Implementing Standards-Based Reform:

A District Advisory Committee for Science Education

This example centers on a district-level advisory committee that has been assigned the task of implementing science education standards. The committee has completed a thorough review of the National Science Education Standards and model standards from the state department of education and has overseen the development of science standards by the district. The committee comprises the science supervisor (chair), six outstanding science teachers (two elementary, two middle school, and two high school), a principal, a parent, two scientists (one from a local university and one from a local industry), and two science educators from a nearby university. The committee is well into the process of implementing a standards-based science education program consisting of a district curriculum, a professional development plan, and a district- and school-level assessment process. They already have completed a review of the current science education program (K-12), engaged in an exercise where they created a "desired" program based on standards, and clarified the discrepancies between the desired and actual programs. This exercise identified specific aspects of their program that needed improvement. The committee had developed a shared vision as it completed the exercise of creating a program for the district, one based on science education standards. Now the committee's task was to identify activities and resources that would enable the district to begin to enact the vision.

The example illustrates the system standards by focusing on the coordinated performance of several components of the science education system--namely, the role of school district administration within the district, personnel from a regional education laboratory, scientists, and science educators. The committee understands that its mission is to work with school personnel to bring together the financial, intellectual, and material resources necessary to achieve the vision expressed in the science education standards. The committee is aware that several components of the system will need to change. Members of the committee have attended several leadership institutes that helped them realize the role of policies (formal and informal) and familiarized them with curriculum materials, staff development, and assessment examples that were aligned with the Standards.

In the example, the committee has divided into several subcommittees that have the tasks of working with different groups within and outside the district to coordinate resources and individual efforts to improve science education in the district. One subcommittee contacted the university concerning the alignment of courses with standards. Many district personnel received their initial undergraduate preservice preparation at the university and take courses there for continuing education units, and, in some cases, for advanced degrees. A second subcommittee talked with the new district superintendent. A third subcommittee periodically was assigned the task of determining teachers' needs for professional development and met with three separate teachers' groups representing elementary, middle, and high schools.

[This example illustrates System Standards A, B, C, D, F, and G; Professional Development Standards A and B; and Program Standards A, D, and F.]

COMMITTEE MEETING 1
The agenda for this meeting consisted of reports from the three subcommittees.

SCHOOL/UNIVERSITY SUBCOMMITTEE: The report was not encouraging. Subcommittee members reported that university scientists and science educators were "reluctant" to modify their courses for the district because they had degree programs that had been approved, they had incorporated what they thought would be the most up-to-date science, and they met teacher certification requirements. The subcommittee members pointed out the district need to stress science as inquiry, introduce authentic assessments, and otherwise support the standards-based district programs for preservice teachers and in professional development.

After the report, committee discussion focused on what the subcommittee might say at their next meeting at the university. The committee decided to suggest that it would seek help with their professional development from another college in the state if the university would not change. The subcommittee decided to present its plan to the Eisenhower Consortium at the nearby regional laboratory.

DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT'S SUBCOMMITTEE: This subcommittee reported general support from the new superintendent until requests were reviewed that included (1) reallocation of funds to increase support for professional development, (2) support for the materials to implement an inquiry-based program, and (3) adoption of new assessments aligned with standards. The superintendent was reluctant to shift funds because some school personnel and parents would think that science was getting too much support, she had heard that some teachers preferred textbooks and not inquiry-oriented materials, and she had questions about the new assessment practices. The subcommittee was disappointed but encouraged that the superintendent had nevertheless approved its request to present the plan to the board of education.

TEACHER SUBCOMMITTEE: This subcommittee presented a positive and encouraging report. Most of the teachers understood the importance of science education standards and appreciated their proposed roles in designing their own professional development and the science program. The teachers felt involved and that their positions were understood because they had engaged in a "year of dialogue" on the National Science Education Standards and had participated in development of the district standards.

The meeting concluded with preparation for the presentation to the board of education. The presentation would include an overview of the National Science Education Standards and the district standards, a summary of the committee's work over the past year, and a discussion of specific requests.

COMMITTEE MEETING 2 AT THE BOARD OF EDUCATION
The committee began with introductions and a brief summary of its work. Much to the surprise of the superintendent, the presentation suddenly shifted to a hands-on science activity in which all participated. The activity was inquiry oriented and introduced the nature of science and technology. Two middle-school teachers conducted the workshop. After the activity, other teachers joined the discussion to point out how the activity aligned with standards, how it provided ample opportunities to learn concepts and skills, and how an assessment was incorporated in the instructional sequence.

The superintendent, scientists, science educators, and school-board members present were all impressed. The superintendent and the board said they would review the committee requests at their next study sessions.

COMMITTEE MEETING 3
By the time of this meeting, everyone had learned the outcome of the board meeting and the follow up from the school/university subcommittee.

SUPERINTENDENT SUBCOMMITTEE: The board had been impressed with the nature of the presentation and the thoroughness of the committee's work. Although the board and the superintendent remained hesitant to provide the full professional development funds requested, they approved a pilot program in seven schools. In each of those schools, the staff had expressed strong interest in participating in the professional development program designed to support their desire to move their curriculum and instruction into alignment with the new standards.

The subcommittee decided that this was an almost ideal solution and one it should have presented to the board. The pilot will allow time to improve the professional development opportunities and align them with the curriculum materials being reviewed, as well as to demonstrate that the plan to move toward alignment with the standards will improve district programs. The subcommittee still has a way to go to obtain the superintendent's unqualified support, but it is making progress. "It would have been so easy with the former superintendent and before the last board election. This whole process takes time, and we need continuity as we move through the implementation. Results don't come quickly," observed one of the teachers on the subcommittee.

SCHOOL/UNIVERSITY SUBCOMMITTEE: Several events had occurred since the subcommittee's last report, and the subcommittee also had some good news. The university could not see any major changes in its undergraduate preservice program in the near future because of budget cuts and lack of familiarity with the standards by the professors in the science disciplines. But the university had been persuaded by the director of the Eisenhower Consortium at the regional educational laboratory to offer an inservice program in several of the district schools; the program would be co-led by a teacher and a university professor. The consortium director had played a part in the review of the National Science Education Standards, and as a result, he was empathetic to the subcommittee's concerns. He also was able to assist in identifying outstanding science curriculum materials for the teachers in the district to review.

The committee wrapped up the meeting with satisfaction that they had made some short-term gains but still had several major hurdles to clear in the years ahead.

SUMMARY
The importance of all individuals and groups having a common vision should be apparent from this example. The common vision made it possible for the committee, the director of the regional laboratory, and the receptive teachers and principals in the district to arrive at common solutions with relative ease. Contrast this with the new superintendent, who has not had the time to reach the same vision or goals as the others (or might have a very different vision). With common vision, coordination among people, institutions, and groups--such as that between the committee and the regional educational laboratory--becomes possible. When coordination occurs, the resources of both organizations are most effectively used, and time is not wasted trying to reconcile differences. The ultimate indicator of coordination is the allocation of resources in support of a common vision. Consider how the effectiveness of the professional development of teachers in the district could have been improved if the faculty at the local university had shared the vision of the outstanding teachers on the committee.

None of the events in this scenario could have occurred if the individuals involved had not taken personal responsibility for working patiently toward standards-based reform. Coordination and the allocation of resources do not happen on their own; individuals acting in a distributed leadership capacity must take responsibility to work together to fulfill the vision of the Standards.