Breakthrough is a pathway best not taken

Abstract

Breakthrough by Michael Fullan, Peter Hill and Carmel Crevola (2006) lays out an enticingly optimistic vision of an educational future that is just over the horizon. In this future teachers will track students’ learning trajectories, plan the next day’s instruction in response to each child’s needs, address all of each child’s learning requirements including oral language—an often overlooked but crucial competence—and employ efficient, effective educational routines. With a description of this attainable educational utopia that is laced with language such as ‘‘tipping point’’ ‘‘breakthrough’’ and ‘‘transformation,’’ the direction charted by this concise (100 pages) and readable book is likely to be seductive to the point of being compelling for many. Nonetheless, the devil is in the implementation details; implementation of this prescription not only will fall short of effecting the promised improvements, but will lead in unproductive directions. The authors begin by discussing recent major educational reform efforts and argue that, despite the expenditure of substantial funds, achievement has not shown significant improvement. The core problem they assert with some, but limited, empirical support, is that reformers have failed to penetrate and transform moment-to-moment educational classroom practices. It is this challenge that the approach outlined is designed to address. Fullan, Hill and Crevola assert that a transformation in education will occur when we learn to create expert instructional systems that consistently enable teachers to deliver personalized instruction which they believe can function in a manner similar to that used by health care delivery systems. They argue that critical learning paths (CLIPS) can be constructed in which assessment information is assembled and evaluated by expert knowledge systems. Surprisingly, given the enthusiasm of the authors, there is no discussion of data demonstrating the efficacy of the novel approach being promoted. Rather than advance data-based arguments, the authors seek to convince the reader by laying out a vision of an ideal program using the example of literacy instruction for children age 4.5–8 (K–3) drawn