----

##  The Role of Teachers in Urban School Reform. ERIC/CUE Digest Number             154.                                                                         

A central component of current efforts to improve schools is                    comprehensive school wide reform (CSR), which focuses on changing               teaching and learning through school wide restructuring intended to             impact all aspects of schooling. CSR models now in use around the               country are demonstrating the importance of teachers' contributions             both in effectively implementing a reform model and in using the                model's instructional strategies to improve student achievement.                This digest, based on an extensive review of research on                        comprehensive school wide reform, presents a brief overview of the              role of teachers in CSR. FACTORS DETERMINING TEACHER COMMITMENT TO            REFORMWithout the wide-scale commitment and involvement of the              teachers in a school, implementation of CSR will likely be slow and             incomplete, affecting only a few select teachers and their students             instead of the whole school (Cooper, Slavin, & Madden, 1998; Timar,             1989). As evidence of the importance of teachers' active                        participation in program implementation, many programs require that             at least 80 percent of the school's faculty vote for their model                before they allow the school to adopt it (Stringfield, Ross, &                  Smith, 1996). Teachers who share a vision that large-scale                      fundamental changes in school structure and classroom practice are              necessary to improve student outcomes are likely to support                     implementation of a model, as are those who see implementation of a             model as a major and permanent initiative, instead of just another              passing reform (Bodilly, 1998; Muncey & McQuillan, 1996). 
Active              participation in the choice of the whole-school reform design model             to be used by their school increases teachers' commitment to the                model. Teacher involvement in the selection process also increases              the rate and success of CSR implementation (Bodilly, 1998). In fact,            making teachers partners in the decision-making process from the                outset creates a natural accountability that positively influences              the implementation of the design and is essential to achieving                  successful classroom-level changes; teachers who, conversely,                   perceive top-down decision making are more apt to resist the                    restructuring effort (Ross et al., 1997; Smith et al., 1997). CSR is            most successful when schools have decision-making autonomy in                   administration and instruction (Bodilly & Berends, 1999). 
Good                coordination of program curriculum with Federal, state, and district            requirements, such as student assessments, increases a program's                attractiveness to teachers. Whereas they may be supportive of the               program's learning goals, teachers also need reassurance that using             the model will not impede students' mastery of the skills required              by state-mandated tests or prevent more basic instruction in                    academic skills that at-risk students need (Ross et al., 1997).                 Conventional standardized assessments do not cover many valued                  student outcomes, especially those emphasized by many reform                    models (e.g., higher-order thinking). 
To determine how well a                 program meets its own student achievement goals, teachers can                   develop alternative assessments and/or can benchmark progress based             on student outcomes such as higher attendance rates, lower dropout              and discipline referral rates, and better student post-high school              planning (Gonzalez & Tucker, 1996; MacMullen, 1996). In addition,               many schools have obtained district waivers from traditional school             requirements, but this only calls attention to the tension between              standardized assessments and the curriculum and instructional                   methods of some CSR programs (Darling-Hammond,1997; Heady & Kilgore,            1996). 
Teachers also prefer models that fit with the school's                 overall environment, staffing, and student population, and those                that mesh with reforms already in process, thus increasing the                  coherence of the school's efforts, and requiring less change for                them (Bodilly, 1996; Levin, 1995; Smith et al., 1997). TEACHER                ROLE IN IMPLEMENTATIONSchoolwide reform requires a new vision of            professionalism, where teachers assume a major role and                         responsibility for the schools (Bodilly, 1996). It necessitates                 making fundamental changes in the way instruction is provided, and,             usually, redefining roles and relationships, reconsidering                      allocation of control and resources, and managing conflict                      effectively (Timar, 1989). Implementation of the most ambitious                 models may extend over several years, depending on both school                  factors and the complexity of the model; it requires teachers to                focus on multiple goals, such as governance changes, collaborative              planning, and fundamental changes in curriculum and                             instruction. ALLOCATION OF TIME AND RESOURCESProviding                    teachers with adequate resources for implementation, such as                    materials, professional development, and time for planning, promotes            their support. Districts that give more money to schools for                    professional development and teacher planning tend to have better               implemented CSR designs (Bodilly & Berends, 1999). Not only are                 resources important in themselves, but their allocation is a key                mechanism by which teachers judge the commitment of the school's                leadership to the reform (Bodilly, 1998). 
Having adequate time for            all the work involved has been a consistent and primary frustration             for teachers trying to implement school reforms. They need time for             training, curriculum development, preparation, and planning, and for            interactions with other teachers. Some teachers have, in fact, noted            that time for meeting as a team was critical to the model's                     effectiveness (Ross et al., 1997). 
Allocation of adequate time for            implementation has been problematic in restructuring schools,                   however, largely because it is difficult to predict the amount of               time needed to adopt a school wide reform. Most schools                         underestimate the extent of change and staff involvement required to            implement a design fully, and, thus, the amount of time for                     implementation and the cost of teachers' additional work (Ross et               al., 1997). PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENTProfessional development              is at the heart of school change efforts. Its type, level, and                  quality are linked to successful implementation of CSR                          models (Muncey & McQuillan, 1996). The CSR model's design team needs            to be actively involved at the school to address the fact that                  teachers in the same school vary significantly in the way and the               extent that they implement the school's CSR model (Muncey &                     McQuillan, 1996). The team can also promote teachers' commitment and            adjustment to the implementation of the selected reform                         model. 
Team members provide training in instructional techniques;             suggest new forms of interactions between parents, teachers, and                students that promote cooperation and understanding; and, perhaps               most important, establish collaborative opportunities for                       teachers (Ross et al., 1997). Some models provide development                   through regional facilities, others rely on design team personnel               visits to the local site, and still others rely primarily on written            material. The quality of support and communication between the                  design team and individual schools affects the level of                         implementation and teacher support (Bodilly & Berends,                          1999). 
Teachers in restructuring schools report a preference for              frequent training, proximity to the design developers, and the                  availability of already established sites where they can observe the            program in operation and receive hands-on assistance (Smith et al.,             1997). Professional development tailored to their specific needs is             the most helpful, as are models that provide substantial information            about implementation. Teachers especially want clear information                about the extent of the changes required, the time that                         implementation will take in general, and the time required of them              personally. They also support models whose design teams help them               develop the capacity to envision and plan organizational                        change (Bodilly, 1996; Levin, 1995). SPECIFICITY OF CURRICULUM AND            INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIESSome CSR models are very prescriptive               and provide curricula and assessments (e.g., Success for All), while            other models rely more on the school to develop materials that                  support the philosophy of the reform (e.g., Coalition of Essential              Schools). The models which provide more prescriptive materials,                 curriculum, and assignments have faster implementation                          rates (Bodilly, 1996, 1998; Stringfield et al., 1997). The most                 effective professional development involves school wide training,               facilitators, and extensive training days. 
Several factors                    facilitate the implementation of reform efforts for most teachers,              including provision by the designers of a structured curriculum,                concrete examples of instructional practices reflecting the reform,             and specific, practical mechanisms for achieving the higher                     standards established as a goal. These aids are even more helpful               when they take into consideration the individual needs of the                   school, its particular population, and the experiences of its                   teachers (Smith et al., 1997). 
While teachers who are not given               well-defined guidance in translating the reforms into classroom                 practice often continue to teach as they always did, not all                    teachers agree that very specific guides are desirable. Some reform             models have been criticized precisely because their prescriptive                designs suppress teacher creativity and require an inordinate amount            of time for preparation (Cooper, Slavin, & Madden, 1998; Ross et                al., 1997). And, indeed, some design teams purposely product                    nonprescriptive designs because their model intends to focus on                 general philosophies rather than curriculum. Therefore, a tension               exists among reform models between the importance placed on the                 larger objective or general principles of reform, and teachers'                 needs and desire for specific, practical guidelines (Heady &                    Kilgore, 1996). REFERENCESBodilly, S. (1996). Lessons from New            American Schools Development Corporation's demonstration phase.                 Santa Monica, CA: RAND. (ED 396 377) 
Bodilly, S.J. (1998). Lessons            from New American Schools' scale-up phase: Prospects for bringing               designs to multiple schools. Santa Monica, CA: RAND. (ED 425                    511) 
Bodilly, S., & Berends, M. (1999). Necessary district support            for comprehensive school reform. In G. Orfield, & E.H.                          DeBray (Eds.), Hard work for good schools: Facts not fads in Title I            reform (pp. 111-9). Cambridge: Harvard University, The Civil Rights             Project. 
Cooper, R., Slavin, R.E., & Madden, N.A. (1998, May).                Success for All: Improving the quality of implementation of                     whole-school change through the use of a national reform network.               Education and Urban Society, 30(3), 385-408. (EJ 572                            908) 
Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). The right to learn: A blueprint              for creating schools that work. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass. (ED 418            090) 
Gonzalez, V., & Tucker, C. (1996). Teaching all children to              read: Hoover elementary school. In C. Finnan, E. St. John, J.                   McCarthy, & S. Slovacek (Eds.), Accelerated Schools in action:                  Lessons from the field (pp. 253-72). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin                  Press. (ED 390 180) 
Heady, R., & Kilgore, S. (1996). The modern               red schoolhouse. In S. Stringfield, S.M. Ross, & L. Smith (Eds.),               Bold plans for school restructuring: The New American Schools                   designs (pp. 139-78). Matwah, NJ: Erlbaum. 
Levin, H.M. (1995).                Learning from Accelerated schools. In J.H. Block, S.T. Everson, &               T.G. Guskey (Eds.), School improvement programs: A handbook for                 educational leaders (pp. 267-88). New York: Scholastic. (ED 381                 856) 
MacMullen, M.M. (1996). Taking stock of a school reform                  effort. Occasional Paper Series, No. 2. Providence, RI: Brown                   University, Annenberg Institute for School Reform. 
Muncey, D.E., &            McQuillan, P.J. (1996). Reform and resistance in schools and                    classrooms: An ethnographic view of the Coalition of Essential                  Schools. New Haven: Yale University Press. (ED 399 345) 
Ross,                 S.M., Troutman, A., Horgan, D., Maxwell, S., Laitinen, R., &                    Lowther, D. (1997, March). The success of schools in implementing               eight restructuring designs: A synthesis of first-year evaluation               outcomes. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 8(1),                    95-124. (EJ 542 630) 
Smith, L.J., Maxwell, S., Lowther, D.,                   Hacker, D., Bol, L., & Nunnery J. (1997, March). Activities in                  schools and programs experiencing the most, and least, early                    implementation successes. School Effectiveness and School                       Improvement, 8(1), 125-150. (EJ 542 631) 
Stringfield, S., Ross,               S.M., & Smith, L. (Eds.). (1996). Bold plans for school                         restructuring: The New American Schools designs. Mahwah, NJ:                    Erlbaum. 
Timar, T. (1989, December). The politics of school                   restructuring. Phi Delta Kappan, 71(4), 165-75. (EJ 400                         479) 
----- 
This digest is drawn from a monograph, Making                    Comprehensive School Reform Work, by Laura Desimone, published by               the ERIC Clearinghouse on Urban Education. It is available from the             Clearinghouse for $12, postage included, prepaid. 
----- 
This                Digest was developed by the ERIC Clearinghouse on Urban Education,              with funding from the Office of Educational Research and                        Improvement, U.S. Department of Education, under contract no.                   ED-99-CO-0035.  The opinions in this Digest do not necessarily                  reflect the position or policies of OERI or the Department of                   Education.                                                                   **Title:** The Role of Teachers in Urban School Reform. ERIC/CUE Digest Number             154.                                                                         **Note:** Based on a monograph, "Making Comprehensive School Reform Work," by             Laura Desimone, published by the ERIC Clearinghouse on Urban                    Education ($12).                                                             **Document Type:** Information Analyses---ERIC Information Analysis Products (IAPs) (071); Information Analyses---ERIC Digests (Selected) in Full Text (073); **Available From:** ERIC Clearinghouse on Urban Education, Institute for Urban and                  Minority Education, Box 40, Teachers College, Columbia University,              New York, NY 10027 (free). Tel: 800-601-4868 (Toll free).                    **Descriptors:** Decision Making,  Educational Change, Elementary Secondary                      Education, Integrated Services, Teacher Characteristics,  Teacher               Role, Urban Schools,  Urban Teaching                                         **Identifiers:** ERIC Digests,  Reform Efforts                                                
###
[Return to ERIC Digest Search Page]