Systemic Reform

The contemporary education policy period marks a shift away from the idea that change happens [Page 835]organically, one school at a time. Instead, there is a focus on creating a systematic infrastructure to support change, and the goal is to achieve change across a large number of schools at the same time. In recent decades, there have been several types of systemic reform efforts in the United States and across other Western countries, most significantly the growth of state and federal systems of standards and accountability.

The publication of the 1983 report, A Nation at Risk, likely marked the beginning of the systemic reform movement in the United States. The report argued that students in U.S. schools failed to compete on an international level and lagged behind in several key foundational areas. Although some criticized the report for being overly alarmist and inaccurate, most agree that the report prompted policy makers to question the value of public education in terms of its effectiveness and outcomes given the past two decades of increased investment. Soon thereafter, the standards-based reform period then entered the policy stage of the mid-1980s and 1990s.

Following the recommendations made by the report, policy aims turned to improving the academic and professional quality of U.S. schools. Policies focused on establishing minimum competency standards targeted at students and teachers. More specifically, the recommendations focused on raising high school curriculum and teacher education standards. The main policies included increasing academic standards, adding teacher credentialing requirements, and intensifying school-related practices (e.g., increasing school hours).

However, most state systems lacked coherence in their overall approach to reform. Thus, although the underlying hope of the federal policy initiatives were to improve teacher and student performance, the policy designs focused on fidelity and establishment of programs rather than on the quality of programs. As the standards-based reform era developed momentum, the policies of the 1990s explicitly focused on improving the quality and delivery of school-related services, especially instruction and curricula. Making a strong case against piecemeal approaches to reform, Marshall Smith and Jennifer O'Day, in a now-landmark article, argued for system alignment and coherence. Policy instruments were developed to produce systems-level reform by emphasizing alignment of resources, coordinating efforts amongst government agencies, and redistributing authority. During this period, new governance structures such as site-based management and charter schools took stage. Redistribution of authority, comprehensive school reform models, and public-private partnerships also emerged as important features of the reform landscape.

The crystallization of systemic reform movement occurred with the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001, which instituted the first federal accountability system based on assessments and standards. As the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), NCLB is particularly noteworthy because it moves past the traditional focus on schooling “inputs” and holds educators responsible for student performance results. Under this system, the mechanisms for accomplishing these goals emphasize data-driven decision making, the implementation of evidence-based practices, and increased school choice for parents. Specifically, it requires states to have standards detailing content for student learning. Testing is also mandatory for Grades 3 to 8 and results must be used to drive instruction and teaching practices. In addition, student performance data must be disaggregated based on major demographic classifications such as race/ethnicity, socio-economic status, gender, disability, and English language learner status. The accountability demands were coupled with prescriptive intervention remedies for schools not meeting adequate yearly progress (AYP). Schools are pushed to improve under threat of sanctions that ultimately allow parents to opt out of low-performing schools. Additionally, guidelines for enhancing teacher quality were laid out.

...