Systemic reform" has become a popular term in our professional vocabulary, because of our realization that science education is a complex, interconnected enterprise that is understood more effectively in a holistic sense than through more reductionist approaches. Moreover, people and groups working to foster reform of science teaching and learning recognize that changing only one element of the complex system has not produced desired results. Therefore, policy makers and scholars are recommending and taking multidimensional actions that address an array of entities including policy, curriculum, testing, teacher education, staff development, school organization, and school leadership.
The five articles in this issue of JRST portray a selection of issues that reflect the complexity of reform in science teaching and learning. In the lead article, Spillane and Callahan report on interpretation of state-level policy changes about science teaching and learning by key personnel in nine local school districts. Using a cognitive model, they explore the connection between the sense administrators make of new policy initiatives and the nature of implementation that occurs in districts. These authors demonstrate how intentions of policy makers at the state and national levels often are misinterpreted by local leaders in ways that result in changes in the form of instruction but not in its deeper, functional aspects. Spillane and Callahan also raise the significant point that learning among district leaders and teachers can be interpreted similarly to that of other learners-that is, they use their prior knowledge to interpret new ideas and information. Spillane and Callahan help us to understand the nature of administrators' prior knowledge and how it is likely to affect policy implementation.
Hughes points out difficulties that diminish reform efforts to strengthen emphasis of applications of science in schools. Her article "Marginalization of Socioscientific Material in Science-Technology-Society Curricula: Some Implications for Gender Inclusivity and Curriculum Reform" reports on difficulties incorporating STS content in an advanced chemistry course. Her analysis shows how both teachers and students contribute to marginalization of "softer" social-scientific content in favor of the "more rigorous" chemistry content. Importantly, Hughes provides useful suggestions for more effective inclusion of socioscientific content in the curriculum.
Teaching all students is a major tenet of contemporary reform and also one of the major challenges facing teachers, teacher educators, material designers, researchers, and many others in our educational enterprise. Brickhouse, Lowery, and Schultz shed new light on this dimension of reform with their case study of four African-American middle school girls' development of science identities. This study provides provocative new data and interpretations about how experiences with science teachers, classes, peers, and parents influenced these girls' science identities in environments that were sometimes supportive and sometimes conflicting. The au-