EFA displayed several of the key qualities outlined by Payne (2008) for successful implementation of major school reforms. Most notably, many school leaders and teachers - who had long recognized the inequities inherent in the system - already had strong buy-in for the reform. Already desiring more rigorous curriculum and pedagogy for all students, EFA gave schools the additional resources needed to turn this vision into a reality. Payne argued that “the Big Magic” is “in the thinking and understanding of the people who implement, in the approach they take, in the values they hold dear” (p. 189). From the beginning, EFA had an advantage in that many educators were hungry for this reform.
Having a stable team of consultants and coaches available to support implementation and help schools problem-solve is another condition for successful school reform (Payne, 2008). Interviewees expressed overwhelmingly positive views about EFA coaches and especially appreciated their deep knowledge about education as well as their willingness to listen, to be flexible, to offer customized support to each school. Implementation also works better when schools have multiple years to implement the reform; our data showed this to be true for EFA, especially as schools experienced many obstacles during the first year due to Central Office’s slow roll-out.
Consistent with Bryk and colleagues’ (2010) findings that schools strong on the five essential supports are better suited to implement major reforms, we found a variation in implementation fidelity across schools. Although we did not systematically collect data on the five essential supports, our data indicate that schools with strong leadership, curricular and program coherence, and norms for teacher collaboration were more able to take advantage of EFA supports such as coaching and SFL writing. Still, time was a barrier in many of the schools, with many teachers expressing the need for more time to integrate their new learning into practice.
The central challenge of EFA implementation appeared to be communication. Unidirectional communication from BPS Central Office to schools and families appeared to be lacking, as schools expressed confusion about EFA offerings and most families could not describe what EFA was. More importantly, however, bidirectional communication - whereby EFA offerings are informed by schools and families - is a critical next step for the initiative.
Given the permanence of racism and its consequential impacts on the educational opportunities for historically marginalized students (Dixson and Rousseau, 2005; Bell, 1992; Milner, 2017; Ladson-Billings and Tate, 1995), the initiative’s long-term success likely depends on sustained buy-in and support from educators, families, and communities. EFA is unique from other school reforms analyzed by Bryk and colleagues (2010) and Payne (2008) in that eliminating AWC is highly controversial, especially among many white families. As such, EFA cannot be treated as if it were a politically-neutral or race-neutral reform. Families, particularly historically marginalized families of color need more opportunities to learn about and inform EFA, not only to ensure that EFA is culturally sustaining and responsive, but also to build the political will to appropriately resource EFA and disseminate the initiative throughout the district.
As discussed, many wondered to what extent EFA was disrupting the current inequitable system, which drives the essential question: How does EFA fit into a coherent district strategy for closing achievement gaps? According to the BPS website, closing achievement gaps is a priority:
Every member of the BPS community - students, parents, teachers, paraprofessionals, principals, central and school staff, partners, and others - is expected to share:
- An awareness of these gaps;
- A belief that these gaps can be closed;
- A personal commitment to closing them.
Equity cannot be the charge of just one department. If EFA were a core part of the strategy to alter the instructional core and close achievement gaps, district leaders would then be able to consider how district-level cultures, structures, systems, resources, and stakeholder engagement would need to shift to support this strategy (Childress, Elmore, Grossman, & King, 2011). With such a lens, the district might prioritize how to address the key challenges facing the EFA strategy – insufficient engagement of marginalized families, resistance from White
families, an insufficient number of teachers of color, lacking teacher cultural competence, too-large class sizes, and the intractability of racism and centering of Whiteness.
If EFA is to be expanded across the system, there must be a clear Theory of Change regarding how the initiative will close achievement gaps, a district-wide strategy that is informed by key stakeholders, is well communicated, and has some degree of coherence across all schools, and pays explicit attention to the influence of district-wide and environmental factors. Given the intractability of racism (Dixson and Rousseau, 2005; Bell, 1992; Milner, 2017; Ladson-Billings and Tate, 1995), EFA’s ability to disrupt the currently inequitable system depends on the support of the whole school district and many of its stakeholder groups, including families. Anything less is tinkering toward reform that has indubitably had a positive impact on some schools, teachers, and students but fails to realize the BPS mission of “transforming the lives of all children.”
