EAPS 697 Final Product Brian Rhode

EAPS 697 Final Product
Brian Rhode


Effective education seems to be in everyone's best interest. According to Cuban and Tyack (1995), "School reform is…a prime arena for debating the shape of the future of the society." Societies include all members of communities. Schooling goes well beyond the classroom relationship between students and teachers. Again, Cuban and Tyack (1995) add perspective to the expanse of the education issue when they point out that conversations about effective schooling are, "a broad civic and moral enterprise in which all citizens are stake-holders." With such widespread reach it may seem sensible, at first, for education reform to develop in political or administrative spheres and then pushed down to schools. A "top-down" approach to reforming education, in other words. Currently this is the typical method employed by education reformers. However, a history of the lack of promised success is growing the contingent of those who question this particular approach. It is the central argument of this paper that traditional top-down large-scale reforms encounter multiple problems that prevent them from improving the "core" instructional interactions between teachers and students, and creating reforms that are not vulnerable in the same way must develop from teachers in classrooms in a bottom-up fashion. The issue with large-scale reforms, according to some, is they is do not influence the most significant relationship in education, which is the exchange between a teacher and a student. Teacher and student dynamics in classrooms are part of what Elmore (1996) refers to as the "core" of teaching. So, while education may be in the interests of entire societies, changing it for the better may be more of a function of analyzing and influencing the simplest "core" relationship between teachers and students in order to make significant gains.
This paper makes its argument both with a review of the missteps of traditional "top-down" reform approaches and the evidence of the effectiveness of "bottom-up" reform methods that concentrate on changing the most important aspects of schooling. First, the paper begins with a brief review of the importance of what is known as the "core of educational practice" when working to reform education. Next, a review of "top-down" large-scale reform is analyzed for its various pitfalls and shortcomings, which magnify inconsistencies between planned and intended goals and ultimately hinder their effectiveness.
The next part of the paper builds support for a more effective "bottom-up" method of reform by highlighting the ways it can get around the same issues plaguing top-down reform. This section reviews how importance of teacher developed reform. It also describes the stake-holding groups effected by school reforms and methods to interact with them in ways that nurtures educational change to the "core" of instruction without creating inconsistency and policy vulnerability.
The final portion of each section includes reflections on the information covered.
Education's Core
Many reforms of the recent past have begun in political or high administrative levels in education and have sought to enact comprehensive systemic educational change with standards based alignment and compliance through testing. The problem that keeps this type of reform from working is that it ignores the level of education that ultimately dictates the health of the whole system. This what Richard Elmore (1996) refers to as the "the core of educational practice." At the heart of the "core" is, "how teachers understand the nature of knowledge and the student's role in learning, and how these ideas about knowledge and learning are manifested in teaching and classwork," (Elmore 1996). It also includes such specifics in schools as: the way classrooms are physically laid out, how students are placed into groups, the responsibilities teachers have for groups of students and the relationships they have with students, and also the way in which teachers assess student learning and communicate it all the stake holding parties involved in education (Elmore 1996). Just as many other complex systems are made up of small important pieces, so, too, education is built from smaller parts that must all be considered when initiating change.
Attention to the way the core of education works is essential for reforming schooling. According to Elmore (2007), " 'the problems of the system are the problems of the smallest unit.'" This might make one think of the phrase, "a chain is only as strong as is weakest link," and in a school system the "links" are the core elements of educational practice. It appears that the most significant element one should analyze is understanding the ways in which teachers seek knowledge and learn how to teach that knowledge to students (Elmore 1996, Elmore and McLaughlin1988). Not understanding this relationship or not concentrating on changing it creates vulnerability in reforms before they even reach classrooms. "Much of what passes for "change" in U.S. schooling is not really about changing the core…Innovations often embody vague intentions of changing the core through modifications that are weakly related, or not related at all..." (Elmore 1996). While most large scale reforms do not even pay attention to the core of teaching, those that do have additional challenges that they may not have considered.
Simply aiming reforms at the core elements of education is not enough, reformers must also understand how to nurture change within the core and successfully scale it up. Elmore (1996) explains that when an innovation gets closer to the core of schooling it is less likely to influence teaching and learning on a large scale, and he further argues that when changes to education are further from the core they are more likely to be adopted on a bigger scale. Considering this, it is fairly clear why most reforms do not actually change the way children are taught in classrooms, especially when reformers seek to create consistency across an American education landscape that is highly varied.
"Core" centric reform is possible and it is essential. If schools seek to genuinely change the way teachers teach and students learn then their efforts must hinge on analyzing and observing how changes effect their core of educational practices. Large-scale reforms have traditionally failed to do this, but the reasons why are as varied as the landscape of unique classrooms that make up the American education system.
Missteps and Roadblocks of the Top-Down Reform Method
Educational change has many issues to overcome in order to effectively work. According to Rincon-Gallardo and Elmore (2012), "innovations that have attempted to directly affect the instructional core rarely penetrate more than a small fraction of schools and classrooms and seldom last long when they do." While this assessment of school change sounds bleak there are several problems and assumptions of current school reform that can be learned from in order to create more effective policy.
One error made by current reformers is assuming that newer ones replace older reform efforts. Those creating reforms hope that the slate is wiped clean, so to speak, each time a new reform comes out. In reality, each new reform becomes part of a whole conglomerate of older reforms that have entrenched themselves in the school systems (Cuban and Tyack 1995). When a new reform adds its layer to the pre-existing layers of old reforms it changes and no longer produces the types of outcomes it was designed to do. Consider the following example for this problem. Imagine a classroom in which there already exists a curriculum based on a reform that requires students to read independently for sixty minutes a day. Then, another reform developed to independently act on reading instruction in classrooms appears the next year that requires students to engage in reading "guided" by teachers for sixty minutes a day. The reforms together require one hundred twenty minutes of classroom time. Now, imagine that the teacher who is responsible for implementing these reforms has only ninety minutes daily for reading and writing instruction. Adaption will occur to the new reform of guided reading in order to make it co-exist with the previous reform requiring independent reading time. As a result, neither reform is being implemented in its original planned way, as a result, potential goals get compromised. When reformers do not take this into account they do not plan for how their reform will mingle with pre-existing efforts, and this can lead to reform failure.
The lack of consistency between the planned goals and purposes of reform and the events that actually unfold in districts and classrooms is another way that school change efforts miss their mark. "Consistency as an attribute refers to the degree of coherence among policies and the extent to which they reinforce or contradict each other," (Desimone 2008). This lack of consistency between layers of education policies and reforms changes the way a policy looks "on the ground" and this also can lead to a change in the purpose of a policy. When the purpose shifts too much a reform's validity is compromised. According to Elmore (2000), "organizational coherence on purpose and practice is an important precondition for the success of school improvement." A lack of consistency due to layered reforms' competing purposes is only one way that policy may have its organizational consistency disrupted.
Another factor disrupting the consistency of policy purpose in classrooms comes from the misassumption by large-scale reforms about how schools adapt to change. Just as policy actions assume that no other layers of reform exist, so too they push change with the intent to cause uniform adaptation in all schools. Baard et. al. (2013) calls this the "domain-general" approach to change. This approach, "…views adaptive capabilities as generic…characterized by the key underlying assumption that adaption can be captured as a relatively stable (set of) trait(s) and related performance constructs that can be generalized across domains," (Baard et. al. 2013, italics and parenthesis in original text). The reality, of course, is that school environments are not stable in their make-up. As a result, teachers are forced to adapt reforms in order to make them usable in their own unique classroom environments. And as was mentioned above, this altering can effect the consistency of purpose that a reform was designed with. Unfortunately, many large-scale reforms do not take teacher judgment into consideration when designing how reforms will be implemented.
When considering how a reform will blend into the various layers of policy already present in a classroom teachers must inevitably adapt the reform, unfortunately, they are not designed to allow for this type of intervention in order to remain consistent and successful. Even if the adaption is only meant to incorporate it into the layers of other policies that dictate how a teacher will practice, the original reform will still function differently. However, most large-scale reforms are not designed with the teacher at the center of decision-making regarding implementation. According to Elmore and McLaughlin (1988), "Policies that aim to reduce variability by reducing teacher discretion not only preclude learning from situational adaptation to policy goals, they also can impede effective teaching." Or, consider these words by Elmore and McLaughlin (1988), "A second theme cutting across federal reform policies is a tendency to substitute external authority social science methods, university experts, regulatory requirements, and legal principles for authority and expertise of educational practitioners." In other words, it seems reforms are designed to run without needing teacher professional input. Yet, they are also not designed to combine with other policy initiatives and they lose their power when their goals do not match their planned outcomes. Certainly one can see why failure has been the status quo for much large scale reform when it comes to changing the core of educational practice. It also exemplifies why many teachers must change and adapt policy when it enters their classrooms, even though these same reform initiatives do not grant them authority to do so. However, there remains one significant force in education that has extremely significant impact on any initiative intended to alter schooling, which many reforms ignore it seems.
The Grammar of "Real School"
The notion of "real school" explains why school climates are amiable to some reforms, but an insurmountable block to others. The idea of "real school" is fairly simple. Cuban and Tyack (1995) use the term "real school" to refer to the phenomena in which most people use their past personal experiences in education to judge the validity of any new school reforms. If a new idea diverges too far from a constituencies' notion of what a "real school" looks like and how it operates then they will resist the reform. This is true for teachers. Many professionals instruct their students in the ways that they themselves were taught because those methods fit their internal notion of what school should look like. Further, Cuban and Tyack (1995) also describe the "grammar of schooling," which are the ways that people talk about school and how it should operate. For example, when people talk about classrooms do they describe students sitting at desks that are in rows, or do they describe students sitting in groups at tables? The grammar of schooling is the language people use to describe what a real school is to them. The power of "real school" is expansive, as many people have gone through school themselves and have a set of "grammar" that they use to describe the characteristics of effective schooling to themselves. "Almost any blueprint for basic reform will be altered during implementation, so powerful is the hold of the public's cultural construction of what constitutes a "real school…" (Cuban and Tyack 1995). To the issue of reform consistency, the grammar of schooling and the notion of real school make up another avenue by which policies get changed in ways that designers did not intend.
As mentioned above, teachers often adapt a new policy so that it fits into the layers of policy that already make up their professional world, but teachers also adapt reform based upon their notions of what "real school" is to them. Certainly one would think that this type of adaptation could be even more subconscious. Teachers are not trying to subvert a reform when they change it, rather they are taking it and making it fit into the template they have for the characteristics and practices that they believe make up valid schooling. For example, a teacher who believes "real school" involves students working primarily independently may take an initiative that primarily utilizes students working in collaborative groups to learn and adapt the content so that students can do it at seats independently. This, in turn, may alter the intended goals for the group work initiative. Cuban and Tyack (1995) state that, "…so common is the teachers' habit of hybridizing reforms to fit local circumstances and public expectations." And when reforms are changed, they lose their power to genuinely change the core of education.
Roadblocks to Reforms in Classrooms, Schools, and Districts
Top-down reform does not ask for volunteers to try new techniques in the hopes of changing education. Rather, these large-scale efforts tend to use rewards and sanctions to try and change the grammar of school among districts, schools, and teachers. This is another sticking point for large reform in remaining consistent and effective. "At best, laws and rules might create some necessary but not sufficient conditions under which competent and caring teachers and intellectually curious might flourish," (Cuban and Tyack 1995). The best way to initiate change, according to Elmore (2000), is volunteerism, especially when those asking for the changes do not influence the core of education. Unfortunately, most reforms impose new methods rather than ask for volunteers, which can lead to further adaptation and inconsistency such as described by Cuban and Tyack (1995), "When educators view reform demands as inappropriate, they are skilled in finding ways to temper or evade their effects." Again, this is not always the result of teachers overtly seeking to sabotage reform. Rather, it is seen as a means of coping with the landscape that reform creates. For example, "teachers are busy and engaged actors, who must make their classrooms work: To do so, they must balance all sorts of contrary tendencies." Policymakers may "ignore the pedagogical past," but teachers and students cannot," Cuban & Tyack 1995. This compression of multiple layers of reform and adaptation made against the grammar of real school creates such an inconsistent environment for school administrators, that they must be focused on the core of education in order to be effective.
Administrators often have an uphill battle against the residual effects of multiple reforms, the most impactful way a school building leader can influence positive change is by influencing the core of teaching. Working with the core of teaching is a process that takes time, planning, and the capacity to do something new. Many schools do not have the right combination or surplus of these things in order to realistically make changes, which tends to render administrative action ineffective. According to Elmore (1996), "…schools routinely undertake reforms for which they have neither the instructional nor the individual competence." The result of this type of undertaking, says Elmore (1996) culminates in changing the reform to fit into the structure already in place, rather then changing the practice itself. Administrators often do not have the capacity within their own position to help mitigate this issue. Elmore (2000) claims, "…direct involvement in instruction is among the least frequent activities performed by administrators of any kind at any level." However, without help from administrators teachers will not have the ability to develop the capacity to genuinely reform their practices, and the same can be said for district support, as well.
With the issue of reforms meeting resistance from multiple layers of policy shifts, the strength of "real school" expectations, and the lack of capacity focused work at any level, districts have resolved to maintained a guise of professional development that really does not penetrate the core of education. "Few school districts treat professional development as part of an overall strategy for school improvement. In fact, many districts tend to see staff development as a specialized activity within a bureaucratic structure," (Elmore 2007). Not having a central focus to work toward as a district also damages the ability for teachers to develop new capacities. Professional development can then actually lead to a reduction in professional investment in new policy, "To the degree that people are being asked to do things they don't know how to do, and at the same time are not being asked to engage their own ideas…professional development shifts from building capacity to demanding compliance," (Elmore 2007). The cumulative effect of unfocused professional development pushing compliance is that it degrades the success of reform. Rather than acquiesce to policy shifts, Elmore (2007) points out that many districts either incorporate reforms in "superficial ways" or reject them completely arguing that the changes are unrealistic.
Reflections on Top-Down Reform
Large-scale top-down reforms often do not impact the most important level of education, the way teachers instruct students, for several important reasons. The factors that create the roadblocks to reform are dynamic in the way they interact and it is difficult to name one single element that begins the deterioration of reform. However, there are some areas that one can focus on in order to understand how to change the way reforms impact education. Some elements that stop reforms are the characteristics and language, or "grammar of school," districts and communities use define "real school." Policies that deviate too much from the norms of schooling held by stakeholders in an education system are rejected or adapted to fit better. This impacts the consistency between planned reform goals and actual impact, which diminishes their effectiveness. Other problems with reforms are that they are designed without consideration for how they will interact with previous reforms or multiple policies acting at once. This leads to adaptation and inconsistency because school districts cannot treat the initiatives implemented by a reform with singular priority. They are often changed to fit into classrooms where many reforms can operate at the same time. Again, this forces teachers to make changes in order to accommodate all the policies they are required to utilize, and this inconsistency limits reform impact. Finally, reforms are resisted or changed because they demand levels of capacity that do not exist in districts and with teachers. Without building the skills needed to implement a new reform teachers adapt them in order to fit the skill set they already poses. Just as with the other issues mentioned above, this forces inconsistency in the planned outcomes of a reform and diminishes its impact. It is difficult to determine which element creates the most resistance to new education policy. However, what is clear is that in order to truly impact the core of education a different approach to designing and implementing reform is necessary.
Building Better Reform
The problems of top-down large-scale reform mentioned above require a new strategy for changing the core of education. The educational core consists primarily of the relationship between teachers and students. So, it would seem that an approach focusing on that relationship would be the most fruitful for policy development. This is a more specific approach to education reform. Baard et. al. (2013) calls it a "domain-specific" approach which, "focuses on key skills and/or processes relevant to adaption for domain-specific knowledge and skills." These domain-specific skills are most appropriately viewed within classrooms. Therefore, reform best come from this arena. As Elmore (2007) succinctly states, "To succeed, school reform has to happen 'from the inside out.'" An apparent vulnerability to large scale reform is the in-ability to plan for the divergent environments present in various classrooms. Taking this into consideration from the beginning and utilizing the small scale, classroom, as the starting point for reform work one may circumvent the issue of divergence by embracing it. Or, as Elmore and McLaughlin (1988) state, "results showed that the success of teaching was mainly influenced by (undefined) attributes of the setting in which it was done, rather than the expensive expertise and social science methods brought to bear on teachers," (parenthesis in original text). Further, Elmore and McLaughlin (1988) point out that federal policies have limited leverage on educational core because they do not critically influence the factors or people most responsible for implementing reform. Cuban and Tyack (1995) add their support as well, stating, "But if teachers work collaboratively with each other and with policy advocates, sharing goals and tactics…such an approach to school improvement could work better than mandates from above." It would seem that in order to build reform that works one should start in the place where it matters most and with the people closest to instructional delivery.
Building Reform One Classroom at a Time
Considering the multiple ways in which the goals of large-scale reform can be derailed on the way to classrooms it seems to make more sense for reform to come out of the classroom environments where external factors of influence can be considered at the source. This certainly will not look the same as a top-down reform seeking to minimize divergence through common method. In fact, as Cuban and Tyack (1995) put it, "…actual changes in schools will be more gradual and piecemeal than the usual either-or rhetoric of innovation might indicate." However, this system of generating small reforms and, "weaving them together into a model that can be implemented," as Desimone (2008) puts it, can have better sticking power in schools.
Teacher developed policy can take into account the multiple layers of reform already present in a classroom and not add more "bulk" to instructional practice, thus increasing support for them. "Reforms proposed and implemented by school administrators and teachers themselves to make their work easier or more efficient…were likely to stick better than innovations pushed by outsiders," (Cuban and Tyack 1995). As primary gate keepers of reforms in classrooms teacher buy-in cannot be understated. Also, by scaling up slowly and collaboratively, designers of reform can trouble-shoot another significant pitfall to their efforts.
Bringing reform up from classrooms and schools instead of from large administrative and political bodies also helps to avoid the issue of unplanned adaption to policy. Simply put, unplanned adaption can be minimized by building into the reforms a capacity for potential changes without making goals inconsistent. Cuban and Tyack (1995) state, "Reforms should be designed to be hybridized, adapted by educators working together to take advantage of their knowledge of their own divers students and communities…" Consider again the example used above, if a teacher is told to use an initiative that uses group learning, but they know that their students cannot handle group work and are more productive working independently, they should be able to adapt the delivery strategy while still meeting the learning goals of the reform. With a flexible design built into reforms they can be applied to more classrooms while maintaining consistency between intended goals and the outcomes that actually occur in schools. Teachers are an indelible resource for monitoring this adaptability while maintaining the health of a reform.
Finally, utilizing teachers to design reform makes sense from a standpoint of efficiency in changing schools and also in maintaining influence on the core of education. "The closer policy gets to the instructional core," say Cuban and Tyack (1995), "…the more policy makers lose their comparative advantage of knowledge and skill…they become dependent on…practitioners to mold and shape the instructional core." Further, the issue of layering policy mentioned above can also be avoided by looking to teachers for reform design. Teachers know what is working in classrooms and what needs to be fixed. Many reforms operate by changing everything within a classroom, starting from scratch, this leads to old reforms and new reforms existing side-by-side and interfering with each other's design. Building through teachers would allow reform to be more efficient, only seeking to change the elements of a practice that are not working and allowing for things that do work to remain (Cuban and Tyack 1995). If a reform is meant to target a smaller element of a classroom, its connection between intended goal and true outcome are also more insulated. "Less is more," in other words, in the world of reform, and teachers can lead the way for designing effective and simple methods to change the core of instruction.


Generating Stake-Holder Buy-in From Classroom Teacher to Community
Arguably the most important stakeholder group to nurture buy-in of new characteristics of core instruction methods is teachers. As the gatekeepers of reform it is vital that they participate meaningfully in new policy. A significant problem with developing reform, even when considering building it from classrooms, is that teachers who willingly take on new approaches to the core of instruction are a minority. "Adults seldom learn new skills or attitudes on demand…particularly when they involve modification…threaten an adult's already well-organized self-concept and established level of accomplishment," (Elmore and McLaughlin1988). Therefor, if reforms are going to be grown out of classrooms but applied broadly, the environment in schools must nurture trial and error for teacher practice. One must remember that teachers also have ideas of what "real school" looks like and will be resistant to new methods that create conflict with their beliefs. Change will require more than setting levels of accomplishment, as mentioned above.
One of the simplest ways to bolster a teacher's ability to change what "real school" looks like to them is to allow for making mistakes to be encouraged as part of the learning process. In many top-down reforms the barometer for successful implementation relies on students performing at certain academic benchmarks. This does not allow for experimentation since teachers are generally considered to be successful or unsuccessful at implementing the reform by that method. Teachers put in this situation are very good at adapting reforms to both produce "successful" information while retaining as much of the core of instruction they had prior to the policy shift. To aid teacher change in their core of instruction schools would do better to embrace what Baard et. al. (2013) calls, "…error-encouragement framing," which, "has a more positive impact on performance adaptation than error-avoidant framing." Essentially, teachers need practice when changing their core behaviors and methods and avoiding panelizing them for making mistakes creates the best environment in which to make shifts. Certainly, a school environment would be critical in fostering this for teachers.
Simply put, encouraging teachers to adopt successful reform requires tangible personal attention from school leaders and district actions that convey support for them. According to Elmore (1996), "It is unlikely that teachers who are not intrinsically motivated to engage in hard, uncertain work will learn to do so in large, anonymous organizations that do not intensify personal commitments and responsibilities." One such commitment, it seems, that a school must make to teachers is the concept described by Elmore (2007) known as the "principal of reciprocity of accountability for capacity," which states, "For every increment of performance I demand from you, I have an equal responsibility to provide you with the capacity to meet that expectation." It goes further to state that when one is invested in with a new skill and knowledge they have the responsibility to demonstrate new performance. Too often, the demand for new performance is made without investment in new knowledge and skill. Providing teachers with the tools they need to demonstrate new levels of performance while also giving them the time and "safe rehearsal opportunities" seems to be the best way to nurture new practices within individuals' core instructional practices (Elmore and McLaughlin1988). A final element to consider for teachers within schools and districts is the amounts of reform organization take on at once.
It seems that districts should move conservatively in the number of elements in the core of instruction they hope to change at once. A significant problem for large-scale top-down reform mentioned above comes from the inconsistency that develops between intended outcomes and true outcomes when policies enter schools and classrooms. To avoid this same issue when developing and implementing reform from the bottom-up districts must check in with results along the way to be sure they match desired outcomes. This requires what Elmore (2000) calls the "principle of tight focus," which is a stable message about the goal of a reform that applies to everyone within a district from teachers to superintendents, and community members. Desimone (2008) refers to this same principle as the "Specificity" of a policy's details. "The more specific a policy is in terms of professional development, guidance and instructions, the more likely teachers will be to implement it…" (Desimone 2008). And, the more likely real outcomes will match planned outcomes in the reform. Thus, a tight focus on specific goals, monitoring their progress, and gathering feedback from all levels of implementation make reform the most successful. Adherence to distant benchmarks, which is the typical large-scale reform design, is much more vulnerable to goal adaption and inconsistency then bottom-up reform. However, communities outside of schools can still derail successful bottom-up reform.
The notion of "real school" also exists in members of communities that schools are within and must be considered when designing reform.
Like with teachers and administrators, reforms that deviate too far from people's expectations and their own "grammar of school" language will still be resisted even if they prove successful in schools. This is most significant when the community members in question are on the school board. While they may not be educators by training, they still have the ability to scuttle reform and their notions of "real school" may be the cause for dissent. Therefor, creating successful reform requires nurturing new notions of "real school" with parents and school board members.
Successful methods for engaging communities in dialogue around reform and school characteristics are present in districts throughout America. One example from Modine (2011) describes the use of "parental liaisons" in schools in a Texas district. This link not only helps bring in parent feedback but it also allows them to understand what actions schools are taking and for what reasons. Mitra et. al. (2008) warns that not building civic capacity around school change can limit sustainability of reform efforts over time. When many community members outside of schools create new definitions of what "real school" entails the less "leader centric" change becomes and the more sustainable it will be. Gold (2014) describes three types of community members that schools need to engage in order to build collective impact in schools:
designees, individuals who represent the organization or community, but
do not have decision-making or implementation powers within their
organization or community; doers, individuals who are responsible for
implementing changes to behaviors and strategies in their organization or
community, but lack the formal authority to mandate them; and decision-
makers, individuals who have the authority or influence in their organization
or community to require that it change its behaviors and strategies

The essential message is that entire communities, not just school employees influence the success of education reform and must be brought into the process of change when shifting the core of instruction. Doing so will ensure that successful reforms cannot only be built but sustained over time.
Reflections on Bottom-up Reform
Reforming education into the 21st century needs a reversal in the direction that new policy is designed and nurtured. Building reform from the bottom-up can address and solve many of the problems that plague traditional top-down reform, ultimately rendering it incapable of realistically impacting the core of instruction, which is the relationship between how and what teachers actually teach students. The place to begin reform design is within classrooms. Teachers are the first layer of oversight to determine if reforms are working or not. Therefor, it makes sense to access their expertise in order to define what works in classrooms.
Ideas scaled up from classrooms still have potential vulnerabilities. They risk being defeated if careful attention is not paid to addressing the concerns and ideas of what a "real school" is of the stakeholders affected by schooling. Laying out specific goals in reforms that can be checked for fidelity later are vital for changing policy. If reformers do not take the step to compare actual practice to intended practice they miss the opportunity to find weaknesses. This close tie to classrooms means that communication with teachers is vital. They must be viewed as instructional authorities and valued in the process of reform design.
Changing the core of instruction also means changing the way teachers, administrators, school board members, and community members view and speak about "real school." Bottom-up reform is positioned better to meet this need since developers of the reform would be closer to schools and communities than is typically the case with top-down reformers. Taking feedback from community members would help policy makers to understand which elements could easily be shifted in a school and which ones may deviate too much from the characteristics that create the "real school." This step then allows designers to see if they need to also work on changing how stake-holders view school to "pave the way" for new initiatives.
Once reform is scaled up and then re-applied to schools the job of checking outcome fidelity, nurturing new characteristics or "real school," and relying on teacher authority to determine what works locally does not end. Perhaps it is even more vital at this point. Having specific goals that are tightly focused and checked for fidelity means also that reformers must rely on teachers to thoughtfully adapt reforms in ways that fit their practice. Schools can do this by nurturing the acceptance and use of mistakes to tweak reforms while still maintaining consistent goals. Trusting teacher authority will also help those who are nervous about reform to accept and begin to change their core instructional practices. All these elements must be approached together and continuously. There is no such thing as a "hands off" reform, which many top-down efforts tend to be. By building reform from the bottom-up policy workers have the best chance to realistically impact the core of instruction and actually change what goes on inside classrooms all over America for the better.

Sources Cited:

1. Baard S.K., Kozlowski S.W.J., Rench T.A., (2013). Performance Adaptation: A
Theoretical Integration and Review, Journal of Management. 40:1, pgs. 48-99.
2. Cuban, L., Tyack, D. (1995). Tinkering toward Utopia: A Century of Public School
Reform. Harvard University Press. Cambridge: MA.

3. Desimone, L.M. (2008). Whole-school change. In M. Shinn & H. Yoshikawa (Eds.),
Toward positive youth development: Transforming schools and community
programs (pp. 150-169). New York: Oxford University Press.

4. Elmore, R. (1996). Getting to Scale with Good Reform. Harvard
Educational Review, 66(1), 1-26.

5. Elmore, R. (2000). Building a New Structure for School Leadership. Albert Shanker
Institute.

6. Elmore, R.(2007). School Reform from the Inside Out: Policy, Practice, and
Performance. Harvard Education Press. MA: Cambridge.

7. Elmore, R., McLaughlin, M. W. (1988). Steady Work: Policy, Practice, and
the Reform of American Education. Prepared for the National Institute of Education. RAND Corporation. CA: Santa Monica.
8. Gold, A. (2014). How Do You Build the "Right" Cross-Sector Partnership to
Implement Collective Impact Approaches? Community Investments, 26:1
9. Mitra, D.L., Movit, M., Frick W. (2008). Brain Drain in the Rust Belt: Can
Educational Reform Help to Build Civic Capacity in Struggling Communities?
Educational Policy, 22:731.

10. Nodine, T.R. (2011). Hidalgo Sets Sail: A School District Supports all Students in
Earning College Credits.

11. Rincón-Gallardo, S., & Elmore, R.F. (2012). Transforming teaching and learning
through social movement in Mexican public middle schools. Harvard
Educational Review, 82(4), 471-490.