0.13 Sampson, p., & Roberts, k. (october 2011). historical comparison  (Page 2/14)

Significance of the study

There are strong opinions on the reforms in public education and yet there is a need for revisiting the legislation and leaders in the different eras to determine if there was a strong connection between policy development and public school reform. Positive and sustained school reform continues today with a need for an understanding of the experiences of educational leaders who guide the implementation and institutionalization of the reform (Phillips&Starratt, 2011).

Review of literature

The connection of historical reforms for public schools in the United States is important to the understanding of school improvement initiatives in order that educated decisions can be made for current reforms (Tyack&Cuban, 1995). Researchers have stated that reforms has been created from the inside of schools (Murphy&Beck, 1995), from outsiders (Katz, 1975), or some combination of outside people and school personnel. This is a simplistic way to divide reforms when in reality there are many factors that impact the success and sustainability of reforms.

According to some researchers, successful reform has examined school operations, professional development, administrative support, school organization, and rigor of teaching (Bain, 2010, p. 109). According to other researchers, educational reforms have not been sustained at high levels past five years (Berends, Bodilly,&Nataraj , 2002; Borman, Hewes, Overman,&Brown, 2003; Datnow, 2005; Zhang, Shkolnik,&Fashola, 2005).

While other researchers have found that education reform is possible and can be sustained past five years when several factors are present. These factors are focused leadership, connection with the parents and community, provision of professional development to increase high quality teachers’ instructional capacity, acceptance of instructional practices, and high level of instructional implementation (Bain, 2010; Scheurich, Goddard, Skrla, McKenzie,&Young, 2010; Sindelar, Shearer, Yendol-Hoppey,&Liebert, 2006). Other factors that have been shown to impact the sustainability of a reform were shared decision-making, teacher success, and scope of the innovation.

Sindelar, Shearer, Yendol-Hoppey,&Liebert, (2006) found that complex innovations were less successful (p. 319) which conflicts with Huberman and Miles’ (1984) research that determined that teachers were more committed to an innovation when it was complex. Their cross case analysis of twelve schools of varying sizes and locations across the U.S. showed that the initial attitudes toward a new innovation was neutral (p. 46-47). Administrative pressure was the largest reason for adoption (p. 48) and high levels of personal investment in the early stages of adoption were present for complex changes (p. 53). The longer time between the adoption decision and implementation led to more success (p. 57). Further, the leader’s role in the reform was the initiator of the reform, determining the fit of the innovation to the organization with the demands and stress level to the people in the organization with the innovation, determining the cost and benefit of the innovation (p. 68). Huberman and Miles (1984) found that “the key predictor s of continuation were teacher and administrator support, low environmental turbulence, clear indications that the project was getting locally routinized” (p. 132). The impact on students was determined by the “committed, stable, and skillful use of a good quality innovation” (p. 230).