Conference Material

What Have We Learned? Local Systemic Change Initiatives Share Lessons From the Field

IV. Building and Sustaining Support for Reform

Developing teacher capacity is a major goal of LSCs. So also is the broader mission of building systemic support for mathematics and science education reform. Without this support, reform efforts are likely to stall. The mission of LSCs must necessarily include developing supportive infrastructure at various levels of the system - district, school, classroom, and community. The task requires that reform leaders look beyond teachers to administrators and other constituents who can help reform to thrive and survive; that LSCs "make reform part of doing district business;" and that they view data and accountability as allies in communicating the value of reform.

A. Building Political Support for Reform

1. Enlisting the Support of Administrators

     Engage principals and department heads early and often.

LSCs typically focus their work on teachers and underestimate the importance of working with those who directly support teachers - the principals, and at the secondary level, mathematics and science department chairpersons. Few projects expected or planned for the level of effort required for this task. Yet, over time, reform leaders discovered that principals were key for enabling teacher leaders to do their work, for promoting teacher participation, and for "setting the tone" for reform in the school. They found that administrators can be a solid ally - working around barriers that detract from reform - or they can "destroy a successful program." Enlisting principal support was typically cited by PIs as the most influential factor in determining teacher participation in professional development, and in building a supportive context for reform.

Reform leaders found, however, that principals have many demands, with limited time to devote to any one project. Some LSCs acknowledged that they had harbored unrealistic expectations on how much of principals' time they could capture. The solution was to figure out how to engage administrators in ways that matter to them. The most successful strategies were those that helped principals fulfill existing school and/ or district responsibilities (e. g., improving literacy, raising test scores). LSCs must look for pertinent issues at a school, find the common ground, and communicate to principals how they can address these issues through mathematics and science education reform.

What LSCs said about involving principals "[ LSCs must] work with principals and develop a relationship with them and start that conversation early. You can't wait until the last year." - PI Interview "It should have been the first thing we did. Principals control the information. If we had understood the school as the point of change, we would have started with principals." - PI Interview "We would have involved principals earlier, made them commit funds earlier than the fourth year. From day one, we [should have been asking] for their concrete commitment, saying, 'What are we going to do when the NSF grant is over? '" - PI Interview

     Develop awareness at the highest levels of administration.

Building professional development for principals into the system can help ensure sustainability, but it also requires the sanction of superintendents and other central office administrators who hold principals accountable. Speaking about the importance of the superintendent, one PI said: "I wasn't aware of that until we were well into the grant, as to how the district context would be so critical." LSCs must understand the locus of control and chain of command. Conference participants noted that if the superintendent backs the LSC vision and goals, the project will likely have more leverage in getting principals and teachers to participate. LSCs advised using superintendents to deliver the reform message to the media, school boards, universities, and others. LSCs can increase the weight of the message by linking professional development and instructional materials implementation to what matters to district administrators, for example, teacher evaluation, certification renewals, and school performance. Getting the message to school boards was key as well; LSCs advised disseminating annual reports to board members, and having students, staff, and evaluators make presentations to help keep attention focused on mathematics and science.

The importance of involving district administrators "The process of changing the approach to teaching and learning mathematics in urban classrooms is a complex situation with multiple variables. Each variable is in constant motion, responding to the climate of instability and high political pressure that characterizes the contemporary urban high school. The combination of these factors means that all programs, even successful ones, are always vulnerable to criticism, attack, and potential elimination. The ongoing education and involvement of policy makers throughout the district is an important safeguard to minimize such vulnerability." - Conference Participant

     Have a systematic plan for communicating the vision to administrators.

Projects need a systematic professional development plan for engaging administrators from the start. With principals, LSCs must provide tools to guide them in their efforts to improve mathematics and science instruction, and educate them about effective instruction and materials. Conference participants suggested a range of professional development strategies - some apparently contradictory. For example, some LSCs stressed the importance of involving administrators in teacher professional development, while others highlighted the necessity of working directly with administrators apart from teachers. Some participants emphasized the effectiveness of working with principals one- on- one in their own schools, while others underscored the need to provide time away from schools for administrators to convene. As a single strategy, inviting principals to observe teacher professional development was rarely sufficient for building expertise and securing commitment.

Recommendations for engaging principals Have a systematic professional development plan for principals, with formal workshops and agreements. Don't depend on voluntary participation. Be explicit about what good mathematics and science teaching looks like. Provide intentional opportunities for principal- teacher interaction. Build principal networks and learning communities. Infiltrate principal meeting agendas.

As with principals, PIs recommended both formal and informal mechanisms for engaging district administrators, and assigning "staff with the most credibility" to do one- on- one outreach with superintendents. Convening a meeting with high- level administrators soon after the grant is awarded can help clarify expectations and reconfirm commitments. Reform leaders noted the advantages of working through existing channels to engage administrators; using regularly scheduled, mandated meetings for principals and district administrators helps convey the message that the LSC vision matters. Some projects invited superintendents to annual LSC meetings, credited them for their role in reform, and presented them with awards. Said one PI: "You have to tend to those kinds of things." Even if LSCs have the sanction of administrators, however, rarely is that support assured over time. Competing priorities will divert attention. Turnover will occur. With both school and district administrators, LSCs need a systematic plan for conveying the message over and over and over.

     Be explicit about roles and expectations for principals, counselors, and department chairpersons.

Expectations for administrative support should be made clear from the outset. LSCs noted that getting a general commitment - without specific assurances for involvement and action - was insufficient. With district administrators, LSCs must have a well- defined understanding of what this commitment will look like and get explicit district commitment - through materials adoption; funding for materials management systems, Teachers on Special Assignment, and substitutes; district contract days earmarked for LSC professional development; and release time for classroom teachers.

With principals, LSCs should expect (at a minimum) attendance at professional development sessions designed to educate them about project goals, materials, pedagogy, and specific ways in which they can support reform. Ideally, expectations for this support should be at a more fundamental level that just "giving teachers permission to participate." For example, principals can facilitate building- level collaboration by making time for teachers to meet; they can provide resources for professional development and space to store materials and supplies; they can reduce other responsibilities assigned to school- based teacher leaders to enable them to engage in reform activities; they can work with resistant teachers; and they can provide good "press" for the LSC by communicating the reform vision to parents and the media. Some LSCs further expanded the roles and visibility of principals through "purposeful interaction" with teachers on school teams, by creating teams of principals who assumed leadership roles in the LSC, or by creating principals- in- residence who functioned like TOSAs, supporting their colleagues in reform.

The importance of active principal support "Too many principals think that just saying yes is support. LSCs need to get them beyond that... Principals need to be in the classroom. They need to say to teachers, 'I saw you do this in the classroom, and the kids responded well. Tell me why you did that. What was going on? ' Support has to be more that just giving them books and letting them go to seminars." - PI interview

     Build vertical and horizontal networks.

LSCs pointed to the need for creating deliberate opportunities for collegial discourse among administrators. Principal networks were a strong incentive for participation and commitment in some LSCs, and a valuable strategy for engaging new administrators. Multi- district projects reported using "horizontal" teams or consortia across districts. While these groups varied in their effectiveness, they nonetheless provided a vehicle for keeping administrators informed, and for generating responsibility and ownership. Others spoke of the need for creating "vertical" teams consisting of various levels of administrators: superintendents, assistant superintendents, curriculum directors, principals, assistant principals, and others. In the face of mobility among school and district administrators, both of these strategies provided a vehicle for sustaining awareness and keeping newcomers apprised of reform activities and commitments.

Increasing accountability through communities of superintendents One PI talked of the "inherent difficulties" of maintaining quality control in a multi district project. The LSC used cross- district communication structures - monthly superintendent meetings and co- directors' meetings - to discuss these issues and help districts assume greater accountability roles. LSC staff played a facilitation and dissemination role, communicating what professional development strategies had worked well in other districts in the project. Said the PI: "When you're dealing with a loose federation, you have to tread lightly... You don't have quality control from a view point of direct responsibility, but you do have good, effective communication to stimulate that."