Change and Stability in Classrooms, Schools, and Districts (Part 2)
Organizations are dynamically conservative, that is to say, they fight like mad to remain the same.
Donald Schon, 1970[i]
If we want things to stay as they are, things will have to change
Tomasi di Lampedusa, The Leopard [ii]
Based upon my research into exemplars of technology integration in 41 classrooms, 12 schools, and six districts in Silicon Valley in 2016, I concluded that the teachers and administrators I have seen and interviewed have, indeed, implemented software and hardware fully into their daily routines. In these settings, technology use shifted from the foreground to the background. Using devices has become as ordinary as once using pencils and paper. And in many instances, the integration was seamless, no stitches showed. So what?
Putting a reform into classroom practice is no stroll in the park. Policymakers and researchers must answer four basic questions about any policy aimed at improving how teachers teach and how students learn.
- Did policies aimed at improving student performance get fully, moderately, or partially implemented?
- When implemented fully, did they change the content and practice of teaching?
- Did changed classroom practices account for what students learned?
- Did what students learn meet the intended policy goals?
Too often those who make consequential school decisions and those who research such efforts ignore these questions. And that is a mistake.
In answer to the first question, my data show clearly that in the 41 Silicon Valley classrooms I observed–spread across nine schools and five districts—the local Change and Stability in Classrooms, Schools, and Districts (Part 2) | Larry Cuban on School Reform and Classroom Practice:
