Paper Summary

Across the Pond: A Comparative Look at Independently Designed School Reform Programs in England and the United States

Sat, April 14, 8:15 to 9:45am, Vancouver Convention Centre, Floor: First Level, East Ballroom A

Abstract

Objectives:
In this presentation, we identify common features and distinct practices of the two programs, best practices that each institution can adopt from one another, and how the inter-institutional relationship will develop further.

Theoretical Framework and Connection to the Literature:
This comparative study employs a research paradigm based on “communities of practice” (Wenger, 1998). A research paradigm based on “communities of practice” emphasizes the social dimension of learning and provides flexibility to accommodate a plurality of research methods (Denscombe, 2008). Community members interact to maintain standards of inquiry within their domain and designate topics worthy of inquiry. Researchers within this comparative study acted as a community of practice to collaboratively examine each other’s programs using mutually agreed upon methods of inquiry.

Context and Participants:
This comparative study spans two distinct contexts: London, England, and Florida, USA. Both programs seek to improve the performance of schools serving high poverty, high minority populations in urban settings. In both countries, schools are under pressure from high-stakes accountability tests of student performance.

The research team included academics from the institutions highlighted in this session. The participants served by the graduate education and professional development programs include district officials, school-based administrators, and classroom teachers.

Mode of Inquiry:
The comparative analysis included document reviews and site visits. The research team analyzed descriptions and evaluations for one another’s programs. Initial coding (Charmaz, 2006; Strauss & Corbin, 1998) identified similarities in program design and intervention, resulting in codes such as “Employing inquiry” and “Developing leadership.”

Site visits with interviews and observations helped the research team understand how each other’s programs operated in real time. The London team hosted the Florida team and vice versa. Researchers from the visiting team conducted semi-structured interviews (Berg, 2004) with program stakeholders, including university faculty, school leaders, and classroom teachers, as well as school visits and participant observations (DeWalt & DeWalt, 2002) of programmatic interventions, such as graduate class sessions and course reviews. Additional data allowed for theoretical sampling (Charmaz, 2006) to define coding categories more completely.

Conclusions:
While analysis is ongoing, initial results indicate:
• Despite operating in different national contexts, the local contexts are quite similar. It is clear that both programs are working in fast-paced policy context, allied to school improvement in terms of test scores and a liberalized, economic education system driven by competition (Ball, 2009; Hartley, 2008).
• Both programs have adopted a focus on cultural diversity. This approach promotes the achievement of school improvement through a focus on equity (Berliner, 2006).
• The evaluations of the impact of both programs provide empirical support for the centrality of job-embedded professional learning to efforts to improve teacher practice and student performance (Darling-Hammond et al, 2009).
• Despite differences in the focus of each program, both institutions are trying to ensure greater teacher inquiry, reflection and criticality, thus creating teacher researchers and helping schools with leadership development and succession planning. In so doing, the programs address teacher accountability through teacher empowerment and leadership (Mangin & Stoelinga, 2010).

Authors