For the past three years, we do have accountability a gift from the state and it has caused shifts and slowing of reform - offering an excuse to move back. At the same time, attributes of and expectations for teaching for meaning and concept development grow. Interesting really. During the first three years, we began to hear talk of success when there was fidelity to teaching with Investigations in Number, Data, and Space. Teachers and administrators were judging success by "seeing" learning and improved Terra Nova Scores. We have implemented a performance assessment for mathematics within the project schools, offering some balance to assessment. We now expect that when the program is strong; students will do well on all forms of assessment. It seems that teachers and administrators who know mathematics and trust the materials find this to be so. Not so with all yet. Test mania exists. We have a real need for data and are developing plans for action research.

Our effort to achieve a balanced curriculum helps. We focus on mathematics with a strong mental mathematics component and use the Investigations PD curriculum for teaching arithmetic in new ways. In science and mathematics, there is a strong effort to identify the important content ideas in each module and lesson. Favorite phrases include, "Wheres the math? Wheres the science? and, Teaching content through inquiry."

By managing meaning - do you mean consistency of message? If yes, we develop syllabi for workshops and sessions. The mentorship component for leaders and printed course syllabi helps to keep the message clear although it is not always possible. Being around a long time clearly helps - we don't go away. Staff spends time considering the language we are using and the meaning heard.

Finally, I think you are right, maintaining a 'critical mass' of leaders is a key foundation strategy. The fact that the leadership cadre that is continually being renewed, although a challenge, is a strength.