ALLANI ODDEN AND ELEANOR ODDEN

EducationReform, SchoolImprovement, andState Policy

ver the last 18 months, educa-tion has risen to the top ofstate policy agendas. Political

and business leaders have increasinglyviewed better public education as akev to the countrv's economic growth.Poils show that the public wants quali-t, improvements in education and iswilling to spend more to get them.States created over 250 task forces andcharged them with designing educa-tion reform. Eight states enacted majoreducation reform programs; manyothers plan to debate reform propos-als in 1985. Five states raised taxes tofinance education reform, bringing tomore than ten the number of statesthat have done so between 1982 and1984. States targeted fiscal attention on

If states expect real improvement, state policies toensure uniformity of standards must be temperedwith the expectation of nonuniformity of strategyand appearance.

Allan Odden rs Assocate Professor, Sctoolof Education, I nitersi of Southern Cali-fornia, and Former Director of PoicyAnalsi and Research, Eduation Com-mision of the States, Denter, Colodo.Eleanor Odden iL a Pri.ate Consultant inClinical S4upernision. Los Angeles, Cafr-nia, and Former Staff Detelopment 7am-erJefferson Counnr Public Scool&s Lake-uood, Colorado

(OCTOBER 1984 13

c~~c, U~~~~L,'1-8~~----iI,- I _", -I~~~~ra· lloC

education in a manner unrivaled sincethe school finance reforms of the1970s (Odden, 1984a).

These state initiatives are impressivein themselves; the important issue iswhether state policy supports goodlocal practices. This article assessesstate initiatives in the context of cur-rent knowledge about effective teach-ing and schools, educational change,the process of school improvement,and state program implementation by:

1. Summarizing briefly the researchon school effectiveness and identifyingstate policy implications by backward-mapping (Elmore, 1979-80).

2. Outlining actual state policies inschool improvement and educationreform and discussing their relation-ship to the policies identified in thefirst section.

Research on SchoolEffectiveness and Its PolicyImplicationsSchool effectiveness research includesfive different but related components:effective teaching; effective principals;effective schools; educational change,specifically change for school im-provement; and state and federal pro-gram implementation.

Effective teaching research concludesthat teacher attitudes, expectations,management practices, and pedagogi-cal skills affect student achievement.Effective teachers expect all studentsto master the content of the curricu-lum; at the same time they conveyconcern and interest to each student.Consistently well prepared, they ap-proach teaching with a businesslike,task orientation and maintain asmooth pace during lessons. Transi-tions between activities are brief; seat-ing configurations, traffic patterns, andmaterial storage complement instruc-tional activities. Classroom proceduresand rules are taught as content at thebeginning of the school year and rein-forced with preventive group manage-ment techniques. Especially for theintroduction of new content but alsofor systematically ordered content,effective teachers use active teachingstrategies, provide feedback, and pre-pare students for seatwork duringwhich they experience appropriaterates of success (high, particularly for

young students learning new content).Effective teachers structure the presen-tation of content, use advance organiz-ers, set the lesson in a context, reviewmain ideas at the end, and providenumerous activities for practice andfeedback (Good, Biddle, and Brophy,1983).

Research on principals shows thatboth effective and less effective princi-pal work patterns are characterized bybrief, fragmented, and varied interac-tions with people, usually involvingface-to-face contact. But effective prin-cipals move the school toward keygoals amid the competing demands ofthat environment because they directthe entire school program toward avision they create. As instructionalleaders, they develop curriculum co-ordinated across grade levels and pro-grams. They create a climate of highexpectations and foster a collegial at-mosphere. Effective principals know,and expect teachers to know, effectiveteaching research; they help theirteachers through inservice training touse those strategies in their class-

rooms. They engage in symbolic man-agement by using rituals, symbols, slo-gans, and ceremonies to outline theirvisions of the school and manage agoal-setting process that generatescommitment to the goals. Throughsymbolic management, effective prin-cipals generate teacher commitmentand engagement that energizes themto work on teaching effectiveness andoverall school effectiveness (Manas-see, 1983).

Research on effective schools rein-forces the above findings. Effectiveschools have strong instructional lead-ers, emphasize the academic curricu-lum and instruction in that curricu-lum, have clear goals and highexpectations, monitor student per-formance, and have ongoing staff de-velopment programs that includeeffective teaching strategies. Leaders ineffective schools have a feel for theschool improvement process. Charac-terized by intense interaction andcommunication, an effective school isbound together by a value system thatdirects it toward its strategic goals and

14 EDUCATIONAL L� ADERSHIP

kkwmard Mappng Poicy DevelopmentBackward mapping is a bottom-up rather than a top-down policydevelopment process. Typical policy development begins at the top ofth system, outlines the policy, and reasons through various actions toensure that the policy gets implemented at the bot.om. Backwardmapping firt clarifies the problem, then identifies the service dverylevi whre the problem will be addressed directly, and then reasonsbackward (or upward) to identify appropriate policies at the top. Anexample of ecMa lmapping misht be:

1. Sbof the problem. Poor performance in basic and higher levelt o Sdims for armmpie.

2. De&0rnlnS where the problem is addressed most directly. In thedcsroom, for - .

3. Idkt1 hctl practices at the service delivery level. Certaintchin sttegi and effective classroom management, for example.

4. Moving up the system to ask how higher levels can help, by firstasidrg how school administrators can support effective classroompractices. Creatlng school improvement programs, for example.

5. The process then continues up the policy making ladder by askingwhat school districts, intermediate service units, state education de-partmnents, and the political community (governors and legislators) cando to support the effective practices at each level below.

The key to backward mapping for state policymakers is to ask how theycan help sustain effective practices in classrooms and schools, ratherthan how they can get state level policies implemented faithfully Inlocal schools.

14 EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP

collaborative planning. Cultures inthese schools identify what is valuableand important in them; induce clarity,consensus, and commitment regard-ing their basic purpose; serve as com-passes that steer everyone in a com-mon direction; and tightly couplestudents, teachers, and administrators(Cohen, 1983; Purkey and Smith,1983).

Research knowledge on school im-provement, or how schools movefrom ineffectiveness to effectiveness,also is accumulating. This researchshows that school improvement takesplace over two to three years, affectsboth individual teachers and theschools themselves, must include on-going technical assistance for teachersas they carry out new practices inclassrooms, and can be planned andmanaged by sch(x)l and district lead-ers (Crandall, and others, 1983; Fullan,1983). Successful school improvementdepends on teacher commitment,which in turn derives from masterv ofnew classroom techniques requiredby the school improvement effort.Mastery comes onlv through practice,feedback, and coaching (Joyce andShowers, 1982) Assistance must ad-dress the evolving concerns of teach-ers as they work with new practices(Hall, 1979).

Research on educational changealso shows that teachers, principals.central office staff, and external facilita-tors (such as state education depart-ment staff) play important and differ-ent school improvement roles. Ingeneral, though. successful school im-provement requires assistance toteachers focused on the content of thechange-that is, on helping teachersimplement new practices-and alsorequires assistance focused on thecontext of change-that is, on gettingneeded approvals, resources, facilities,and long-term coaching help (Cran-dall, and others. 1983)

Most knowledge of successfulschool improvement strategies derivesfrom research on federal school im-provement programs hut is comple-mented by findings on the implemen-tation and impact of federal and stateprograms for compensatory, bilingual.and special education Implementation research suggests that such pro-grams have expanded fiscal resources

OCTBFER 1984

for these students, increased educa-tion services to them, and strength-ened state and local capacities for de-veloping and carrying out majorprogram initiatives (Sherman and oth-ers, 1983). This research, too, suggeststhat program implementation takestime and must include ongoing techni-cal assistance if it is to improve pro-gram quality (Elmore and McLaughlin,1982).

In short, a rapidly expanding re-search base now provides informationon characteristics of effective teachersand principals and on the nature oforganizational structures and process-es that characterize effective schools.In addition, it identifies the changesteps in the school improvement proc-ess and the key roles for differentactors.

If states take the school effectivenessresearch seriously, thev must, howev-er, be prepared to see state goalsreached differently in each school. AsFinn (1984) puts it, effective schoolsneed strategic independence fromstate and district controls. Effectiveschools will look different from oneanother State leaders should preparefor nonuniformity of appearancewhile insisting on uniform goals andstandards.

States can support effective schoolsand stimulate school improvement ac-tivities by:

* Providing symbolic leadership tokeep education on the policy agenda.

* Articulating clear educationalgoals.

* Building awareness of school ef-fectiveness research.

* Developing system incentives thatrecognize and reward education effec-tiveness.

* Creating school-based technicalassistance programs.

* Altering training and certificationrequirements.

* Strengthening state data gathering(Odden. 1984b).

It is difficult to promote quality andexcellence for an unimportant issuewith low status. State snmbolic leader-ship can keep education on the statepolicy agenda and raise its status. Inmany respects, the national reportshave done this (Yudof. 1984). To main-tain this higher status, symbolic lead-ership must extend to a number of

"Through symbolicmanagement, effectiveprincipals generateteacher commitmentand engagement thatenergizes them towork on teachingeffectiveness andoverall schooleffectiveness."

other fronts. For example, the reportscall for expressing a new and higherregard for teachers. We need newmetaphors and revised images for thelanguage used to discuss education.Policvmakers could talk about schoolsas knowledge work organizations(Schlecht., forthcoming), could dis-cuss teachers as managers of knowl-edge workers, and could describeteaching as a set of executive functions(Berliner, 1983), including planning,communicating goals, regulating activ-ities, supervising and evaluating oth-ers. New mechanisms for celebratingexcellence also could be created: an-nual award dinners for outstandingteachers, recognition days for effectiveschools, governor's days for educationimprovement awards, legislativescholarships for top students. Suchpublic recognition and ceremonieswould keep the symbols surroundingeducation excellence in the publicview and help to build a state andnationwide ethos that would nourishlocal effective school cultures.

15

I

". .. public recognitionand ceremonies wouldkeep symbolssurroundingeducational excellencein the public view andhelp to build a stateand national ethos thatwould nourish localeffective schoolcultures."

Clearly, state policymakers can ex-pand technical assistance programsand target them for schools as well asdistricts. Effective schools programs inwhich states work with individualschools to develop in them the charac-teristics of effective schools are oneexample. More general school im-provement programs in which stateconsultants work with schools on spe-cific change or improvement initia-tives are another. Further examplesinclude instructional managementprograms (where the state helps dis-tricts and schools align academicgoals, instructional materials, andtests) and inservice training programsin instructional effectiveness, class-room management, expectations andattitudes, clinical supervision, instruc-tional leadership, and management ofeducational change.

System incentives are another majorcategory for state action, since botheffective school cultures and effectiveprincipals recognize and reward thosewho help move the school towardskey objectives. States could developplanning and implementation grantsfor local districts and schools to helpprincipals gain schoolwide consensuson school goals. Bonuses for meetingimprovement or productivity goalscould help focus and reinforce schooland district responses to key stategoals. Competitive grants to help ad--ministrators and teachers develop in-novative instructional or managementprograms or materials (like the suc-cessful federal Title IV-C program)would spur initiative and reward cre-ativity. Pay-for-performance compen-sation systems could allocate pay inpart on outstanding performance rath-er than just on education and experi-ence.

In short, the major state policy ini-tiatives deriving from research onschool effectiveness are the following:to keep education excellence con-stantly in the public eye and maintainits importance on state policy agendas;to create a variety of technical assist-ance programs designed to help de-velop, implement, and sustain schoolimprovement initiatives; and to offer aseries of system incentives to spurcreativity, recognize excellence andreward performance related to kevstate goals for public education.

Current State EducationPolicies And TheirRelationship to SchoolEffectiveness ResearchHow do current state policies measureup to the policies suggested by theresearch on school effectiveness? Indrawing conclusions, it is important todistinguish between state school im-provement initiatives, most of whichbegan prior to the national educationreports, and developing state educa-tion reform programs that flow fromrecommendations of the national re-ports.

First, state symbolic leadership foreducation is substantial. State execu-tive leaders-governors-largely havebeen responsible for revived state at-tention to education (Task Force onEducation for Economic Growth,1983). State legislative leaders havebeen substantially and largely respon-sible for the 250 state education re-form task forces and the prominenceof education on legislative agendas.Compare this resurgence to the end ofthe 1970s when state political leaderswere shunning education (Rosenthaland Fuhrman, 1981). Today, governorssuch as Richard Riley of South Caroli-na and Lamar Alexander of Tennesseehave spent most of their time duringthe past 18 months getting educationreforms enacted. They are but two ofmany examples of state symbolic aswell as substantive leadership for edu-cation.

States also have developed a varietyof school improvement programs. A50-state survey by the Education Com-mission of the States identified manyprograms that had been developed bystate education agencies (Odden andDougherty, 1982). These programsemphasize technical assistance, areschool based, often are based onschool effectiveness research, collectlongitudinal student (rather thanschool) data, and focus on academicgoals and related instructional pro-grams Currently, 37 states have schoolor district planning programs; 47states have curriculum developmentor technical assistance initiatives; 15have state-level effective schools pro-grams; 44 have state-run staff development programs for teachers, and 31have them for administrators; 29 stateshave new incentive programs for

16 EDUICATIONAL LFADERSHIP

teachers; seven require new kinds offield experiences for teachers; and 16have begun requiring beginningteachers to serve supervised intern-ships (Andringa, Brown, and Burnes,1984). The following four examplesrespresent different state policy ap-proaches to schooxl improvement.

Connecticut's Effective School Pro-gram draws directly on 'the effectiveschool literature, specifically Edmonds(1979). It seeks to instill effectiveschool characteristics in all schools inthe program. Guiding its interventionprocess with individual schools is theresearch on organizational develop-ment and the role of change agents, anemphasis on commitment by schoolpersonnel, a focus on the school rath-er than either the classroom or dis-trict, and a concentration on instruc-tional leadership by the principal. Theprogram encompasses four majorsteps in which the district is contactedabout volunteer schools; the programis discussed with the school principaland faculty; the degree to which theschool has effective school characteris-tics is assessed; and an action plan isdeveloped to set priorities for imple-mentation and to outline roles of thestate education agency staff, the princi-pal, and the teachers. The state pro-vides ongoing help while the actionplan is being carried out, usually overseveral months (Fuhrman, 1983).

Colorado's School ImprovementClusters Program draws on Goodlad'sresearch (1975). A school improve-ment cluster is a group of schools andcooperating education organizations(university, state department of educa-tion, and regional education serviceunit) working on education improve-ment for the participating schools.Normally, each cluster has a differ-ent focus: increasing school capacityfor renewal, expanding the use ofschool effectiveness research in schoolimprovement planning, improvingteacher instructional effectiveness orprincipal instructional leadership, up-grading school climate, or broadeningthe use of computer technologies. Thestate department of education servesas a facilitator in organizing, staffing,assessing, and nurturing all clusters(Palaich, 1983).

The Arkansas Program for EffectiveTeaching draws on mastery learning,

Madeline Hunter's teaching-learningmodel, and effective teaching re-search. It features a 25-day trainingcycle of presentation, classroom prac-tice, observation, and feedback for-each participant Over half of all teach-ers, 75 percent of principals, and al-most half of all professors in teachertraining institutions have been trained.Training in classroom management,drawing directly on the effective teach-ing research, was added in 1983-84;and the state administrator academy isfocusing on instructional leadership,including supervision (Odden, 1983).

Programs in California, South Caro-lina, and Tennessee created systemincentives. California provides about$100 per pupil to local schools thatdevelop multi-year school improve-ment plans approved by regional pan-els of local educators. South Carolinaand Florida direct per-pupil grants tolocal schools that meet performanceor improvement criteria. Tennesseeenacted an ambitious career ladderprogram for teachers, designed tobase teacher compensation more onperformance than on education andexperience.

These and other schotxl Improve-ment programs across the states areconsonant with the policy implicationsof school effectiveness research. Pre-liminarv research on the impacts of

(OTOBER 1984

such programs indicates that theychange state education agencies fromregulatory to technical assistance bod-ies; spring from leadership within theeducation communit' (often the chiefstate school officer): emanate largelyfrom school effectiveness research;and cost relatively little (Burnes, Fuhr-man, Odden. and Palaich, 1983). Otherresearch suggests that they have posi-tive effects on students, teachers, andschools (Roberts and Kennev, 1984;see also Eubanks and Levine, 1983, forevaluation of similar local programs).

In contrast, state education retbrmprograms and recommendations ig-nore school improvement and empha-size the hardware of education excel-lence-stiffer requirements, higherstandards, and more time. A study ofeight states that considered or passededucation reform programs in 1984found many similarities, but each stateemphasized key programs (Odden,1984a) Tougher standards across theboard were critical in Arkansas. Great-er high school course requirementsand the addition of 'th period in highschool were Florida's focus. Reinstate-ment of minimum high school gradua-tion requirements and toughercourses were important in California.A high school exit examination andmerit pay were pivotal in South Caroli-na. Expanded student testing and

I-

"State leadersshould preparefor nonuniformityof appearancewhile insistingon uniform goalsand standards."

grade-to-grade promotion were em-phasized in Texas. The career ladderfor teachers was the cornerstone ofreform in Tennessee.

State education reform packages in-cluded other elements of state educa-tion policy in addition to those identi-fied as part of the reform programs.School finance formulas are revisedand strengthened; funding for com-pensatory, bilingual, and special edu-cation programs is increased; andmost new dollars are allocatedthrough fiscal equalization formulasIn many ways, education reform stateshave addressed excellence and equitysimultaneously, giving reform pro-grams the most visibility while givingother components of education policymost of the new resources (Odden1984a)

The eight states enacting educationreform also expanded and strength-ened school improvement initiatives.Arkansas increased staff in the stateeducation department by almost 33

18

percent to help implement its neweducational standards and also to ex-pand training in instructional leader-ship, to train teachers in classroommanagement, to begin an effectiveschool program, to train principalsand teachers in schools where stu-dents are poor readers, and to trainparents to teach at home. Californiaestablished teacher centers and re-gional computer centers for inservicetraining and widened its school im-provement program. South Carolinabased a new teacher training programon the Arkansas program, expandedits administrator academy, and fundeda principal assessment center. Texasplans to strengthen its state educationdepartment with several new posi-tions. U'tah put funds into a productivi-tv program.

While education reform and ex-panded school improvement pro-grams are developing simultaneously,the connection between them is morea matter of accident than design. Press

EDUL(ATIONAI I LEADEHRSHIP

releases rarely mention the school im-provement components of the reformbills. School improvement does notsell well either in political arenas or toshe public. It is mushy, difficult todescribe, and only the means to whatpolitical leaders and the public want-excellent schools and better-perform-ing students. But it is a key to attainingthose goals and a critical element inthe success of any education reformeffort.

To fuse school improvement andeducation reform thrusts, South Caro-lina's education reform implementa-tion unit was created at the suggestionof the business community as a tempo-rary project in the state education de-partment. About 15 staff members willhelp local districts and schools carryout education reform programs. Theunit's mission is to identify problems,document obstacles, help local educa-tors work out implementation bugs,and report annually to the governorand legislature on the progress ofimplementation. In creating the unit,legislators recognized specifically thatthe new education reform programswere major programmatic thrusts thatrequired additional state technical as-sistance if local districts were to imple-ment them successfully.

How education reform and schoolimprovement strategies will be linkedin other states is difficult to predict.Forming those linkages, even covertly,certainly could be one objective ofcreative state and local education lead-ers, who know from research thatlinkages must be developed.

Current state school improvementpolicies and policies for state educa-tion reform programs are similar tothe policies implied by school effec-tiveness research. At the same time,education reform programs havethrust the hand of state governmentinto classrooms where before itstopped at school district boundaries(Kirst, 1984). For all schools to be-come effective, this new governmentintervention must unify standards andobjectives but not practices and pro-grams. If states allow this strategicindependence, strengthen technicalassistance and school improvementprograms to help sustain this indepen-dence, and help implement new stan-dards, education reform and strategiesbased on school effectiveness research

have great potential for raising thelevel of excellence in the country'spublic schools. E

References

Andringa, Robert; Brown, Rexford; andBurnes, Donald. "A Changing Federalismin the U.S. Education System." Denver,Colo.: Education Commission of the States.June 1984.

Berliner, David. "If Teachers WereThought of as Executives: Implications forTeacher Preparation and Certification." Pa-per prepared for the National Institute ofEducation, 1983.

Burnes, Donald W.; Fuhrman, Susan;Odden, Allan; and Palaich, Robert. "State-Initiated School Improvement: A Study ofFour States." Denver, Colo.: EducationCommission of the States, 1983.

Cohen, Michael. "Instructional, Manage-ment, and Social Conditions in EffectiveSchools,'" in School Finance and SchoolImprovement: Linkagesfor the 1980s. Edit-ed by Allan Odden and L Dean Webb.Cambridge, Mass.: Ballinger, 1983.

Crandall, David, and Associates. People,Policies and Practices: Examining theChain of School Improament. Andover,Mass.: The Network, 1983.

Edmonds, Ronald. "Effective Schools forthe Urban Poor." Educational Leadership37 (October 1979): 15-24.

Elmore, Richard. "Backward Mapping:Using Implementation Analysis to Struc-ture Program Decisions," Political ScienceQuarterly 94 (1979-80): 601-616.

Elmore, Richard, and McLaughlin, Mil-brey W. "Strategic Choice in Federal Edu-cation Policy: The Compliance-AssistanceTradeoff." In Policy Making in Education.Edited by Ann Lieberman and Milbrey W.McLaughlin Chicago: University of ChicagoPress, 1982.

Eubanks, Eugene E, and Levine, DanielU "A First Look at Effective Schools Pro-jects in New York Cit' and Milwaukee."Educational Leadership 64 (June 1983):697-702

Finn, Chester. "Towards Strategic Inde-pendence: Nine Commandments for En-hancing School Effectiveness." Phi DeltaKappen 65 (April 1984) 518-524.

Fuhrman, Susan. "School Improvementin Connecticut: A Case Studv.k" Denver,Colo: Education Commission of the States.1983.

Fullan, Michael "Change Processes andStrategies at the Local Level." Paper pre-pared for the National Institute of Educa-tion, July 1983

Good, Thomas; Biddle, Bruce. J.; andBrophy, Jere E. "Teaching Effectiveness:Research Findings and Policy Implica-tions." Paper presented for the National

Institute of Education, 1983.Goodlad, John. The Dynam/c of Fduca-

tional Change Towmard RemponsirSchools. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1975.

Hall, Gene E. "The Concerns-Based Ap-proach to Facilitating Change." Education-al Horizons 57 (1979).

Joyce, Bruce, and Showers, Beverly. "OnCoaching Teaching." Educational LeZder-ship 40 (October 1982); 4-10

Kirst, Michael. Policy Paper No. 83-C7.Stanford, Calif: Institute for Research onEducational Finance and Goverance,Stanford University, December 1983.

Manassee, A Lorri. "Improving Condi-tions for Principal Effectiveness: Policy Im-plications of Research on Effective Princi-pals." Paper presented for the NationalInstitute of Education, June 1983.

Odden, Allan. Education Finance in theStates: 1984. Denver, Colo.: EducationCommission of the States, 1984.

Odden, Allan. "School Improvement inArkansas: A Case Study." Denver, Cob.:Education Commission of the States, 1983.

Odden. Allan. "State Leadership andSchool Independence: The State Role inCreating and Sustaining Effective Schools."Denver, Colo.: Education Commission ofthe States. 1984b.

Odden, Allan, and Dougherty, Van. SlatePrograms of School Improemrent. A 50-State Sunry. Denver, Colo.: EducationCommission of the States, 1982.

Palaich, Robert School Improvement inColorado: A Case Studyv" Denver, Colo.:Education Commission of the States, 1983.

Purkev, Stewart C., and Smith, MarshallS "Effective Schools: A Review." Elemen-tart' School Journal 83 (March 1983): 42

7 -

452Roberts, Jane M. E., and Kenney, Jane L.

Insructiona Improement in Maryland:Impact on Educators and Students. Phila-delphia: Research for Better Schools, Janu-ary 1984.

Rosenthal, Alan, and Furhman, SusanLegislatite Education Leadershp. Washing-ton, DC.: The Institute for EducationalLeadership, 1981.

Schlechtv, Phillip "Images of Schools."Teachers College Record, forthcoming.

Sherman, Joel; Kuther, Mark A.; Addison,Linda, and Humer, Amy. Federal Educa-tion Policies and Programs. Their Design,Operation and Effects. Vol. 3, Final Reportof the Congressionally Mandated Study ofSchool Finance Washington, D.C.: US. De-partment of Education, September 1983

Task Force on Education for EconomicGrowvth. Action for Excellence Denver,Colo.: Education Commission of the States,1983

Yudof. Mark "Educational Policy Re-search and the New Consensus of the1980s." Phi Delta Kappan 65 (March 1984):456-459.

OcrOBER 1984 19

OCTOBER 1984 19

Copyright © 1984 by the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. All rights reserved.