A 100 Week 9

Sit next to your new friend from last week

New Topic: “Reform Without Rancor: The View From Abroad”

Ontario: An Example of Progress

• Two major initiatives:

• Reading and numeracy initiative:

• Increased the pass rate from 55% to 70% from 2003 to 2010, in both subjects, at grade 3

• Similar progress at grade 6 (increase of 10-12%)

• Student success initiative

• Aimed at increasing high school graduation rate

• Rate up from 68% (2003) to 80% (2010)

Ontario: Background

• Canadian education: 10 provinces, 3 territories, little federal role

• Ontario: 2 million students, largest province

• Highly urbanized: 80% in metropolitan areas

• Diversity: 27% of students from outside Canada, 20% “visible” minorities

• Canada: 7th highest child poverty rate in OECD

Ontario: Structure of the System

• All funding comes from the province level

• Province/Ministry responsible for:

• Setting curriculum

• Major policy direction

• Can take control of collective bargaining

• District responsible for:

• Choosing personnel

• Set annual budgets

• Some policy decisions

Ontario: Mini-Case

•What resources did they have at their disposal?

•What features of the context were important?

What was the theory of action in Ontario?

•

Pieces of the Ontario Strategy:Multiple Parts, But Internally Coherent •

Clear g

oals

Measurable indicatorsData and field-based

problem solving

External support

and knowledge

Teacher support

and buy-in

Public support

and buy-in

The “How” of Goal Setting

• Focus on no more than 3 goals and make them very public

• Give them a date and a number

• Make them ambitious but reachable

• Try to ensure that you spend at least 50 percent of your time on these goals

The “How” of Avoiding Bureaucracy:

• Created separate “literacy and numeracy Secretariat”

• Staffed by former principals and teachers, not Ministry

• Small: 100 total, 60 field based

• 6 small regional teams to provide capacity, work with local schools

Contextual factor: No states – only districts as the intervening layer between the ministry and the school

The “How” of School Buy-In:

• Student success officers within each school

• Solely responsible for reducing dropouts

• Role to coordinate meetings, provide services, analyze data

• Political advocate within each school

The “How” of Using Data:

• Early analysis of predictors’ of dropout

• Data-based meetings on each student at risk

• Credit recovery to help students’ catch up

• Data very simple, can be analyzed easily on site

• Diagnosis function critical; having accompanying responses also critical

The “How” of Win-Win Bargaining

Signed a 4 year contract in 2004 which provided labor peace and guaranteed goals good for teachers and ministry:

• Extra preparation time each week

• 5,000 new teachers = class size reduction

• Student success teacher in each school

The “How” of Building Public Support

• Quarterly meetings with all key stakeholders

• Lavished public praise on teachers as professionals

• Used progress on goals to ensure continued support

• Continuous political leadership from the top

Analyzing the Theory of Action

Strength: Ontario’s system is a model

“This week’s How to Change 5000 Schools was an eye-opener. What I found most impressive about the Canadian approach to reform is how comprehensive it is. In the US we tend to use piecemeal reforms to solve various isolated problems within the system. This is a reality that Elmore laments in his writing for this week as well. It seems that only with reform that addresses community, capacity building, leadership, accountability, instruction and student achievement can true system change take place. As I was reading, I was thinking to myself, “This is amazing! Why don’t we just do this?” In my understanding, the closest Americans have come to Canadian-style systemic reform are the LSC reforms in Chicago, the Rhee reforms in DC, and the Klein reforms in New York. All of these reforms have problems though and none have gotten the results that Ontario did. The decentralization in Chicago left out the capacity building for teachers, Rhee and Klein left out the community buy-in. Does this mean we have the answer? We just figure out what Canada did and fill in the gaps in our own reform movements? It would be nice if that were the case, but I suspect there are forces at play that make reform more difficult in the US than elsewhere.”

-- Elizabeth Press

Analyzing the Theory of Action

Weakness: Are we overemphasizing learning content?

“My second challenge is on the concept of “knowledge” as the fundamental piece to effective professional development theories of action. I believe that the vast majority of deficiencies in teacher performance are not the result of instructional knowledge gaps. I actually disagree with Elmore that a lack of knowledge among teachers and staff is a critical hindrance to better instruction, as he discusses in his case study of District 2 in New York. Instead, I think enabling teachers and principals to go beyond a set of technical skills that are learned to a more adaptive, iterative and self-led approach is a key enabling role of professional development. This enables teachers to quickly improvise and adjust based on the particular dynamic in their class at any given point, rather than relying on a learned technical approach... And it begins by instituting a professional development code that doesn’t allow people to rely on the excuse that they haven’t been perfectly prepared to execute some theory of action. Rather it challenges them to perform despite the improvisational adaptation that may be required.”

-- Katie Gordon

Analyzing the Theory of Action

Is it plausible? What are the strengths and weaknesses of this theory of action?

Strengths Weak Spots

Adapting to the American context

How does it compare to NCLB? Could the Ontario strategy be adapted to the American context?

Some concluding thoughts on Canadian reforms

• Coherence, limited goals, but with multiple pieces

•Capacity over acctbilty – they do not shutdown failing schools

• Homo sociologus as opposed to homo economicus

•Organizational improvement rather than individual incentives

• The road not taken: Reform without rancor

• Can be pro reform, but against some leading American reform ideas

• Unions an important asset rather than an enemy

• Teachers are a critical constituency