The fifth category, FIPSE grants for strengthening the academic disciplines and bolstering the curriculum, is ostensibly the least exciting kind of activity because it would seem to be what one would most expect in the ordinary turn of events. Yet, what could be more fundamental to improving education?

Salisbury State College in Maryland pointed out that "undergraduate mathematics is the keystone to research and knowledge in the natural sciences, economics, engineering, computer science and other fields." To enhance mathematics, the Consortium for Mathematics and Its Applications worked through a project director at Salisbury State to sponsor an annual national contest in mathematical modeling. The math problems were open-ended and did not have a single or clear solution. Students worked in teams of three for an entire weekend to solve one problem. By the third of the three grant years, more than 150 teams from 118 higher education institutions were engaged in the competition.

At the University of Missouri-Columbia, a grant supported a project to integrate dispute resolution into the first year of the law school curriculum. What this meant was that the law students, who in most schools ordinarily get an adversarial view of a lawyer's role, learned about alternatives to litigation. They studied such other ways of resolving disputes as negotiation, mediation, and arbitration.

Project personnel also developed a textbook and instructor's manual on dispute resolution that could be used in law schools around the country, allowing professors to build on the existing curriculum. Exercises for the manual were contributed by 24 professors at 14 law schools, a step that enlarged the stake in the innovation.

Two new courses grew out of an interdisciplinary FIPSE project at Georgetown University that sought to widen the perspective of students in international public policy so as to make them more conversant in issues of technology. Advances in electronics, telecommunications, aerospace, and biotechnology were taken into consideration in weighing public policy issues in such areas as pricing policy, intellectual property rights, and data flow across borders.

A review of these five categories of grants is instructive not only in what can be learned about how the projects operated but also for what is revealed about obstacles to improvement. Summaries of some of the projects contain fairly candid explanations of the impediments. At least two important patterns are discernible.

First, some projects did not give enough attention to setting the stage for a new act. Sets and props from former productions were left in place and the stagehands and the audience were not primed for what was about to occur. An expanding body of literature is devoted to examining change in education. The findings stress the imperative of getting people who will be affected into a receptive mood and also of solidifying support and commitment in advance. This is what setting the stage for the new production should involve.

Second, the outcome of the projects described in this book leads to the discovery that certain steps must be taken to perpetuate change. Otherwise, like a sand castle built on the beach, the result of the project will simply wash away. A support structure must be set in place as educational change unfolds in order to undergird the new structures. There has to be some shoring up for the day when FIPSE and the original agents of change have departed. Not all projects merit institutionalization, but those that prove their mettle and have further contributions to make should be preserved for at least a reasonable period.

It is exciting to learn from some of the project evaluations that there were bonuses, favorable outcomes that were unexpected. Here, again, there were two patterns.

One was the surprising lack of resistance in some instances where objections were anticipated. As I stated, resistance to educational change can be neutralized by getting people ready for change. When expected resistance does not materialize even though no measures were taken to head it off, it is simply a matter of serendipity and those responsible for the project should thank the stars and do the right work in advance the next time.

The other unexpected favorable result was that some projects enjoyed a much bigger impact than was foreseen. This is a reminder that often it is not possible to anticipate the effects of a reform venture. Those who embark upon projects intended to bring improvement to higher education should be ready for success. As odd as this may sound, it is worth bearing in mind so that the project is positioned to capitalize on good fortune. The window of opportunity may remain open longer than expected, but almost always it will once again slam shut and the goal should be to have made as much improvement as possible by then.

Gene I. Maeroff
Senior Fellow
The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching

[Introduction - Part 5] [Table of Contents]