ChangesNEXT EXIT 7

Successive waves of social and education rejorm^ have been fundamentally flawed,

js time for something bolder and better.

I Andrew Hargreaves and Dennis Shirley

Have you come to believethat standardization andaccountability are here tostay? Does it seem thateducation leaders have

tittle choice but to be compliance offi-cers and data managers who tweak testperformance and enforce the latestmandates? If so, think again. Considerthe following snapshots of change:

• A high-profile group of husinessand education ieaders, which includestwo former U.S. secretaries of educa-tion, complains that the U.S. education

system has become obsessed withtesting basic skills. The group calls for acomplete overhaul of current assess-ment practices (New Commission onthe Skills of the American Workforce,2007).

• Singapore urges its educators to"Teach Less, Learn More" and mandatesthat all teachers must have 10 percent oftheir time free to come up with inde-pendent lessons designed to enhancestudent motivation and creativity.

• In Britain's Celtic fringe (in contrastto England, whose students are the most

tested in the world), Scotland continuesto resist standardized testing, Wales hasabohshed all state testing up to age 14,and Northern Ireland is preparing toabandon the selective exams studentstake at age lL

• None of the Nordic countries,which are among the highest performerson the Programme for InternationalStudent Assessment (PISA), even has anindigenous term for accountability.Instead, these countries speak oï collec-tive responsibility (Hargreaves, Halász, &Pont, 2007).

56 EDUCAtiüNAL LEADERSHIP/OCTOBER 2008

of changewhat does all tbis mean? Education

policy is undergoing a global transforma-tion, and the United States isn't gettingit. Tbe United States is not only losing—it's not even playing tbe right game.

Tbe public, tbe education profession,and key players in tbe corporate andpbilantbropic sectors all sense thatsomething is dreadfully amiss. Only 15percent of U.S. educators believe tbatNo Child Left Behind (NCLB) isimproving public education (PublicAgenda, 2006). Representative GeorgeMiller, chair of tbe House Educationand Labor Committee, has abandonedbope for NCLB's reauthorization in theremaining montbs of tbe Busb adminis-tration, describing tbe act as "the mostnegative brand in America" (Hoff,2007). Middle-class parents are agbastat the loss of play and pleasure in tbeirchildren's schooling (Tyre, 2006). Withmore tban 70 petrent of school districtsreporting tbey bave cut time in socialstudies, science, foreign languages, andtbe arts so tbey can increase attention totested subjects like math and literacy itsno surprise that the public is turningagainst NCLB (Rose & Gallup, 2007).

In England, improvements inacbievement results have largely bit aplateau. Most of tbe gains bave beenexposed as statistical artifacts and conse-quences of test preparation (Macbeatbet al., 2007). Rates of reading forpleasure are in decline (Oifsted Publica-tions Centre, 2004). The majority ofEnglish parents are opposed to thecurrent levels of testing for young chil-dren (Shaw, 2004), and the educationprofession is becoming increasinglyassertive about the proliferation of inter-

minable inspections and countless tests.The evidence is clear: Our single-

minded focus on achievement gains hasnot improved tbe lives of our children.The United States and the UnitedKingdom occupy tbe bottom two rungsin UNlCEE's 2007 survey of child well-being in 21 industrialized countries-

Tested standardization Is a poliiicalsolution in search of tbe wrong prob-

provided unprecedented levels ofsupport for tbe poor, but they alsofostered long-term state dependencywithout providing any real foundationfor long-term civic engagement. TheFirst Way granted state professionals,including educators, considerablefreedom. In education, it fostered inno-vation but also allowed unacceptablevariations in quality.

Our single-minded focus onachievement gains has not improvedthe lives of our children.

lems. We need better solutions to theproblems we actually have and the newchallenges we will face in the future.

The Way It WasIn 1997, President Bill Clinton andPrime Minister Tony Blair convened agroup of international leaders to cban anew direction for social policy, whicbtbey called tbe Tbird Way Tbeir guruwas leading British public intellectualAnthony Giddens, wbo argued thatpolicymakers needed to move awayfrom the unproductive debate betweenoverdependency on the state (the EirstWay) and overreliance on free markets(the Second Way).

Giddens articulated his theory in TheThird Way: The Renewal of Social Democ-racy (1998). Tbe Eirst Way he said, wasthe welfare state, whicb in the UnitedStates culminated in the Great Societyinitiatives of ihe 1960s. These policies

In the Second Way, tbe pendulumsvioing back. Tbe antitax governmentsof Ronald Reagan and MargaretTbatcher cut many social services andoutsourced others to tbe private sector,Tbese reforms reduced costs anddependency and encouraged entrepre-neurial drive and individual responsi-bility, but they also undermined socialcohesion and widened the gaps betweenrich and poor. In education, the SecondWay manifested itself in increased regu-lation hy the market and tbe state,leading to a collapse of professionalmotivation and crises of teacher reten-tion and leadership renewal. Higb-stakesstandardization, dnven by governmentperformance targets, sucked the passionand pleasure out of teaching andincreased tbe workload and vulnerabilityof education leaders (Hargreaves, 2003).

The Third Way, endorsed by Clintonand Blair, offered something between and

ASSOCIATION FOR SUPERVISION AND CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT 57

beyond the first two. It called forincreased support for public serv-ices in terms of financial resources,buildings, materials, and training.In education, it proposed a mixedeconomy of diverse providers,ieadmg to the increasing promi-nence of charter schools in theUnited States and specialist schoolsin the United Kingdom. In theThird Way, there has been anencouraging growth of professionalcommunities and networks inwhich educators and schools shareknowledge and help one anotherimprove, thus injecting lateralenergy into the system (FuUan,2006). These are good things.

But there have been disturbingdevelopments, too. A new kind ofautocratic and all-seeing state hasemerged—one that enforces inflex-ible government mandates, such asNo Child Left Behind's adequateyeariy progress goals. Although hottom-up support and lateral networks havehad some success in securing shon-termtest gains, the political culture of high-stakes testing is undermining longer-lerm, more innovative efforts. Politicaltargets in tested basics still drive thehurried interactions of data-drivenprofessional learning communities asteachers anticipate the upcoming testdates in their preparations, curriculumfocus, training choices, and classroomactnnties.

TheWaylt Might BeA Nationwide VisionOther paths to change are possible. On anational level, consider Finland. Afterbeing one of the most backwardeconomies in Europe in the 1950s, andafter an international hanking crisis, theloss of its Russian market, and the esca-lation of unemployment rates to almost19 percent in the early 1990s, Finlandconsciously coordinated economic andeducational transformation. The nation's

effort to develop a creative and flexibleknowledge economy was accompaniedby the development of a significantlymore decentralized education system.Finland now has a largely localcurriculum and virtually no standard-ized testing.

Finns control teacher quality at themost important point—the point ofentry. Applicants to teacher educationprograms have only a 1 in 10 chance ofacceptance. Even though teacher pay isonly average for industrialized nations,teacher retention is high because condi-tions are good. Within broad guidelines,highly qualified teachers createcurriculum together in each munici-pality for the students they know best.The serise of delivering a curriculumdevised by others from afar is utterlyalien to Finnish teachers-

In classes rarely larger than 20,Finnish teachers know their studentswell. Teachers are free from excessivepaperwork and endless external activi-ties. They receive generous specialist

suppon as needed. With theseadvantages, teachers strive forquality by quietly lifting all studentsup one at a time.

Principals share resources acrossschools and feel responsible for allthe students in their town and city,not only for those in their ownschool. In each school, the prin-cipal is seen as part of a "society ofequals," not as a line manager. Allprincipals teach for at least twohours a week. They are oftenrecruited from vÁthin iheir schools;in fact, it is illegal for a principal tobe recruited from outside education.

Assessments are largely diag-nostic and internal to the school.External accountability is confiden-tial and undertaken on a samplebasis for monitoring purposes only,not to impose sanctions on indi-vidual students, educators, orschools.

The results: Finland is the world'snumber-one performer in literacy, math,and science in the PISA rankings for 15-year-old students. It hoasts some of thenarrowest achievement gaps in theworld. It also ranks at or near the top ineconomic competitiveness (Hargreaveset al. 2007).

Networking for PowerThere are also some leading-edge devel-opments within the Anglo-Americancommunity of nations. We recentlycompleted a study of the RaisingAchievement, Transforming Learning(RATL) network in England, whichcompnses more than 300 under-performing secondary schools (Harg-reaves, Shirley, Evans, Johnson, &rRiseman, 2007). This network anicu-lated a menu of short-term, medium-term, and long-term strategies thateducation leaders could deploy to meettheir goals. Through a system of mentorschools, peer coaching, and reciprocalobservation and feedback, as well as a

58 EDUCATIONAL LHADERSHIP/OCTOBER 2008

careful study of data to inform but notdrive instruction, RATL boosted achieve-ment in more than 200 of its schools attwice the average annual rate.

Although RATL still had a tendency tofocus too much on the short termhecause of the surrounding policy pres-sures for targets and testing, ihe powerof network-driven Improvement—inwhich professionals support and chal-lenge professionals, schools work withschools, and the strong help the weak—proN'ides powerful clues ahout theelements of a Fourth Way strategy thatcan drive improvement. Indeed, thenetwork is now pushing heyond imme-diate results into more profound trans-formations: for example, cultivatingpupils as leaders of change, engagingcommunity members in discussions ofhow culture and language can supportimprovement, and radically altering thecurriculum to accommodate the visualleaming styles of some students.

Systemic Change Arisingfrom CotnmunitiesNot all reform starts with government. Areport hy the Annenberg Institute forSchool Reform (Mediratta et al, 2008)provides valuable new evidence of thepower of bottom-up reforms for raisingpupil achievement, even in the face oftop-dovm accountahility systems. Theresearch team studied seven urhanschool districts and targeted schools thatwere working closely with community-based organizations. Findings includedthe following:

• People Actmg for CommunityTogether in Miami matched parents withpanncr schools to focus on literacyinstruction in elementary schools. Thepercentage of 3rd and 4th grade studentsachieving proficiency in reading on theFlorida Comprehensive Assessment Testimproved from 27 percent in 2001 to 49percent in 2005, far outpacing a compar-ison set of demographically similarschools.

• Among schools affiliated with theIndustrial Areas Foundation in Austin,Texas, those vñth higher levels of facultyengagement showed larger percentagesof students meeting minimum standardson the Texas state test.

• A campaign hy the OaklandCommunity Organization divided thatcity's largest and most dysfunctional highschools into small schools. The newschools showed improved graduationrates, increased enrollment in college-preparatory coursework, and improvedratings on Cahfomia's AcademicPerformance Index.

Perhaps the most interesting findingwas that community organizing is corre-

ened by high-performance exemplarslike Finland in the present, and inspiredby a commitment to more innovativeand inclusive goals for the future. TheFourth Way would rest on five pillars ofpurpose and partnership, three princi-ples of professionalism, and four cata-lysts of coherence.

Pillars of PurposeThe solid pillars of purpose and partner-ship that uphold the edifice of theFourth Way include

• An inspiring and inclusive vision thatdraws people together in pursuit of anuplifting common purpose.

• Deepened public engagement that

We need a vision of education as a publicgood that shapes the future of all of us.

lated with higher levels of teacher-parenttrust, sense of school community andsafety, achievement-oriented culture, andparent involvement in the school.

Toward a Fourth WayThe First Way of the welfare state had asense of mission and showed the valueof innovation hut resulted in too muchvariation in quality and implementation.The Second Way of markets and stan-dardization provided urgency, consis-tency, and direction, but at great cost toprofessional motivation, authenticachievement, and curriculum creativityThe Third Way has increased levels ofsupport and added lateral professionalenergy but subjected teachers to a franticand frenetic pursuit of arbitraryimprovement targets.

Each way had strengths in some areasbut enormous limitations in others. Wepropose a Fourth Way of change—informed by an effort to identify andlearn from the best of the past, enlight-

hamesses and legitimizes the provenpower of community organizing toinspire a great public debate about thefuture of education.

• Achievement through increased invest-ment in education facilities and othersocial sendees, confirming the FirstWay's emphasis on our shared socialresponsibility to support and createbetter opportunities for the poor

• Corporate educationaJ responsibility,with education and business partnersequally accountable to each other.

• Students as partners in change ratherthan merely targets of change effons andservices—more involved in their ovmleaming and leaming choices, activelyconsulted about the quality andimprovement of teaching, and substan-tially engaged in the overall govemanceof the school and its development.

Principies of ProfessionalismEducation leaders and teachers are theultimate arbiters of change. The class-

ASSOCIATION FOR SUPERVISION AND CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT 5 9

room door is the ponal to reform or theraised drawbridge that holds it at bay.Three principles of professionalism areindispensable components of anysustainable change:

• High-íjuüfiív teachers who areattracted by their country's inspiring andinclusive vision; have high status asbuilders of their nation's future; enjoysupportive working conditions, suffi-cient pay, and professional autonomy;and are trained to a rigorous intellectualand practical standard.

• Powerjul projessionalism in whichteachers' associations become profoundagents of s -̂stemic change that benefitsstudents, not only opponents or imple-menters of changes imposed on them byothers.

• Lively learning communities in whichteachers leam and improve together incultures of collaboration, trust, andresponsibility

Catalysts of CoherenceThe hardest part of any plan for changein education is how to make it spread.Coherence does not mean cloning oraligning everything so it looks the samein all schools. It means bringing diversepeople together to work skillfully andeffectively for a common cause that liftsthem up and moves them in the samedirection. Four catalysts can create thiscoherence:

• Sustainable leadership that is integralto educational change, not an after-thought. One way to build more leader-ship capacity is to increase supply byidentifying and developing aspiring andemerging leaders. But we can alsoincrease capacity by reducing unneces-sary demand—eliminating the excessivereform demands that deter many quali-fied potential leaders and trusting themto become inspirational developers oftheir communities instead of meremanagers of imposed targets andexternal initiatives. Where Singaporenow advises "Teach Less, Leam More"

we would add "Reform Less, ImproveMore."

• Networks oj mutua] learning. As inEngland's leading-edge Raising Achieve-ment, Transforming Leaming project,schools must support and learn fromone another, become collectivelyresponsible for all the children andyouth in their city or community, andcommit to systems and dispositionswhere the strong help the weak.

• Responsibility hejore accountahility.As in Finland, we must give a higherpriority to collective professional

and bolts all over the boiler room floor.The theories behind the First,

Second, and Third Ways that havedefined recent U.S. education strategyhave been fundamentally flawed. Nowit is time for something holder andbetter We need to let leaders leadagain. We need to engage the public,not just submit citizens to opinion pollsand electioneering. And with lateralleaming networks spreading within andacross schools, we need to put educa-tors themselves at the leading edge ofreform.

Education policy is undergoing aglobal transformation—and theUnited States isn't getting it.

responsibility than to external account-ability And we must base externalaccountability on sampling rather thana politically distorted insistence ontesting every student.

• Buildingjrom the bottom, steeringfrom the top. Social policy shouldneither iet a thousand flowers bloomnor micromanage everything in detail,but ratber provide a broad and inspiredsense of direction with genuine devel-opment of community and professionalresponsibility Positive change shouldemerge and spread from below ratherthan being dictated from the top.

A New VisionWith the U.S. presidential electionsnow less than a month away, Americanshave new opportunities to shape educa-tion policy. Both John McCain andBarack Obama recognize that some-thing has gone wrong witb the NoChild Left Behind accountabilitymachine, which is now spitting nuts

Most of all, we need a vision ofeducation as a public good that shapesthe future of all of us. This visionshould help us develop greater innova-tion and creativity, expect and demandcommitment and perseverance fromour students, foster the internationalawareness and cultural understandingthat strengthen global partnerships andsecurity, and promote the inclusivenessthat elevates our differences into thestrengths that can enable us to bringabout opportunity for all in a justsociety

In the Fourth Way there will still bestandards, including public, human,and ethical ones, but there will nolonger be standardization. There v^ll behard work and persistence, but notpointless drudgery. There will begreater support for the educationprofession, but not unconditionallyThe goal of the Fourth Way is to createthe schools that will undergird andcatalyze our best values to regenerate

60 EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP/OCTOBER 2008

and improve society. Only then will theUnited States become the educationleader that others around the globeeagerly seek. S!

ReferencesFuilan, M. (2006). Turnaround leadership.

San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Giddens, A. (1998). The third way: The

renewal of social democracy. Cambridge,UK: Policy Press.

Hargreaves, A. (2003). Teaching in (he knowl-edge society: Education in the age of insecu-rity. New York: Teachers College Press.

Hargreaves. A., Halász, G., & Pont, B.(2007). School leadership for systemicimprovement in Finland. Paris: OECD.

Hargreaves, A., Shirley, D., Evans, M.,Johnson, C, & Riseman, D. (2007). Thelong and short oj school improvement: Finalevaluation of the Raising Achievement, Trans-forming Learning programme ojthc SpecialistSchools and Académies Trust. London:Specialist Schools and Academies Tatst.

Hoíf, D. J. (2007). "Growth models" gaining

in accountability debate. Education Week,27(16), 22-25.

MacBeathJ., Gray,J.. CullenJ., Frost, D.,Steward, S., & Swaffield, S. (2007).Schools on the edge: Responding to chal-lenging circumstances. London: PaulChapman.

Mediratta, K., Shah, S., McAlisier, S-,Fruchter. N., Mokhtar, G., Lockwood. D.(2008). Organised communities, strongerschools; A preview o/research/indings.Providence, RI: Annenberg Institute forSchool Reform.

New Commission on the Skills of theAmerican Workiorcc. (2007). Toughchoices, tough times. Washington, DC:National Center on Education and theEconotny.

Public Agenda. (2006). Reality check 2006:¡ssue no. 3: Is support for standards andtesting/ading.^ New York: Author.

Offsted Publications Centre. (2004).Readingfor purpose and pleasure: An eval-uation of the teaching of reading in primaryschools. London: Crown.

Rose, L. C , &r Gallup, A. M. (2007,

September). The 39th annual Phi DeltaKappan/Gallup poll of the public's atti-tudes toward the public schools. PhiDelta Kappan, 89(1), 33-48. Available:www.pdkmembers.org/members_online/publications/e-GALLUP/kpoU_pdfs/pdkpoll39_2007.pdf

Shaw, M. (2004. April 9). End testmg ofinfants: Seven is too young for tesis sayparents in TES poll. London Times Educa-tional Supplement, p. 1.

Tyre. P (2006, September 11). The newfirst grade: Too much too soon.Newsweek, pp. 34-44.

UNICEF (2007). Child poverty in perspec-tive: An overview oj child well-being in richcountries, ¡nnocenti Report Card 7.Florence: UNICEF Innocenti ResearchCentre-

Andrew Hargreaves (andrew.hargreaves.l@bc.edu) is Professor and ThomasMore Brennan Chair, and DennisShiriey (shirleyd@bc.edu) is Professor,Lynch School of Education at BostonCollege, Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts.

American Public UniversityAPU a a member insmution o l the Amoncan Public Unlvorsiiy Syuwn (APUSi

ASSOCIATION FOR SUPERVISION AND CuRRtcuLUM DEVELOPMENT 61