The Difficulty of Sustaining Curricular Reforms

In 1997, five years after a major curricular reform at the University of Michigan Medical School, the authors revisited the Goals for Medical Education (written by faculty to guide the reform process) to identify factors that had facilitated or hindered their achievement. By reviewing responses to identical questionnaires circulated to faculty in 1993 and again in 1997, they learned that considerably more lectures were being used to deliver curricular content in the first-year curriculum than the faculty thought was ideal, and that less social science, humanities, and ethics material was being presented in the first year than the faculty thought was ideal. The authors also learned that consensus between faculty basic scientists and faculty clinicians about the content that would make up an ideal first-year curriculum had diverged since adoption of the new curriculum. Movement toward decreasing the amounts of social sciences, humanities, and ethics in the first year of medical school was particularly pronounced among the basic scientists, who felt this material was being taught prematurely and at the expense of essential basic science content. In contrast, by 1997 much closer agreement had developed between the two groups regarding time they would allocate for lectures; this agreement unfortunately reflected a stagnation in the adoption of active learning methods. Movement toward increasing the amount of time for lectures in the first-year curriculum was particularly pronounced among the clinicians, who reported feeling more and more pressured to bring in clinical revenues. Based on faculty comments and the school's experience with centralized governance and centralized funding, the authors propose a direct linkage between institutional funding to departments and the teaching effort of faculty in the departments, and sufficient, centralized funding to relieve pressure on faculty and to foster educational creativity. They maintain that this may be the most effective way to guarantee ongoing innovation, support interdisciplinary teaching, and subsequently move the curriculum and teachers completely away from content that is isolated within traditional department structures. At the same time they acknowledge that changing faculty attitudes presents a challenge.