It is a dynamic relationship of exchange. Another key factor in effective practice is whether teachers have the time and assistance to make sense of the reforms they are asked to implement. Teachers are bombarded with reform efforts but are rarely given the opportunity to reflect on them, to understand how to implement the reform in their own local context. What happens then is that teachers are forced to simply layer one reform on the previous one, putting one on top of the other. Rather than layering it, we need to help teachers develop 'laminated' or synthetic, integrated understandings of these reform efforts.
Teachers also report that their work is eclectic.
The result will be a strategic practice with teachers knowing when and how to use their repertoire. This is one aspect of the kind of research I do, providing a deeper understanding of literacy reform. I'm studying the effects of Proposition 227. One preliminary observation is that in districts where multi-lingualism is seen as a resource, as an added value, ways have been found within the law to run effective bilingual literacy programs and, in fact, to improve student learning. That same result is has not been observed in districts that do not value multi-lingualism nor see the home language as a tool for learning.