The Study
Many educational policymakers favor a combination of a top-down and bottom-up approach to reform. But how is this approach best implemented? The assumption is that policymakers have to be careful about where to draw the line: Granting too much educational decision-making power to local authority works against accountability. Granting too much authority to state-level decision- makers, however, is also viewed as problematic by prompting teachers to respond in a negative or dispirited way. In this study, MSU Distinguished Professor William Schmidt and Richard Prawat, chairperson of the Department of Counseling, Educational Psychology and Special Education, use data gathered as part of the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) to examine how a range of decisions, from overall educational system goals to specific pedagogical practices, are made worldwide.

Findings
The largest study of its kind, TIMSS is a 10-year survey of mathematics and science education involving more than 50 countries. The researchers draw on findings in which 41 countries participated. The study involved two questionnaires. The first was sent to a carefully selected set of national “informants,” at least one of which was a well-placed ministry official. The other questionnaire was filled out by teachers who were identified in line with a set of carefully formulated international sampling specifications. What the researchers found is that the data failed to support key aspects of the trade-off hypothesis as it applies to other educational systems around the world. Informants uniformly reported a high degree of central control (national or state) in all areas of goal-setting, both at the overall and grade-specific level and in the domain of content specification. Despite the predominance of top-down control in education worldwide, teachers in an overwhelming majority of the countries involved were perceived by “those-in-the-know” to be in total charge of lesson-planning and lesson-delivery.  Teachers seldom reported consulting national or province-level curriculum documents in carrying out their daily instruction. Textbooks were the one resource that teachers in nearly all the countries relied on in lesson-planning and delivering instruction. The researchers conclude: “Based on the data presented here, the case can be made that U.S. policymakers have overestimated the need for those at the local level to ‘own’ -- or, at least, share responsibility for -- educational decisions about the goals and content of instruction. In most other countries, this is decidedly not the case. Despite what might ... appear to be a disempowering situation, teachers in systems that operate in what might be considered a top-down fashion are perceived by national informants, and perceived themselves to be, very much in control of their classrooms.”

What It Means To You
By examining how a range of decisions are made worldwide, from those relating to overall system goals to specific pedagogical practices in the classroom, Schmidt and Prawat help ground the debate about educational governance in this country.

For More Information
Schmidt, W. & Prawat, R. (199). What does the Third International Mathematics and Science Study tell us about where to draw the line in the top-down versus bottom up debate? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21(1), 85-91. You can also find more on the TIMSS Web site at http://ustimss.msu.edu.

10/13/00

<back to 2000 ed-Research Reports