Suchergebnisse

AbstractIf government chooses to take account of competing views in social program evaluation, it can get a better result by encouraging these competing views to find their own voices, rather than speaking through the government's chosen instrument.

Education reformers and policymakers argue that improved students' learning requires stronger academic standards, stiffer state tests, and accountability for students' scores. Yet these efforts seem not to be succeeding in many states. The authors of this important book argue that effective state reform depends on conditions which most reforms ignore: coherence in practice as well as policy and opportunities for professional learning.The book draws on a decade's detailed study of California's ambitious and controversial program to improve mathematics teaching and learning. Researchers David Cohen and Heather Hill report that state policy influenced teaching and learning when there was consistency among the tests and other policy instruments; when there was consistency among the curricula and other instruments of classroom practice; and when teachers had substantial opportunities to learn the practices proposed by the policy.These conditions were met for a minority of elementary school teachers in California. When the conditions were met for teachers, students had higher scores on state math tests. The book also shows that, for most teachers, the reform ended with consistency in state policy. They did not have access to consistent instruments of classroom practice, nor did they have opportunities to learn the new practices which state policymakers proposed. In these cases, neither teachers nor their students benefited from the state reform. This book offers insights into the ways policy and practice can be linked in successful educational reform and shows why such linkage has been difficult to achieve. It offers useful advice for practitioners and policymakers seeking to improve education, and to analysts seeking to understand it

Summary
:
Although the education community has identified numerous effective interventions for improving the literacy of U.S. schoolchildren, little headway has been made in raising literacy capabilities. David K. Cohen and Monica P. Bhatt, of the University of Michigan, contend that a major obstacle is the organizational structure of the U.S. education system. Three features in particular—the lack of educational infrastructure, a decentralized governance system, and the organization of teaching as an occupation—stymie efforts to improve literacy instruction.

The authors emphasize that the education system in the United States has always been a patchwork of local school systems that share no common curricula, student examinations, teacher education, or means of observing and improving instruction. Although localities have broad powers over education, few have built the capability to judge or support quality in educational programs. The quality criteria that have developed chiefly concern teachers, not teaching. The decentralization and weak governance of U.S. schooling also deprives teachers of opportunities to build the occupational knowledge and skill that can inform standards for the quality of work, in this case instruction. And, unlike practitioners in other professions teachers have little opportunity to try to strengthen teaching quality by setting standards for entry to the occupation.

Cohen and Bhatt review six types of organizational reforms undertaken over the past several decades to improve literacy and other academic outcomes for U.S. students. After briefly describing accountability, comprehensive school reforms, knowledge diffusion, improvement of human capital, and market-based reforms, the authors turn to the Common Core State Standards, an effort initiated by state governors and school leaders to raise student achievement. The authors conclude that the fundamental question about the Common Core, as with the other reforms they discuss, is whether educators and policy makers can mobilize the capability to help states and localities invent, adapt, and implement reliable ways to improve instruction.

"School reforms are almost always born out of big dreams and a well-meaning desire to change the status quo-the American education system as we know it was the product of such a reform. But between the lawmakers who spearhead these changes and the students whose education is at stake, there are countless teachers, principals, administrators, and local politicians and, correspondingly, countless ways that things can go sideways. In Reforming the Reform, political scientist Susan Moffitt, education scholar Michaela O'Neill, and the late policy and education scholar David K. Cohen take on a wide-ranging examination of the nitty-gritty of school reform. They focus especially on mezzo-level actors: but the countless school superintendents, principals, and teachers figuring out how to apply a new policy in the unique context of their district or school. They conducted more than 250 interviews with mezzo-level administrators in Tennessee and California (chosen as contrasts for their different political makeup and centralization of the education system) between 2016 and 2020, ending their data collection as schools were going virtual at the beginning of the pandemic. They also collected survey data from across the US. Finally, they turned to archival data dating to the earliest American educational reform: the creation of a centralized national education policy. Taken together, this data demonstrates an impressive ambition: to identify common problems that arise when a general policy is implemented in a local context. The framework provides a general explanation for problems facing social policy reforms in federalist systems (including healthcare) and offers pathways forward for education policy in particular"--

Vast disparities between and within American states' responses to the COVID-19 pandemic have evoked renewed attention to whether greater centralization might enhance investments in subnational capacity and remedy subnational inequalities or instead erode subnational organizational capacity. Developments in American public education (1997–2015) offer perspective on this puzzle, which we examine by applying interrupted time series analysis to a novel dataset to assess the implications of centralization on subnational investments in administrative and technical capacity, two dimensions of organizational capacity. We find simultaneous subnational erosion in administrative capacity and growth in technical capacity following centralization, both of which appear concentrated in low-poverty areas despite centralization's explicit antipoverty purposes. Public education reforms highlight both the challenge of dismantling subnational inequality through centralization and the need for future research on policy designs that enable centralization to yield subnational capacity that is able to remedy inequality.