Governors' Education Summit

Growing concerns about the academic preparation of students prompted the nation's governors to hold the 1989 Charlottesville Education Conference. A call was issued for both states and the federal government to take a significant role in improving education. The governors affirmed that education is a state's responsibility and a local function, but charged the federal government with providing financial assistance, leadership, and support for a national school improvement framework. This second wave of reform involved "raising academic standards; measuring student and school performance against those standards; providing schools and educators with the tools, skills, and resources to prepare students to reach the standards; and holding schools accountable for the results" (Tirozzi & Uro, 1997, p. 242).

The educational summit set the stage for two parallel efforts. The first was the movement to establish national educational goals and standards. President Bush announced six national education goals in his 1990 State of the Union address. One goal was for the U. S. to be first in the world in mathematics and science achievement by the year 2000 and another set the stage for establishing content standards. The general consensus was that standards should reflect high expectations, provide focus and direction, and be national (not federal), voluntary (not mandatory), and dynamic (not static). A new system of multiple assessments should developed that were voluntary and developmental (Ravitch, 1995). Mathematics standards, released by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) in 1989, preempted the public mandate for standards and served as a model for other professional organizations to develop standards in their content areas (Marzano & Kendall, 1996).

The Goals 2000 legislation provided the impetus, the rationale and, in some cases, the funding to support efforts of states and professional groups to develop standards. Other governmental and non-governmental agencies provided additional leadership and funding in the effort. Goals 2000, with its focus on high expectations and achievement results for all students, became both a national flag to rally around and a source of funding that enabled standards-based school reform to gain momentum. By the late 1990s, professional organizations had developed standards in all content areas, and most states had adopted or revised standards for at least the major content areas.

At the same time, a second movement sought to address the previous failure of top-down reforms by giving local schools greater autonomy. The Restructuring Movement advocated site-based management, which placed greater decision-making authority in the hands of principals, teachers, and parents as opposed to district-level administrators (Bell, 1993). There was the expectation that school-based educators would embrace this movement because they would have more power to initiate and oversee changes in their schools and respond in unique and creative ways to local issues (DuFour & Eaker, 1998). However, Newmann and Wehlage (1995) reported that in the majority of cases, school practitioners focused on peripheral issues that did not directly impact student learning, issues such as student discipline and parent involvement.

Talking about the reforms of the early 1990s, DuFour and Eaker (1998) concluded that

The paired concepts of establishing national goals and providing local autonomy to achieve these goals seemed to offer a viable alternative to the failed Excellence Movement. National goals could address a national crisis, while job-site autonomy and individual empowerment seemed to be consistent with best practice in the private sector. Unfortunately, restructuring seems to have left students virtually untouched by the reforms that swirl around, but not within, their classrooms. So the Restructuring Movement, like the Excellence Movement before it, has been unable to make a real difference in the ability of American schools to meet the challenges they face. (p. 6, 9)

DuFour and Eaker suggested that the lack of expected large-scale successes of these reform efforts has left many feeling "despair about the possibility of school improvement in the United States" (p. 9). Teachers, they go on to say, have responded with growing defensiveness and resignation; some education writers have challenged the very premise that schools are ineffective. However, other educators have redoubled their efforts to improve schools, especially in light of the most recent international assessment of student performance.

Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS)

The 1995-96 Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) provided evidence that the nation has not yet reached its goal of being first in the world in mathematics and science achievement. TIMSS tested students from 41 nations at three educational levels to compare math and science achievement. Achievement results for U. S. students were mixed. Fourth graders scored above the international average in both subjects, eighth graders scored below the international average in mathematics and above the average in science, and students in their final year of high school scored below the international average in both subjects.

The TIMSS achievement data supported the push of the standards movement into the accountability phase. Many states have developed high-stakes testing for students and for schools. Schools and teachers are seeing school report cards printed in the newspapers detailing student performance on the state tests and comparing schools in a district or districts in a state. High school students in many states must pass an exam in order to graduate, and schools and teachers are being held accountable for student achievement.

The study also examined student and teacher perceptions, curricula, instruction, and policy issues to understand the educational context in which teaching and learning take place. The study found that the U. S. curricula include more topics than those used in other countries and that the content of U. S. mathematics classes requires less high-level mathematical thought than classes in Germany and Japan. The goal for most U. S. mathematics teachers is to teach students how to do something whereas the goal for Japanese teachers is to help students understand concepts. Teaching practices of Japanese teachers are more aligned with recommendations from U. S. mathematics reformers than the practices of U. S. teachers. Coupled with the achievement data, these results were seen by many as a call to adjust the content being taught in U. S. classrooms and to support teachers' learning of the teaching strategies advocated by reformers.

TIMSS qualitative data also showed that, unlike teachers in the U. S., new Japanese and German teachers undergo long-term structured apprenticeships, and Japanese teachers have more opportunities to discuss teaching-related issues with their colleagues on a routine basis throughout their careers. Research studies in this country support the importance of collegiality, mentoring, teacher inquiry, and teacher reflection as new professional development strategies to improve schools. While the relationship between professional development and student performance has not been adequately studied, early evidence suggests they are positively related and has supported policy changes (Cohen & Hill, 1998). New state policies 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 collaboration among school staff; and facilitating school-level autonomy (Hirsch, Koppich, & Knapp, 1998).

So, rather than slowing down, the efforts to improve schools seem to be progressing at a furious pace. However, the focus of new efforts is changing, as is the perception of the teacher's role in reform and in the reformed classroom. In the next section, we will examine this change in direction and look at what needs to happen to improve classroom teaching and learning given that much of the work at the policy level has been completed.