Learning Policy: When State Education Reform Works
David K. Cohen and Heather C. Hill
By Jim Reische
Education reformers and policymakers argue that improved student
learning requires stronger academic standards, stiffer state tests,
and school accountability for student scores. This argument first
gained national attention with the 1983 publication of A
Nation at Risk, by the National
Commission on Excellence in Education. Yet the reform efforts spurred
by this movement seem not to be succeeding in many states. In an
effort to understand the reasons behind this failure, David Cohen,
John Dewey Professor of Education and a professor of public policy
at the University of Michigan, and Heather Hill, an assistant research
scientist in the University of Michigan School of Education, have
compiled extensive data on one of the most significant school-improvement
efforts in late-twentieth-century America: California’s decade-long
campaign to improve mathematics teaching in the state’s public
schools. Their analysis of California professional education materials
and a survey of nearly 600 of the state’s elementary school
teachers finds strong evidence that effective state reform depends
on conditions that most policymakers ignore: coherent guidance
for teaching and learning, and extensive opportunities for professional
learning.
In examining
California’s ambitious and controversial program, Cohen
and Hill have determined that the state’s policy facilitated
better teaching and learning only when
certain crucial features were in place: consistency among tests
and other policy instruments; consistency among curricula and
other aspects of classroom practice; and substantial opportunities
for teachers to learn the practices envisioned in the policy.
When these three conditions were met, more teachers reported
that their teaching was congruent with the state’s policy
aims, and students responded with higher scores on the state
math tests. Although the researchers found such congruence only
among a minority of California’s elementary school teachers,
in those cases where it existed it made a significant difference.
As Cohen and Hill note:
Only a small fraction of the state’s teachers had substantial opportunities to learn about the replacement units [new student curriculum materials] or new student assessments, but they made a big difference. Teachers whose opportunities to learn were grounded in specific curricula and assessments reported more of the sorts of practices that reformers had proposed than teachers whose opportunities to learn were not so grounded.
The researchers are aware that just as policy alone is not enough, neither is instructional congruence: the ultimate goal is student learning. Here again, the evidence bears out their hypothesis: “We found that where teachers had opportunities to learn about student materials or assessments, students posted higher scores on the state’s assessment of math achievement in elementary schools.”
This important study is unique in examining how teachers’ access to learning opportunities affects the success of educational reform. Earlier studies typically placed the blame for failed reform on bureaucratic difficulties, lack of incentives for compliance, or differences of opinion between policymakers and educators. Cohen and Hill, however, take the view that the key to successful reform is the thoughtful integration of policy and instruction. “Researchers and policymakers often have been skeptical about the likelihood of connecting policy with practice in education,” they write, “One researcher has likened policy to storms that stir the surface of oceans but fail to change much below that surface. The ideas we present here, and the evidence presented in the following chapters, reflect a very different view... policies that offer professionals suitable opportunities to learn and coherent guidance for teaching and learning increase the opportunities to connect policy and practice.” In short, the authors take the unusually optimistic view that reforms can work, if the gap between instructional policy and classroom practice can be closed. Their data show a significant correlation between teacher understanding of the California Learning Assessment System (CLAS) and student performance on the CLAS. While this might be discounted as evidence that teachers were “teaching to the test,” Cohen and Hill counter, “Even if that were so, teachers and administrators would have had to change the curriculum or introduce performance-based assessments in order to raise scores.” The conclusion is that strong links between policy and practice can and do lead to improved student performance.
Cohen and Hill’s study strongly suggests that American education cannot be reformed simply by imposing new requirements; we must also provide teachers with information about those requirements, and the time to thoughtfully integrate them into an effective curriculum. If we can do this, the outcome will be better teaching, and greater learning opportunities for all students.
To read more:
Cohen, D. K., & Hill, H. (2001). Learning Policy: When State Education Reform Works. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
