Teacher buy-in is critical to reform

The first issue of the California Educator contained a piece titled "Presto Change-0" which described the tendency among school districts to seek solutions to school problems by adopting programs that have proven successful elsewhere. There are six-step, 10-step, 12-step and 37-step programs that promise to improve everything from truancy to graduation rates. Long-term and significant improvement in education occurs, however, when efforts emerge from, and enjoy the support of, the school-wide community.

"Power and Politics in the Adoption of School Reform Models"by Amanda Datnow, a recent study published by the American Educational Research Association, describes the fate of a number of school reform efforts that have been introduced from the outside, in many cases mandated by the district office. The study examines the implementation of 12 separate "reform designs"in 22 school sites and arrives at conclusions that surprise no one, especially not teachers. Without meaningful involvement of teachers in the adoption and implementation of new programs, they are not successful.

Some of the models have been around for some time and are quite well known. These include: Roots and Wings, the Accelerated Schools Project, the Coalition of Essential Schools, and Success for All. Some are "principles-based"and some are highly prescriptive, mandating specific curriculum and instruction. For example, activities for schools that participate in the Coalition of Essential Schools program are based on 10 general principles. In contrast, the schools that participate in the Success for All program must adhere to a highly prescribed curriculum in the area of reading.

Pre-packaged solutions are appealing to school districts because they satisfy important criteria. Most are research-based, many have name recognition (who hasn't heard of Ted Sizer?) and they allow "schools and districts to act locally in response to public pressures and external accountability measures without having to create reform anew, a process that takes considerable time and effort."

There is another compelling reason: money. These programs are an easy sell to foundations and, under the 1994 Title I guidelines and the 1997 Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration program, to the federal government. Currently, there are 1,300 Accelerated Schools, 1,000 members in the Coalition of Essential Schools and 1,600 Success for All sites.

Districts or principals may decide which package is best for a school, or the school might be forced to choose from a limited set of options. Where they are involved, teachers report that their participation is incidental to the process. In most instances teachers are forced to vote quickly and without much information. A lot of pressure is brought on teachers to vote in favor of a particular plan. And votes are taken several times until the critical number is achieved.

In their zeal to make something happen in schools at all costs and as quickly as possible, proponents of this particular approach to school change fail to realize two important facts:

• First, the process of adoption is as important as the reform effort itself. As this study concludes, there is a world of difference between compliance with the parameters of a particular solution and genuine support for its principles.
• Second, and perhaps more important, the process of reform is slow, messy and unpredictable. It works best when it emerges from the grass roots. Poll after poll consistently indicates that the public knows this and trusts teachers to do right by their children.

Teachers want to do a good job. They go to school every morning in eager anticipation of the "teachable moment" when those powerful connections are made and learning erupts. From this vantage point, what teachers need are the tools, the time and the support to make things happen for themselves and their students.