Assessing the Rationales for Educational Reforms: An Examination of Policy Claims About Professional Development, Comprehensive Reform, and Direct Instruction

Abstract

Evaluation studies seldom examine whether the rationales used to argue for an educational reform actually hold up when empirical evidence is examined after the reform has been implemented. This article examines survey data from 3 years of analyses of early reading interventions to examine three rationales that were used to argue for the program. First, there was evidence to support the argument that teachers need time to collaborate about improving educational outcomes. This study found that 2 years of funding for early reading reforms provided a margin of difference for collaborative efforts among teachers to promote reading-related outcomes. Second, the argument that comprehensive reform strategies promote gains in student outcomes was also supported, but not all reform models had their intended effects. Finally, there was no evidence from this study that the direct/explicit approach to reading instruction improved student outcomes, although this claim merits more systematic study in the future.