Skip to: Content
Skip to: Site Navigation
Skip to: Search

Curriculum in a box

Packaged programs for improving instruction and school management grow in popularity, even as their effectiveness is questioned

By Marjorie Coeyman Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor / January 16, 2001


Some observers disparagingly refer to the approach as reform on the quick. Others praise it as the potential savior of the American education system.

Skip to next paragraph

However they are assessed, "whole school reform" programs have slipped largely unheralded into US schools. Such reform gives schools roadmaps to redesign themselves - examining everything from a curriculum to how a school is managed. Often an outside consultant plays a key role in reviewing the most minute daily details.

Yet growing acceptance of these programs has come despite fairly slender evidence of success. Most observers agree that more testing and critical evaluation are needed to determine whether they really work.

"In terms of making dramatic systemic reforms at schools, it really helps to have a coherent system at the center," says Paul Reville, executive director of the Pew Forum at the Harvard Graduate School of Education in Cambridge, Mass. "But there is a lot of conflicting research on

the relative effect of these strategies."

Whole-school reform models run the spectrum. Some say more than 300 are currently in use, though goals and procedures vary so widely that it is almost meaningless to discuss them as a group. The educational philosophies range from free-form and progressive to highly scripted and traditional.

Common ground tends to exist in the notion that education dollars are better spent trying to change the practices of an entire school than focusing on the needs of individual students. Such programs also tend to share the use of an outside agent, almost like a contractor, to help make the needed changes.

The practice increased dramatically in popularity during the past decade, as educators became discouraged by limited gains achieved through directing federal spending toward individual students in low-income schools. Maybe, advocates said, such money would be better spent on changing the culture of a school.

"A lot of schools, especially high-poverty schools, have had a very piecemeal approach," says Robert Slavin, co-founder with his wife of Success for All, a popular reform program. Whole-school reform "just made sense to people."

When the Obey-Porter Act set aside $145 million for whole-school reform endeavors in 1997 (since increased to $260 million), programs proliferated rapidly with varying degrees of quality.

The result, says Richard Elmore, professor of education at Harvard University in Cambridge, Mass., is "too many dollars chasing too little talent." There are now 7,000 to 10,000 US schools working with whole-school reform programs.

Prescriptive is popular

The programs with the highest profile, either negatively or positively, have tended to be some of the most prescriptive reading programs, such as Success for All, Open Court, and Direct Instruction.

Success for All, in fact, is drawing fresh attention because of its use in Houston, where Rod Paige, President-elect George W. Bush's nominee for secretary of Education, was superintendent of schools. With 47 schools in the program, Houston is Success for All's largest single market.

There is, of course, no guarantee that either Mr. Bush or Dr. Paige will push for the expansion of such programs, but some say Paige views that approach as being at least partially responsible for improvements in test scores in Houston public schools. (Since 1995, their pass rate on state tests has climbed to 66 percent from 44 percent, though that success is not exclusively attributed to Success for All.)

Others indicate that certain Bush pronouncements, like calls for national education testing and a guarantee that all children will read by third grade, seem to point to the deliberate, focused approach such programs offer.