Improvement at Scale: More Questions than Answers

We had our first substantive meeting on Tuesday, March 13. Here are a few of the questions that we discussed:

Is the “tight-loose” theory of school reform obsolete? What might follow it?

Much of the standards-based movement was founded on the idea that legislators and other external agents would be “tight on ends” but “loose on means.” The notion was that this framework would provide outside pressure for reform, and provide some standardization across units in terms of what was expected, but it would not be overly prescriptive in dictating the means by which schools would reach these ends. While this perspective continued to receive some support in the seminar, several participants questioned whether this assumed a “theory of internal combustion,” which was not in evidence. What to do about these (very numerous) schools, where there are no such change agents? What would replace a theory of tight-loose? Is there a way to do this that would avoid the dangers of being overly prescriptive?

Is capacity building an answer?

Not surprisingly for anyone who knows the cast of characters at HGSE, one answer to what might replace tight-loose is some kind of capacity building strategy at the school level. The idea here is to move away from models that either a) dictated programs from on high, or b) were tight-loose and left failing schools floundering; and instead c) offer an approach where outside expertise was provided in order to help schools become more able to identify and respond to the needs of their students and the problems at their school. Some of HGSE’s work on Datawise is relevant here. The key, one faculty member argued, was to try to create school ownership over problem-solving, to create greater levels of control in schools that have long only seen themselves as recipients of external mandates. At the same time, either strong leadership within a school or external expertise is necessary to gradually move schools in this direction. Some asked if there was a research base for this point, a question that we will continue to explore in the seminar (and comments will be posted here). I’ve written a bit more on the options for capacity building here.

Is there political support for capacity building?

A number of participants were skeptical that there would be government support for these types of capacity building efforts. There was general agreement that capacity building could be seen as “mush,” that there was little evidence on it that policymakers trust, that it could be seen as “more bureaucracy” and taking money away from the ground, and that capacity was often linked in policymakers minds to professional development efforts which are generally widely in ill-repute. While there was some skepticism that policymakers respond to evidence, there was agreement that evidence was one important missing link in trying to build a political story for capacity building. Another possibility is to try to draw sources of capacity from the for-profit sectors, seeking to expand political support to the right.

What are the leverage points for building capacity?

Even if we knew what we wanted to do, and we could get the money for it, how would we build capacity? Three possibilities (and these are not exhaustive) were outlined: 1) Shift professional development money and efforts to capacity building efforts. End the one-off style of professional development seminars, and tie professional development much more tightly to a school’s strategy for increasing performance. 2) Increase the supply of highly effective principals, either through leadership academies, or by releasing superintendents from collective bargaining provisions that constrain their selection of principals. 3) Increase the supply of external “coaches” to schools. While the quality of these coaches varies widely, they do provide a means for building capacity. It was widely agreed that state departments of education are not currently staffed to do this work.

Is capacity the missing piece? Or are we on the wrong track?

There was some agreement in the room that after 15 years of standards-based reform, we have not made nearly as much progress as was initially hoped. There was significant disagreement about whether this was due to the lack of a capacity building strategy, or whether the overall vision itself was flawed in its view of the profession and its theory of change. More on these issues in future posts.

Our next meeting is April 5th; expect a post in this space on April 10th.