The Changing Role of the Teacher

The

Instructional Coherence

Changing Role of the Teacher

© September, 2000 Southwest Educational Development Laboratory

This publication was produced wholly, or in part, withfunds from the Office of Educational Research andImprovement (OERI), U. S. Department of Education,under contract #RJ96006801. The content herein doesnot necessarily reflect the views of OERI, theDepartment, any other agency of the U. S. Government,or any other source.

Instructional Coherence: The Changing Role of theTeacher is a product of the Promoting InstructionalCoherence Project in the Program for the Improvementof Teaching and Learning. This project assists educatorsin constructing a comprehensive approach to teachingand learning. To contact the Promoting InstructionalCoherence Project, please call us at 1-800-476-6861 orwrite to us at SEDL, 211 East Seventh Street, Austin,Texas 78701. You may also send email to StephenMarble, Program Manager, [email protected].

SEDL is an Equal Employment Opportunity/AffirmativeAction Employer and is committed to affording equalemployment opportunities for all individuals in allemployment matters.

Photos on cover and page 5 ©PhotoDiscPhotos on pages 2-6, 12, and 18 ©ComstockPhotos on pages 3, 9, and 11 ©Eyewire ImagesGraphic Design: Jane Thurmond

Southwest Educational Development Laboratory211 East Seventh StreetAustin, Texas 78701(512) 476-6861http://www.sedl.org

The science curriculum guide says to cover electricityand magnetism, but gives little specific guidance forsomeone like Sonia, a second-year teacher with littlescience background. She has the batteries and bulbsbox (from the district’s materials center) and thinksthe hands-on activities and worksheets in the box willbe a good way to start an electricity unit. She directsher students to pair up, get their materials and work-sheets, and work on the tasks outlined on the work-sheets. Most of the students quickly figure out how todo the tasks, and Sonia reminds them to answer thequestions on the worksheet. The students are enjoy-ing the activities. Some visit other groups to see different strategies, and others extend the ideas byusing a metal button or two bulbs. Suddenly, Soniacollects the materials and tells the students to get outtheir science textbooks. They read aloud from thetextbook that uses many scientific terms, and Soniadoes not refer back to the activities. She gives thestudents a reading assignment and questions toanswer for homework.

The students were getting noisy, not following theworksheet, and asking questions Sonia felt unpre-pared to answer. She became unsure of what washappening, so she gathered up the materials andwent back to the textbook. Sonia says that the curriculum and standards documents don’t reallyhelp her decide how to teach electricity. She knowsshe should use more student-centered hands-onactivities, but she doesn’t know how to make it workin her classroom. She is confused and disappointedbecause she knows the lesson was incoherent anddid not help students understand the topic.

Table of Contents

Calls for Reform1

Directions of Change5

A Focus on Studentand Teacher Learning11

Conclusion19

References Cited21

Sandra J. Finley, Ph.D.

Southwest Educational Development Laboratory

September, 2000

The

Instructional Coherence

Changing Role of the Teacher

The Changing Role of the Teacher

his is not an uncommon scenario.Teachers are facing an avalanche of

frequently disconnected calls to reform, to dothings differently. The pressure to changepractice may come from many sources at thesame time: state adoption of new studentassessments, school participation in a reformprogram, and advocacy of new teaching strate-gies by a workshop presenter or professionalorganization. The viewpoints of various educational “experts” about teaching, learning,and classroom practice are often inconsistentor even contradictory. In coming to grips withinnovation and reform, teachers like Sonia arechallenged to understand new theories oflearning, new approaches to teaching, newpolicies, and a changing social context thataffects students and communities.

Some teachers strive to “make sense” ofboth the inconsistencies and the new ideaswhen they make daily instructional decisions.Sometimes they are successful and create qual-ity learning experiences for their students;sometimes they throw up their hands in frustration. Many other teachers make theirdecisions based on their immediate needs tocomply, survive, conform, or meet a time constraint. They follow the textbook, teach tothe test, give students worksheets to keepthem occupied, or do the same lessons yearafter year. Most teachers follow this easierpathway at least some of the time. However,this path often leads teachers to unintentionallycreate learning environments that are not fulfilling for either students or the teacher.

Despite the literally thousands of efforts toimprove schools since World War II, few have

T had significant or enduring effects on instruc-tion and student learning (Cohen & Ball,1999). A recent review of federally-fundedresearch suggests that researchers, educators,and reformers now understand that “whencurriculum, instructional materials, and assess-ments are all focused on the same goals—that is, when the policy systems that frameeducation are coherent—the prospects foreducational improvement are enhanced”(Koppich & Knapp, 1998, p. 2). However,translating policy coherence into improvedinstructional coherence and student learningseems more elusive and complex than antici-pated. As long as reform ideas continue toconfuse and frustrate teachers, can we expectsignificant and enduring improvement ininstruction and student learning?

In this paper, we show that policymakersand researchers have changed their viewsabout school improvement and the role ofteachers in the process. We suggest that edu-cational reform initiatives challenge classroomteachers to make sense of new policies, ideas,programs, and their own work. We also note,however, that teachers should receive morehelp in their efforts as new conceptions ofreform and teachers’ learning become morepopular. Finally, we propose that supportingteachers in their development of a stancetoward their practice that is focused on learn-ing and learners can promote instructionalcoherence and improved student learning.Specifically, we examine six dimensions ofteachers’ work: knowledge, professionalism,collaboration, instruction, agency, and authority.

hile some teachers may remain isolatedfrom the influence of current school

improvement efforts, most probably find it difficult to avoid the issue. Reform is a majortopic at state and national conferences, in professional and popular journals, in work-shops and courses, and on national televisionnews programs. Educational professionals andothers with an interest in education arerethinking educational practice. Why is theresuch an emphasis on school reform at thistime? Over the past 50 years, the push to dramatically change schooling has usuallycome in response to some perceived problemthat is blamed on the failure of public schoolsto educate students.

The Launch of Sputnik

The launch of Sputnik by the Russians in 1957was a wake-up call for Americans to questionthe quality of their schools, in particular, theability of schools to produce scientists andengineers to meet the challenges of the spaceage and the cold war. In response, the U. S.Congress drastically increased funding to theNational Science Foundation (NSF), which inturn funded science and mathematics curricu-lum projects and summer teacher-training institutes. An implied goal of the curriculumprojects was to “identify talent and improve theeducation of elite students” (Ravitch, 1995, p. 48).

This reform was a top-down federallyfunded effort. To take the case of the NSF science curriculum projects, professional scientists and science educators developed thescience curricula and schools and teachers hadlittle input. The new materials were designedto be “teacher-proof” and were a significantdeparture from materials teachers had beenusing. While there was a sense of excitementand energy among a fairly elite group of scientists, science educators, selected scienceteachers, and talented science students, others

1

Calls for Reformfelt overwhelmed, con-fused, or simply unin-volved. The legacy ofthe period is still withus in the form of the“stuff” of the projects—hands-on, inquiry-based science activitiesfor students. However,by 1975, much of thefederal involvement inpre-college mathemat-ics and science educa-tion was withdrawn,and the shift in educa-tion was “back to thebasics” with a spreadof “minimum compe-tency testing in dozensof states” (Ravitch,1995, p. 49).

A Nation at Risk

Most educators agree that the 1983 publicationof A Nation at Risk by the NationalCommission on Excellence in Education wassimilar in many respects to the launch ofSputnik—a new call for school reform. Thisreport questioned the ability of the U. S. tocompete in the global economy due to the “ris-ing tide of mediocrity in our schools” (NationalCommission on Excellence in Education, 1983,p. 5). It described our curriculum as diffuse,our expectations for students as low, and ourstudents’ test scores as declining. The reportspurred a decade of activity as “proponents ofreform began to make a close link between thefinancial security and economic competitive-ness of the nation and our educational system”(Marzano & Kendall, 1996, p. 2).

The Excellence Movement, the first waveof reform following publication of A Nation atRisk, saw states increasing high school gradua-tion requirements, adding more time to the

W

Calls for Reform

2 The Changing Role of the Teacher

school year, instituting new statewide testingprograms, offering more Advanced Placementcourses, promoting classroom use of technolo-gy, and establishing new teacher evaluationprograms (Tirozzi & Uro, 1997). In otherwords, the initial response was to do more, notto do things differently (DuFour & Eaker,1998). By the late 1980s, enrollment inadvanced classes had increased and perfor-mance in math and science had shown modest gains. This wave of reform was seen asan encouraging effort by some (Finn &Ravitch, 1996), but others considered it a failure (DuFour & Eaker). Student performancein reading and other subjects remained low,the performance gap between white andminority students was unacceptably large, andemployers and colleges reported that it was necessary to provide remedial courses ortraining for high school graduates (Finn &Ravitch; Tirozzi & Uro).

Large-scale national and international studies and assessments1 provided empiricalevidence that U. S. students were still not performing well compared to students in manyother countries. Overall achievement scores byU. S. students were disappointingly average, afact that caused concern since the U. S. economy was becoming more tied than everto global competition.

Governors’ Education Summit

Growing concerns about the academic preparation of students prompted the nation’sgovernors to hold the 1989 CharlottesvilleEducation Conference. A call was issued forboth states and the federal government to takea significant role in improving education. Thegovernors affirmed that education is a state’sresponsibility and a local function, but chargedthe federal government with providing finan-cial assistance, leadership, and support for anational school improvement framework. Thissecond wave of reform involved “raising acad-emic standards; measuring student and schoolperformance against those standards; provid-ing schools and educators with the tools, skills,and resources to prepare students to reach thestandards; and holding schools accountable forthe results” (Tirozzi & Uro, 1997, p. 242).

The educational summit set the stage fortwo parallel efforts. The first was the move-ment to establish national educational goalsand standards. President Bush announced sixnational education goals in his 1990 State ofthe Union address. One goal was for the U. S.to be first in the world in mathematics and science achievement by the year 2000 andanother set the stage for establishing contentstandards. The general consensus was thatstandards should reflect high expectations,provide focus and direction, and be national(not federal), voluntary (not mandatory), anddynamic (not static). A new system of multipleassessments should developed that were voluntary and developmental (Ravitch, 1995).Mathematics standards, released by theNational Council of Teachers of Mathematics(NCTM) in 1989, preempted the public mandate for standards and served as a modelfor other professional organizations to developstandards in their content areas (Marzano &Kendall, 1996).

The Goals 2000 legislation provided theimpetus, the rationale and, in some cases, the funding to support efforts of states and

1 Examples of these studies include the NationalAssessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) givensince 1970, the Second International MathematicsStudy (SIMS) conducted in 1982, and the InternationalAssessment of Educational Progress (IAEP) conductedin 1991.

3Calls for Reform

professional groups to develop standards.Other governmental and non-governmentalagencies provided additional leadership andfunding in the effort. Goals 2000, with its focuson high expectations and achievement resultsfor all students, became both a national flag torally around and a source of funding thatenabled standards-based school reform to gainmomentum. By the late 1990s, professionalorganizations had developed standards in all content areas, and most states had adoptedor revised standards for at least the major content areas.

At the same time, a second movementsought to address the previous failure of top-down reforms by giving local schools greaterautonomy. The Restructuring Movement advo-cated site-based management, which placedgreater decision-making authority in the handsof principals, teachers, and parents as opposedto district-level administrators (Bell, 1993).There was the expectation that school-basededucators would embrace this movementbecause they would have more power to initi-ate and oversee changes in their schools andrespond in unique and creative ways to localissues (DuFour & Eaker, 1998). However,Newmann and Wehlage (1995) reported that inthe majority of cases, school practitionersfocused on peripheral issues that did notdirectly impact student learning, issues such asstudent discipline and parent involvement.

Talking about the reforms of the early1990s, DuFour and Eaker (1998) concludedthat

The paired concepts of establishingnational goals and providing localautonomy to achieve these goalsseemed to offer a viable alternative tothe failed Excellence Movement.National goals could address a nation-al crisis, while job-site autonomy andindividual empowerment seemed tobe consistent with best practice in theprivate sector….Unfortunately, restruc-turing seems to have left students virtually untouched by the reforms thatswirl around, but not within, theirclassrooms. So the RestructuringMovement, like the ExcellenceMovement before it, has been unableto make a real difference in the abilityof American schools to meet the challenges they face. (p. 6, 9)

DuFour and Eaker suggested that the lack ofexpected large-scale successes of these reformefforts has left many feeling “despair about thepossibility of school improvement in theUnited States” (p. 9). Teachers, they go on tosay, have responded with growing defensive-ness and resignation; some education writershave challenged the very premise that schoolsare ineffective. However, other educators haveredoubled their efforts to improve schools,especially in light of the most recent interna-tional assessment of student performance.

The Changing Role of the Teacher4

Third International Mathematics andScience Study (TIMSS)

The 1995-96 Third International Mathematicsand Science Study (TIMSS) provided evidencethat the nation has not yet reached its goal ofbeing first in the world in mathematics and science achievement. TIMSS tested studentsfrom 41 nations at three educational levels tocompare math and science achievement.Achievement results for U. S. students weremixed. Fourth graders scored above the international average in both subjects, eighthgraders scored below the international averagein mathematics and above the average in science, and students in their final year of highschool scored below the international averagein both subjects.

The TIMSS achievement data supportedthe push of the standards movement into theaccountability phase. Many states have devel-oped high-stakes testing for students and forschools. Schools and teachers are seeingschool report cards printed in the newspapersdetailing student performance on the statetests and comparing schools in a district or districts in a state. High school students inmany states must pass an exam in order tograduate, and schools and teachers are beingheld accountable for student achievement.

The study also examined student andteacher perceptions, curricula, instruction, andpolicy issues to understand the educationalcontext in which teaching and learning takeplace. The study found that the U. S. curriculainclude more topics than those used in othercountries and that the content of U. S. mathematics classes requires less high-level mathematical thought than classes in Germanyand Japan. The goal for most U. S. mathematics

teachers is to teach students how to do something whereas the goal for Japaneseteachers is to help students understand concepts. Teaching practices of Japaneseteachers are more aligned with recommenda-tions from U. S. mathematics reformers thanthe practices of U. S. teachers. Coupled withthe achievement data, these results were seenby many as a call to adjust the content beingtaught in U. S. classrooms and to supportteachers’ learning of the teaching strategiesadvocated by reformers.

TIMSS qualitative data also showed that,unlike teachers in the U. S., new Japanese andGerman teachers undergo long-term structuredapprenticeships, and Japanese teachers havemore opportunities to discuss teaching-relatedissues with their colleagues on a routine basisthroughout their careers. Research studies inthis country support the importance of colle-giality, mentoring, teacher inquiry, and teacherreflection as new professional developmentstrategies to improve schools. While the rela-tionship between professional developmentand student performance has not been ade-quately studied, early evidence suggests theyare positively related and has supported policychanges (Cohen & Hill, 1998). New state poli-cies include adopting standards for teaching;providing induction support for new teachers;providing resources and guidance for school-based professional development; encouraging mission development, planning, and collabora-tion among school staff; and facilitating school-level autonomy (Hirsch, Koppich, & Knapp,1998).

So, rather than slowing down, the efforts toimprove schools seem to be progressing at afurious pace. However, the focus of newefforts is changing, as is the perception of theteacher’s role in reform and in the reformedclassroom. In the next section, we will exam-ine this change in direction and look at whatneeds to happen to improve classroom teach-ing and learning given that much of the workat the policy level has been completed.

5Directions of Change

ver the past few decades, many differentperspectives, ideas, opinions, philoso-

phies, and policies have been presented asreform. National, state, district, and local agencies all make educational policy, leadingone researcher to say that “the latter half of thetwentieth century probably witnessed theenactment of more education policies—maybe several times more—than the wholeprior history of schooling back to ancientGreeks” (Loveless, 1998, p. 283). In addition,an astounding number of groups have beeninvolved in changing curriculum, instruction,assessment, graduation requirements, commu-nity involvement, school structure, teachereducation, and the list goes on. For teachers, itis not easy to decide which directives to listento and follow. When making these decisions,teachers may try to respond to too manydiverse messages and dilute the effect of anyone idea. They may choose to listen to themessages of only one reform effort and missopportunities to provide students with moreeffective educational experiences. Or theymay become confused and resentful andrefuse to listen to any of the new messages(Knapp, 1997).

McDermott (2000) states that it is alsocommon for policies and programs to be partially implemented because of the numberof institutional interests to be served. Politicaland public pressures increase the propensityfor partial implementation to continue.

Additionally, high staff turnovermakes it difficult to apply policyconsistently andchanges in schooladm in i s t r a t i onoften result in termination of pro-grams associatedwith the previousadministration.

Directions of ChangeO

Are there any clear directions emerging inthe area of school improvement? Cohen andHill (1998) note that by the mid 1980s,

researchers and reformers had begunto argue for more intellectually ambi-tious instruction. They contended thatteaching and learning should be moredeeply rooted in the disciplines andmuch more demanding. Reformers alsobegan to argue that schools should orient their work to the results that students achieve rather than theresources that schools receive. (p. 1)

They go on to say that by the early 1990s,“many states were moving more forcefully oninstruction, and many sought coordinatedchange in instructional frameworks, curricu-lum, and assessment” (p. 1).

So, the focus of reform is becoming moreclearly aimed at improving instruction and student learning. One strategy of the lastdecade was the push for coherence in educa-tional policy with the expectation that alignedpolicy would result in better teaching andlearning. As this strategy proved less effectivethan hoped, the focus has shifted to teachersand their preparation, high-quality teaching,and teacher learning.


The Systemic Approach to School Reform

Systemic school reform, a national focus foreducational improvement during the early1990s, was promoted to address the lack ofcohesion typical of previous reform periods.According to this approach, the direction forreform is provided by a common visioninformed by “underlying values concerningintellectually stimulating and engaging education for all students” and a set of goals(standards and benchmarks) that can be communicated and measured (CPRE, 1991, p. 6). Key policies are aligned to support outcome expectations (student learning goals).Finally, the governance system is restructuredto give schools more flexibility in meeting student needs (CPRE, 1991; Fuhrman, 1993).

Systemic reform, thus, is a policy approachto school improvement that emphasizes highstandards, aligned assessments, an account-ability system, and site-based management.Fuhrman explained that the approach was“built around two supremely logical notions:societal decision about outcome goals andcoordination of important policy instruments”(1993, p. 3). Both the scope and coherence ofthe efforts and the balance between state and

local controls distinguish this approach toreform from those of previous decades. Usingthe establishment of performance-based stan-dards as the organizing principle, policymak-ers could evaluate all aspects of the system tosee if they promoted the desired outcomes(Blank & Pechman, 1995).

In her book, Designing CoherentEducational Policy: Improving the System(1993), Fuhrman shared her understanding ofcoherent policy:

The idea of coherent policy is not consistency for its own sake but consistency in service of specific goalsfor student learning. Coherent policymeans giving a sense of direction tothe educational system by specifyingpolicy purposes...it means establishinghigh-quality goals about what studentsshould know and be able to do andthen coordinating policies that link tothe goals. (p. xi)

Systemic reform is based on severalpremises: that a major constraint on the quali-ty of teaching is the lack of alignment amongelements of the system; that better teachingwill result when there is alignment with chal-lenging standards; that the lack of alignment isbest addressed at the level at which policiesare set; and that systemic reform strategies arenot incompatible with local discretion (Knapp,1997). In the early 1990s, it seemed that theteacher had little direct role in the reformprocess. The objective was to provide instruc-tional guidance without actually involving theteacher very much.

Initially, some of the new state and profes-sional standards documents contributed to theproblems they were supposed to solve bybeing so “bloated and poorly written…thatalmost no one can realistically teach to or everhope to adequately assess” them (Schmoker &Marzano, 2000, p. 19). However, these authorscontend that “clear, intelligible standards are a


pillar of higher achievement” (p. 19). Theyexplain,

Standards—when we get them right—will give us the results we want…Thelesson of TIMSS should considerablydiminish the perceived risk of down-sizing the curriculum. The very natureof organizations argues that we succeed when all parties are rowing inthe same direction. We will realize thepromise of school reform when weestablish standards and expectationsfor reaching them that are clear, notconfusing; essential, not exhaustive.(p. 21)

The question was, could state and nationalagencies use aligned instructional policies—assessments, curriculum frameworks, andallocation of resources—to steer teaching andlearning in faraway classrooms (Cohen & Hill,1998).

In a study of the influence of systemicpolicy on mathematics and science teaching,Knapp (1997) noted that the visions of teach-ing and learning embedded in the reforms arebuilt around sophisticated and complex ideas,such as constructivism and teaching forunderstanding. The teacher is assumed to be“the last link in the chain of influence frompolicy to learning event, that is, the final‘agent’ of policy, as well as a target of policy,”and classroom practice is assumed to be“under the control of teachers and in somedegree reachable by policy” (Knapp, p. 233).Systemic reform has brought a philosophy ofinstruction, content goals, and new concep-tions of the learner to the attention of publicand professional audiences (Knapp). Systemicreform has affected requirements and profes-sional ideas, but there has been relatively little investment in building and sustainingsupport systems for long-term teacher learning (Knapp).

Other researchers have noted similarresults. Cohen (1995) found that new policieshave generated awareness, but have had amore limited effect on the incorporation ofnew ideas into practice. He suggests that thesystemic reform approach has assumed thatinstruction is a homogeneous and unified system that can be driven by policy when, infact, instruction includes several related sys-tems, and changes in one may not producechanges in the others. He concluded thatcoherence in policy is very different fromcoherence in practice.

Over time, systemic work at the policylevel has come to emphasize the importanceof whole-school reforms as opposed to individual-focused remediation (Koppich &Knapp, 1998). New programs and policieshave focused on a teacher’s role as a schoolstaff member, with responsibility to participatein collective problem solving, decision mak-ing, and program implementation. However,developing the capacity of school staffs towork this way has not been adequatelyaddressed (Koppich & Knapp).

Fullan (1996) noted that it is easier to iden-tify effective system changes in the top half, orpolicy level, of the system—development ofgoals, curriculum frameworks, and alignedassessments—than in the bottom half, orclassroom level, of the system. And indeed,the policy work appears fairly complete acrossthe states, especially with regard to the devel-opment and alignment of standards, assess-ments, and accountability systems. This policywork should help stimulate movement towarddefined, desirable goals among school staffsand reduce conflicts among policies that directlocal educators. However, the lack of attentionto professional development has created abarrier to implementing the changes in prac-tice advocated by the major reform documents(Thompson & Zeuli, 1999). Policy work “hasnot yet provided coherent, effective guidanceon how to improve instruction in the UnitedStates” (CRPE, 1996, p. 1).


Providing Teachers with Opportunities to Learn

Policy changes have often ignored the bottomhalf of the system—the teachers in the class-room. Even when a new policy or programinvolves new curricular materials and teacher“training” sessions, the conditions for teachersto learn about or develop the knowledge,skills, and beliefs needed to understand thepolicy or program are rarely adequate (Cohen& Ball, 1999). Reformers have begun to realizethe severe consequences of ignoring teacherlearning, and newer strategies have directedmore attention to providing teachers withopportunities to learn. The federally fundedComprehensive School Reform DemonstrationProject (CSRD) established by Congress in1998, for example, stresses teacher learning asa major component. Even curriculum develop-ers are now producing materials that are more“educative” for teachers with opportunities forteacher learning embedded in the use of thematerials, or are using a design/redesignapproach to develop materials in conjunctionwith the teachers who are enacting the curriculum.

Cohen and Hill (1998) developed a modelof the relationship between policy and practice, based on their study of California’ssystemic math reform.

Students’ achievement is the ultimatedependent measure of instructionalpolicy, and teachers’ practice is bothan intermediate dependent measure ofpolicy enactment and a direct influ-ence on students’ performance.Teachers, therefore, figure in themodel as a key connection betweenpolicy and practice. Teachers’ opportu-nities to learn what the policy impliesfor instruction is a crucial influence ontheir practice, and at least an indirectinfluence on student achievementthrough teachers’ practice. (p. 2)

California state policymakers “made availablenew and better student curriculum units; theyencouraged professional development aroundthese units and reform ideas more generally;and they used the state assessment programboth as an example of and as incentive towardchange” (p. 24). Cohen and Hill concludedthat teaching practice and student learning willimprove in the direction proposed by statepolicy when there is both alignment of curriculum, assessment, and professionaldevelopment focused on teaching and learn-ing academic content and provision of adequate opportunities for teachers to under-stand and internalize the changes.

Another study of the same curriculumreform effort found that teachers constructeddifferent understandings of the policy documents and enacted them in quite differentways, leading the researchers to conclude thatteacher learning is more complex than simpleaccess to opportunities to learn about reform(Grant, Peterson, & Shojgreen-Downer, 1996).Others have noted that while new programsclearly favor student-centered learningapproaches, reformers most often “pursuetheir goals by being directive with teachers inways that they discourage teachers from beingwith children” (Loveless, 1998, p. 288). Theymay provide professional development that isaligned, coherent, and sustained, but theyrarely stray from standard presentational ortraining modes. They thus sustain the view of“knowledge as facts and skills, teaching astelling, and learning as remembering”(Thompson & Zeuli, 1999, p. 353).

Wilson, Peterson, Ball, and Cohen (1996)studied systemic reform in three states. Theyconcluded that reform-related learning is bestfacilitated when concrete classroom examplesand experiences are used to ground the con-versation about practice; inquiry and reflectionare components of the learning; people fromdifferent parts of the system come to the tableto talk together; and all of the actors viewthemselves as learners. Whereas much of this


work started by examining the enactment ofspecific reforms, it has led these researchersand others to develop a broader view of professional development as teacher learning.

Improving the Quality of Teachingthrough Teacher Learning

The current wave of school reform is thusfocused on “improving the quality of teachingthrough, for example, better teacher prepara-tion and higher quality, more relevant profes-sional development” (Hirsch, Koppich, &Knapp, 1998, p. i). Changes in the views ofhow students construct knowledge have influ-enced the understanding of how teacherslearn about teaching. The vision of schools asprofessional learning communities is alsoimportant in this context, and the social orga-nization of instruction—collegiality and collab-oration—is now more commonly described asan important element in building new capaci-ty for school improvement (CPRE, 1996).

Much of the conversation and literatureabout school improvement places an empha-sis on learning—student learning and teacherlearning—as the focus or lens for decision-making about teaching practice. The view oflearning that has been widely accepted by theeducational research community in recentyears is the constructivist view. Constructivismis a multifaceted theory that suggests thatknowledge is personally and actively con-structed by the individual through experienceand language; the learner constructs meaningby making connections between previousexperiences and conceptions and the newlearning situation; and social interaction isessential for learning to take place as studentsdiscuss and test their ideas with other learners.Students are, thus, better able to constructmeaning and to develop deep understandingwhen teachers create opportunities for students to have hands-on experiences, to gointo depth on important topics, to work with

other students in varied groupings, to makereal-world connections, to purposefully accesstheir own prior knowledge, and to integrateconcepts across subjects.

This view of learning is a radical departurefrom the behaviorist view of learning that wasprevalent when many of today’s teachers werepreservice students. Since a theory of learningessentially drives the development of teachingpractice, understanding constructivist ideasrequires teachers to engage with new ideas,reflect on their practice, and to deeply rethinkteaching, learning, and the teacher’s role in theclassroom. In the past, teacher learning hasbeen primarily additive learning that augmentsthe teacher’s repertoire with new skills. Thekind of teacher learning that reformers arenow talking about is quite different. It is “trans-formative” learning that produces changes indeeply held beliefs, knowledge, and habits ofpractice (Thomson & Zeuli, 1999). Cohen andBall (1999) are describing this kind of learningwhen they said that if we can “enable teachersto change what they see in students’ work”(italics added, p. 9), then we are likely to seedistinctive changes in teaching practice andstudent learning. They talked about the connection between teacher learning andchange in instruction this way.

Helping teachers hear and see more instudent work, helping teachers learn tointervene artfully in student work andto motivate students, all affect what students can learn to do. The mosteffective teacher learning is likely tofocus on instruction-as-interaction,rather than on isolated elements ofinstruction. (p. 28)


The new role of the teacher in reform andin classrooms is as a learner. New interventions“have been invented” that focus more clearlyon providing meaningful learning experiencesfor teachers (Cohen & Ball, 1999, p. 1). Manyof these interventions stress collegial relation-ships among teachers where teachers haveopportunities to share ideas, discuss educa-tional issues, and participate in collaborativeplanning, problem posing, and problem solving. There is, thus, an emergence of support for teacher study groups, book discus-sion groups, whole-faculty study, mentoringprograms, induction programs, and numerousother teacher-directed, site-specific forms ofprofessional development.

These learning experiences can be trans-formative for teachers. Thompson and Zeuli(1999) have described five characteristics fortransformative professional development.Learning opportunities should

1. Create a sufficiently high level of cognitivedissonance to disturb the equilibriumbetween teachers’ existing beliefs andpractices on the one hand and their experience with subject matter, students’learning, and teaching on the other.

2. Provide time, contexts, and support forteachers to think—to work at resolving thedissonance through discussion, reading,writing, and other activities.

3. Ensure that the dissonance-creating anddissonance-resolving activities are connect-ed to the teacher’s own students and context, or something like them.

4. Provide a way for teachers to develop arepertoire for practice that is consistentwith the new understanding that teachersare building.

5. Provide continuing help in a cycle of surfacing new issues and problems, deriving new understanding from them,translating these new understandings intoperformance, and recycling.

Some researchers are actively studying theconnection between teacher learning and student learning. Preliminary results suggestthat student performance increases whenteachers have greater learning opportunities(Cohen & Hill, 1998). These authors said that

When educational improvement isfocused on learning and teaching academic content, and when curricu-lum for improving teaching overlapswith curriculum and assessment forstudents, teaching practice and studentperformance are likely to improve. (p. 33)

If the reform utilizes constructivist learning theory to formulate student curriculum, forexample, then the learning opportunities forteachers must also be designed around constructivist ideas. Further, these learningopportunities should be firmly grounded indeveloping deeper knowledge of the studentcurriculum, of the relationship of assessmentsto curricula, and of the relationship of both topedagogy and student learning (Cohen & Hill).

Schools and districts have begun to engagein reform efforts that focus on teacher learning,and some of those that have been most suc-cessful in improving student achievement havebeen recognized by the U. S. Department ofEducation’s National Award Program for ModelProfessional Development (Killion, 1999). Inaward winning schools, Killion found thatteachers engage in diverse and extensive learn-ing experiences that they, individually or asteams, have selected; time, resources, collabo-ration, focused goals, support structures, andleadership are in place to foster teacher learn-ing; analysis of data keeps the school focusedon results; and all teachers are responsible forcontributing to successful professional devel-opment and are accountable for student success. These results again focus attention onthe teacher as a learner and as an active andknowledgeable actor in the reform process.

11A Focus on Student and Teacher Learning

uch of the work has been done—onstandards, assessments, professional

development, accountability, policy alignment,community, parent involvement, technology,and more—and much of this work has beendriven by a growing consensus that schoolimprovement must focus on student learningand quality teaching. We have a better under-standing nationally of the educational issuesand a more complete vision of what effectiveschools look like. There is a growing consen-sus that schools should function as profession-al learning communities in order to promotestudent learning (DuFour & Eaker, 1998; Hord,1997; and Little, 1997). More and more, teach-ers are seen as professionals who need learn-ing opportunities because it is important forthem to understand proposed changes in orderto transform their practice. The “growing pres-sure on teachers necessitates rethinking theirjob description and what the teaching roleentails” (Lieberman & Miller, 2000, p. 51).People at all levels are beginning to look athow to support quality teaching throughredesign of teacher education and induction,restructuring of professional development,promotion of professional standards for teach-ing, changes in recruitment and reward systems, and changes in the culture of school-ing. There is a general realization that teacherscan’t simply be recipients of reform packages,but must be active partners in the process ofchanging schools.

School improvement poses challenges forthe teacher since it is the teacher who mustmake the new ideas and policies real in theclassroom. That is, the teacher has to bring thecomponents of the system—curriculum,instruction, assessment, external mandates,and community context—together intentional-ly with a focus on student learning to create acoherent practice that hangs together as a

meaningful learning experi-ence for students. Elmore(1996) has argued thatreforms will have littleimpact on how and whatchildren learn unless thereare also changes in the“core” of educational prac-tice, that is, in how teachersunderstand knowledge andlearning and how theyoperationalize their under-standings. So, teacherunderstanding becomes the critical piece in reform.

While policy can influence the nature ofthe work of teaching and learning, teachersmust construct their own understandings ofthe policy from personal, political, profession-al, and social standpoints. Coherence is not a matter of simply aligning everything, it is a matter of teachers making sense of the instructional relationships—interactionsamong teachers, students, knowledge, andmaterials—in ways that impact the core ofeducational practice (Cohen & Ball, 1999).Therefore, in much the same way that constructivism is used to understand andimprove classroom instruction for students,constructivism can also be used to understandhow teachers create coherent practice basedon the understandings of learning, learners,materials, and so on that they have built.

This final section examines the recentapproaches to school improvement that mightsupport teachers as they rethink their roles orpositions relative to six dimensions that wehave identified as being important in creatingcoherent teaching practice: knowledge, professionalism, collaboration, instruction,agency, and authority (Finley, Marble,Copeland, & Ferguson, 2000). In our work, we

A Focus on Student and Teacher LearningM


talk about conditions that support teachers indeveloping a stance toward each of thesedimensions that is clearly focused on learningand the learner. Stance can be thought of as aposition one takes in relation to something orsomeone (Cochran-Smith, 1994) or as an atti-tude toward or relationship with something orsomeone (Marble, 1997). Other researchersand policymakers are working along similarlines as evidenced by research and policywork in each of these areas.

Teachers and Knowledge

A consistent theme of reform is that teachersmust “be well educated, especially in the subject matter content they teach, and thattheir career-long professional education expe-riences must continue to be grounded in thecentrality of that content” (Shulman, 1999, p.xiii). In order to be an instructional coach, it isimportant for teachers to have a deeper under-standing of subject matter. The teacher mustalso “be a scholar, an intellectual, and a knowledge worker oriented toward the

interpretation, communication, and construc-tion of such knowledge in the interests of student learning” (Shulman, p. xiii).

Reform efforts call for commitment to avision that emphasizes deep understandingand meaningful learning rather than transmis-sion and reproduction of declarative knowl-edge. This new focus applies to classroomlearning environments for students and to professional learning for teachers. The “heartof the reforms” is that “in order to learn thesorts of things envisioned by reformers, stu-dents must think…students do not get knowl-edge from teachers, or books, or experiencewith hands-on materials. They make it bythinking, using information and experience”(Thompson & Zeuli, 1999, p. 347). And inorder to understand how to support students’thinking, teachers must also think because thereform calls “for very deep changes—even atransformation—in teachers’ ideas about andunderstanding of subject matter, teaching, andlearning” (Thompson & Zeuli, p. 350).

So there has been a real paradigm shift ontwo levels. First, we see a changing view ofwhat counts as knowledge and how thatknowledge is generated. The shift from theview of knowledge as objective and revealedto the view of knowledge as personally andsocially constructed has implications for howand what teachers teach and students learn, aswell as for how and what teachers learn. Forteachers who still think of knowledge as discrete bits of information about a particularsubject, student learning is the acquisition ofthese pieces of information through repetition,memorization, and testing of recall (Elmore,1996). For teachers who have shifted theirview of knowledge, student learning has moreto do with understanding concepts and beingable to use their understanding to solve prob-lems. Secondly, we see a shift from the view ofthe teacher as a technician to the vision of theteacher as a learner, as a thoughtful practition-er, as a creator of knowledge. This newer viewis becoming part of the national conversation


about school improvement as educators consider the nature of knowledge, of knowing, and of learning.

Cochran-Smith and Lytle (1999) discussthree conceptions of knowledge and teacherlearning that drive reform initiatives intendedto promote teacher learning. Each conceptionhas specific assumptions and implications.Knowledge-for-practice assumes that universityresearchers generate content and pedagogicalknowledge for teachers to use. A distinctiveknowledge base is assumed to exist for teach-ing; teaching is applying received knowledgein a classroom situation. “Teachers are knowl-edge users, not generators” (p. 257). Manyreforms use this conception of knowledge,centering efforts on teachers learning newcontent, strategies, or skills, often throughdirect instruction. The following initiatives arebased on knowledge-for-practice: evaluationof teacher preparation programs by theNational Council for the Accreditation ofTeacher Education (NCATE); professionaldevelopment initiatives based on teacherslearning “best practices” from certified trainers;and teacher certification examinations thatassess subject and pedagogical knowledgethat are decontextualized from the contexts of teaching.

Knowledge-in-practice assumes that practi-cal teaching knowledge comes through expe-rience. Thus “teaching is a wise action in themidst of uncertain and changing situations”(Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999, p. 266), andteaching expertise comes from the professionitself. Research in this area describes craftknowledge and personal practical knowledge.Teachers are understood to be the generatorsof knowledge who mediate ideas, constructmeaning, and take action based on thatknowledge. Reforms using this conceptionhinge on teacher reflection and inquiry onpractice, and utilize strategies such as mentor-ing, coaching, study groups, and self-study.This conception underlies the National Boardfor Professional Teaching Standards, which

use journals, portfolios, and other means toassess the professional knowledge and skill ofexperienced teachers.

Knowledge-of-practice assumes that teach-ers play a central role in generating knowledgeof practice by “making their classrooms andschools sites for inquiry, connecting their workin schools to larger issues, and taking a criticalperspective on the theory and research of others” (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999, p. 273).The teachers’ relationship to knowledge is different from the previous conceptions in thatthey become researchers, theorizers, activists,and school leaders who generate knowledgefor the profession and they also become criti-cal users of research. Reforms taking this viewfocus on teacher research, action research, andinquiry communities. Initiatives include preser-vice programs that prompt prospective teacherto examine their autobiographies, write criticalreflections, or create ethnographies; self-studyin higher education; professional developmentschools; teacher networks such as the NationalWriting Project; and funding and disseminatingteacher research. From Cochran-Smith andLytle’s work, it is clear that a changing oremerging view of what counts as knowledgefor teaching influences the way teacher learning opportunities are conceived.

Teachers as Professionals

That the teacher is critical to school improve-ment is apparent in the report released in 1996by the National Commission on Teaching andAmerica’s Future, What Matters Most: Teachingfor America’s Future. The report states, “Whatteachers know and can do makes the crucialdifference in what children learn.” TheCommission offered five key recommenda-tions: raise student and teacher standards; rein-vent teacher preparation and professionaldevelopment; revitalize teacher recruitment;reward teacher knowledge and skill; and reorganize schools to maximize student and


teacher success (Hirsch, Koppich, & Knapp,1999). The Commission appears to be consid-ering teaching as a profession that needs higher status for its members.

Where teachers are viewed as profession-als, there is an emphasis on providing themwith high-quality preparation and professionallearning opportunities and on creating schoolsthat function as professional learning commu-nities and support teachers’ success. Teachers’work used to be described as technical work,with the expectation that teachers would besuccessful if they mastered a prescribed set ofskills and techniques. This view is fading asresearchers carefully examine teacher educa-tion programs. Those that focus on methodscourses and a short period of student teaching“failed to incorporate new understandingsfrom research on teaching and learning andtook little cognizance of emerging research-based conceptions of teaching as a many-faceted, intellectually-demanding enterprise”(Koppich & Knapp, 1998, p. 17).

Research is providing fuel for the develop-ment of a better infrastructure for the profes-sion of teaching. Studies have shown theimportance of attending to the beliefs ofprospective teachers about schooling andteaching; linking subject matter knowledgeand pedagogical knowledge; and providingextended, well-mentored field experiences(Koppich & Knapp, 1998). These authors alsonoted that creating a true profession of teach-ing requires the development and implemen-tation of high standards for entry into practice.Some states and professional organizationshave been active in creating these teachingstandards. Elmore (1996) has elaborated onthis idea, calling for strong external normativestructures for practice. These structuresinclude, but are not limited to, standards ofpractice such as those developed by theNational Council of Teachers of Mathematics(NCTM) or the National Board for ProfessionalTeaching Standards. These external norms areimportant, “because [they] institutionalize the

idea that professionals are responsible forlooking outward at challenging conceptions ofpractice, in addition to looking inward at theirvalues and competencies” (Elmore, p. 19).

States are beginning to use these findingsto think about what teachers should know andbe able to do. Some have upgraded certifica-tion and licensure policies in order to exertinfluence over colleges and universities toimprove their teacher preparation programsand, thus, the quality of new teachers. Somestates have increased salaries, restructuredsalary schedules, and changed recruitmentstrategies in order to attract and reward goodteachers. Some have introduced induction programs, provided new guidelines and support for professional development, andprovided support for local efforts to improvethe workplace (Hirsch, Koppich, & Knapp,1999). Although these are policy responses,they tend to increase the professional standingof teachers by changing teacher preparationinstitutions and the incentives and conditionsof their work and careers as professional teachers (Koppich & Knapp, 1998).

Lieberman & Miller (2000) described thenew professional teacher: “As researchers,meaning-makers, scholars, and inventors, theyestablish a firm professional identity as theymodel the lifelong learning they hope to infusein their students” (p. 52). As this picturebecomes more common, we can expect teachers to think of and experience teachingmore as a profession than as a job.

Teachers, Collaboration, andCollegiality

Reform efforts emphasize collaborationbetween teachers, between students, andbetween teachers and students. Members ofthe school community are better supported tochange practice when they are not isolated orin competition with each other. Many books,journal articles, and research reports promote


the value of collegiality, collaborative teams,and professional learning communities. Theidea is that teachers’ relationships with otheradults in the school can have profound conse-quences for both the teachers themselves andfor their students. On a related issue, there isalso an increased call for school people todevelop collaborative relationships with parents and other community members, andmany reform evaluation plans look for evidence of this effort.

It is important to highlight some of thekinds of things researchers are saying aboutcollegiality and professional learning commu-nities. Hord (1997) defined a professionallearning community as a school in which theadministrators and teachers continuously seekand share learning to increase their effective-ness for students, and act on what they learn.Based on her research and review of the liter-ature, Hord characterized these communitieshas having shared and supportive leadership;shared values and vision; collective learningand application of learning; supportive condi-tions; and shared personal practice. Many significant outcomes for both staff and students have been seen when a school isorganized in this way (Hord).

McLaughlin and Talbert (1993) found thatteachers’ professional orientation is a functionof their social and professional relationshipswith other teachers. They said,

The relationships between students,teachers, and subject matter are thestuff of schooling. The way in whichthis stuff plays out in particular class-rooms or school environmentsdepends most of all…on the characterof the up-close professional communi-ty to which teachers belong (p. 98).

The isolation that most teachers experiencecan be devastating. When teachers are members of supportive communities, they canreceive support, learn from each other, and

gain confidence to try new things. Communityis more than collegial interaction, however, itis collegial interaction about teaching andlearning that is grounded in the specifics of theclassroom.

Newmann and Wehlage (1995) said thatcreating a professional community that has apositive impact on teaching and learning ismore than simply making structural changes. Itis “a daunting task, but well worth the effort.We found that students in schools with higherlevels of professional community learnmore…[However] The critical human normsand skills cannot be mechanically engineeredby implementing new organizational struc-tures” (p. 51-2). DuFour and Eaker (1998)noted that “virtually all contemporary schoolreformers call for increased opportunities forteacher collaboration” (p. 117). However, thetradition of teacher isolation is so entrenchedin schools that fostering a collaborative envi-ronment represents a significant challenge.DuFour and Eaker suggested that four criticalprerequisites must be addressed: time for col-laboration must be built into the school day;purpose of collaboration must be made explic-it; training and support must be provided; andeducators must accept their responsibility towork together as true professional colleagues.

Darling-Hammond and Ball (nd) state thatthe best way to improve both teaching practiceand teacher learning is to create the capacityfor better learning about teaching as part ofteaching. In their analysis of state reforms,they found that some states have enacted policy to restructure professional developmentaround teacher collaboration and inquiry byproviding funding to support teacher studygroups, networks, teacher research, teacher-directed professional development, teachercollaboration with universities, and teacheracademies.


Teachers and New Ideas aboutInstruction

Curriculum, not instruction, was the focus ofattention of educators until the 1970s(Marzano, 2000). During the 1980s and 1990s,the emphasis moved from

1. teaching behaviors, such as questioningstudents, organizing groups, assigninghomework, to

2. learning strategies, such as the K-W-L strat-egy which involves having students identi-fy what they know about a topic, whatthey want to know, and what theylearned, to

3. instructional models, such as masterylearning, cooperative learning, directinstruction, and, most recently, and finallyto

4. conceptions of instruction informed byconstructivist learning theory or brainresearch. (Marzano)

Teachers tend to have a good understand-ing of many aspects of the first three areas ofemphasis, but often poorly understand constructivist learning theory and brainresearch. However, books on these subjectsseemed to have become “popular” reading forpractitioners during the late 1990s. In Searchof Understanding: The Case for ConstructivistClassrooms (Brooks & Brooks, 1993), ADifferent Kind of Classroom: Teaching withDimensions of Learning (Marzano, 1992), ACelebration of Neurons (Sylwester, 1995), andTeaching with the Brain in Mind (Jensen,1998) are just a few of the books that could bementioned. Their popularity indicates teacherinterest and, when combined with teacherlearning strategies such as study groups andbook study, these books may help teachersimprove instruction.

The academic standards created by profes-sional organizations and states not only provide information on what students should

learn, but also illustrate instructional approach-es that have proven to be most successful insupporting their learning. These approachesare student-centered and reflect new views oflearning and of teaching. The teacher is cast asan instructional coach, a co-learner, or a facili-tator, rather than as a conduit of knowledge ina teacher-centered classroom. For example,NCTM released its Curriculum and EvaluationStandards for School Mathematics in 1989 thatdescribed what students should know and beable to do. This was followed in 1991 with theProfessional Standards for TeachingMathematics. This document illuminated ashift in the vision of mathematical instruction.It specifically addressed the decisions a teachermakes around setting goals and selecting orcreating mathematical tasks; stimulating andmanaging classroom discourse; creating aclassroom environment; and analyzing studentlearning, the mathematical tasks, and the envi-ronment in order to make ongoing instruction-al decisions. Standards for other subjectsreleased by professional organizations andmany states also include standards for teachingwhich describe new views of instruction.

Cohen and Ball (1999) present a compre-hensive analysis of instructional capacity.According to their analysis, school reformintervention “includes extensive work on twofronts: reconfiguring instruction and its envi-ronments” (p. 17). The interventions that aremore likely to succeed are those that bestdeploy the elements conventionally associatedwith instruction. The list of elements is ratherlong and includes teachers; learners; curricu-lum; framing of the curriculum in light of anunderstanding of the learners and what theybring; opportunities to learn, practice, revise,and reflect; examples of successful perfor-mance; support of peers; and more.Understanding what is involved in improvinginstruction is a first step for reformers, butchanging instruction remains a complex issue.Cohen and Ball express the notion that inter-vention (be it a new instructional strategy,


curriculum, standards, assessment, or policy) isa form of instruction for teachers. If teachersare to make use of the resources and ideas thatreformers bring, then reformers must help the teachers understand the innovation byworking with them.

Teachers’ Agency

The word “agency” is used to bring togetherthe ideas of power and action—teachers mustbelieve that they have the power to take actionand that their action will impact student learn-ing before they are likely to make significantchanges to their practice (Finley, Marble,Copeland, & Ferguson, 2000). Power can bethought of in two very different ways. On theone hand, power is described as the posses-sion of control or authority over others, as istypical in hierarchical organizations includingmost schools. Teacher empowerment is a top-down process where power is granted bythe administration. On the other hand, powercan also mean the ability to act or produce aneffect (Spielmann & Radnofsky, 1997). The latter definition is more useful in the under-standing of agency.

The empowerment literature includesmany references to the conditions of schoolingthat deny teachers a sense of efficacy, success,and self-worth (Terry, 1995). Many reportshave documented the inadequacy of hierarchi-cal, top-down organizational structure in thecorporate world and in the world of publiceducation, and have described characteristicsof school principals who have successfullytransformed their schools to a flatter organiza-tional structure. Teacher empowerment hasbeen described as the development of an envi-ronment in which teachers act as professionalsand are treated as professionals, where theyhave the power to make decisions that weremade for them in traditional systems (Terry).This view indicates the complexity inherent inmoving more decision-making responsibility

into the hands of teachers. Empowerment ofteachers, in the sense of creating a specifickind of working environment, may be neces-sary for teachers to develop a sense of agency,but it is not sufficient.

Spielmann and Radnofsky (1997) studied aschool reform program intended to empowerteachers to make choices about their owndevelopment, evaluation, and working relationships. The premise of the program wasthat giving teachers more power could induceprofessionalism, and more professional teach-ers would take on new responsibilities andimprove instruction. The authors found thatthe program developers had made some falseassumptions: neglecting to distinguishbetween having power over someone andhaving the power to act; treating power quan-titatively as a one-dimensional commodity;and equating empowerment with professional-ism without establishing a correlation betweenpower and responsibility. Teachers who are“given” power (being-able-to-do) oftenrespond by exercising independence (being-able-not-to-do) rather than carrying out theintentions of the reform. The developers hadestablished procedures to foster a goal of moredemocratic decision-making, but they hadassumed that this was what the teachers want-ed and had not taken concrete measures tofoster the development of a new professionaland democratic school culture. The teachershad not been involved in open, reflective dialogue about what it meant to be a profes-sional, to take responsibility, and to havepower to act.

The teacher leadership literature offersmore on the idea of agency. In traditional settings, teachers are most often cast in therole of managers, directing and controlling stu-dent activities in the classroom, and followingthe rules set by the administration (Suleiman &Moore, 1996). As a teacher moves out of themanagerial paradigm into an active leadershiprole, they become decision-makers, planners,and collaborators who tend to be more

reflective, responsible, and empowered(Suleiman & Moore). These authors stated that,

The teacher as a leader tends to beactive and research-oriented in theclassroom. This provides teachers withthe vehicle to put them in charge oftheir craft and its improvement…Thisalternative construct views teachers aspivotal leaders in the schools as agentsof positive educational reform. (p. 10)

Teachers who are leaders in this sense havedeveloped agency—they believe that theyhave the power to act and that their actionswill have an impact.

Teachers’ Sources of Authority

Teachers call on many sourcesof authority when making decision—textbooks, state anddistrict policies, curriculumguides, teaching manuals, uni-

versity professors, and theirown experience in the class-room. Those who see theirrole as a manager tend to

follow the dictates of others(Suleiman and Moore, 1996);

however, recent literature empha-sizes the importance of teachersusing the knowledge that comes

from their own experience andthat of colleagues. TIMSS andother studies have describedteachers in other countrieswhose learning from one

another by watching, dis-cussing, reflecting, trying new

strategies, and so on, is builtinto the expectations and

structures of teaching.

“Teachers share knowledge and refine practicethroughout their careers” (Darling-Hammond,1998, p. 10). In this country, some kinds ofopportunities for teachers to learn in commu-nities of their peers have led to improvementin practice as teachers build their knowledgeof practice and gain confidence to look to theauthority of that knowledge when makingdecisions. Darling-Hammond lists characteris-tics of teacher learning opportunities that havethis effect as being experiential; grounded inteachers’ questions, inquiry, and experimenta-tion; collaborative; connected to and derivedfrom teachers’ work with students; sustainedand intensive; and connected to other aspectsof school change.

Firestone and Pennell (1997) illustrate therelationship between agency and authority ina study of two state-sponsored teacher net-works. The benefits of the networks were saidto be increased teacher learning, strengthenedmotivation, and enhanced empowerment. Theauthors talked about empowerment.

The least controversial (and perhapsmost significant) is the enhanced senseof efficacy teachers develop in theclassroom as their content and peda-gogical knowledge grows…teachersmay develop a deeper knowledge ofthe theoretical and normative under-pinnings of the changes they make [so]there is a potential for an increasedsense of purpose….Networks mayhelp teachers voice their informed dissent from the “knowledge” ofexperts and the policies of those inpositions of authority. (p. 239, 240)

Thus, as teachers learn more about content,pedagogy, and reform, they develop confidence in their own authority as theyadvance their views of good practice.

19Conclusion

he current wave of educational reform isclearly focused on improving student

learning. From a policy perspective, thisinvolves aligning policies and recommenda-tions to send classroom teachers consistentmessages about the different aspects of instruc-tional practice. We must not lose sight of thefact, however, that policy is just policy until itis incorporated into teaching practice. Newunderstandings about how children learn haveinformed reform efforts while at the same timechallenging teachers to rethink their teachingpractice. Teachers must have time and supportto understand and accommodate these newvisions with their experiences of practice.

The key to the success of school improve-ment is in the implementation of reform ideasby teachers, which in turn depends on teacherlearning. The reform movement provides anopportunity, indeed the necessity, for teachersand others to re-examine and think deeplyabout teaching and learning in light of newresearch on learning and new perspectives oneducational practice. The support needed tomove new ideas into changed practice isbeginning to be provided; many consider thissupport an absolute necessity if we expectteachers to construct coherent practices reflective of the reform messages. There is anemerging focus on improving the quality of teaching through teacher learning, while still maintaining the goal of improving student learning.

Much has been written about the impor-tance of developing a profession of teaching,and strategies are being advanced to supportthis goal. When teachers are treated as profes-sionals, they will come to think of and experi-ence their work as professionals. As long asteachers are actively involved in the develop-ment of a more professional and democraticschool culture, it is likely they will take on additional responsibility for their owngrowth and learning and that of their students.Research studies provide evidence of the important influence of collegiality,

collaboration, and professional learning communities on teacher and student success.These relationships are becoming more highlyvalued and promoted across all levels of education. As teachers have more opportuni-ties for positive, professional interactions withcolleagues—interactions focused on studentsand their learning—they are likely to viewthese interactions as learning experiences.

New conceptions of knowledge and learn-ing are making their way into the dialogue onschool reform. Knowledge is no longer considered a commodity that one dispenses tolearners, but rather, as something that individ-uals construct and create from their own experience with materials, ideas, text, otherindividuals, and so on. This changes howinstruction is viewed, at the level of preserviceeducation and teacher professional develop-ment as well as at the K-12 level. Reformers are advocating new approaches to teachereducation and development based on constructivism, and reform programs are utiliz-ing these ideas in developing materials, cur-riculum, standards, etc., for use in classrooms.As teachers experience these ideas of knowl-edge, learning, and instruction in their ownlearning situations, they are more likely toview themselves and their students as mean-ing-makers and incorporate new instructionalstrategies in their classrooms.

Finally, there is recognition that teachersare a critical link between reform ideas andimproved student learning. As views of educa-tional leadership encompass new understand-ings from the corporate world, the relationshipbetween school administrators and teachers ischanging. One early approach was the site-based management movement, with teachersgiven a greater role in policy decisions at theschool level. This effort tended to simplifypower relationships and overlooked the expe-riences that teachers and principals wouldneed to make authentic changes in decisionmaking. More recently, researchers have notedthe importance of school culture in influencing

Conclusion

T


teachers’ belief that they have the power totake action to improve practice and studentlearning. As a school develops into a learningcommunity or develops a professional anddemocratic culture, it is expected that teacherswill take more responsibility to make profes-sional decisions.

As more emphasis is placed on providingteachers with authentic learning experiences,they will come to value and use their ownknowledge of teaching and learning. Manyapproaches to teacher learning focus on critique and reflection, so it is anticipated thatteachers will become more sophisticated intheir analysis of their own teaching practiceand needs for new professional learning expe-riences. Reliance on their authority does notimply that teachers should reject other sourcesof authority, but that they should become morecritical consumers as they make informed decisions about curriculum, instruction, andassessment.

Our work in professional development andapplied research takes place in this reformenvironment. Our assumptions and approach-es, as we conducted a recent research project,were formed in this context. For example, weassumed that teachers are learners who

construct their own understanding of teachingand learning and that teachers should be activepartners in generating knowledge of teaching.From recent research and policy work inschool reform, we saw that instructional decision making should be clearly focused onstudents and learning. Teachers make sense ofthe policies and practices being promotedthrough personal, professional, and socialefforts; activities, such as dialogue with peers,classroom research, and reflection, supportteacher learning.

We posit that teachers’ success in makingcoherent instructional decisions depends ondeveloping a position or stance on six dimen-sions—authority, agency, professionalism, collaboration, knowledge, and instruction—that is focused on learning and the learner.Stance is a way of positioning oneself in relation to something or someone, or an attitude or relationship toward something orsomeone (Cochran-Smith, 1994; Marble, 1997).Having a stance that puts learning in the center gives teachers a way to make sense of and sort out the various choices (ideas,directives, and so on) when they make instruc-tional decisions.

...teachers’ success in making coherent

instructional decisions depends on developing

a position or stance on six dimensions—

authority, agency, professionalism, collaboration,

knowledge, and instruction—that is focused

on learning and the learner.

21References

Bell, T. H. (1993). Reflections one decade after A Nationat Risk. Phi Delta Kappan, 74, 592-597.

Blank, R. K., & Pechman, E. M. (1995). State curriculumframeworks in mathematics and science: How arethey changing across the states? Washington, DC:Council of Chief State School Officers.

Cochran-Smith, M. (1994). The power of teacherresearch in teacher education. In S. Hollingsworth& H. Sockett (Eds.), Teacher research and educational reform: Ninety-third yearbook of theNational Society for the Study of Education (pp.142-165). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. (1999). Relationships of knowledge and practice: Teacher learning incommunity. In the series, Review of Research in Education, 24, 249-305. Washington, DC:American Educational Research Association.

Cohen, D. K. (1995). What is the system in systemicreform? Educational Researcher, 15, 225-237.

Cohen, D. K., & Ball, D. L. (1999). Instruction, capacity,and improvement. Philadelphia, PA: Consortiumfor Policy Research in Education, University ofPennsylvania (CPRE RR-43).

Cohen, D. K., & Hill, H. C. (1998). Instructional policyand classroom performance: The mathematicsreform in California. Philadelphia, PA:Consortium for Policy Research in Education,University of Pennsylvania (CPRE RR-39).

Consortium for Policy Research in Education. (1991,April). Putting the pieces together: Systemic schoolreform. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University(CPRE RB-06).

Consortium for Policy Research in Education. (1996).Public policy and school reform: A research summary. Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for PolicyResearch in Education, University of Pennsylvania(CPRE RR-36).

Darling-Hammond, L. (1998). Teacher learning that supports student learning. EducationalLeadership, 55 (5), 6-11.

Darling-Hammond, L., & Ball, D. L. (n.d.). What canpolicymakers do to support teaching to high stan-dards. CPRE Policy Bulletin. [On-line]. Available:http://www.gse.upenn.edu/cpre/docs/pubs/bulletins.html (May, 2000).

DuFour, R., & Eaker, R. (1998). Professional learningcommunities at work: Best practices for enhancingstudent achievement. Bloomington, IN: NationalEducation Service.

References CitedElmore, R. F. (1996). Getting to scale with good educa-

tional practice. Harvard Educational Review, 66,1-26.

Finley, S. J., Marble, S. T., Copeland, G., & Ferguson, C. (2000, April). Professional development andteachers’ construction of coherent instructionalpractices: A synthesis of experiences in five sites.Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of theAmerican Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA, April 24-28, 2000.

Finn, C. E., Jr., & Ravitch, D. (1996). Education reform:1995-1996. [On-line]. Available: http://www.edexcellence.net/library/epctoc.html (May, 2000).

Firestone, W. A., & Pennell, J. R. (1997). Designing state-sponsored teacher networks: A comparisonof two cases. American Educational ResearchJournal, 34, 237-266.

Fuhrman, S. H. (1993). The politics of coherence. In S.H. Fuhrman (Ed.), Designing coherent educationpolicy: Improving the system (pp. 1-34). SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.

Fullan, M. G. (1996). Turning systemic reform on itshead. Phi Delta Kappan, 77, 420-423.

Grant, S. G., Peterson, P. L., & Shojgreen-Downer, A.(1996). Learning to teach mathematics in the context of systemic reform. AmericanEducational Research Journal, 33 (2), 509-541.

Hirsch, E., Koppich, J. E., & Knapp, M. S. (1998). Whatstates are doing to improve the quality of teaching:A brief review of current patterns and trends.Seattle, WA: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy, University of Washington.

Hord, S. M. (1997). Professional learning communities:Communities of continuous inquiry and improve-ment. Austin, TX: Southwest EducationalDevelopment Laboratory.

Killion, J. (1999). Islands of hope in a sea of dreams: A research report on the eight schools that receivedthe National Award for Model ProfessionalDevelopment. Washington, DC: U. S. Departmentof Education.

Knapp, M. S. (1997). Between systemic reforms and the mathematics and science classroom: Thedynamics of innovation, implementation, and professional learning. Review of EducationalResearch, 67 (2), 227-266.

Koppich, J. E., & Knapp, M. S. (1998). Federal researchinvestment and the improvement of teaching1980-1997. Seattle, WA: Center for the Study ofTeaching and Policy, University of Washington.


Lieberman, A., & Miller, L. (2000). Teaching and teacherdevelopment: A new synthesis for a new century.In R. S. Brandt (Ed.), Education in a new era(pp. 47-66). Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Little, J. W. (1997). Benchmarks for schools: Excellencein professional development and professional community. Washington, DC: Office ofEducational Research and Improvement.

Loveless, T. (1998). The use and misuse of research in educational reform. Brookings Papers onEducational Policy: 1998 (pp. 279-317).

Marble, S. (1997). Narrative visions of schooling.Teaching and Teacher Education, 13, 55-64.

Marzano, R. J. (2000). 20th century advances in instruc-tion. In R. S. Brandt (Ed.), Education in a newera (pp. 67-95). Alexandria, VA: Association forSupervision and Curriculum Development.

Marzano, R.J., & Kendall, J. S. (1996). A comprehensiveguide to designing standards-based districts,schools, and classrooms. Alexandria, VA:Association for Supervision and CurriculumDevelopment.

McDermott, K. (2000). Barriers to large-scale success ofmodels for urban school reform. EducationalEvaluation and Policy Analysis. 22 (1), 83-89.

McLaughlin, M. W., & Talbert, J. E. (1993). How theworld of students and teachers challenges policycoherence. In S. H. Fuhrman (Ed.), Designingcoherent education policy: Improving the system.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

National Commission on Excellence in Education.(1983). A nation at risk. Washington, DC: U.S.Government Printing Office.

National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future(1996). What matters most: Teaching for America’sfuture. [On-line]. Available athttp://www.tc.columbia.edu/~teachcomm/

Newmann, F., & Wehlage, G. (1995). Successful schoolrestructuring: A report to the public and educatorsby the Center for Restructuring Schools. Madison,WI: University of Wisconsin.

Ravitch, D. (1995). National standards in Americaneducation. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

Schmoker, M., & Marzano, R. J. (2000). Realizing the promise of standards-based education.Educational Leadership, 56 (6), 17-21.

Shulman, L. S. (1999). Forward. In L. Darling-Hammond& G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice(pp. xi-xiv). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Spielmann, G., & Radnofsky, M. L. (1997). Power structures, change, and the illusion of democracy:A semiotic study of leadership and policy-making.Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of theAmerican Educational Research Association,Chicago, IL, March 24-28, 1997 (ERIC DocumentReproduction Service No. ED 413 647).

Suleiman, M, & Moore, R. (1996). Teachers’ roles revisited: Beyond classroom management. Paperpresented at the Summer Workshop of theAssociation of Teacher Educators, Tarpon Springs,FL. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.ED 401 277).

Terry, P. M. (1995). Empowerment. National Forum ofEducational Administration and SupervisionJournal, 12 (3), 13-24.

Thompson, C. L., & Zeuli, J. S. (1999). The frame and the tapestry: Standards-based reform and professional development. In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as thelearning profession: Handbook of policy andpractice (pp. 341-375). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Tirozzi, G. N., & Uro, G. (1997). Education reform inthe United States: National policy in support oflocal efforts for school improvement. AmericanPsychologist, 52, 241-249.

Wilson, S. M., Peterson, P. L., Ball, D. T., & Cohen, D.K. (1996). Learning by all. Phi Delta Kappan, 77,468-476.

Southwest Educational Development Laboratory211 East Seventh StreetAustin, Texas 78701(512) 476-6861http://www.sedl.org

The Changing Role of the Teacher

Documents

Transcript of The Changing Role of the Teacher