retrieved from http://ustimss.msu.edu
71.
Woodbury, S.
(1997, March 24-28). How do students count in mathematics education reform? A case study of one geometry teacher. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association annual conference, Chicago.
72.
Woodbury, S. (2000). The reform of practice and the practice of reforms: Teachers and change in high school mathematics. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Utah, Salt Lake City.
73.
Woodbury, S. (2001). A situated conceptual change model of teacher change in the context of mathematics education reform. Manuscript in review.
