Class Reflection

Learned from the articles

Chrispeels- very well done study looking at implementation…..a little outdated. A lot has changed in California—how is this applied differently?

-used McDonough and Elmore—used as a frame in practice

Domina—can publish an article even if it doesn’t have the outcome desired….not desirable findings are still findings in themselves

Remember--Keep trying to tie back with earlier readings!!!!

STEM questions—group work.  Again-- love my seat and group :)

IROQUOIS case study

--do intermediaries take on a strong role because there is a swirl at the top (changing in superintendents often)

Revolving superintendents—someone gets it started but someone else has to finish it

--implications for implementation

·         Voicing concern, losing buy-in

·         Poor language—not putting positive spin on it

·         Said true feelings, but new superintendent will need to clean it up

--intermediaries

·         Stronger role because need buy-in

·         New guy needs all the information

--look back to chapter for unfunded mandates—Iroquois did apply for grant.  Understand disappointment but left a mess for the person after him.

--nowhere in the article do they talk about changing the current system and questioning the status quo

Are smaller districts put at a strong disadvantage because they don’t the resources to implement the right way?

Looking at things regionally—smaller, rural districts more likely to cooperate because they don’t have a lot of other resources

Domina: What Works in College Outreach

I am a huge proponent of college outreach programs, so the results of this survey and article were a bit disheartening.  I know all community based organizations are not the best run, but Upward Bound is supposed to be one of the best.  That students in those programs were not more likely to graduate high school is sad...

I have worked with several CBOs when I did undergrad admissions, with varying organization and structure.  Some programs picked the cream of the crop to graduate high school and get into selective colleges, and some even went further to help these students through college (like One Voice).  Still other organizations take any kind of students into their organizations and help them with the college process-- as long as students are intrinsically motivated (like MOSTE).  Others work directly with colleges/universities and do a CBO/school approach to provide support during the application process, college readiness after being admitted, and then support from the school (Posse Foundation).  Granted, Posse is expensive, with One Voice having paid staff, and MOSTE comprised of volunteers- with success of the programming in the same order.  Others are schools that have a college-prep emphasis, such as Yes Prep in Houston and Green Dot in Los Angeles.  These are all charter-type schools and have very extensive outside funding.

pg. 127-- 5% of all high school students are in college outreach program.  10% of poor in these programs.  We know very little about how well these programs work and is they are successful.

pg. 132-- discusses the Quantum Opportunities Program.  In each of the sites, half the students received services and half to a control group.  I understand why there is a control group BUT if this program is a success, aren't students missing a great opportunity for their future?

Upward Bound is talked about at length, and per student, it is costly.  Not only costly but  it does not seem to be successful :(  This is terrible that students in Upward Bound are no more likely to graduate from high school than non-participants.  It also discussed Talent Search Programs (like One Voice that I worked with in LA)-- these type of organizations too do not do better for enrolling in four-year colleges.  Again, terrible -- we all want to believe in these programs, but can we?

I am facebook friends with the two groups of students I admitted with One Voice at Bucknell, and most of them are struggling-- Bucknell is not the easiest place for low-socioeconomic, minority students, especially students who do not have the strongest academic background.  However, the second group is doing better than the first.  I mandated (and by mandated-- I made the students think it was required when it wasn't-- whoops) that these students were active in a mentoring program through multicultural student services.  The combination of support to college and in college helped.  But this article is just talking about the bridge to college.

Results found that the CBOs are not successful-- or as successful as they set out to be, but programs within a school have a much stronger probability of success.  This is yet another thing that disadvantages minority and low-socioeconomic students.  Schools that have the resources for college and career centers and other outreach programs will have higher graduation rates.  The research suggests that resources devoted to outside community based organizations should be diverted to building programs within the schools, perhaps with schools like Yes Prep (the most successful that I have seen of public/charter schools).

Sunderman- Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis

I found this article really interesting and wish I could have read it sooner in the semester as I did not know too much about NCLB before starting this class.

Sunderman and the introduction written by Orfield show that many problems with NCLB were very predictable, but the right people were not at the table with the passage of this law to help legislators see this.  "These unforeseen circumstances are exactly what congressional oversight and good evaluation by administrators and researchers are supposed to discover and correct." pg. 6  Neither of which happened before NCLB was enacted.

He also continuously discussed the unlawfulness of NCLB as it is seen today and in the last administration by how individual states and even districts are exempt from parts of NCLB.  Orfieldfocused on states like Florida and Texas (Bush admin), but I think it can be applied more broadly, particularly with the waivers being granted to states now with the Department of Ed (see trip reflection from DC on how the executive branch is using too much of their power and not going through the proper channels). While it seems like Orfield does have a political bend, it does somewhat speak to Kelly (WM grad) on pg. 8.

NCLB is by no means perfect.  There are plenty of problems with it, and it does need to be changed (possibly be removed) but individual states getting waivers is not the way to do.  It's sad to think more care was not put into thinking about the consequences of the law and not bringing more of the right people around the table-- I know it was the right time politically to pass an education law, but really, was this the best our country's leaders could do? Reading this article was frustrating to see that special circumstances were not taken from the get-go for ESL students and students with disabilities.  I understand the idea of the law was for all students to be held to the same high standards, but in some cases- this just can't happen.  As I'm scanning through my notes in this 60 page document, there are more and more changes made to NCLB after it was enacted.  Minor changes I can understand but more at the state and district level with implementation, not at the national level.  I just think the whole law should have been thought through better.

Looking at implementation, we could in an optimistic world that NCLB was a good idea in theory....but in practice was not fleshed out/implementation when the policy was enacted, particularly for those who are working at the ground level.  I also had questions about what it means to be a highly qualified teacher-- what did that mean? each state/district had different requirements. can the federal government really dictate this?

I don't know if common sense wasn't in place when NCLB says that there needs to be 95% participation in state tests (pg. 21).  What was the percentage for state and federal testing normally?  How can teachers/schools be responsible for attendance-- I understand why NCLB wants such a strong representation for data purposes, but is 95% possible?

With the waivers, isn't it favoring states and districts with more resources?  Places with more money who can devote time and man-power to securing these waivers? I'm sure some states and districts did a better job at negotiating their waivers with the federal government.  It's also frustrating to see how states weren't pushing for their states to be better.  Georgia for instance (pg. 44) was able to change their graduation rates targets.  In one year, it was 61.8%.  The next year, GA set their goal to be 60%.  Really?  How did this get approved?  If NCLB is meant for students to achieve higher, why is one state lower their standards and being approved by the federal government to do so?

I don't think the goals of NCLB are even close to being achieved with vague language in the law, it not being thought-out, and all these waivers.  What is its point now besides for causing headaches? It's a pretty pessimistic viewpoint, and Sunderman does provide some relief with his suggestions to improve NCLB:
-reexamine core assumptions
-reexamine mechanisms used by NCLB to improve schools
- (most important)-- include educations in open and honest debate!!

This article is dated and even more compromise has been made to NCLB-- I wonder what Sunderman would suggest now?

Fowler: Chapter 10

Implementation-- how do we actually get policies implemented??
Implementation can never be taken for granted- p. 241.  Fowler goes on to say that educators need to be actively engaged in the implementation process, as their jobs are heavily tied to policy implementation.

Who are the players?
-Formal- government officials
-Intermediaries- formal implementer delegates responsibility-- will and capacity of intermediaries is what affects successful policy implementation

Reasons why implementations cannot work in educational policy? Implementation is difficult!

1. didn't understand change
2. didn't know how to use new pedagogy
3. materials needed to establish open classrooms not available
4. culture of institution not consistent with new policy
5. teachers became discouraged and lost motivation 

Examples from 1984 study by Hiberman and Miles- p. 247

Highly successful implementations-- administrators deeply committed to new program.  new policy fit with institution

Relatively successful-- crusading atmosphere among teachers-- helped each other

relatively unsuccessful- supportive at first, offered little assistance

failures- poorly designed and leaders never really interested in implementation

With implementation, there needs to be a good amount of cognitive dissonance-- people use their previous experiences and learning to develop new schemas, but it's hard to bring something new into that schema.  They want to understand bast on past experiences, and it is up to the leaders to lead the charge to help teachers and others to learn new schemas.

Scaling up-- deliberate expansion of externally developed school-restructuring design that previously has been used successfully in smaller settings.

--internal and structural changes the hardest.  culture of many schools does not support collaborative in the way that many reforms require.  external challenges also exist with testing and individual state mandates schools must adhere to.  

How to implement a new policy?

Mobilization

Must answer three key questions in the affirmative:

Do we have good reasons for adopting a new policy?

Is the policy appropriate for our school or district?

Does the policy we are considering have sufficient support among key state holders?

Planning for implementation

Planning is essential-- and whether is is a large or small steering committee, it must include building principals and teachers.

Forward mapping

Money-- most policies supported through grants

Time

Personnel-- espeically a project director or coordinator

Space

Equipment and Materials

Stages of Implementation

Early-- first months will be rough.  be careful in deciding to midgetizing-- by making some of the policy changes smaller, one can make it less worthwhile and meaningful.

Late-- depends on if early was successful.  Decide what works, what doesn't, and eliminate the ineffective components and replace with more effective ones.

Cross-cutting themes- monitoring and feedback, ongoing assistance, coping with problems

Resistance-- self-interest, conflicts with professional values-- exit, voice, and disloyalty
Coping with resistance is key!!!

Under final points, Fowler argues that there is no excuse for failure.  But then why does it still happen if we have the tools?

Educational Policy Implementation in Shifting Political Climate

Chrispeels' article looked at policy differences in California while the CLAS policy was in place and when it was vetoed after being in place for 10 years.  CLAS stands for the California Learning Assessment Program.  After reading the article and looking back to write this reflection, a line on pg. 454 stands out to me-- "this study shows how policies contribute to both organizational change and stability."       

In discussing implementation, policies must
-maintain system orientation
-address content and process
-use natural network of teachers
-focus on improving classroom practice

--A big point of focus that was I see from this article, the Fowler reading, and class last week is that coherence and understanding is so important for educators to make a policy seem worthwhile.

Other important pieces are
-mandates
-inducements
-capacity-building
-system-changing
-hortatory
**first three stand out to me the most

As Chrispeels discusses the electoral challenges, my notes in the article say-- stupid politics-- did a shift in politics create the window of opportunity to veto the program that seemed to be working?
It seems illogical to veto a program that is having success (even if limited) simply because it doesn't fit one person's political ideology-- at least look at the program, suggest changes, rather than eliminating it completely.

The study done by Chrispeel is a two-part longitudinal study.  However, the second part of the study was based on a self-selected targeted population-- this seems like a bit of a limitation.  These people were chosen because of their knowledge and leadership, but is this an all-inclusive group??

The original bill showed a bill policy shift where the curriculum was less prescriptive, and the vision was rapidly adopted; however, the language was vague in the law.  (pg. 462) The reform initiatives were bringing CA to a more coherent policy program, but some people believed that these changes were happening fast enough.  I wonder if this was due to vague language and compromising in the passing of the law.

We discussed how teacher buy-in was necessary to enact new policies. A quote on pg. 463 shows this where it says that teachers teach what they belief in and while they might go through the motions but this isn't a glowing endorsement from their teachers on this new policy.

What I thought was really interesting is that after CLAS was abolished and there wasn't a clear direction from the state, many school districts continued with CLAS policies at the local level.  This certainly shows that there was some buy-in from local constituencies.  Pg. 468 indicates that many teachers liked these alternative assessments because they were in line with teaching in the classrooms.  87% of teachers in the school district surveyed indicated that they used CLAS like assessment into the English and language arts programs since they "made sense" to local educators.

Many argued that CLAS just needed more time for it to work-- one quote said five more years.

What caused the demise?  Chrispeels says it was four factors:
--loss of leadership in state senate and state superintendent's office
--change in schooling policies, not "real school"
--poor test performance with CA compared to national groups
--with testing, failure to develop individual student results

Overall, the study evaluated what happened in California and ideas for the future.  My take-away was that language in CLAS policies and others like it should be tightened up and then tweaked during implementation to accomplish the overarching goals but then some of the quantitative benchmarks on the national level.  While the demise of CLAS did not help California, it provides an example of the importance of language (along with politics) and sure the language is clearer and tighter for policies in the future.
 

Class Reflection

Sometimes I think my focus is too narrow.  I started with a narrow college perspective and now it’s a little like all I know is law school….

The above is the only thing I have written in my word doc notes (I have more notes in the power point and on the group worksheet).  I leave class each week wanting to learn more and wishing I had access to more.  I know I do have access, but there's always the excuse of time-- I need to make time.  So right now, unfortunately, I'm adding it to the list.

When we were discussing contemporary issues, funding stood out to me, particularly with being at the law school (sometimes I feel like we're the ugly step-sister of main campus, particularly after sitting through meetings that we aren't paying enough for electricity, and we owe main campus more when I feel like the services provided to us from main campus--particularly if our requests are mostly on back burners- are not equal to what we are paying in return).  I though Virginia was bad, but there are certainly worse places.

--WM- 12% state funded, CO- 4% state funded (CO also had a huge program with vouchers, moving from public into private good realm)

Other challenges– organizational climate and pressures for accountability

-- Doing more with less

--Look at fowler chapter on implementation--- Resistance is a HUGE piece…almost it take more time to resist than to change.

--Assume certain things about learning, make assumptions that may/may not be true.  How do you even catch these assumptions to rethink and restructure what you are doing?

--If you are a new leader, how are you able to create space for creativity and safety in that space to come up with something new?  One of the challenges– how do we do this? I see this with my work.  My boss (who is wonderful and has been in her job for 30+ years) hired younger staff for new ideas, and I was excited for that.  Now, however, not much has been changed in the year I have been there due to resistance.  It can be frustrating, but part of it is taking baby steps.

It’s important to include people that have ideas that are different than yours (maybe even you don’t like….).  Transparency is also a big thing– let people know what you are doing.  This is something that Pam said that stood out to me-- yes, I should include people who have different opinions than me and really listen-- not let it go in one ear and out the other! :)

How do we help each other out?  We don’t know because we’re so focused on ourselves.

Always be able to ask

-who’s at the table?

-power sources?

-What are we assuming?

START with these and other things/assumptions will show up 

P.S.  Seat update-- I LOVED my seat this week.  I sat on the left side of the room and having teachers in the group was fantastic.  We had wonderful conversations in the class discussion that were inclusive of all members.  It was awesome-- I learned so much from this group and felt like I added a lot of value as well.

Fowler- Chapter 7

Fowler's chapter seven discusses issue definition and agenda setting.  Fowler used a great story to start the chapter with the moral of the story being that as human beings, "we have a powerful desire to perceive the reality we think we should perceive."  pg. 148.  This certainly has strong implications for policy as well as the idea of playing the game.  Education leaders need to play the game and be ahead of the game, so that they are not blind-sighted with new policies that require implementation.

Figures 7.1-7.3 discuss problems in schools, how they relate to policy, and how policies relate to student motivation.  The big thing that stands out to me is motivation, incentives, and morale--with morale crossing over with every point.

EPPRC- Education Policy Planning and Research Community-- loosely linked set of institutions, para private
Funding- outright donations, endowment, grants, contracts
***I knew the Gates Foundation was a big player, but I did not realize that in less than 10 years of its founding in 2004, it is the third most important education organization, after Congress and USDOE.

I liked when Fowler talked about research and how many say that basic research isn't practical-- BUT without basic research, there would be nothing to build on for the more advanced research (like applied and integrative research).

"Food is essential to a successful think tank" (pg. 156).  This applies not only to think tanks, but for anything.  Food is a good incentive to get people to show up.  Think about any community, work, or student related event.  Yes, the content is important but without the food, there would be barely anyone there to listen, discuss, and share.

Elements of Skillful Issue Definition

1. Claims
2. Evidence
3. Solution
4. Discourse-- powerful language
5. Broad Appeal-- but does this then water down the policy?

Policy Agenda-- systematic agenda (people outside government-- (1) professional agenda, (2) media agenda, (3) public agenda) and governmental agenda.

 **Access to policy agenda is highly competitive!

Nondecision-- failure to act.  Sometimes easier to push aside than to have an outright now-- at least for the government officials, not those this policies affects.  

From Fowler's text, attention to an issue is what helps a policy attract support and to keep it in the public eye.

Influencing Agenda Setting- knowledge, allies, organizational effectiveness

Class Discussion

The article critique portion of the class stood out to me the most! 

·         Research Design

o   Hypotheses based on type of government (conservative, social-democratic, liberal)—interesting they used regime versus government

o   Looked at indicators of participation and other indicators—seeing if it is grouped by government type

o   Where they got the date from is under the results section—from 2008 OECD Education­—supplemented with other information/data-- countries reported what wanted to, a lot of missing observations

·         Findings

o   Conservative regimes expanded less than liberal regimes

§  Same pattern with graduation rates

o   Policy makers should make decisions based on regime

§  Why do they have to do that?  Wouldn't they do that naturally?

§  How can they change outcomes if they’re only making policies based on your regime

·         Discussion/Conclusion

o   Useful that it was with four policy makers instead of one….multiple lenses

o   Interesting—sample age is 25-64—why so large?

o   Quote on page 22- why low achiever??  Does this mean tracking….

§  Conservative—people have their proper place I society—46

§  More extensive tracking….more money and resources

§  What about Fowler models….

o   Framework analysis helps with framing for article critiques

§  Also look at leadership and power—how are they being used

Take away from Article Discussion

·        You can always poke-- I really liked this language :)  

·        Can always cite Fowler and Smirch/Morgan—this will become second nature as you come along

o   Weick also with sense making

o   There is a cast of characters that you can start citing along the way

·         Soon—you will be able to see holes in anything and be able to increase your own writing

Pechar & Anders: Higher Education Policies

Pechar and Andres investigated and found that there is a convincing relationship between higher education and welfare regimes.  In order to do a meaningful comparative analysis, the authors had to understand the trade-offs each country is faced with.  The US, for example, used education often as a trade-off since it is under discretionary spending instead of mandated funding.

The three types are:

-Liberal welfare regimes (Canada, US, UK)-- low degree decommodification and strong role in markets

• high tuition fees

-Conservative welfare regimes (Austria, France, Italy)-- preserving social structures and hierarchies and the traditional family

• low/no tuition fees

-Social democratic (universal) welfare regimes--equal access to benefits and services of high standards

• no tuition fees

With welfare regimes and education, it is a system of give and take-- what each country prioritizes more.  pg 25--Countries that adhere to liberal welfare don't est equitable living conditions but they spend more money on higher education than other regimes.  Doesn't these seem a little counter-intuitive?

Conservative regimes provide better conditions for those who will not attain a degree-- great opportunity for vocational degrees.   However, I did not appreciate that implication that those who get vocational degrees are necessarily low achievers.

OECD-- Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development

Fowler-- Chapter 9 and 11

Chapter 9
An important part of being a school leader is to look at policies and scrutinize them as administrators are the ones to develop policies in some instances and implementing others' policies in other cases.

Fowler presents three lenses in which to critically look at policies:

1. Lowi's Techniques of Control
• three basic types of policies-- distributive (bestow gifts such as goods and services to citizens), regulatory (formal rules applied to large groups of people), redistributive (shifts resources from one social group to another)-- each has its own political arena
• not one of Lowi's policies fits, in many cases they are overlapping.  Fowler argues that in the long term, all policies are both regulatory and redistributive (pg. 219).
• Lowi's policies help manage policy change in the long-term.  Fowler suggests that wise leaders shouldn't make too many changes at once and to ensure that many people are not at the end of too many changes,
2. McDonnell and Elmore's Policy Instruments
• mandates-- rules that consist of language and penalties for those who do not comply with the rules.  The MOST popular.  
• inducements-- money transferred to indiv/agencies in return for goods and services
• capacity building-- money given in purpose of investing in intellectual or human resources
• system changing-- transfers authorities among indiv/agencies
• persuasion (fifth added later)-- sends a signal that goals and actions are considered a high priority
• COMBINATION-- coherence is an effective combo of the above policy instruments
3. Cost Analysis and Cost-effectiveness Analyses
• combo of personnel, facilities, and required client inputs
• also consider tangible and intangible costs and benefits
• systematic way to compare alternative methods to reach goals

Chapter 11
This chapter considered evaluation and if policies really do work.  On pg. 278, Fowler discusses that many policies are never evaluated or at least not evaluated carefully, so no one is able to act on the findings.  Evaluations are "nervous making".

Important terms for policy evaluation-- evaluation, project, program, stakeholder

Basic steps

1. determine goals of policy
2. select indicators
3. develop how data will be collected
4. collect data
5. analyze and summarize data
6. write evaluation
7. respond to evaluators' recommendations

Methodologies that can be used

• quantitative
• qualitative
• holistic-- use both

Evaluations are almost always political :( and there are maneuvers to prevent a good evaluation 

Acting on an evaluation report-- a variety of options

• inaction
• minor modifications
• major modifications-- replacement, consolidation, splitting, decrementing
• termination

Online Class Reflection

I liked the online class and how we were still able to talk about the articles, but I did miss the face to face meeting.  The discussion board certainly has its pluses and minuses.

I liked hearing more voices, but I had a really hard time trying to remember who each person was.  I feel bad that I don't know as many people's names in the class.

However, this did help with understanding of the articles.  I did like how Pam helped to guide conversation, helped to get things deeper into the articles, and sometimes, we do not have that level of discourse about individual articles in class.

I would have liked to have the discussion board as a supplement to class discussion for some of the beginning, building block articles at the start of the semester.  I was frustrated with structure and how small the box was for threads—maybe smaller groups for next time if we use the discussion board again.  This wasn't the same as class, but it was an okay substitute :)