Between systemic reforms and the mathematics and science classroom: The dynamics of innovation, implementation, and professional learning

Review of Educational Research

Volumn 67, Issue 2, 1997, Pages 227-266

  Knapp, Michael S ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0031476255     PISSN: 00346543     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3102/00346543067002227     Document Type: Article

References (102)

1. Adelman, N. (1995). The National Science Foundation's Statewide Systemic Initiative in Delaware: A case study of Project 21. In A. A. Zucker & P. M. Shields (Eds.), Evaluation of the National Science Foundation 's Statewide Systemic Initiatives Program: Second year report - Part II: Case studies (Connecticut, Delaware, Montana) (pp. 47-82). Washington, DC: National Science Foundation/Directorate for Education & Human Resources.
2. Atkin, J. M., Helms, J. V., Rosiek, G. L., & Siner, S. A. (1996). Building on strength: Changing science teaching in California public schools. Washington, DC: National Research Council.
3. Ball, D. L. (1990). Reflections and deflections of policy: The case of Carol Turner. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12, 247-260.
4. Ball, D. L., & Cohen, D. K. (1995, April). What does the educational system bring to learning a new pedagogy of reading or mathematics? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
5. Bardach, E. (1977). The implementation game: What happens after a bill becomes a law. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
6. Barro, S. (1978). Federal education goals and policy instruments: An assessment of the "strings" attached to categorical grants in education. In M. Timpane (Ed.), The federal interest in financing schools. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
7. Berman, P. (1982). Learning to comply. Peabody Journal of Education, 60, 53-65.
8. Berman, P., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1978). Federal programs supporting educational change: Vol. VIII. Implementing and sustaining innovations. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
9. Brandon, R. N. (1993). Sustaining political support for systemic educational reform (Working draft, prepared for the Pew Forum on Educational Reform). Seattle: University of Washington, Human Services Policy Center.
10. California Department of Education. (1990). Science framework for California public schools. Sacramento, CA: Author.
11. Center for Policy Research in Education. (1995). Reforming science, mathematics, and technology education: NSF's Statewide Systemic Initiatives (CPRE policy brief). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University, Author.
12. Clune, W. (1989). The implementation and effects of high school graduation requirements: First steps towards curricular reform. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University, Center for Policy Research in Education.
13. Clune, W. (1993). The best path to systemic educational policy: Standard/centralized or differentiated/decentralized? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15, 233-254.
14. Cohen, D. K. (1990). A revolution in one classroom: The case of Mrs. Oublier. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12, 311-329.
15. Cohen, D. K. (1995, April). Standards-based school reform: Policy, practice, and performance. Paper presented at a Brookings Institution conference on performance-based approaches to school reform, Washington, DC.
16. Cohen, D. K., & Ball, D. L. (1990). Relations between policy and practice: A commentary. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12, 331-338.
17. Cohen, D. K., & Barnes, C. A. (1993). Pedagogy and policy. In D. K. Cohen, M. W. McLaughlin, & J. E. Talbert (Eds.), Teaching for understanding: Challenges for policy and practice (pp. 207-239). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
18. Cohen, D. K., McLaughlin, M. W., & Talbert, J. E. (Eds.). (1993). Teaching for understanding: Challenges for policy and practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
19. Cohen, M. D., & Sproull, L. S. (Eds.). (1995). Organizational learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
20. Coleman, J. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
21. Cook, S. D. N., & Yanow, D. (1995). Culture and organizational learning. In M. D. Cohen & L. S. Sproull (Eds.), Organizational learning (pp. 430-459). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
22. Crandall, D., & Associates. (1982). A study of dissemination efforts supporting school improvement. Andover, MA: Network.
23. Cuban, L. (1995). The hidden variable: How organizations influence teacher responses to secondary science curriculum reform. Theory into Practice, 34, 4-11.
24. Darling-Hammond, L. (1990). Instructional policy into practice: "The power of the bottom over the top." Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12, 339-347.
25. David, J. L., & Goren, P. D. (1993). Transforming education: Overcoming barriers. Washington DC: National Governors Association.
26. Donmoyer, R. (1995). The rhetoric and reality of systemic reform: A critique of the proposed national science education standards. Theory into Practice, 34, 30-34.
27. Elmore, R., & Sykes, G. (1992). Curriculum policy. In P. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum (pp. 185-215). New York: Macmillan.
28. Firestone, W., & Pennell, J. (1996). Changing classroom practices through teacher networks: Matching program features with teacher characteristics and circumstances. Teachers College Record, 98(1), 46-76.
29. Floden, R. E., Porter, A. C., Alford, L. E., Freeman, D. J., Irwin, S., Schmidt, W. H., & Schwille, J. R. (1988). Instructional leadership at the district level: A closer look at autonomy and control. Educational Administration Quarterly, 24, 96-124.
30. Fox, G. T. (1978). Limitation of a standard perspective on program evaluation: The example of ten years of Teacher Corps evaluations. In J. P. Steffensen, G. T. Fox, R. Bush, & B. Joyce (Eds.), Teachers Corps evaluation (pp. 11-86). Omaha: University of Nebraska, Center for Urban Education.
31. Fuhrman, S. H. (Ed.). (1993). Designing coherent educational policy: Improving the system. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
32. Fuhrman, S. H., Clune, W., & Elmore, R. (1988). Research on education reform: Lessons on the implementation of policy. Teachers College Record, 90(2), 237-258.
33. Fullan, M. (1994). Turning systemic thinking on its head. Unpublished manuscript, prepared for the U.S. Department of Education.
34. Fullan, M., & Pomfret, A. (1977). Research on curriculum and instruction implementation. Review of Educational Research, 77, 335-397.
35. Fullan, M., & Stiegelbauer, S. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. New York: Teachers College Press.
36. Goertz, M. E., Floden, R. E., & O'Day, J. (1995). Studies of education reform: Systemic reform: Vol. I. Findings and conclusions. Newark: Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey, Center for Policy Research in Education.
37. Grant, S. G. (1995, April). Meeting the uneven challenge of reform in mathematics and reading. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
38. Grant, S. G., Peterson, P. L., & Shojgreen-Downer, A. (1996). Learning to teach mathematics in the context of systemic reform. American Educational Research Journal, 33, 509-541.
39. Gross, N., Giacquinta, J., & Bernstein, M. (1971). Implementing organizational innovations: A sociological analysis of planned educational change. New York: Basic Books.
40. Grossman, P. L., & Stodolsky, S. S. (1994). Considerations of content and the circumstances of secondary school teaching. Review of Research in Education, 20, 179-222.
41. Guthrie, J. W. (Ed.). (1990). [Special issue]. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12(3).
42. Hall, G. E., & Hord, S. M. (1987). Change in schools: Facilitating the process. Albany: State University of New York Press.
43. Hall, G. E., & Loucks, S. F. (1977). A developmental model for determining whether the treatment is actually implemented. American Educational Research Journal, 14, 263-276.
44. Hall, G. E., & Loucks, S. F. (1978). Innovation configurations: Analyzing the adaptations of innovations (Rep. No. 3049). Austin: University of Texas, Research and Development Center in Teacher Education.
45. Hall, G. E., Rutherford, W. L., Hord, S. M., & Huling-Austin, L. L. (1984). Effects of three principal styles on school improvement. Educational Leadership, 45(5), 22-29.
46. Hargrove, E. (1981). Strategies for implementing federal education policies: Compliance vs. incentives (Commissioned paper prepared for the School Finance Project). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
47. Herriott, R. E. (1979). Federal initiatives and rural school improvement: Findings from the Experimental Schools Program. Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates.
48. Hill, P. T. (1995). Reinventing public education. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, Institute on Education and Training.
49. Horizon Research, Inverness Research Associates, & Westat, Inc. (1994). Reflections from Wingspread: Lessons learned about the National Science Foundation's Statewide Systemic Initiative - A report on the March 1994 Wingspread conference. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research.
50. Knapp, M. S. (1995, April). Education policy and the improvement of teaching: Two accounts of the early implementation of the California Mathematics Framework. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
51. Knapp, M. S., & Associates. (1995). Teaching for meaning in high poverty classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press.
52. Knapp, M. S., Stearns, M. S., Turnbull, B. J., David, J. L., & Peterson, S. M. (1991). Cumulative effects of federal education policies at the local level. In A. R. Odden (Ed.), Educational policy implementation (pp. 105-124). Albany: State University of New York Press.
53. Leavitt, B., & March, J. G. (1995). Organizational learning. In M. D. Cohen & L. S. Sproull (Eds.), Organizational learning (pp. 517-540). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
54. Levine, D. U., & Lezotte, L. W. (1990). Unusually effective schools: A review and analysis of research and practice. Madison, WI: National Center for Effective Schools Research and Development.
55. Lipsky, M. (1980). Street-level bureaucracy. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
56. Little, J. W. (1989). Districts' policy choices and teachers' professional development opportunities. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11, 165-179.
57. Little, J. W., & McLaughlin, M. W. (Eds.). (1993). Teachers' work: Individuals, colleagues, and contexts. New York: Teachers College Press.
58. Malen, B., Ogawa, R., & Kranz, J. (1989). What do we know about school-based management? A case study of the literature - A call for research. In W. H. Clune & J. Witte (Eds.), Choice and control in American education (Vol. II, pp. 242-289). New York: Falmer Press.
59. Marsh, D. D., & Odden, A. R. (1991). Implementation of the California mathematics and science frameworks. In A. R. Odden (Ed.), Educational policy implementation (pp. 219-240). Albany: State University of New York Press.
60. McDonnell, L., & Elmore, R. (1991). Getting the job done: Alternative policy instruments. In A. R. Odden (Ed.), Educational policy implementation (pp. 157-184). Albany: State University of New York Press.
61. McLaughlin, M. W. (1987). Lessons from experience: Lessons from policy implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9, 171-178.
62. McLaughlin, M. W., & Shepard, L. A. (1995). Improving education through standards-based reform: A report by the National Academy of Education Panel on Standards-Based Education Reform. Washington, DC: National Academy of Education.
63. McLaughlin, M. W., & Talbert, J. E. (1993). Contexts that matter for teaching and learning: Strategic opportunities for meeting the nation's goals. Stanford, CA: Stanford University, Center for Research on the Context of Secondary School Teaching.
64. Miles, M. B. (1964). Innovation in education. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University, Horace Mann-Lincoln Institute of School Experimentation.
65. Moore, D., & Hyde, A. (1983). The politics of staff development in three districts. Chicago: Designs for Change.
66. Moore, M. T., Goertz, A. E., & Hartle, T. W. (1991). The interaction of state and federal programs. In A. R. Odden (Ed.), Educational policy implementation (pp. 81-104). Albany: State University of New York Press.
67. Murphy, J. T. (1971). Title I of ESEA: The politics of implementing federal education reform. Harvard Educational Review, 41(1), 35-63.
68. National Governors' Association. (1989). From rhetoric to action. Washington, DC: Author.
69. National Science Foundation. (1994). Foundation for the future: The systemic cornerstone. Washington, DC: Author.
70. O'Day, J. (1995). Systemic reform in California. In M. E. Goertz, R. E. Floden, & J. O'Day (Eds.), Studies of education reform: Systemic reform - Volume II: Case studies (pp. 1-38). Newark: Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey, Center for Policy Research in Education.
71. O'Day, J., & Smith, M. (1993). Systemic reforms and educational opportunity. In S. Fuhrman (Ed.), Designing coherent educational policy: Improving the system (pp. 250-312). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
72. Odden, A. R. (1991). The evolution of education policy implementation. In A. R. Odden (Ed.), Educational policy implementation (pp. 11-12). Albany: State University of New York Press.
73. Odden, A. R. (1995). Educational leadership for America's schools. New York: McGraw-Hill.
74. Page, R. (1995). Who systematizes the systematizers? Policy and practice interactions in a case of state-level systemic reform. Theory into Practice, 34, 21-29.
75. Peterson, P., Rabe, B., & Wong, K. (1986). The maturation of redistributive programs. In P. Peterson, B. Rabe, & K. Wong (Eds.), When federalism works (pp. 131-159). Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
76. Peterson, P. L. (1990). Doing more in the same amount of time: Cathy Swift. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12, 261-280.
77. Peterson, P. L., Prawat, R. S., & Grant, S. G. (1994, April). Rising expectations and declining resources: Learning to make reform in the best and worst of times. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
78. Popham, W. J. (1987). The merits of measurement-driven instruction. Phi Delta Kappan, 68(9), 679-682.
79. Pressman, J. L., & Wildavsky, A. (1973). Implementation. Berkeley: University of California Press.
80. Price, J., Ball, D., & Luks, S. (1994, April). Marshalling resources for reform: The role of district administrators. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
81. Rogers, E. M. (1962). The diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press of Glencoe.
82. Rosenholtz, S. J. (1991). Teachers'workplace: The social organization of schools. New York: Teachers College Press.
83. Scheurich, J. J., & Fuller, E. (1995). Is systemic reform the answer for schools and science education? Cautions from the field. Theory into Practice, 34, 4-11.
84. Schwille, J., Porter, A., Belli, G., Hoden, R., Freeman, D., Knappen, L., Kuhs, T., & Schmidt, W. (1984). Teachers as policy brokers in the context of elementary school mathematics. In L. Shulman & G. Sykes (Eds.), The handbook of teaching and policy (pp. 370-391). New York: Longmans.
85. Shields, P. M., Corcoran, T., & Zucker, A. A. (1994). Evaluation of the National Science Foundation's Statewide Systemic Initiatives (SSI) Program: First year report -Volume I: Technical report. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation, Directorate for Education and Human Resources.
86. Smith, M., & O'Day, J. (1991). Systemic school reform. In S. H. Fuhrman & B. Malen (Eds.), The politics of curriculum and testing (pp. 233-268). Bristol, PA: The Falmer Press.
87. Smylie, M. (1996). From bureaucratic control to building human capital: The importance of teacher learning in education reform. Educational Researcher, 25(9), 9-11.
88. Spillane, J. (1994). How districts mediate between state policy and teachers' practice. In R. F. Elmore & S. H. Fuhrman (Eds.), The governance of curriculum (pp. 167-185). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
89. Spillane, J. P., Thompson, C. L., Lubienski, C., Jita, L., & Reimann, C. B. (1995). The local government policy system affecting mathematics and science education in Michigan: Lesson from nine school districts. East Lansing: Michigan State University College of Education/MSSI Policy and Program Review Component.
90. Stake, R., & Easely, J. A. (1978). Case studies in science education (Vol. 2). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
91. St. John, M., Century, J. R., Tibbitts, F., & Heenin, B. (1994). Reforming elementary science education in urban districts: Reflections on a conference, Inverness, California, January 1994. Inverness, CA: Inverness Research Associates.
92. Sykes, G. (1990). Organizing policy into practice: Reactions on the cases. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12, 349-353.
93. Sykes, G., & Plastrik, P. (1993). Standard setting as educational reform (Trends and Issues Paper No. 8). Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Teacher Education, American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education.
94. Thompson, C. L., Spillane, J. P., & Cohen, D. K. (1994). The state policy system affecting science and mathematics education in Michigan. East Lansing: Michigan Partnership for New Education, Michigan State University.
95. Weatherly, R., & Lipsky, M. (1977) Street-level bureaucrats and institutional innovation: Implementing special education reform. Harvard Education Review, 47, 171-197.
96. Welch, W. W. (1979). Twenty years of science curriculum development: A look back. Review of Research in Education, 7, 282-306.
97. Wiemers, N. J. (1990). Transformation and accommodation: The case of Joe Scott. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12, 281-292.
98. Wilson, S. M. (1990). A conflict of interests: The case of Mark Black. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12, 293-310.
99. Wilson, S. M., Peterson, P. L., Ball, D. L., & Cohen, D. K. (1996). Learning by all. Phi Delta Kappan, 77(7), 468-477.
100. Zucker, A. A., & Hawkins, E. (1995). The National Science Foundation's Statewide Systemic Initiative in Montana: A case study of the Systemic Initiative for Montana Mathematics and Science (SIMMS). In A. A. Zucker & P. M. Shields (Eds.), Evaluation of the National Science Foundation 's Statewide Systemic Initiatives Program: Second year report - Case studies (Connecticut, Delaware, Montana) (pp. 1-46). Washington, DC: National Science Foundation, Directorate for Education and Human Resources.
101. Zucker, A. A., & Shields, P. M. (1995). Evaluation of the National Science Foundation 's Statewide Systemic Initiatives Program: Second year report - Second-year case studies: Connecticut, Delaware, Montana. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation, Directorate for Education and Human Resources.
102. Zucker, A. A., Shields, P. M., Adelman, N., & Powell, J. (1995). Evaluation of the National Science Foundation's Statewide Systemic Initiatives Program: Second year report - Cross-cutting themes. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation, Directorate for Education and Human Resources.