About the Author:  Dr. Armstrong is professor emeritus of Arizona State University and research consultant for NCA Commission on Schools, Tempe, Arizona.

Editor's Note: In the current and future Review articles, we plan to begin with a couple of reviews on the theme of the next issue.  The first two reviews are on the subject of reading, which is the theme of our next issue.  These articles are both from the Reading Teacher.

Duffy, G. and Hoffman, J. (1999). In pursuit of an illusion: The flawed search for a perfect method. Reading Teacher, 53(l), 10‑16.

The fundamental point of this article is that there is no one 'perfect' method for teaching reading to all children.  Teachers, policy‑makers, researchers, and teacher educators need to recognize that the answer is not in the method but in the teacher."  Are the authors saying that method is irrelevant?  By no means.  They are saying that:

• Children are hurt because laws mandating one "perfect method" prevent teachers from using different methods with students who need them.
• The professional nature of teaching is threatened because restrictive laws discourage the thoughtful innovation, risk‑taking, and creativity that are at the heart of professional life.
• Our professional community suffers because legislating a single answer silences those colleagues exploring alternative possibilities.

The authors conclude this article with suggestions for teachers, policy‑makers, reading researchers and teacher educators.

Dahl, K. and Scharer, P. (2000). Phonics teaching and learning in whole language classrooms: New evidence for research. Reading Teacher, 53(7), 584‑594.

How long have most of us thought of phonics and whole language as two distinct (and mutually exclusive) ways to teach reading?  Until I read the present article, I took that dichotomy on faith. Not so, say authors Dahl and Scharer.  According to them, in classroom instruction descriptions written by whole language teachers, whole language includes phonics instruction along with an emphasis on other cueing systems.  From this perspective, it's not a question of whether phonics is to be taught, but how it is integrated into whole language instruction.

The bulk of this article is devoted to an analysis of several classroom cases.  The results of these analyses show that the children were taught and did learn phonics in the whole language classroom.  Three distinctive qualities emerged as characteristics of phonics teaching within these classrooms:

• Teachers assessed and responded to the individual needs of learners.
• Skills were taught within the context of meaningful reading and writing activities to maximize children's applications of phonics concepts as they read and wrote.  In some classes students called themselves "word detectives" as they searched for word patterns and explored letter‑sound relationships.
• Phonics instruction in whole language classrooms was not confined to reading but included a wide range of writing instructional events as children wrote their own texts.

The message seems clear that an eclectic combination of methods, used appropriately for the given students and situational needs, does constitute the most effective reading instruction.  Hopefully, some practitioners in our schools will offer their secrets for teaching reading to be published in the next issue of Journal of School Improvement

Wilson, J. and Stokes, L. (2000). Students' perceptions of block versus traditional scheduling. American Secondary Education, 28(3), 3‑12.

This somewhat limited study was conducted on four high schools with experience in block scheduling.  All schools were in the northwest Alabama region.  The participants in the study were students randomly selected from the four schools.  The students had experience in both block and regular scheduling.  The following conclusions were drawn from the study by the in­vestigators, based on the student responses:

• Block scheduling is more effective than traditional scheduling.
• Teachers use a greater number of strategies in block than in traditionally scheduled classes.
• The greatest advantage of block scheduling for students is the ability to earn more credits for graduation.
• The instructional climate is improved with block scheduling.
• The greatest disadvantage in block scheduling is making up work missed.

Despite the limitations of this study, these student reactions seem to offer encouragement to any school wishing to try block scheduling as a means of improving student achievement.

Ovando, M. (2000). Support services for capacity building in successful schools. Planning and Changing, 30(2), 76‑100.

I doubt if anyone will seriously argue against the notion that the degree to which a school can be successful in effecting improvement in student achievement is directly linked to its capacity for doing so, when "capacity" is defined as the aggregate of internal and external capabilities for producing positively altered behavior on the part of students.  In the present article, author Ovando reports on a study that was completed as part of a major research and development initiative in Texas.  Fourteen schools in the south border area that were judged effective were included in the investigation.  Findings included the following:

• Workshops were by far the most popular form of staff development, distantly followed by conferences and demonstrations.
• All staff development activities focused on all six concepts of the Community of Learners Framework (Vision, Leadership and Governance, Responsive Pedagogy, Family and Community, Capacity Building, and Instructional and Schooling Practices).  Of these, Responsive Pedagogy was emphasized the most, followed closely by Vision and Instructional and Schooling Practices.  Leadership and Governance was least emphasized.

It appears that these 14 "effective schools" preferred short, intense staff development activities that concentrated primarily on classroom instructional activities.

Odden, A., Archibald, S., and Tychsen, A. (2000). Can Wisconsin schools afford comprehen­sive school reform? Journal of Educational Finance, 25(3), 323‑342.

The authors, at the Consortium for Policy Research in Education at the Wisconsin Center for Educational Research, University of Wisconsin‑Madison, have developed a relatively simple plan for school financial self‑analysis.  This particular study was based on a certain reform, the Modern Red Schoolhouse design, but the approach to financial self‑analysis is one that could be used by any NCA school in projecting its costs and assessing its capabilities for implementing its improvement cycle based on the NCA COS school endorsement plan.

In essence, the self‑assessment results in a two-column financial report.  The left column lists current school resources (e.g., principal, assistant administrators, teachers, professional development budget) with number and total cost for each.  The right column lists the resources visualized as being needed for the school to implement the improvement plan.  Developing this sort of fiscal report forces the professional staff to study its own current financial outlay, item by item, and to then plan projected outlay, again item by item, to meet the needs of the improvement plan.

One value of this approach is that it aids the staff in identifying "soft spots" in the current budget, that is, expenditure categories that are, in fact, over-funded.  Another value is that it forces the staff to pinpoint all costs for the improvement plan on a per-category basis, an exercise that may not actually save money in toto but will generally result in a more balanced allocation of resources for the improvement effort.  The concept is simple and obvious . All that is needed is the current budget categories and some commitment to homework.

Learning and Leading with Technology (2000). 27(7)

I have here listed an entire journal because it contains several articles that deal with the question of technology's role in evaluation and assessment.  The visual glitz of this journal almost (but not quite) obscures the value of the text within.  The articles are short and easy to read, and they contain some weighty thoughts for all of us on a subject that is on most educators' minds, technology in the classroom.  I'm going to list the feature articles, with a one-sentence description of the content of each, but you will have to get your own copy of this issue to glean the ideas from it.

1. Teacher as Researcher discusses means by which teachers, in the process of their daily work, can pose and answer questions, and exchange ideas with colleagues so that all learn more about the effects of technology in their classrooms. (Painter, D.)
2. Create Your Own Electronic Portfolio discusses the use of the computer in developing and analyzing student portfolios. (Barrett, H.)
3. Electronic Assessment" talks about the use of the computer for administering student tests. (Cardwall, K.)
4. Assessing the Effects of Technology in a Standards-Driven World" points out how various online assessment tools (as well as those you create) can help you see how technology affects student learning. (Barnett, H.)
5. How Do We Know It's Working?” presents a six‑step process for developing authentic and meaningful assessments for instructional technology. (Sun, J.)

Contemporary Education. (1999), 70(3).

This journal also is worth studying, in toto The following are some of the more promising articles and their authors.

1. Educating Teachers for Parental Involvement (Lazar, A., Broderick, P., Mastrilli, T., and Slostad, F.)
2. The School Board and Parent Involvement:  A New Outlook (Osbome, S. and de Onis, A.)
3. Secondary Teachers' Perspectives on Partnerships (Phelps, P.)
4. Empowering Family-School Partnerships: An Integrated` Hierarchical Model" (Shepard, R., Trimberger, A., McClintock, P., and Lecklider, D.)

There are several other articles in this idea-filled issue but these four appear to hold the most potential for our needs.  Contemporary Education is published at Indiana State University, Terre Haute.

Riordan, G. and Chesterton, P. (1999). Leadership for pedagogical change. Change: Transformations in Education, 2(2), 1‑16.

This relatively new educational publication out of Australia appears to have the potential to produce some thoughtful and useful work.  The present article, although of limited scope, offers a look at a problem that seems nearly endemic in American schools, that of persistence of college students beyond the first year.  Investigators Riordan and Chesterton conducted a case study on one traditional boy's school in which the principal attempted to change curricular practices and school policies in order to produce graduates who were more independent as learners and were capable of persevering with university study.

The study revealed that relatively limited changes in practice and policy occurred as a result of the principal's efforts.  The following factors appeared to serve as obstacles:

• Absence of a shared sense of the "problem."
• Lack of agreement on how the problem might be addressed.
• A limited readiness of teachers to alter their classroom practices.
• Tensions between the intended outcomes of the innovations.
• Logistical issues related to the changes.
• The depth of implementation that occurred.
• The absence of an appropriate evaluation of the initiative.

Does it give you a sense of satisfaction to know that the schools in other lands suffer the same kinds of frustrations that we do?  I think what is important here is that the experience of this one Australian school clearly points to the validity of our emphasis in NCA on the faculty of a school assuming the initiative in the improvement process.  The lack of success in this school is almost certainly the result of the lack of ownership of the process by the faculty that we in NCA deem so important in our own improvement process.

Kember, D., Chadesworth, M., Davies, H., McKay, J. and Stott, V. (1997). Evaluating the effectiveness of educational innovations: Using the study process questionnaire to show that meaningful learning occurs. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 23(2), 141‑157.

No matter how hard we try to assess the learning improvement of our students, there are bound to be times when we feel betrayed by special conditions.  For example, consider the situation in which by pure coincidence the set of students being evaluated at the end of your improvement cycle has a substantially different average learning potential than the "equivalent" set that was tested just before the cycle began.  If the posttest group has better potential, the achievement difference may appear to be unrealistically high.  If the posttest group has lower potential, the achievement may show no improvement at all, or even a loss as compared to the earlier tested group, even though the interventions of the improvement plan may have been effective.  As another example, suppose that a particular goal includes content that was never taught before.  Thus, there is no set of subject‑matter content on which the early and posttest groups can be compared.

Because of these and other problems, the authors of this article have developed a means to assess the "learning approach" of students.  Students who use a surface approach tend to concentrate on the shallow, or obvious, features of the content, with the usual intent of memorizing and reproducing apparently appropriate elements.  On the other hand, students using a deep approach concentrate on underlying meaning.  Such an assessment as this could be used as an alternative measure of learning that might show if something positive is happening, even if our conventional assessment instruments fail to show it.

This is an intriguing notion that we should study further and seriously consider in our schools.  Unfortunately, all but one of the questionnaires that have been developed for this assessment are designed for post-high-school work, and the one that is designed for high school work has been adapted for students in Hong Kong (presumably British, not Chinese, style).  To further this notion we may need to interest some group or company in the assessment field in developing questionnaires for our use.

Sternberg, B. (2000). The right stuff of schools: How our high schools become better communities for our children. NASSP Bulletin, 84(613), 61‑75.

I doubt if any educator would seriously dispute the contention that a school should be a safe and nurturing community for its students.  In this extraordinarily insightful article, Associate Commissioner of Education at the Connecticut State Department of Education Sternberg has listed eight guiding principles for achieving these ends.  They are:

• Education is a privilege, not a right (in other words, students have equal and balancing obligations).
• Hard work and exceptional efforts should be noticed, admired and valued—never derided.
• It takes considerable time and effort outside the classroom to understand a subject in depth.
• To make important connections among the disciplines, one must understand the import­ant concepts in each discipline.
• To participate fully in this community called school, students must take part in a variety of activities that exercise their intellectual, physical, social, and emotional abilities.
• To help students succeed in school, each of them should be able to count on at least one adult in the school who serves as the student's advocate, plays a significant role in the student's life, and does not allow the student to "fall through the cracks."
• Students should be vested with responsibility for their own conduct as well as that of their peers.  Their opinions should be sought after and valued not only in academic matters, but also in matters of ethical behavior.
• Students should be able to count on encountering teachers who like and respect young people, have broad interests, firm values and sound training in their disciplines, and are enthusiastic about participating beyond the classroom in the social and personal growth of their students.

The author warns that these guidelines can be costly in terms of commitment, but I believe you would be hard put to find a better framework of principle and policy within which to develop interventions for the improvement of student achievement in any legitimate set of learning goals.

Rogers, B. (1999). Conflicting approaches to curriculum: Recognizing how fundamental beliefs can sustain or sabotage school reform. Peabody Journal of Education, 74(1), 29‑67.

When our schools tackle the challenge of improving student achievement, the results are not always successful.  In fact, sometimes the process seems to become mired down before the improvement plan is even developed.  Why is this so?

This very thoughtful article by Bethany Rogers treats the problem of differing basic beliefs and convictions among those who are doing the planning.  Disagreements about what should be achieved and how the achievement should be nurtured are often or perhaps usually the result of differences in the perceived authority for the "what, the why, or the how of the entire program.

For example, Rogers notes four different sources of authority that shape our curricular decisions (parenthetical inserts are mine):

• The authority of standardized tests/basic societal expectations. (What does society, our community, expect us to accomplish?)
• The authority of disciplinary rules, understandings, and methods.  Here "disciplinary" refers to the subject disciplines, e.g., mathematics, language, history.  (The very nature of a scholarly body of work makes certain demands and argues a level of legitimacy.  How are the disciplines to be balanced?)
• The authority of teachers to draw on a variety of resources to make curriculum choices.  (The teachers are the educated leaders and are best prepared to make curricular decisions of all types.)
• The authority of student interests and needs.  (All that is important are the needs and interests of the students.)

These four authority sources give just a glimpse of the basic conflicts in thought that frequently, perhaps usually, arise in a faculty that is addressing itself to an improvement effort.  This is one reason why goal selection and unanimous (or near unanimous) agreement on those goals, are needed.  If the total planning group does not come to a solid consensual agreement on the goals to be achieved, the many potential differences in beliefs and convictions may well confound the planning efforts that follow.