When you come in….

A. If you are unsure what to focus on, find us! (And after that, see B…)

B. If you are pretty sure you know what your critique will focus on please find two other people with whom you can share your description: 1.Read each other’s descriptions 2.Look at the “tips” on the assignment and give one another feedback (does this description fit the guidelines?) 3.(After you’ve reviewed all 3 descriptions) Begin to explore together how concepts from the course might explain what happened.

Goals (weeks 2-6)

• Develop a deeper understanding of why some things change and some things stay the same (and of some key concepts from the initial readings)

• Begin to develop skills in analyzing policies, programs and improvement efforts

• Gain some familiarity with the history of school reform

Agenda• TOA , Title 1 and NCLB• Working groups: Common Core TOA• Reform Critique Discussions• Book Clubs• Next Week

Theories of Action and The Evolution of US Education Policy

C&T 4004

School Change

Theories of ActionTheories of action are the beliefs and assumptions, often implicit and

unarticulated, that lead people and groups to act in certain ways.

• People use the term theories of action in different ways

• Policies and reform efforts reflect theories of action about many different things including: theories of learning (how students and teachers learn and develop); theories of schooling (how schools should be organized and what role schools should play in society as a whole); and theories of change (how improvements can be made).

• Policies and reform efforts are complex, collective, and often political, products; the reflect the theories of many different people.

• People in the same organization may have different theories. In fact the same person may operate on several different theories at once…

• What a policy or reform effort says should happen is not always what happens in practice; What people say (espoused theories) can differ from the instruments and activities used (design theories) which can differ from what people actually do (theories in action).

Espoused Theories vs. Theories in Use

Analyzing Theories of Action

1st: Take a neutral stance and describe the approach:

• What’s the key problem? • What are the specific goals? • What are the strategies and resources that will be used to achieve those

goals? • What are the outcomes expected and how will they be measured (short-

term and long-term)

2nd: Try to discern the underlying theory and critique it:

• What’s the logic? How is this supposed to work?• What’s the problem? What’s missing? What’s been ignored?

3rd: Consider implications/improvements:

• What might help to make this work?

Title 1: BackgroundFor the most part, education is funded at the local level; only about 10% of

education funds come from the Federal government.

But education policies continue to reflect debates between a more “bottom-up” and a more “top-down” theory of action:

• “Jeffersonians” (Jefferson, Madison) seek to locate power at the local level • “Federalists” (Washington, Hamilton, Adams) seek to establish and secure

the authority of the central government.

The evolution of Title 1 from its passage in 1965 to the passage of NCLB in 2001 shows a growing role for the Federal government in “local” education and a shift in the theory of action behind Federal policies that reflects a belief that the Federal government can stimulate or enforce changes at the local level.

“Title 1 began as a weak program that brought new money to poor children’s schools, but it is today a major force that has brought stiff federal requirements to schools in most states and localities. It began by shoehorning a national priority into decentralized schools, but has wound up as the vehicle for extra-ordinary assertions of federal ideas and influence.” (Cohen & Moffit, p. 8)

From Title 1 to NCLB (and Beyond) Title 1:• Problem: Poverty (segregation, civil rights)

• Key resources and strategies: providing money and compensatory programs for those in poverty

• Expected outcomes: more equal opportunities; eradication of poverty

From Title 1 to Goals 2000Goals 2000

• Problem – Not making enough progress in improvement to maintain economic competitiveness. low, uneven standards, lack of consistency between different parts of the system, and conflicting incentives.

• Key Activities/Strategy – Provide incentives to develop higher standards and pursue systemic reforms; give states money in return for adopting high standards, but give states/schools flexibility in setting those standards and pursuing those reforms.

• Resources – Title 1 funds, but only for those that states that set

ambitious academic standards, use tests aligned to those standards, and hold schools accountable

• Key outcomes – By 2000 all students will start school ready to learn; increase high school graduation rates to 90%, achieve world class standards in all subjects and students first in the world in math and science.

From Goals 2000 to NCLB

NCLB

• Problem – Many reforms, little progress in student achievement in general and closing achievement gaps in particular

• Key Strategies – improve failing schools by holding them accountable and creating more school choice; create more “highly qualified teachers” (or lose funding);

• Resources – Title 1 funds; improvement programs and outside assistance for “turnaround.”

• Key outcomes: Average yearly progress in reading and math; all students“proficient” by 2014

What Are the Problems with the NCLB TOA?

In 2005–06:

• out of roughly 100,000 public schools, over 11,000 or 12% of all schools were identified as “in need of improvement” according to NCLB (Stullich, Eisner, & McCrary, 2007).

• roughly 600 schools were designated as“in need of restructuring.”

By 2010:

• almost 5,000 schools, serving more than 2,500,000 students, will be “in need of restructuring” (Calkins, Guenther, Belfiore, & Lash, 2007).

What Are the Problems with the NCLB TOA?Improving failing schoolsSupport for schools “in need of improvement” was a moderate or

serious challenge in most states, reflecting inadequacy of:

• State educational agency staff size (45 states)• State funds (40 states)• Federal funds allocated for state implementation (39 states)• State educational agency staff expertise (30 states)

High-poverty districts with schools identified as in need of improvement/restructuring also reported significant problems in providing support:

• 49% lacked needed expertise• 46% lacked the necessary staff• 56% lacked sufficient time• 80% lacked sufficient money

(Stullich, 2007)

What Are the Problems with the NCLB TOA?Choice

• In 2004-05, 5.2 million students were eligible to transfer to higher performing schools but only 48,000 students participated (approximately 1% of the eligible participants) (Stullich et al., 2006)

• In 2004-05, 6,200 schools were required to offer their students the option to go elsewhere, but 39% of those schools did not.

• 20% of the schools required to provide choice also reported that there were no higher-performing schools available for their students to attend (Bathon & Spradlin, 2007; Stullich et al., 2006)

• 58% of the schools required to offer choice but not doing so were high schools. (75% of all high schools are in districts with no other high schools.) (Bathon & Spradlin, 2007; Stullich et al., 2006)

What Are the Problems with the NCLB TOA?

Teacher Quality

• States have established criteria for “high quality” teachers consistent with NCLB (e.g. teachers have a bachelor’s degree, hold a regular or full state-approved teaching certificate or license, and demonstrate competency in each of the academic subjects he or she teaches)…

• But standards reflect “minimal-quality” not “high-quality” and standards vary: some states have simply changed their definitions or requirements so that most existing teachers can be reclassified as “highly qualified”. (e.g. in Minnesota all elementary teachers licensed before 2001 were defined as highly qualified, whether or not they demonstrated subject matter competency)

From Title 1 to NCLB in Theory and Practice

Title 1: The Federal government can eradicate poverty by motivating changes at the local level through (a little) funding

The reality: see Cohen & Moffit p. 171: “They moved policy much closer to the heart of education [but]…”

NCLB: The Federal government can force districts and schools to make improvements, close achievement gaps, and enable all students to reach AYP in reading and math

The reality: new standards and more aligned systems could be created without actually changing instruction or improving student performance

Goals 2000: The Federal government can enable students to reach world class standards by motivating states to raise standards and create aligned, coherent systems

The reality: the government can create a lot of programs!

From NCLB to the Common Core?

Based on what you’ve learned so far, what do you think will happen with the Common Core?

To what extent will the Common Core “change” schools?

In what ways might schools change the Common Core?

From NCLB to the Common Core?

To help you predict what may happen with the Common Core please outline some of the key aspects of the theory of action behind the Common Core:

• What’s the key problem that the Common Core is designed to solve?

• What goals/strategies/activities are being pursued? What resources are being used to meet these goals and carry out these activities?

• What is the “logic” behind these initiatives?

• Where does the logic breakdown?

Common CoreBackground: •Started by states, fueled by Race to the Top•College/career standards•Mostly adopted 2010, ongoing•43 states in US•Perceived regression, decentralized•voluntary adoption through large grants

•Reasons for CC: • We need common goals• “We need more focus on skills” (CCSSI video

)• We need to match up internationally.• The world is getting more competitive.• There’s a new economic reality.

Resources: •CCSSI. Learn about the Common Core in Three Minutes. http://vimeo.com/51933492

•Learning Forward. Theory of Change and Common Core Standards. Link.

Assignment for October 22nd: •Resnick, L. & Hall, M. (1998). “Learning organizations for sustainable organizational reform. Daedulus, 127, 89-118.

And one of a selection of books: •Garcia, O. & Kleifgen, J. A. (2010). Education emergent bilinguals: Policies, programs, and practices for English Language Learners. NY: Teachers College Press.•Hattie, J. (2008). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London: Routledge. •Hehir, T. & Katzman, L. (2012). Effective inclusive schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.•Jackson, Y. (2011). Pedagogy of confidence. New York: Teachers College Press.•Thomas, D. & Seely-Brown, J.S. (2011). A new culture of learning. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.•Tough, P. (2013). How children succeed. Mariner Books.