Within the following text, educational reform is examined to reveal how and to what extent Ontario secondary teachers (n = 87) have implemented educational changes that had a direct impact on students (n = 396), themselves, and curriculum. Our mixed methods data, while limited in scope, indicated that secondary school teachers were largely content with in-service professional development, resource supplies, and leadership. These new outcomes marked a swing away from the discontent noted in research completed in 2003, as positive indications were found in curriculum planning, teaching, student evaluation, reporting, technology, and the delivery of special education programs. Some areas, such as special education programming, were still viewed as problematic, yet sample teachers were able to support the reforms even though changes required additional planning time and new knowledge in the areas of assessment and technology.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ArchambaultI., JanoszM., MorizotJ., & PaganiL. (2008). Adolescent behavioral, affective, and cognitive engagement in school: Relationship to dropout.Journal of School Health,64, 21–40.
2.
Canadian Council on Learning. (2009). Changing our schools: Implementing successful educational reform.Ottawa, ON: Canadian Council on Learning.
3.
CherryD., & SpiegelJ. (2006). Leadership, myth, and metaphor: Finding common ground to guide effective school change.Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
4.
CreswellJ. (2006). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.
5.
DuignanP. (2006). Educational leadership: Key challenges and ethical tensions.New York: Cambridge University Press.
6.
EarlL. (2003, April). Making sense of intended and unintended influences of policy on people and practices: Secondary school reform in Ontario. Paper presented at CSSE conference, Halifax, NS.
7.
ElmoreR. (2002). Hard questions about practice.Educational Leadership,59, 22–25.
8.
FienH., Kame'enuiE. J., & GoodR. H. (2009). Schools engaged in school-wide reading reform: An examination of the school and individual student predictors of kindergarten early reading outcomes.School Effectiveness and School Improvement,20(1), 1–25.
9.
FullanM. (1994). Change forces: Probing the depths of educational reform.Bristol, PA: Falmer Press.
10.
FullanM. (2008). Six secrets of change: What the best leaders do to help their organizations survive and thrive.San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
11.
GlickmanC., GordonS., & Ross-GordonJ. (2010). SuperVision and instructional leadership: A developmental approach (8th ed.). Boston: Pearson.
12.
HargreavesA., EarlL., MooreS., & ManningS. (2000). Learning to change teaching beyond subjects and standards.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
13.
HanushekE. (1999). Some findings from an independent investigation of the Tennessee STAR experiment and from other investigations of class size effects.Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,21(2), 143–164.
14.
HawleyW. (1988). Missing pieces of the educational reform agenda: Or, why the first and second waves.Educational Administration Quarterly,24, 416–437.
LaskyS., MooreS., & SutherlandS. (2001). Teachers’ experience of mandated reform: Too much pressure too little support.Research in Ontario Secondary Schools,6(4). Retrieved from http://www.oise.utoronto.ca/field-centres/rossindx.htm
18.
LikertR. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes.Archives of Psychology,140, 1–55.
19.
MajhanovichS. (2002). Conflicting visions, competing expectations: Control and deskilling of education—A perspective from Ontario.McGill Journal of Education,37(2), 159–176.
20.
MolinaroV., & DrakeS. (1998). Successful educational reform: Lessons for leaders.International Electronic Journal for Leadership in Learning,2(49). Retrieved from http://www.ucalgary.ca/~iejll/volume2/Molinaro2_9.html
21.
MunceyD. E., & McQuillanP. J. (1993). Education reform as revitalization movement.American Journal of Education,101, 393–431.
22.
NaylorN. (2008, May). Management initiatives in Ontario school boards: Supporting student achievement by minimizing distractors. Paper presented at CSSE conference, Vancouver, BC.
23.
Ontario Ministry of Education. (2007). PPM 139: Revisions to the Ontario secondary schools (OSS) to Support Student Success and Learning to 18. Retrieved from http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/extra/eng/ppm/139.html
RyanT. G., & JoongP. (2005). Teachers’ and students’ perceptions of the nature and impact of a large-scale reforms in Ontario secondary schools.Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, 38.
27.
SahlbergP. (2009). Learning first: School accountability for a sustainable society. In CoutureJ. C., GariepyK. D., & SpencerB. (Eds.), Educational accountability: Professional voices from the field (pp. 1–22). Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense.
28.
UngerleiderC. (2008). Evaluation of the Ontario Ministry of Education's Student Success/Learning to 18 strategy.Canadian Council on Learning.
29.
WidemanR., & ShieldsC. (2007). Beacons to becoming: A qualitative research study of Learning to 18 Lighthouse and rural schools Lighthouse projects.Toronto: Ontario Ministry of Education.
YoungJ., LevinB., & WallinD. (2007). Understanding Canadian schools.Toronto, ON: Nelson.
32.
ZegaracG., & FranzR. (2007, April). Secondary school reform in Ontario and the role of research, evaluation and indicator data. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Education Research Association, Chicago.
