This article examines the impacts of the National Science Foundation's Urban Systemic Initiative reforms in four cities: Chicago; El Paso, Texas; Memphis, Tennessee; and Miami, Florida, based on analysis of 47 principal interviews. We analyze the role of school administrators in addressing the demands of both systemic reform in mathematics and science and state, district, and local accountability policies. Specifically, we examine their concepts of their roles and ability to balance contradictions and paradoxes between systemic reform and accountability. Our research demonstrates that principals must overcome many challenges before they are able to affect desired achievement outcomes for all students. Key among the identified challenges is the ability of principals to balance the demands of the reform effort with the press to negotiate multiple policies, especially in the areas of student assessment and school accountability for which they are ultimately responsible.
References
1.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmark for Science Literacy: Science for all Americans.New York: Oxford University Press.
2.
BrykA. S., SebringP. B., KerbowD., RollowS., & EastonJ. Q. (1998). Charting Chicago school reform.Oxford: Westview Press.
3.
CorbettH. D., & WilsonB. L. (1991). Testing, reform, and rebellion.Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
4.
DareshJ. C., GantnerM. W., DunlapK., & HviszdakM. (2000). Words from “the trenches”: Principals’ perspectives on effective school leadership characteristics. Journal of School Leadership, 10, 69–83.
5.
ElmoreR. F., AbelmannC. H., & FuhrmanS. H. (1996). The new accountability in state education reform: From process to performance. In LaddH. F. (Ed.), Holding schools accountable: Performance-based reform in education (pp. 65–98). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
6.
FuhrmanS. H. (1999). The new accountability. (CE Briefs RB-27). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania.
7.
JoyceB., & ShowersB. (1995). Student achievement through staff development: Fundamentals of school renewal.White Plains, NY: Longman.
8.
KahleJ. B. (1998). Reaching equity in systemic reform: How do we assess progress and problems? (Research monograph no. 9). Madison: University of Wisconsin.
9.
KillionJ. (1999). What works in the middle: Results-based staff development.Oxford, OH: National Staff Development Council.
10.
Loucks-HorsleyS., HewsonP. W., LoveN., & StilesK. E. (1998). Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics.Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
11.
McKnightC. C., CrosswhiteF. J., DosseyJ. A., KiferE., SwaffordJ. O., TraversK. J., & CooneyT. J. (1987). The underachieving curriculum: Assessing U.S. school mathematics from an international perspective.Champaign, IL: Stipes.
12.
McLaughlinM. W. (1995). Contexts for professional development. Speech delivered at the annual conference of the National Staff Development Council (available from National Cassette Services, #5985-220), Front Royal, VA.
13.
McNeilL. M. (2000). Creating new inequities: Contradictions of reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 81(10), 728–734.
14.
MeierD. (1995). The power of their ideas: Lessons for America from a small school in Harlem.Boston: Beacon Press.
15.
MilesM. B., & HubermanA. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
16.
MullisI. V. S., DosseyJ. A., CampbellJ. R., GentileC. A., O'SullivanC., & LathamA. S. (1992). NAEP 1992 Trends in Academic Progress.Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement and U.S. Department of Education.
17.
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform.Washington, DC: Author.
18.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics.Reston, VA: Author.
19.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics.Reston, VA: Author.
20.
National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards.Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
O'DayJ. A., & SmithM. S. (1993). Systemic reform and educational opportunity. In FuhrmanS. (Ed.), Designing coherent educational policy (pp. 250–312). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
RoeberE. D. (1999). Standards initiatives and American educational reform. In CizekG. J. (Ed.), Handbook of educational policy.San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
25.
RosenblumS., LouisK. S., & RossmillerR. A. (1994). School leadership and teacher quality of work life in restructuring schools. In MurphyJ., & LouisK. S. (Eds.), Reshaping the principalship: Insights from transformational reform efforts.Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
26.
Secretary's Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills. (1991). What work requires of schools: A SCANS report for America 2000.Washington, DC: Author.
27.
SmithM. S., & O'DayJ. A. (1991). Systemic school reform. In FuhrmanS., and MalenB. (Eds.), The politics of curriculum and testing (pp. 233–267). Bristol, PA: Falmer Press.
28.
Southern Regional Education Board. (1981). The need for quality.Atlanta, GA: Author.
29.
StevensonD., & SchillerK. (1999). State education policies and changing school practices: Evidence from the National Longitudinal Study of Schools, 1980–1993. American Journal of Education, 107, 261–288.
30.
StiglerJ. W., & HiebertJ. (1999). The teaching gap: Best ideas from the world's teachers for improving education in the classroom.New York: Free Press.
31.
WebbN. L. (1997). Criteria for alignment of expectations and assessments in mathematics and science education (National Institute for Science Education, research monograph, no. 6).Madison: University of Wisconsin.
32.
WilliamsB. (Ed.) (1996). Closing the achievement gap: A vision for changing beliefs and practices.Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
