Policymakers at all levels—federal, state, and local—are increasingly emphasizing higher learning standards and school accountability. They want evidence of better goal setting, rational program choices to attain those goals, and documentation of results. A striking example of this increased attention occurred in 1997, when the U.S. Congress appropriated funds to support schools interested in implementing research-based reform programs. The congressional conference report mentioned in particular those programs that have been widely implemented as models of comprehensive reform to improve student learning in schools with a high concentration of economically disadvantaged students (U.S. House of Representatives 1997). The report named 17 examples of reform models, including the Coalition of Essential Schools, Community for Learning, and Success for All.
In view of this interest, we have analyzed the defining features of 12 research-based programs that have been implemented for five years or more in at least 50 schools or for 3,000 students. We contacted program developers for information and searched the Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) database to identify descriptive and research documents for each program.
The programs fall into two categories: comprehensive or curricular. Comprehensive school reform programs focus on school governance and organization and may also include emphasis on revised curricular content. Curricular reform programs emphasize content in one or more academic disciplines. All of the programs aim to improve student learning and have achieved national visibility. The synthesis presented here can help educational policymakers and school staff compare program components. (See Wang et al. 1997 for a complete listing and description of these programs.)
Comprehensive Reform
- Accelerated Schools (Hopfenberg et al. 1993). This program focuses on improving student learning through enriched curriculum and instruction, school climate, and organizational changes.
- Coalition of Essential Schools (MacMullen 1996). The Coalition was founded on nine principles that encourage students to think critically, help teachers facilitate learning, and foster the use of authentic assessments.
- Community for Learning (previously known as the Adaptive Learning Environments Model) (Wang 1992, 1997). This data-based, K–12 program focuses on high academic achievement through schoolwide planning structures and coordination of instruction and related services.
- School Development (Comer 1996). This program unites the resources of the school, family, and community to promote holistic child development.
Characterized by broad goals, these programs change the conventional school's management and organization. They employ, for example, flexible scheduling and small learning communities that work to create interdisciplinary curriculums. They bring together parents, educators, students, and community members to define a coherent vision of the school. In some cases, these stakeholders are free to define their own vision. Accelerated Schools, Community for Learning, and School Development, for example, have specific parent involvement components. The Coalition of Essential Schools, on the other hand, expects the school's vision to be congruent with a set of clear principles.
Comprehensive school reform programs promote schoolwide reconceptions of where learning takes place and how to measure it. For example, Community for Learning and School Development connect learning to the physical and psychological development of the child and link schools to medical, psychological, legal, and social services in a coordinated network. Teachers in the Coalition of Essential Schools and Accelerated Schools assess student learning in new ways, including portfolios and exhibitions.
Curricular Reform
- Core Knowledge (Hirsch 1993). This curriculum develops students' cultural literacy, emphasizing content in history, literature, geography, math, science, art, and music.
- Different Ways of Knowing (Catterall 1995). This program emphasizes multiple intelligences and interdisciplinary studies to strengthen students' verbal, mathematical, logical, social, and artistic skills.
- Foxfire (Foxfire Fund, Inc. 1992). This teacher network is learner-centered and promotes interaction with the community.
- Higher Order Thinking Skills (Pogrow 1995). This pullout program develops students' critical thinking skills through technology combined with Socratic teaching.
- National Writing Project (Smith 1996). This program is designed to improve students' writing through professional development opportunities for teachers.
- Paideia (Adler 1983). This liberal arts program emphasizes developing students' minds through a classical curriculum, didactic instruction, Socratic questioning, and coaching.
- Reading Recovery (Pinnell 1995). This pullout program offers one-on-one tutoring to early readers with reading problems.
- Success for All (Slavin et al. 1996). This reading and language arts program emphasizes preventing academic deficiencies through one-on-one tutoring and small-group instruction.
Curricular reform programs can usually fit into conventional schools with minimal change. Reading Recovery and Higher Order Thinking Skills, for example, typically remove children from regular classrooms for needed instruction. Different Ways of Knowing infuses the arts, literature, and other activities into existing social studies courses without reorganizing schools. The National Writing Project provides instruction within the departmentalized organization of high schools and as part of language arts instruction in elementary schools. Core Knowledge leaves about half of the school day for activities outside its scope. Success for All places students in homogeneous groups for reading instruction.
Curricular programs typically require educators to master or develop the use of program-specific materials and new teaching strategies. Core Knowledge, for example, supplies clear-cut content of instruction but leaves lesson planning and material development to teachers; Different Ways of Knowing calls for knowledge of Howard Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences; Foxfire requires investigations of local culture; and Paideia depends on skilled Socratic teaching. In contrast, Higher Order Thinking Skills, Reading Recovery, and Success for All provide the required materials and teaching procedures. The National Writing Project, Foxfire, and Different Ways of Knowing require teacher collaboration to develop new materials and lesson plans.
Goals, Grade Levels, and Focus
Although each of the programs is distinctive, they share some common goals. All aim to increase learning through research-based practices. Most seek to expand the professional role of teachers, improve the culture and climate of schools and classrooms, and include family and community involvement.
Program implementation occurs most frequently in grades K–8. Nine programs are designed to educate all children in the general school population, although several have been widely implemented as inclusive educational programs that integrate students with special needs (for example, students receiving Title I and special education services) with the support of specialist teachers.
The programs vary in their curricular emphases. Some stress learning and teaching in particular content areas, whereas others stress critical thinking and study skills. Few do both.
Program Practices
Information on research-based practices shown in Figure 1 can facilitate program choices. Educators, for example, who are interested in a strong academic focus across curricular areas might select Core Knowledge or Paideia. These two programs, however, differ in the number and type of classroom practices they use. Paideia employs cooperative learning, didactic instruction, and teachers as learning facilitators. Core Knowledge is less directive concerning classroom practices. For educators interested in coordinating academic and related services, School Development or Community for Learning are possible choices.
Figure 1. Effective Practices Used by Educational Reform Programs
Special Topic / Models of Reform: A Comparative Guide-TABLE
Program Practices | Accelerated Schools | Coalition of Essential Schools | Community for Learning | Core Knowledge | Different Ways of Knowing | Foxfire | Higher Order Thinking Skills | National Writing Project | Paideia | Reading Recovery | School Development | Success for All |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Classroom Practices | ||||||||||||
| High expectations for students | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X |
| Frequent, high-quality, academic interactions among teachers and students | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |
| Metacognitive strategies | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||
| Student-directed learning | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||
| Direct instruction | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||
| Small-group instruction | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||
| Frequent, high-quality, social interactions among teachers and students | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||
| Cooperative Learning | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||
| Positive classroom climate | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||
| Adaptive instructional strategies | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||
| Peer tutoring | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||
| Tutoring by teacher, teacher aide, or student | X | X | X | X | ||||||||
| Curriculum and Assessment | ||||||||||||
| Alignment of curriculum and assessment | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X |
| Tailored to student ability and academic background | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||
| Integration of content areas | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||
| Tailored to student cultural background | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||
| Use of individual learning plans | X | X | X | X | ||||||||
| Frequent assessments | X | X | X | X | ||||||||
| School Organization and Climate | ||||||||||||
| Parent involvement | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||
| Principal as facilitator and support provider | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||
| Community involvement | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||
| Positive schoolwide climate | X | X | X | X | ||||||||
| Small class size | X | X | X | X | ||||||||
| Shared decision making on school policies | X | X | X | X | ||||||||
| Inclusive school | X | X | X | X |
Note: The list of research-based practices indicates what the 12 programs support to varying degrees, depending on the goals and scope of the programs. For a description of what constitutes a “research-based practice,” see Wang et al. (1993).
Source: Wang et al. (1997).
Of the 54 practices featured in the programs, we show only 25 in Figure 1. These practices, such as high expectations for students; frequent, high-quality, academic interactions among teachers and students; and peer tutoring, are more firmly grounded in research on what influences student learning (Wang et al. 1993).
We have found some noteworthy differences across programs. The comprehensive school reform programs generally include more research-based practices than the curriculum-focused programs. The greatest difference between these two types of programs is in the number of practices related to school organization and climate.
Community for Learning, Reading Recovery, and Success for All incorporate the following practices that are related to improved learning: frequent high-quality academic interactions among teachers and students; grouping practices, tutorials, metacognitive strategies; and frequent assessments. Other effective practices are those that stress positive, supportive learning environments, including high expectations for all students; frequent and positive social interactions among teachers and students; positive classroom and school climate; cooperative learning; and parent involvement. School Development employs these practices both to improve school climate and enhance student cognitive and affective outcomes. In contrast, Reading Recovery and the National Writing Project emphasize more specific instructional strategies.
Research-based practices may be important criteria for selecting programs. Although the sheer number of such practices should not be the single measure of program effectiveness, it does provide evidence of the potential effectiveness of a fully implemented program.
Professional Development Requirements
The programs specify varying professional development requirements, among other differences in such areas as materials required, teaching strategies used, and follow-up support.
- Different Ways of Knowing and School Development train teachers in new ways of thinking about teaching and learning.
- Foxfire and the National Writing Project provide teachers with new skills and pedagogies through workshops, networks, and institutes to ensure that teachers share their expertise with one another.
- The Coalition of Essential Schools engages school staff in discussions of why and how to teach.
- Accelerated Schools engages all stakeholders in discussions of the school's mission.
- Community for Learning provides data on the degree of program implementation and student performance for staff to use as they devise action plans to meet classroom- and school-level goals. These data-based improvement plans are continually revised based on student progress.
- Different Ways of Knowing and Success for All rely on several days of professional development with follow-up activities.
- The National Writing Project employs a summer institute that lasts several weeks.
- Reading Recovery requires teachers to attend graduate-level courses at a university-based training center.
- School Development focuses on changing the culture of the school and spreading professional development over the years.
- Community for Learning employs systematic professional development that provides pre-implementation training and ongoing staff development targeted for individual staff.
Funding and Time Requirements
The programs also vary in the amount of time and cost required for implementation. Specific dollar amounts depend on school size, the amount of professional development required, and substitute teaching costs to cover time for teacher planning and professional development. Prospective consumers can expect reform programs to provide information on the costs of training, additional staff requirements, curriculum materials, equipment required, and other fees. Among the programs that require substantial staff preparation costs are Accelerated Schools, Community for Learning, the Coalition of Essential Schools, Higher Order Thinking Skills, Reading Recovery, School Development, and Success for All. The National Writing Project and Foxfire, on the other hand, require little additional cost. They rely heavily on teacher networks for staff renewal and dissemination.
What Else Is Available and What is Missing
In addition to providing information about the 12 programs described here, the framework in Figure 1 may prove useful in evaluating other programs developed either externally or locally. We are recording additional information on a CD-ROM that will allow educators to review further details about the programs and to weigh features according to their own preferences and needs, enabling them to make better decisions about programs to choose or formulate on their own.
What educators do not have is enough information on the most important feature of the programs; achievement results. Ideally, such information would come from independent evaluators who have set up experiments to contrast the progress of students in a given program with comparable students in conventional programs. Despite their attractive features and practices, and notwithstanding the thousands of schools that have tried the reform programs, independent research on their impact on student learning is sorely needed.
