From Bureaucratic Control to Building Human Capital: The Importance of Teacher Learning in Education Reform

report, Time for Results (NGA, 1986), and their 1989 education summit in Charlottesville, VA, the governors released a short agenda for change--standards, testing, and technology. In an interview on National Public Radio (June 14, 1996), Wisconsin's Governor Tommy Thompson, Co-chair of the Palisades conference, argued that the governors tried to cover much at the Charlottesville summit. Using early childhood preparation for school as an example, he observed that previous reform agendas had been too ambitious. This time, he explained, the governors sought simplicity and concentrated on the foundations of education-high-quality academics. The governors' recommendations bring into sharp focus a (Argyris Smith, 1991). They can also influence teachers' instructional strategies. At the same time, research reveals that the effects of these policies may be limited. Frequently, teachers see them less as an imperative to change their practice than as something to be done over and above their current work (Black, 1994; Wilson Smith, 1991). Their tendency toward standardization can limit teachers' ability to make pedagogical decisions that accommodate the wide range of learning needs of diverse student populations. These policies are typically implemented with little attention to developing the knowledge and skills required for teachers to implement them (Cohen & Spillane, 1992). And, while they contain mechanisms for teacher accountability, these policies generally lack incentives for teachers to improve their practice. On the contrary, they often introduce disincentives, such as work overload, value conflicts, role conflicts, and reductions in professional autonomy, that constrain creativity and innovation (Porter, 1989). The incentive value and usefulness of these policies are diminished further if, as reported by a number of studies (e.g., Wilson & Corbett, 1990), teachers gain little relevant information about students' learning needs or how to teach them more effectively. By presenting this evidence, I do not mean to argue against standards and assessments per se. Theory and research consistently point to the importance of goals, monitoring, and feedback to guide individual and organizational behavior (Miskel & Ogawa, 1988). No doubt, it is the responsibility and prerogative of states and school districts to set goals and standards for student learning and moni-