Borman, Kathryn M. and Associates (2005). Meaningful urban education reform: Confronting the learning crisis in mathematics and science. Reviewed by Ubiratan D’Ambrosio, Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo

Borman, Kathryn M. and Associates (2005). Meaningful urban education reform: Confronting the learning crisis in mathematics and science. Albany: State University of New York Press. Pp. xvi + 285 $27.95   (paper cover) ISBN 0-7914-6330-3 $89.50   (hardcover) ISBN 0-7914-6329-X Reviewed by Ubiratan D’Ambrosio Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo January 27, 2006 This book is an evaluation of the impact of educational reform on urban schools focusing on mathematics and science. The urban environment has come under special scrutiny in the evaluation of educational systems. Particularly in the decades, after WW II, the entire world is affected by new demographic patterns, causing profound changes in urban areas which are strongly reflected in urban schools. Families move more frequently within countries and the increase in the number of foreign immigrants, both legal and illegal, requires new concepts of curricula, a new preparation of teachers and much closer attention to the relations of schools with families and the community. There is a general recognition that the quality of urban education has been deteriorating. Low scores in national assessments are discouraging. When compared with other nations, the poor performance of U.S. students in science and mathematics is the object of serious concern, to the point of considering the nation to be "at risk." This is aggravated by the fact that the general public is witnessing an amazing increase in the presence of high technology in all sectors of society, and it is clearly understood that this technology depends fundamentally on science and mathematics. Hence, the demands for reform, for higher standards for students and teachers and for academically challenging core curricula in science and mathematics are no surprise. These demands come from families, communities, economic sectors and, especially, from young people concerned about their own future. Employment prospects are regarded with pessimism by most young adults. Clearly, poor preparation in science and mathematics is regarded as one of the causes of this pessimism. The proposals for reform usually focus on new curricula, teacher preparation, improved supporting materials, such as books and technological devices, and an enormous emphasis on testing. It is recognized that efforts for school improvement to prevent student failure have been piecemeal, targeting specific factors, rather than looking at the system as a whole. In 1993, the National Science Foundation established the Urban Systemic Initiatives (USI) program, making funding available to urban school districts with the highest rates of poverty among their school-aged children. School districts eligible according to the 1990 Census applied for the USI grants; twenty-one received a total of 15 million dollars each to carry out systemic reforms in mathematics and science education. The funds were aimed at developing, expanding, and sustaining reform through partnerships with business, educational institutions, and community organizations. In 1999, the National Science Foundation awarded a grant to Kathryn M. Borman for a project on “Assessing the Impact of the National Science Foundation’s Urban Systemic Initiative,” which was carried out at the David C. Anchin Center, housed at the University of South Florida. The David C. Anchin Center has traditionally worked with teachers, school administrators, and the community to pursue excellence in schools. As stated in the book, “The major goals of the research study were: (1) to assess the impact of the USI reforms by modeling relationships between latent variable (driver) and a set of indicator variables [outcomes]; (2)to determine how reforms in curriculum and instruction affect teacher [practices] and student outcomes at the classroom level through the enacted standards-based curriculum in mathematics and science; and (3) to investigate the roles of leadership, local resource, and national, state, and local policies related to systemic reform that foster or inhibit student achievement outcomes and outcome differences.” (p.11) This book reports the results of the three-year study conducted by the Center. The book is organized in nine chapters and two appendices: Chapter 1: Historical Context: How National Science Foundation Reforms Build on Earlier Reforms; Chapter 2: The Importance of District and School Leadership; Chapter 3: Building Relationships to Sustain Reform; Chapter 4: Professional Development in Systemic Reform; Chapter 5: Instructional Practices in Mathematics and Science Classrooms; Chapter 6: Student Engagement in Mathematics and Science; Chapter 7: Closing the Achievement Gap; Chapter 8: School Culture: The Missing Lever in Improving Student Outcomes and Achieving Sustainable Reform; Chapter 9: What Have We Learned? A Summary of Key Findings; Appendix A: Instrumentation; Appendix B: Survey of Classroom Practices. In addition to the chapters and appendices, there are a few Notes, a bibliography of Works Cited, a List of Contributors with short biographies, and an Index. In Chapter 1, we find a thorough description of the USI program. Table 1.2 gives the six influences around which the USI program was organized and which synthesize the most basic issues in school systems. The table and the comments are a useful guide for initiatives which can be carried on independently by any school district. The six influences (or "drivers" as they are called) identified by NSF were required foci of any assessment of progress of a USI initiative. These policy levers were broad enough to allow for specification within each school district. The first four drivers, called process drivers, focus on sustainable success in changing the system’s approach to the teaching and learning of mathematics and science. The last two drivers, called the outcome drivers, focus on the end result of the reform effort, which aimed at increasing achievement in mathematics and science and closing the existing achievement gaps among ethnic or racial groups prevailing in the districts. In addition to the six drivers proposed by the NSF, the authors suggest a possible 7th Driver: school culture. Indeed, “school culture must be viewed as a mediating set of factors that influence the creation of social ties and relationships, and is likely the critical element enhancing or curtailing effective teaching and successful student outcomes.”(p.7) The David C. Archin Center project analyzed four school districts which had operated the USI programs for at least four years: Chicago, Miami-Dade County, Memphis and El Paso. The reasons for this selection are well explained. With different characteristics, these four districts permit a general view of what is going on in other school districts, indeed, also in other countries, since the conditions which generated the NSF project are universal. All four cities selected for the research faced state-imposed mandates to improve school performance and to raise students' test scores. Within each district, school selection and teacher selection were the result of an elaborate sampling process. Forty-seven schools were selected, located in all sectors of the four cities. The schools included twenty elementary schools, fifteen middle schools, and twelve high schools. The goal of the sampling process was to obtain sample schools that: (1) were reasonably representative of the school district; (2) evidenced substantial variability in the extent to which the schools participated in the USI reform initiatives; and (3) were likely to present limited confounding of driver variability in other extraneous variables. Teacher selection was also crucial for the research. Within each sampled school, five teachers were selected. In all, 230 teachers participated in the in-depth study. Subject areas of mathematics and science were privileged. The selection, in each school, aimed at teachers who had appropriate certification, who had been teaching for more than three years at the school, and who were willing to participate in the three-year study. Table 1.3 shows, in numbers and percentages, the characteristics of participating teachers, according to Gender, Race/Ethnicity, Years Teaching, and Years in Present School. It reveals a predominance of female teachers in the sample (70% female vs 30% male), a predominance of African Americans and Latinos (58.3% vs 39.6% Caucasians). In Years of Teaching, the predominance was of teachers with 12 or more years experience. This may introduce a source of bias in the study. The generation gap is accelerating rapidly. One can notice among young teachers a form of behavior very different from “old timers.” The procedures for data collection are well reported. A variety of data collection techniques were employed. The aim was to gather information from key individuals from the community, representatives from the district, school-level leaders, teachers, and students. The information was obtained through classroom observations, interviews, surveys of teachers and students, experience sampling, and archival document review. The data collected were analyzed using qualitative and quantitative methods. The multifaceted and multilevel Table 1.4 shows the many sources of data and the appropriate analysis procedures. Appendix A shows a detailed description of the instruments designed to measure aspects of the NSF six drivers. Some of these instruments were, necessarily, modified by the USI research staff in the course of the evaluation research. Appendix A and the steps and issues listed there may provide, with minor adaptation, a good instrument for the self-study of school systems. More than just getting a picture of the current state of affairs, they may serve as a guideline for the further development of school systems. Chapter 2 addresses the critical question of the role of institutional and individual leadership in systemic reform. Based on interviews, the research focuses of gathering data on the place of the USI initiative in the reform agenda of the districts. The critical issue of funding is raised. The NSF provided 15 million dollars over four years, but this amount of money is relatively small in larger districts. Since NSF requires the reform to be at the center of all that the district does, the allocation of these resources is a crucial issue. The results of the research confirm that leadership at the district and school levels is fundamental for systemic change. Another issue, which is very clear in this research, is that administrators are under a great deal of pressure for accountability and productivity at the district and school levels. Almost all the principals interviewed spoke of the role played by standardized tests in instruction and accountability in their schools. The chapter concludes with an observation about the need for administrators to juggle diverse and often conflicting demands. The NSF Six-driver Model, mentioned in Chapter 1, particularly Diver 4, emphasizes the importance given to collaboration and cooperation within districts and between schools and the larger community. Chapter 3 addresses this issue. The research focuses on the participation of communities and parent stakeholders in the USI reform. The key consideration is the mobilization of resources among various constituencies. The chapter is organized around data collection about the engagement of stakeholders, the school level reports of increasing stakeholder involvement, especially principals' views of this involvement. Also analyzed is the perception of community stakeholders of the impact of their involvement on student outcomes. Particularly significant are principals' perceptions of stakeholders' motivations. The main motivation identified by stakeholders are completing high school, gaining acceptance to college, and finding a career. This is a universal expectation of everyone involved in education. But the complexity of society, the changing economy, and obsolete schooling frustrate these expectations, generate disenchantment with schools and pave the way to cynical attitudes. This was well discussed, some years ago, by Robert Reich (1991). More attention must be given to exploring new ways of organizing the curriculum. I have proposed a few years ago a new curriculum concept (D'Ambrosio, 1999). Understandably, this book does not venture into discussing new curricular directions, although a similar issue, the school culture, which I will mention later in this review, offers the possibility of considering something new in schooling. The perception of community stakeholders of the impact of their involvement on student outcomes also recognizes how involvement increases skills and achievement. There exists virtual unanimity about the recognition of the importance of involving just about every constituency in the efforts to enhance student outcomes. But there is also the recognition that USI reform efforts did not impact the involvement of these constituencies in schools. Reform initiatives, particularly the Urban Systemic Initiative, largely depend on the continuing professional development of teachers, particularly teachers in the middle and high school grades. The reform depends on the professional development of teachers to deal with direct, hands-on, problem solving, pedagogical strategies and content knowledge. Chapter 4 focus on these developments and their effect on classroom practices. Very important in this chapter is the discussion of teachers’ perceptions of reform and their perceptions of how they changed their classroom practices as a result of their involvement in professional development. Table 4.2 give details of the outcome of the analysis of time spent in professional development and impact on teaching practices. In addressing questions related to the ways professional development influenced classroom practices of teachers, the research reveals, for many teachers, only tenuous links between professional development and classroom instruction. It is not surprising that most teachers had problems in relating their professional development experiences to their day-to-day classroom practices. In the conclusion of this very central chapter, the researchers argue “professional development should be tied to both subject matter content and pedagogical strategies, incorporating challenging subject matter and instructional approaches. In addition, during the course of the school year, professional development should occur at the school site level, especially when the implementation of new curricula and instruction is in question.” (p.86) Chapter 5 analyzes what happens in the classroom. Indeed, an effective systemic reform must result in improvements in classroom practices and in student learning. To what degree are the science and mathematics being taught consistent with national mathematics and science education standards? This was the guiding question of this phase of the research. The conclusions were drawn from classroom observations, teacher and students surveys, and teacher questionnaires. The responses were analyzed using the standards-based reform agenda and the scale of best practices informed by national standards for mathematics and science instruction. The conclusions were particularly interesting. There are differences between teachers’ and students views. Particularly, “[we] found that students are often less sanguine about their teachers’ use of standards-based practices than the teachers themselves.”(p.88). A cluster analysis taking into account the points of view of teachers, students, and researchers illuminates the differences in perceptions. Indeed, changing teaching practices is much more complex than simply instructing teachers to change. Although not specifically addressing the very difficult issue of the culture of the teacher, the results of the research shed some light on this problem. It is difficult to deny that teachers act unconsciously in conservative ways. Changing teachers’ behavior, values and attitudes, particularly in science and mathematics education, is the crucial issue. I regard the few paragraphs under the heading “Instructional Practices” (pp. 89-92) as one of the best moments of this book. Classroom observational data were collected from field notes. The transcripts of these notes were analyzed using the Authentic Instructional Practices Coding Matrix (described in Appendix A), composed of four categories: classroom communication, social support, student engagement, and lesson coherence. This instrument allows for identifying whether teaching practices are teacher-centered, subject centered, or student-centered. This instrument reveals that “taken as a whole, teachers are providing instruction that does little to promote deep student engagement.”(p.130). This is one of a series of important remarks in the conclusion of chapter 5. A summarizing remark shows how delicate it is, and in cases how unsuccessful, to rely on the conventional staff development practices to disseminate activities which can be integrated into the teachers’ current practices. The final sentence of the Conclusion of the chapter reads thus: “These conventional practices view teaching as a collection of activities and not as a culturally coherent set of activities and beliefs that are bound together.”(p.134). The most important issue in attaining the goals of the USI is thereby identified: the culture of the teacher. Chapter 6 deals with students’ motivation to learn mathematics and science and what engages and sustains their attention in classroom. The research focuses on three major themes: types of classroom organizational patterns; students’ perceptions of classroom instruction; and individual teachers as units of analysis, examining data about their experience with USI reforms. In the analysis of classroom organization, results deal with whole-class instruction and lecturing, small-group work, and individualized work. Concerning time spent to learn topics in mathematics and science, it is recognized that it is not just time by itself that is critical, but it is how the time is used. It is also important to recognize how the duration of the class relates to students' socialization. Among the conclusions is the fidning that students attributed their levels of engagement primarily to their teachers’ instructional performance. Not surprisingly, students value social and affective elements, such as the teacher being concerned and passionate about students, as important features in helping them to improve their understanding of the content. Chapter 7 addresses the critical theme of closing the achievement gap between groups of underserved and more privileged students. The research focused on the NSF’s six-driver model, using analyses combining qualitative measures based on classroom observation and teacher and student reports and measures of student achievement. An elaborate path analysis touched all the six-drivers and expanded the domain to assess the importance of the seventh driver, school culture. An important finding suggests substantial positive associations between a strong and supportive school culture and achievement gains. The conclusion of the chapter points to the fact that USI has favored the reduction of the achievement gap, and that, compared with affluent, predominantly white, schools, the USI schools registered great progress in closing the gap. An interesting conclusion of this chapter claims that “In schools where teachers view themselves as learners and believe that their students can achieve, improved student outcomes are likely to result.”(p.195). But the results of the research reveal mixed findings concerning the linkages between teachers’ professional development, classroom instruction, and student academic achievement gains in mathematics. One remark sets the tone for all of Chapter 8: “The reforms ... were not systemic in that all teachers did not adopt student-centered practices. But, what if we considered the role of school context or culture as a moderating factor?”(p.196) The conceptualization of school culture is basic to the development of this chapter, probably the most provocative of the entire book. The authors claim that simply logging time for professional development is not enough to achieve the goals of the reform. They place a great deal of importance on the opportunity given to teachers to spend time with colleagues, learn from them and practice strategies with them that are to be used with students. The research investigated four main components: shared vision, facilitative leadership, teamwork, and learning communities. The authors draw lessons from studies of business organizations. They make the claim that visions seen only by the leaders, even if explicit in the objectives of the reform, do not create the necessary atmosphere to achieve the goals of the reform. The leaders' vision must be shared by all those involved in the process. Positive results are achieved if teachers assume a leadership posture among students. It is a fundamental task of individuals in a directing and managing role to facilitate the emergence of leadership in their constituency. Although enhancing individual teacher skills and knowledge is important, it is essential that teachers engage collectively to improve practice. This is the concept of a professional learning community. Chapter 9 is a summary of the key findings in this book. The authors synthesize the work that went into achieving the goals of the research into three strands: 1) the Study of the Enacted Curriculum; 2) the Policy Study; and 3) the Mathematics and Science Study. The synthesis involves the analyses of no fewer than 35 tables. The tables are a rich source of information about what is going on in the 47 schools and with the 230 teachers in the four school districts. The treatment given to the data collected was methodologically careful. The transformation of these findings into conclusions, with the nuances of a theoretical proposal, is a strong point of this book The decision to organize the results of the research in a book is most welcome. Dealing with specific districts, with very characteristic urban scenarios, and using a limited sample of schools and teachers, allows for generalizations and suggestions which can be adopted by every school district, not only those in the U.S. The book is an effective contribution to reforming schooling. References D’Ambrosio, Ubiratan. (1999). Literacy, Matheracy, and Technoracy: A Trivium for Today, Mathematical Thinking and Learning,1(2),131-153. Reich, Robert B. (1991). The Work of Nations. New York: Alfred Knopf. About the Reviewer Ubiratan D’Ambrosio is Professor at the Graduate Program in Mathematics Education of the Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo, Brazil. His main interests are Ethnomathematics and Multicultural Education. Copyright is retained by the first or sole author, who grants right of first publication to the Education Review.