Frontline professionals (classroom teachers and health and social services professionals) are faced with growing responsibility for implementing an increasing array of reform initiatives. These reforms often require significant changes in (a) governance and decision making; (b) curriculum, instruction, and assessment; and (c) health and social services. At the present time, this phenomenon has received little attention and is poorly understood. This article investigates what is known about the impact of each of these reforms on the working lives of frontline professionals, speculates about how these reforms might interact with each other as they converge on the school, and describes potential responses by frontline professionals. In conclusion, the authors propose three lines of inquiry that could inform policy makers as they respond to the needs of frontline professionals.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Allington, R. L.
, & Johnson, P. (1989). Coordination, collaboration, and curricular coherence. In R. Slavin, N. Madden, & N. Karweit (Eds.), Effective educational programs for at-risk children (pp. 320-354). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
2.
Bamburg, J.
(1995, October). Reforms in curriculum, instruction, and assessment: A look at the working lives of teachers. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the University Council of Educational Administration, Salt Lake City, UT.
3.
Bamburg, J.
, Knapp, M. S., Hill, P. T., & Ferguson, M. (1996). Education reforms and the working lives of teachers and other human services professionals. Seattle: University of Washington, Human Services Policy Center.
4.
Behrman, R. E. (Ed.). (1992). School-linked services. The Future of Children, 2(1).
5.
Bimber, B.
(1994). The decentralization mirage-Comparing decision making arrangements in four high schools. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
6.
Bryk, A. S.
, Easton, J. Q., Kerbow, D., Rollow, S. G., & Sebring, P. A. (1993). A viewfrom the elementary schools: The state of reform in Chicago. Chicago: The Consortium on Chicago Schools Research.
7.
Bryk, A. S.
, Easton, J. Q., Kerbow, D., Rollow, S. G., & Sebring, P. A. (1994). The state of Chicago school reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 1(1), 74-78.
8.
Clune, W.
(1993). The best path to systemic educational policy: Standard/centralized or differentiated/decentralized? Educational Evaluation & Policy Analysis, 15(3), 233-254.
9.
Cohen, D. K.
, & Ball, D. L. (1990). Relations between policy and practice: A commentary. Educational Evaluation & Policy Analysis,12(3), 331-338.
10.
Crowson, R. L.
, & Boyd, W. L. (1993). Coordinated services for children: Designing arks for storms and seas unknown. American Journal of Education, 101, 140-179.
11.
David, J.
(1996). The who, what, and why of site-based management. Educational Leadership, 53(4), 4-9.
12.
Dryfoos, J. G.
(1994). Full-service schools: A revolution in health and social services for children, youth, and families. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
13.
Education Commission of the States.
(1995). The new American urban school. Denver, CO: Author.
14.
Elmore, R.
(1995). Structural reform in educational practice. Educational Researcher, 24, 23-26.
15.
Fuhrman, S.
(Ed.). (1993). Designing coherent educational policies: Improving the system. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
16.
Gaston, M.
, & Brown, S. (1995). School restructuring and school-linked services: Working together for students and families. San Francisco: The Stuart Foundations.
17.
Grant, S. G.
, Peterson, P. L., & Shojgreen-Downer, A. (1996). Learning to teach mathematics in the context of systemic reform. American Educational Research Journal, 33, 509-541.
18.
Hargreaves, A.
(1996). Revisiting voice. Educational Researcher, 25, 12-19.
19.
Hill, P. T.
, & Bonan, J. (1991). Decentralization and accountability in public education. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
20.
Hill, P. T.
, & Bryk, A. S. (1995). Cross-site analysis of school system decentralization. Chicago: The Consortium on Chicago Schools Research and the University of Washington Institute for Public Policy and Management.
21.
Kimbrough, J.
, & Hill, P. (1980). The aggregate effects of federal education programs. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
22.
Knapp, M. S.
(1997). Between systemic reform and the mathematics and science classroom: The dynamics of innovation, implementation, and professional learning. Review of Education Research, 67, 227-266.
23.
Knapp, M. S.
, & Ferguson, M. C. (1995, October). Integrated services reforms and the front-line professional. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the University Council of Educational Administration, Salt Lake City, UT.
24.
Knapp, M. S.
, Steams, M. S., Turnbull, B. J., David, J. L., & Peterson, S. M. (1991). Cumulative effects of federal education policies at the local level. In A. R. Odden (Ed.), Educational policy implementation (pp. 105-124). Albany: State University of New York Press.
25.
Lawson, H. A.
, & Hooper-Briar, K. (1996). Conceptual mapping of relationships between school reform and school-linked services. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York.
26.
Levy, J. E.
, & Shepardson, W. (1992). A look at current school-linked service efforts. The Future of Children, 2, 46-50.
27.
Lipsky, M.
(1980). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
28.
Little, J. W.
(1990). The persistence of privacy: Autonomy and initiative in teachers' professional relations. Teachers College Record, 91, 509-536.
29.
Little, J. W.
, & McLaughlin, M. W. (Eds.). (1993). Perspectives on cultures and contexts of teaching. In Teachers' work: Individuals, colleagues, and contexts (pp. 1-8). New York: Teachers College Press.
30.
Malen, B.
, Ogawa, R. T., & Kranz, J. (1990). What do we know about school based management? A case study of the literature-A call for research. In W. H. Clune & J. F. Witte (Eds.), Choice and control in American education (Vol. 2, pp. 289-342). Bristol, PA: Falmer.
31.
McLaughlin, M. W.
, & Shepard, L. A. (1995). Improving education through standards-based reform: A report by the National Academy of Education panel on standards-based education reform. Washington, DC: National Academy of Education.
32.
Melaville, A. I.
, Blank, M. J., & Asayesh, G. (1993). Together we can: A guide to crafting conununity-based, family-centered strategies for integrating education and human services. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research & Improvement, U.S. Department of Education.
33.
Metz, M. H.
(1993). Teachers' ultimate dependence on their students. In J. W. Little & M. W. McLaughlin (Eds.), Teachers' work: Individual, colleagues, and contexts (pp. 104-136). New York: Teachers College Press.
34.
National Science Foundation.
(1994). Foundation for the future: The systemic cornerstone. Washington, DC: Author.
35.
O'Day, J.
(1995). Systemic reform in California. In M. E. Goertz, R. E. Floden, & J. O'Day (Eds.), Studies of education reform: Systemic reform: Vol. 2. Case studies (pp. 1-38). Newark, NJ: Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey, Center for Policy Research in Education.
36.
Page, R.
(1995). Who systematizes the systematizes? Policy and practice interactions in a case of state-level systemic reform. Theory into Practice, 34, 21-29.
37.
Purnell, S.
, & Hill, P. (1992). Time for reform. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
38.
Rosenholtz, S. J.
(1989). Teachers' workplace: The social organization of schools. New York: Teachers College Press.
39.
Sebring, P.
(1995). Charting reform: Chicago teachers take stock. Chicago: The Consortium on Chicago Schools Research.
40.
Smith, M.
, & O'Day, J. (1990). Systenmic school reform. In S. Fuhrman & B. Malen (Eds.), The politics of curriculum and testing (pp. 233-267). London: Falmer Press.
41.
Smrekar, C.
(1994). The missing link in school-linked social service programs. Educational Evaluation & Policy Analysis, 16, 422-433.
42.
Stone, C.
(1993). School-community collaboration: Comparing three initiatives. Madison, WI: Center on Organization and Restructuring of Schools.
43.
Sykes, G.
, & Plastrik, P. (1993). Standard setting as educational reform: Trends and issues. Paper No. 8. Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Teacher Education, American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education.
44.
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: Issues for policy and practice (pp. 167-206). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
45.
Wilson, S. M.
, Peterson, P. L., Ball, D. L., & Cohen, D. K. (1996). Learning by all. Phi Delta Kappan, 77, 468-477.
