Improving student learning requires deep change

In Deep Change: Discovering the Leader Within, Robert Quinn says incremental goals are insufficient for the transformation that organizations often require. Incremental change, he says, does not disrupt past patterns and is the enemy of innovation. "Deep change differs from incremental change in that it requires new ways of thinking and behaving," he writes. "It is change that is major in scope, discontinuous with the past, and generally irreversible."

Acknowledging the need for deep change, though, is not the same as knowing how to achieve it. "When we have a vision, it does not necessarily mean that we have a plan," Quinn writes. "We may know where we want to be, but we will seldom know the actual steps we must take to get there."

Creating schools in which all students and staff members learn and perform at high levels requires deep change throughout the system, change whose details may not be known in advance. Last month, I explored the implications of some of these changes in a hypothetical elementary school that had a stretch goal of teaching all children to read at grade level by the end of third grade.

This month, letıs consider math education: What would be necessary in a middle school that wanted all students to achieve the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) standards? Since middle level math is a gateway to more advanced math, reform here is essential to ensure that youngsters arenıt prematurely shut out of careers that require a solid math background.

Change to reach standards

Jane Swafford, a math professor at Illinois State University and a members of NSDC's Results- Based Staff Development for the Middle Grades National Advisory Panel, argues that having all students achieve NCTM standards requires significant changes in curriculum, assessment, and leadership at the school and district levels.

In a recent conversation, Swafford said reaching those standards will require many teachers to learn an entirely new way of teaching math. This new way is different from the "chalk and talk" methods with which they are most familiar. "It takes a lot of effort on the part of teachers to make those changes and on the part of the school to support them," she said. "You can put new curriculum materials in the hands of teachers, but unless you work with teachers they will teach in the same old way. Part of the change is learning new techniques; part of it is learning new content."

Swafford also believes tracking must be eliminated. "All students must be taught a rich curriculum that emphasizes problem solving and conceptual understanding," she said. "Remedial, drill and practice work is just not effective."

Changing teachersı beliefs

Such changes require alterations in teachers' beliefs, Swafford pointed out. "Many teachers believe that mathematics is learning a series of algorithms, that itıs not about using the power of mathematics to solve problems in your everyday life. In addition, not every teacher believes that all students can learn a richer curriculum. Some research has found that teachers tend to blame kids for their inability to learn as a way of maintaining their sense of efficacy in difficult situations, and many teachers work in very difficult situations."

Swafford said a key ingredient is providing ongoing support for teachers. "This canıt be done in a two-hour workshop after school," she noted. "Our experience has been that it takes two or more years to get past superficial changes. Districts have to resist becoming discouraged. This is not a quick fix."

Quinn concurs. "Acting on a vision that exceeds our resources is a test of our vision, faith, and integrity," he writes. But, without that compelling vision, few schools will do all that is necessary for all students to learn and perform at high levels, in mathematics or in any other subject.