If you're looking for an answer to that question, this post is sure to disappoint. I'm really just wondering myself.
Is there any evidence that reforms are more likely to take root if stakeholders are on board?
Is there any evidence that reforms are more likely to take root if ?stakeholders,? including teachers unions, administrators, and school boards, are ?on board?? I'm somewhat skeptical, as these parties are almost always opposed to meaningful change, at least at the outset of a reform initiative. That's why stakeholder support so often equals the status quo. If we waited for approval from these folks, we would never have tried standards-based reform, real accountability, charter schooling, or scientifically-based reading instruction?all of which are now mainstream . And all of which eventually gained support from educators on the ground (some at least) as they demonstrated success.
Yet as Rick Hess illustrated last week, it's now clear that stakeholder support was pretty much essential for a state to receive Race to the Top funds. Reviewers docked states big time that didn't have it?not just the handful of points that went for this item, but across all areas of their applications. And that's probably because the reviewers bought into the idea?promoted by Arne Duncan?that reform is more likely to happen if folks on the ground are signed on. (The New York Times obviously believes in this theory, too.)
So empiricists, what's the evidence that this theory is correct? How could we test it? Russ? Jay? Anyone?
-Mike Petrilli
