Posted by: Scott Hays Posted on: May 23, 2001 at 8:57 AM Message: It is perhaps unfair that I post ideas somewhat out of the mainstream near the end of the conference. I apologize ? I have struggled for several days in how to best present my thoughts, even to the point of almost deciding to not write anything. Finally, I decided to just throw them together and see how they fit. Hopefully, those who know me will temper my words with an understanding that I am not much of a fan of people or groups that like to control anything (least of all, change). I am also not a big fan of "shoulds", in the form of commands or directives. Hopefully, too, people will not read ingratitude or defiance in my word. Our project (now in year 7) has built a fine infrastructure in seven districts (though there are some real difficulties in sustaining systemic change when key personnel in those districts change -- or the focus of energy gets shifted by larger political realities and/or expectations) No, this is just an effort, on my part, to explain that I think the bandwagon needs to consider alternative approaches for effecting profound change in teaching practice. So what do I think about these important questions of sustainability and accountability? Basically, I think both are extremely important, but we are going about them exactly inside and out. Yes, policy-makers with grand ideas and large sums of money certainly have a right to demand that the stakeholders they fund show some evidence for success in the reform efforts that they develop. But if the strings are too tight, if the standards for evaluating success lopsidedly numerical (and thusly removed from real kids and real teachers and real experiences), then the policy-makers could just as easily be unnamed math consultants to the California Content Standards Commission as well as architects of the NSF local systemic change initiative. The opposite side of the coin from high stakes testing is number of hours of service provided. To expect that "x" number of hours of training in certain types of materials, or even some sort of numerical accounting of how often those materials are used in the classroom does not necessarily translate into either change in practice or effectiveness of that practice. The only way to fully ascertain depth of change -- and its effectiveness -- requires (no ? begs) a much more complicated and time consuming assessment of what is taking place: not just in the classroom, but in the hearts and minds of students. Reflective collaboration, team planning/team reflection, peer coaching, videotaping, collection and assessment of actual student products must all become a lasting and permanent part of the culture. If we feel a single measure of student understanding (a norm-referenced, high stakes test) is unfair, inaccurate, and probably inherently discriminatory; then we must consistently strive to develop more than single measures of program effectiveness, as well. Questions of time and expense (well, the latter has a strong bearing) should be secondary, if what we seek is depth and meaning. Both types of measurement are based upon a "top-down" model. Might I suggest that NSF seriously consider supporting and funding well-designed "bottom-up" projects? What is wrong with describing the parameters of a desired outcome and trusting that the local facilitators and/or leadership will find the best way to accomplish those goals, locally? What is wrong with top-down guidance, but bottom-up implementation and assessment? What is wrong with anecdotal evidence? And why is flexibility and adaptiveness not a major standard for evaluation? Perhaps it is time to run the risk of losing control while trusting that -- in the end -- the desired outcomes will be achieved. If institutions fear theft or fraud in various projects, there are relatively foolproof and painless methods for making sure that public monies are not being disposed of illegally. We just need to be more vigilant. There are equally effective means for requiring that truthful accounts of how monies were spent (related to how goals were achieved -- or not, as the case may be!) be submitted that can go a long way towards guaranteeing that the money wasn't "wasted". The key word in all this is "trust", and it is my strong belief that real change cannot be effected (let alone sustained) unless trust is built deeply into the process. For example, I trust that my students will figure out, for themselves, how to best solve a problem or figure out an answer. I am there to guide and support their efforts -- to chastise, as necessary, but mostly to encourage and to offer new ways of looking at things (or new experiences to see them in a different light). The greatest and most profound change that takes place for a student is when that student suddenly realizes that they not only did it themselves, but can do it again if they have to. Local systemic change -- I should say, LASTING local systemic change -- can only take place when the stakeholders are empowered to solve their own problems, demonstrate their own understanding and effectiveness, and build their own capacity by instituting the change on their own. You can't mandate that. You can't legislate it. Nor can you buy it. I might add one other comment, and that has to do with the danger of top-down reformers doing battle with other top-down reformers. The price is costly -- but mostly for practitioners in the field. In California, like it or not, supporters for using one type of "empirical data" have gained the upper hand in matters of policy-making. A peculiar (but perhaps not coincidental) outcome of this temporary ascendancy of what I shall call "those with the narrow vision" is that there is not a single NSF-developed math or science program on the California adoption list. Some courageous districts and individual teachers have enough temerity and confidence to stand up to the decision- and policy-makers. However, to expect schools and districts to do so in order to receive continued support may be a noble statement from NSF ? but it doesn't do much to advance the cause of effective science and math teaching in those districts and schools. We need to be able to find ways to advance the goals of a thinking, meaning-centered curriculum while using the materials approved by the state, and we need NSF to support us in that endeavor. Thanks for your patience, Scott Hays LASERS/Monterey Bay Science Project