EVALUATION OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ILLINOIS LEARNING STANDARDS

The Evaluation of the Implementation of Illinois Learning Standards Project has been a four-year endeavor funded by the Illinois State Board of Education to assess the extent to which local districts are implementing Illinois Learning Standards (ILS), to identify factors which enhance or inhibit implementation, and to investigate the relationship between ILS implementation and student achievement. The project began contains the findings of the fourth and final year of the study and a summary for the entire grant period. The study has two components: 1. Survey of Practitioners. During Year Four, 2,642 teachers in a stratified random sample of 61 schools were surveyed to determine the extent to which they were implementing ILS in their classrooms, schools, and districts. Teacher survey data were used to place schools at various levels of implementation, assess ILS implementation at the state level, and examine the relationship between ISAT performance and ILS implementation. A parallel Administrator Survey was developed and sent to 137 building principals. The Administrator Survey was used to assess principals' perceptions of ILS implementation. 2. Qualitative Component. In Year Four, six districts with one to two schools from each district were selected for intensive case study. The districts selected for inclusion vary in student enrollment, district organization pattern, community size, and geographic location. Specifically, one district located in the southern part of the state is a unit district (K-12) that serves a largely urban population. Current student enrollment is just over 11,000 students. A second, an elementary district (K-8) located in a mid-sized city in central Illinois, has a student enrollment of approximately 4,100 students. The third is a high school district (9-12) located in a suburban community in the northern part of the state; student enrollment is approximately 2,800 students. The fourth, also a unit district (K-12), is located in a small rural ILS Year Four Summary of Findings and Recommendations 2 community in central Illinois and has a student enrollment of just over 1,000 students. A fifth, a unit district (K-12) that is part of a central Illinois metropolitan area, has an enrollment of approximately 5,700 students. The sixth district, a small rural district (K-12) in southern Illinois, serves just over 1,100 students. The nine schools selected from the six districts that agreed to participate in this study include three elementary schools, three middle/junior high schools, and three high schools. Over the past year, more than 20 site visits …

[1]  Jane Hannaway,et al.  Decentralization and School Improvement: Can we Fulfill the Promise? , 1994 .

[2]  Continuous Improvement in Community District #2, New York City , 2002 .

[3]  G. Maeroff.  Team Building for School Change: Equipping Teachers for New Roles , 1993 .

[4]  Michael S. Knapp,et al.  Between Systemic Reforms and the Mathematics and Science Classroom: The Dynamics of Innovation, Implementation, and Professional Learning , 1997 .

[5]  Theodore R. Sizer,et al.  Horace's Compromise: The Dilemma of the American High School , 1984 .

[6]  Jane Hannaway,et al.  Decentralization and school improvement : can we fulfill the promise? , 1994 .

[7]  G. Graen.  One best way. , 1973 .

[8]  J. Morse.  Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed): Mathew B. Miles and A. Michael Huberman. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1994. Price: $65.00 hardback, $32.00 paperback. 238 pp , 1996 .

[9]  S. J. Rosenholtz.  Teacher's workplace : the social organization of schools , 1991 .

[10]  Larry Cuban,et al.  How Schools Change Reforms: Redefining Reform Success and Failure , 1998, Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education.

[11]  Thomas R. Guskey,et al.  Professional Development in Education: New Paradigms and Practices. , 1995 .

[12]  Examining the Evidence: Have States Reduced Local Control of Curriculum? , 1993 .

[13]  W. Firestone.  Using Reform: Conceptualizing District Initiative , 1989 .

[14]  Susan H. Fuhrman.  From the capitol to the classroom : standards-based reform in the states , 2001 .

[15]  M. Patton.  Utilization-focused evaluation: The new century text , 1997 .

[16]  Milbrey W. McLaughlin,et al.  Teachers' work : individuals, colleagues, and contexts , 1993 .

[17]  Measuring Degrees of Successful Implementation , 1984 .

[18]  M. Mclaughlin,et al.  Federal Programs Supporting Educational Change , 1975 .

[19]  Karl E. Weick,et al.  Administering Education in Loosely Coupled Schools. , 1982 .

[20]  Ray C. Rist,et al.  On the application of ethnographic inquiry to education: Procedures and possibilities , 1982 .

[21]  R. Lehming,et al.  Improving Schools: Using What We Know , 1981 .

[22]  James P. Spillane,et al.  Aligned Instructional Policy and Ambitious Pedagogy: Exploring Instructional Reform from the Classroom Perspective , 1997, Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education.

[23]  Phil Francis Carspecken,et al.  Reform and Resistance in Schools and Classrooms: An Ethnographic View of the Coalition of Essential Schools , 1997 .

[24]  M. Mclaughlin.  Learning From Experience: Lessons From Policy Implementation , 1987 .

[25]  Richard F. Elmore,et al.  The Governance of Curriculum. 1994 Yearbook of the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. , 1994 .

[26]  Richard F. Elmore,et al.  Building a New Structure for School Leadership. , 1999 .

[27]  M. Mclaughlin,et al.  Steady Work: Policy, Practice, and the Reform of American Education , 1988 .

[28]  Andrew C. Porter,et al.  Chapter IV: Are Content Standards Being Implemented in the Classroom? A Methodology and Some Tentative Answers , 2001, Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education.

[29]  Richard F. Elmore,et al.  Structural Reform and Educational Practice , 1995 .

[30]  Sharan B. Merriam,et al.  Case Study Research in Education : A Qualitative Approach , 1991 .

[31]  A. V. D. Ven,et al.  Longitudinal Field Research Methods for Studying Processes of Organizational Change , 1990 .

[32]  Leslie Santee Siskin.  Realms Of Knowledge: Academic Departments In Secondary Schools , 1994 .

[33]  Susan H. Fuhrman.  Designing Coherent Education Policy: Improving the System , 1993 .

[34]  M. Mclaughlin,et al.  The Rand change agent study: Ten years later , 1989 .

[35]  James P. Spillane.  How districts mediate between state policy and teachers' practice , 1994 .

[36]  Robert E. Reys,et al.  The Top 10 Elements That Must Be in Place To Implement Standards-Based Mathematics Curricula. , 1999 .

[37]  Philip Hallinger.  Conceptualizing School Restructuring: Principals' and Teachers' Perceptions. , 1992 .

[38]  R. Elmore,et al.  Continuous Improvement in Community District #2 , 2000 .

[39]  M. Mclaughlin,et al.  Federal Programs Supporting Educational Change, Vol. VIII: Implementing and Sustaining Innovations. , 1978 .

[40]  D. Cohen.  What Is the System in Systemic Reform? , 1995 .

[41]  Linda S. Lotto.  Qualitative Data Analysis: A Sourcebook of New Methods , 1986 .

[42]  R. Elmore,et al.  Investing in Teacher Learning: Staff Development and Instructional Improvement in Community School District #2, New York City , 1997 .

[43]  R. Elmore,et al.  School Variation and Systemic Instructional Improvement in Community School District #2, New York City. High Performance Learning Communities Project. , 1997 .

[44]  Michael Fullan,et al.  Coordinating Top-Down and Bottom-Up Strategies for Educational Reform , 2003 .

[45]  R. Bogdan.  Qualitative research for education , 1981 .

[46]  Sharan B. Merriam,et al.  Qualitative research and case study applications in education , 1998 .

[47]  Ann Lieberman.  Rethinking School Improvement: Research, Craft, and Concept. , 1986 .

[48]  R. Bogdan.  Qualitative research for education : an introduction to theory and methods / by Robert C. Bogdan and Sari Knopp Biklen , 1997 .

[49]  M. Lecompte,et al.  Problems of Reliability and Validity in Ethnographic Research , 1982 .