Strengthening State-Level MSTE Infrastructure

What is 'State MSTE Infrastructure'?
Leaders of NASSMC's member coalitions speak of working to strengthen the"infrastructure" of their states' "systems of mathematics, science, and technology education (MSTE)." However, as late as December 1997, practitioners of systemic reform reported a lack of shared definitions of terms related to their work. Working definitions of two terms central to coalition work, state system of MSTE and state MSTE infrastructure, can be drawn from publications of the National Science Foundation (NSF) and from literature generated by NSF systemic initiatives. Those sources commonly mention twelve key elements of an education system when describing a state system of MSTE.

• Coherent Education Policy
• Content Standards
• Assessment Standards
• Alignment of K-12 and Higher Education
• Teacher Preparation
• Teacher Professional Development and Evaluation
• School Leadership
• Instructional Materials
• Equitable Learning Opportunities
• Public Understanding and Engagement
• System Accountability
• Broad-based State Leadership

But, as is frequently noted, these are just the parts of a system The system includes the interrelationships among the parts. By visualizing the twelve elements arranged as a wheel with Coherent Education Policy at the hub and the other eleven elements at the endpoints of spokes, one gets a primitive representation of a state system of MSTE. Moreover, the resulting diagram correctly suggests that basic connections between Coherent Education Policy and each of the other elements are inherent to the system. All other elements are, to some degree, defined by the state's body of education policy. Change in public policy directly affects one or more of the other elements.

However, additional linkages between and among the twelve system elements are achieved through the combined policies and programs of an elaborate network of agencies, institutions, professional associations, foundations, businesses, advocacy groups, and individuals. The linkages are what make the system "work." That network is a state's MSTE infrastructure. The infrastructure is the mechanism by which change in one element of the system ripples out to change - and be changed by - other elements of the system. Owing to roots in public works and engineering, the term infrastructure has a functional and positive association with the concepts of support and organization. However, in education the 'structures' that support state-level improvement efforts constitute a loosely coupled system, since the principal of local control that characterizes American education denies central organization. Thus, while the total energy expended in an effort to effect change may be large, the output from that effort may be reduced because nonaligned actions of organizations in the infrastructure are not synergetic and, in the worst case, cancel out each other. Therefore, one important goal of any effort to strengthen a state's MSTE infrastructure must be to align the diverse efforts of many important players.

Why Focus on strengthening State MSTE Infrastructures?
In 1995, researchers evaluating NSF's Statewide Systemic Initiatives (SSIs) concluded that fundamental requirements for success in MSTE systemic reform are content expertise, broad-based partnerships, effective communication, and coherent education policy. Other studies of and conferences on systemic reform support this conclusion. Because the call for a systemwide approach to education reform dates back only about a decade, the research base is limited, primarily qualitative in nature, lacking an appropriate theory of systemic reform, and confounded by the complexity of the task. However, the evidence to date, whether presented in published reports or taken from the comments of those who have led systemic initiatives, is consistent. It reveals that, while it is surely difficult to properly launch a statewide systemic reform effort, it is even more difficult to sustain such an undertaking for the length of time required to produce and document significant increases in student achievement across a state. Sustainability over the long haul depends upon the existence of a statewide infrastructure -- a complex network of agencies, institutions, professional associations, foundations, businesses, and advocacy groups that support and shape a state's system of education through their policies and programs. It seems a fair appraisal to say that, in spite of the significant gains made during the 1990s, both in a number of SSI states and in some non-SSI states where state groups working collaboratively on MSTE reform have been strong, the infrastructures currently in place have neither the completeness nor strength required for long-term and effective support of the bold systemic change efforts required.

Ongoing statewide reform efforts in two states support the foregoing analysis. In 1997, the annual report of the National Education Goals Panel (NEGP) showed that two North Carolina and Texas had made notable gains for the period 1990-97. In particular, they recorded the largest gains in mathematics and reading scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress over that period. NEGP subsequently funded a study to determine if the test score gains were significant and sustainable - and, if so, what factors explained the gains.

The study confirmed that gains in both states were both real and significant but could not be explained by real per pupil spending, teacher/pupil ratios, teachers with advanced degrees, or the experience level of teachers. In fact, both states at or below the national level on these factors and, during the period studied, neither state changed in a way that would explain the gains. Rather, the study maintained that the gains were most likely attributable to the states' policy environments and, specifically, to leadership from the business community, political leadership, and continuity and stability of reform policies over time. Key reform policies associated with the gains were: statewide grade-specific content standards; a single set of standards for all students; state assessments aligned with the content standards; accountability systems with rewards, sanctions, and assistance in improving; increased local flexibility for teachers and administrators; computerized, data-based improvement systems; focusing resources on schools with disadvantaged students; and building infrastructure to sustain reform. The study reported that a reform infrastructure was the most important aspect of the states' initiatives. It went on to attribute the success of that infrastructure to relationships established over many years as taxpayers, educators, policymakers and business leaders worked together to improve education. The researchers concluded that "A fragile but visible trust in the education reform agenda has developed in each state partly built on its success to date. It is this still fragile trust which must be maintained over the long run by wise political, educational, and business leadership."

A Framework for System Change
NASSMC's member coalitions are engaged in strengthening state MSTE infrastructures. The conceptual framework for their work is based on a review of lessons learned by several large scale-reform initiatives and on a review of what has been learned about "scaling-up reform." From these and other resources, eleven conditions necessary to scaling up and institutionalizing systemic reform have be distilled.

1. The vision for the reform must be adequately specified. Reforms must address changes in the entire system.
2. The policy environment must be aligned to support and encourage the adoption and spread of the reforms. This includes policies at the state, district, and school levels.
3. There must be political support for the reforms. The reforms must be understood by policymakers - and be seen as legitimate - if policymakers are to invest political capital in them and are to stay the course.
4. There must be public support for the reforms. The public must understand the reforms and be involved in the decision making related to their implementation.
5. There must be evidence that the reforms work. For reforms to be adopted there must be evidence that they work - that is, that they will improve student achievement.
6. Readiness and leadership are key. Core leadership needs to be able to articulate the initiative, build the necessary consensus, manage the change process, weather the storms of the implementation process, and continually refine and adapt the effort without losing broad-based support.
7. State ownership and capacity must be built. Assistance must be tailored to the developmental needs of the leadership cadre, and both decision making and priority setting must involve that cadre.
8. Resources matter. In initiating reforms, new dollars are needed for start-up costs. However, sustaining reforms requires that existing public and private resources be refocused in support of a common vision for MSTE.
9. Informed mediators -- individuals and agencies -- from outside the system are needed to broaden perspectives and bring about re-examination of issues among system leaders who are addressing MSTE reform. Mediators from outside the system encourage the spread of high quality, comprehensive initiatives insofar as they can convene disparate groups, raise important issues in a bipartisan way, and broker information and assistance.
10. Informed mediators from within the system are needed to translate policy into practice and to support implementation of reforms. Within-system mediators assist in connecting state and district leaders to strategies and best practices. They can devise realistic strategies for systems change and create a power base for reform.
11. Reform takes time. It takes time to build constituencies for reform, change behaviors, build capacity, and conduct detailed assessments of current conditions as well as to benchmark changes over time.

    REFERENCES

    Business Coalition for Education Reform (BCER) (1998). The Formula for Success: A Business Leader's Guide to Supporting Math and Science Achievement. Washington, DC: United States Department of Education.

    Century, J. (1999). Evaluators' roles: Walking the line between judge and consultant. A paper delivered at the Fourth Annual Forum of the National Institute for Science Education (NISE) in Washington, DC, on February 1, 1999. Madison, WI: NISE.

    Chubin, D. E., Hamilton. E. R., and Anderson, B. E. (1999). Evaluative findings on systemic reform: Lessons from NSF. A paper delivered at the Fourth Annual Forum of the National Institute for Science Education (NISE). Madison, WI: NISE.

    Consortium for Policy Research in Education (CPRE) (1991). Putting the pieces together: Systemic school reform. CPRE Policy Briefs. University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia: Author.

    Consortium for Policy Research in Education (CPRE) (1995). Reforming science, mathematics, and technology education: NSF's state systemic initiatives. CPRE Policy Briefs. University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia: Author.

    Corcoran, T. B., Shields, P. M., & Zucker, A. A. (1998). Evaluation of NSF's Statewide Systemic Initiatives (SSI) Program: The SSIs' and Professional Development for Teachers. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.

    Education Commission of the States (ECS) (1996a). The Progress of Education Reform 1996. Denver, CO: ECS.

    Education Commission of the States (ECS) (1996b). Standards & Education: A Roadmap for State Policymakers. Denver, CO: ECS.

    Education Commission of the States (ECS) (1997a). So You Have Standards - Now What? . Denver, CO: ECS.

    Education Commission of the States (ECS) (1997b). A Policymaker's Guide to Standards-Led Assessment. Denver, CO: ECS.

    Education Commission of the States (ECS) (1998a). Designing and Implementing Standards-based Accountability Systems. Denver, CO: ECS.

    Education Commission of the States (ECS) (1998b). Harnessing Technology for Teaching and Learning. Denver, CO: ECS.

    Educational Development Center, Inc. (EDC) (1996). Final Report: SSI Technical Assistance (May 1992 - December 1995) . Newton, MA: EDC.

    Elmore, Richard F. (1996). Getting to scale with good educational practice. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1).

    Fullan, M. G. and Miles, M. B. (1992). Getting reform right: What works and what doesn't. Phi Delta Kappan, 73 (10).

    Furhman, S. H. (1994). Challenges to systemic education reform. CPRE Policy Briefs. University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.

    Goertz, M. E., Floden, R. E., and O'Day, J. (1996). The bumpy road to education reform. CPRE Policy Briefs. University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.

    Grissmer, D. and Flanagan, A. (1998). Exploring Rapid Achievement Gains in North Carolina and Texas. National Education Goals Panel: Washington, DC.

    Heck, D. J. (1999). Understanding the evaluation of systemic reform: Purposes and vision for evaluation. A paper delivered at the Fourth Annual Forum of the National Institute for Science Education (NISE) in Washington, DC, on February 1, 1999. Madison, WI: NISE.

    Horizon Research, Inc. (1994). Reflections on Wingspread: Lessons Learned About the National Science Foundation's Statewide Systemic Initiative. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research, Inc.

    Kline, P. and Saunders, B. (1993). Ten Steps to a Learning Organization. Arlington, VA: Great Ocean Publishers.

    Knapp, Michael S. (1997). Between systemic reforms and the mathematics and science classroom: The dynamics of innovation, implementation, and professional learning. Review of Educational Research, 67(2), Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

    Linder-Scholer, W. (1996). Industry's role in standards-based systemic reform for K-12 mathematics, science, and technology education in A Look at Industry and Community Commitment to Educational Systemic Reform. College Park, MD: Triangle Coalition.

    Massell, D. (1998). State strategies for building local capacity: Addressing the needs of standards-based reform. CPRE Policy Briefs. University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.

    Massell, D., Kirst, M., & Hoppe, M. (1997). Persistence and change: Standards-based systemic reform in nine states. CPRE Policy Briefs. University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.

    Millar, S. B, Bowcock, D. C., Gunter, R. L., and Mesquita, R. (1997). Themes articulated in forum participant think pieces. In Clune, W. H. et al., Research on Systemic Reform: What Have We Learned? What Do We Need to Know? Madison, WI: National Institute for Science Education.

    National Alliance of Business (NAB) (1987). The Fourth R: Workforce Readiness - A Guide to Business/Education Partnerships. Washington, DC: National Alliance of Business.

    National Research Council (1993). A Nationwide Education Support System for Teachers and Schools. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    National Research Council (1989). Everybody Counts. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    National Research Council (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    National Science Foundation (NSF) (1990). Statewide Systemic Initiatives in Science, Mathematics, and Engineering Education: Program Solicitation. Washington, DC: NSF.

    Odden, A. (1994) Including school finance in systemic reform strategies: A commentary. CPRE Finance Briefs. University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.

    Ridgway, J. (1998). The Modeling of Systems and Macro-Systemic Change: Lessons for Evaluation from Epidemiology and Ecology. Research Monograph No. 8. Madison, WI: National Institute for Science Education.

    Senge, P. M. (1990). The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. New York, NY: Doubleday Currency.

    Shields, P. M., Marsh, J. A., & Adelman, N.E. (1998). Evaluation of NSF's Statewide Systemic Initiatives (SSI) Program: The SSIs' Impacts on Classroom Practice. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.

    SRI International (1994). Evaluation of the National Science Foundation's Statewide Systemic Initiatives (SSI) Program: First Year Report. Menlo Park, CA: Author.

    SRI International (1995). Evaluation of the National Science Foundation's Statewide Systemic Initiatives (SSI) Program: Second Year Report, Cross-Cutting Themes. Menlo Park, CA: Author.

    SRI International (1997). SSI Strategies for Reform: Preliminary Findings from the Evaluation of NSF's SSI Program. Menlo Park, CA: Author.

    The Business Roundtable (1999). No Turning Back. Washington, DC: Author.

    The Forum (1995). A State of Disconnectedness: An Examination of Mathematics & Science Instruction in the North Carolina Public Schools. Raleigh: The Forum.

    Timar, T., Kirp, D. and Kirst, M. (1998). Institutionalizing Mathematics and Science Reform: Do State Education Agencies Matter? (Draft, August 1998). San Francisco, CA: WestEd.

    Watkins, K. E. and Marsick, V. J. (1993). Sculpting the Learning Organization: Lessons in the Art and Science of Systemic Change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

    Webb, N. (1999). Evaluation of systemic reform: Confronting the challenges. A paper delivered at the Fourth Annual Forum of the National Institute for Science Education (NISE) in Washington, DC, on February 1, 1999. Madison, WI: NISE.

    Weiss, I. (1999). Evaluation of systemic reform: A complex endeavor. A paper delivered at the Fourth Annual Forum of the National Institute for Science Education (NISE) in Washington, DC, on February 1, 1999. Madison, WI: NISE.

    Wentworth, Eric (1997). Agents of Change: Exemplary Corporate Policies and Practices to Improve Education. Washington, DC: The Business Roundtable.

    Zucker, A., Shields, P. M., Adelman, N. E., Corcoran, T. B., & Goertz, M. E. (1998). A Report on the Evaluation of the National Science Foundation's Statewide Systemic Initiatives (SSI) Program. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.

    return to resource docs