Implementation of the Standards: Lessons from a systemic initiative

School Science and Mathematics, Oct 1997 by Boone, William J, Kahle, Jane Butler

Data collected as a part of Ohio's Systemic Initiative suggest that some existing attitudes and practices of principals and teachers may provide a strong foundation for National Science Education Standards implementation. However, some data suggest that reformers have a long way to go before the Standards are fully understood and supported both by teachers and principals.

A critical issue following dissemination of the National Science Education Standards (Standards; National Research Council, 1996) is implementation at a variety of levels within and outside school systems. In this paper an analysis of attitudinal data, collected from teachers and principals within the state of Ohio, provides a gauge of how easy or difficult implementation of the Standards may be. Using data collected at the state level, this discussion considers how implementation of the Standards can be guided in light of teachers' and principals' attitudes.

A wide range and variety of useful data were collected as part of Ohio's reform effort; however, in order to succinctly present the data and an interpretation, we have decided to emphasize one type of collected data.

Data Collection and Analysis

In 1991, Ohio was one of the first 10 states to receive National Science Foundation funding through its Statewide Systemic Initiative (SSI) program. Because of Ohio's size and large population, its effort was deliberately restricted to middle schools. In April 1995, a random sample of 126 schools was selected from which to assess success of and barriers to reform. Within the sample schools, over 90 principals and 450 science teachers completed questionnaires, resulting in a response rate of 86% for principals and 82% for teachers. The teachers were distributed roughly equally across grades six through nine. Evaluation of the demographics of the responding schools indicated the same percentage of urban, central city, suburban, and rural schools as found throughout Ohio (Kahle & Rogg, 1995).

The teacher and principal questionnaires were drafted by a team of nationally known science educators from Ohio, as well as from other states. Both questionnaires were composed of seven subscales; responses to items from two of the subscales, "What Students Do" and "Principal's Support," form the basis of this paper. The items addressed activities or issues deemed important for Standards-based education.

Principals were asked to rate items on both scales in terms of importance. Teachers, on the other hand, were asked to consider both frequency (ranging from almost never to very often) with which the activity or issue occurred. With minor modifications in language (e.g., "My principal supports..." or "I support..."), items were identical on both questionnaires. The questionnaires were critiqued and revised by the science educators. Next, they were field tested in a district that was not part of the study's random sample. Further modifications were made, based on the analysis of the field test data.

The questionnaires were mailed to the random sample of schools, using one contact teacher in each school for dissemination and collection of completed questionnaires. Telephone calls and, in some cases, on-site visits were used to obtain the response rate noted above. The stochastic Rasch model was used to evaluate the data (Rasch, 1960). This evaluation technique was selected because ordinal attitudinal scales first must be converted to interval scales. This step is especially important if parametric tests are to be used in data analysis, because a step in attitude from very important to important may not represent the same quantifiable change in attitude as a step from important to unimportant (Thurstone, 1925, 1928; Wright & Masters, 1982). The model can allow an evaluation of data when respondents do not answer every item, and measurement errors are calculated for all person and item measures. This model has been useful for Ohio's SSI, because questionnaires which have common items can be easily linked. This is particularly important in reform efforts, because surveys often are revised and improved in light of evaluated data.

Results and Interpretation

Attitudes of Principals and Implications for the Standards

Attitudinal data collected from randomly selected teachers and principals throughout the state of Ohio provide an indication of the ease or difficulty of implementing the National Science Education Standards (NRC, 1996). Principals were asked to rate the importance of specific student activities taking place within their school's science classrooms. Figure 1 presents the ordering and spacing of the typical principal's response in terms of perceived importance of student activities. "Repeating activities to confirm results" was rated as the least important activity (of the 11 presented), while "learn about real world applications of science" was rated as the most important one.

Although all of the responses are interesting, questionnaire items at the extreme end of the continuum supply the most guidance concerning implementation of the Standards. The relatively low rating of "repeating activities to confirm results" and "argue or debate with one another about the interpretation of data" may reflect, in part, principals' wish to rigidly follow the curriculum and their unfamiliarity with science teaching that strays from the typical lecture, text, and demonstration format. The National Science Education Standards support guiding students in active and extended scientific inquiry, and they also encourage teachers and schools to provide opportunities for scientific discussion and debate among students. The Ohio data suggest that when principals are presented with a range of possible teaching activities, repetition to confirm experimental results and debate among students are not considered most important. The results suggest that principals, on the whole, need to understand why supporting inquiry with confirmatory activities is advantageous and why students need to debate experimental results.