Reflections from the end:

Reflection 1: The necessity of flexibility in the face of uncomfortable evidence: Trying to cross the chasm: It is impossible to underestimate the differences in the dynamics between working with volunteers and working with everyone.

Many of our professional development models have been derived from working with volunteers and do not translate easily to working with the non-predisposed. A borrowed metaphor may make this challenge clear. On one side of the chasm there are the pioneer and early adopter teachers. They are much like many of the project and workshop leaders. Fundamentally, they already identify with the core assumptions of inquiry-based teaching, even if they are not clear how to do it. On the other side of the chasm is everyone else. We assumed that most teachers would quickly see the value in and want to engage in deepening their own content knowledge and digging into students' thinking. We were wrong.

In addition, we underestimated how different the norms of engagement would be when all teachers, regardless of prior disposition, were challenged to learn new content, delve into pedagogical content knowledge, and share ideas in public. In truth, the old paradigms held sway.

As project leaders we had to examine our own assumptions and adapt strategies to where teachers were in their own development. Most recently, and most successfully, we have entered the arena of teachers' content and pedagogical content knowledge, by asking, "What are the key ideas that students struggle with and what do I do about it?" This is significant because it is a question that every conscientious teacher can engage in. The essential point is that sustainability requires addressing teachers' current concerns, without losing sight of overall goals.

Reflection 2: The most significant aspect of teacher leadership is in norm setting.

There is common agreement that building teacher leadership is essential to sustainability. However, we tend to focus on the mechanical but still substantial tasks of providing direct support to other teachers in learning new curricula, sharing observations and insights with a willing subset of teachers, and modeling effective instruction. These are indeed important roles, but less significant ultimately than playing an active, conscious role in helping to set the overall tone and norms of engagement.

Reflection 3: Role and authority matter.

Our two districts have different administrative structures. In one district curriculum directors are administrators with evaluative power who report directly to the superintendent. In the other curriculum coordinators are "teachers on assignment" who report to an assistant superintendent. The former arrangement has been more effective in establishing and demanding consistency. Alternatively, the non-evaluative role of full time in-class support from highly qualified professional developers has been essential to support teachers in refining their practice. Sustainable change requires equal measures of authority and nurture.

Reflection 4: Administrators, to the extent possible, need to insulate or at least give teachers support in dealing with the current political pressures derived from No Child Left Behind and the conservative push against inquiry.

We now come to the worst of times part of the story. Three related developments are pushing back against the reforms we have initiated.

1. The Adequate Yearly Progress provisions of NCLB and the subsequent focus on standardized test scores has created a high level of stress. Rather than causing a deep and introspective examination concerning content, pedagogy, expectations, resources, leadership, etc. it has tended to push folks toward the short term quick fix.
2. These pressures are coming at time of extreme economic challenge.
3. The conservative challenge to mathematics programs such as Investigations and CMP is in our view, an ideological challenge. At its core it is about more than whether children should master standard algorithms and procedures through direct instruction or become flexible users of a variety of strategies through a constructivist methodology. Behind these are contrasting philosophies, goals and values about the goals of public education.

These three challenges have dramatically shifted the starting point for discussion. We are challenging ourselves, administrators, and teachers to be more reflective, flexible, open to change, and to give students more opportunity and time to think independently and develop their own ideas. At the same time, government sanctioned measures are telling them to focus on short-term measurable results. At best teachers are getting a mixed message. At worst, this is acting as a constraint or even offensive against the changes we've initiated.

We have had mixed success in mediating these challenges for teachers so that they can focus on improving their practice. When we have had success it is because the superintendent has personally, directly, and passed through the administrative structure kept the vision for effective, active, materials-rich, inquiry- based instruction out front as the most important strategy for both short-term and long-term improvement. Without that message teachers and principals will be constantly buffeted by political pressures and there will be no sustainability.

Reflection 5: Competing Initiatives can undermine sustainability.

Given the length of time that it takes for the practices inherent in single curricular initiative to become normative, it is inevitable that elementary teachers will encounter more than one initiative over the course of a five-year grant. The only way to lessen that challenge is for initiatives to be compatible and coherent. It therefore becomes essential that teachers see them as different faces of the same solid. One example of the glue that binds various curricular initiatives is the use of pro-social classroom management programs such as Responsive Classrooms that emphasize dialogue, reflection, and collaboration.