The question was, could state and national agencies use aligned instructional policies—assessments, curriculum frameworks, and allocation of resources—to steer teaching and learning in faraway classrooms (Cohen & Hill, 1998).

In a study of the influence of systemic policy on mathematics and science teaching, Knapp (1997) noted that the visions of teaching and learning embedded in the reforms are built around sophisticated and complex ideas, such as constructivism and teaching for understanding. The teacher is assumed to be "the last link in the chain of influence from policy to learning event, that is, the final Îagent' of policy, as well as a target of policy," and classroom practice is assumed to be "under the control of teachers and in some degree reachable by policy" (Knapp, p. 233). Systemic reform has brought a philosophy of instruction, content goals, and new conceptions of the learner to the attention of public and professional audiences (Knapp). Systemic reform has affected requirements and professional ideas, but there has been relatively little investment in building and sustaining support systems for long-term teacher learning (Knapp).

Other researchers have noted similar results. Cohen (1995) found that new policies have generated awareness, but have had a more limited effect on the incorporation of new ideas into practice. He suggests that the systemic reform approach has assumed that instruction is a homogeneous and unified system that can be driven by policy when, in fact, instruction includes several related systems, and changes in one may not produce changes in the others. He concluded that coherence in policy is very different from coherence in practice.

Over time, systemic work at the policy level has come to emphasize the importance of whole-school reforms as opposed to individual-focused remediation (Koppich & Knapp, 1998). New programs and policies have focused on a teacher's role as a school staff member, with responsibility to participate in collective problem solving, decision making, and program implementation. However, developing the capacity of school staffs to work this way has not been adequately addressed (Koppich & Knapp).

Fullan (1996) noted that it is easier to identify effective system changes in the top half, or policy level, of the system—development of goals, curriculum frameworks, and aligned assessments—than in the bottom half, or classroom level, of the system. And indeed, the policy work appears fairly complete across the states, especially with regard to the development and alignment of standards, assessments, and accountability systems. This policy work should help stimulate movement toward defined, desirable goals among school staffs and reduce conflicts among policies that direct local educators. However, the lack of attention to professional development has created a barrier to implementing the changes in practice advocated by the major reform documents (Thompson & Zeuli, 1999). Policy work "has not yet provided coherent, effective guidance on how to improve instruction in the United States" (CRPE, 1996, p. 1).

Providing Teachers with Opportunities to Learn

Policy changes have often ignored the bottom half of the system—the teachers in the classroom. Even when a new policy or program involves new curricular materials and teacher "training" sessions, the conditions for teachers to learn about or develop the knowledge, skills, and beliefs needed to understand the policy or program are rarely adequate (Cohen & Ball, 1999). Reformers have begun to realize the severe consequences of ignoring teacher learning, and newer strategies have directed more attention to providing teachers with opportunities to learn. The federally funded Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration Project (CSRD) established by Congress in 1998, for example, stresses teacher learning as a major component. Even curriculum developers are now producing materials that are more "educative" for teachers with opportunities for teacher learning embedded in the use of the materials, or are using a design/redesign approach to develop materials in conjunction with the teachers who are enacting the curriculum.

Cohen and Hill (1998) developed a model of the relationship between policy and practice, based on their study of California's systemic math reform.

Students' achievement is the ultimate dependent measure of instructional policy, and teachers' practice is both an intermediate dependent measure of policy enactment and a direct influence on students' performance. Teachers, therefore, figure in the model as a key connection between policy and practice. Teachers' opportunities to learn what the policy implies for instruction is a crucial influence on their practice, and at least an indirect influence on student achievement through teachers' practice. (p. 2)

California state policymakers "made available new and better student curriculum units; they encouraged professional development around these units and reform ideas more generally; and they used the state assessment program both as an example of and as incentive toward change" (p. 24). Cohen and Hill concluded that teaching practice and student learning will improve in the direction proposed by state policy when there is both alignment of curriculum, assessment, and professional development focused on teaching and learning academic content and provision of adequate opportunities for teachers to understand and internalize the changes.

Another study of the same curriculum reform effort found that teachers constructed different understandings of the policy documents and enacted them in quite different ways, leading the researchers to conclude that teacher learning is more complex than simple access to opportunities to learn about reform (Grant, Peterson, & Shojgreen-Downer, 1996). Others have noted that while new programs clearly favor student-centered learning approaches, reformers most often "pursue their goals by being directive with teachers in ways that they discourage teachers from being with children" (Loveless, 1998, p. 288). They may provide professional development that is aligned, coherent, and sustained, but they rarely stray from standard presentational or training modes. They thus sustain the view of "knowledge as facts and skills, teaching as telling, and learning as remembering" (Thompson & Zeuli, 1999, p. 353).

Wilson, Peterson, Ball, and Cohen (1996) studied systemic reform in three states. They concluded that reform-related learning is best facilitated when concrete classroom examples and experiences are used to ground the conversation about practice; inquiry and reflection are components of the learning; people from different parts of the system come to the table to talk together; and all of the actors view themselves as learners. Whereas much of this work started by examining the enactment of specific reforms, it has led these researchers and others to develop a broader view of professional development as teacher learning.