State Policy and Classroom Performance: Mathematics Reform in California

In the early 1990\u27s many states tried to devise more robust and coherent instructional policies, in efforts to make teaching and learning more thoughtful and demanding. Policymakers and reformers pressed teachers to help students understand mathematical concepts, to interpret serious literature, to write creatively about their own ideas and experiences, and to converse thoughtfully about history and social science. But these efforts to reform instruction encountered skepticism about the link between policy and pedagogy. Skeptics ask if it is reasonable to expect state policies to steer teaching and learning sharply away from long-established conventional practice, noting that previous efforts to change practice on a large scale had failed. As instructional policy moved to the top of many state education agendas in the late 1990s, interest in the relations between policy and practice has grown. In this issue of CPRE Policy Briefs, we report encouraging findings from an important study that addresses these relationships. We use data from a 1994 survey of California elementary school teachers to probe the classroom effects of state efforts to reform mathematics teaching and learning in California. We report that policy changes did lead both to changed classroom practice and to improved student performance. In this brief, we develop a rudimentary model of the relationship between policy and practice. Student achievement is the ultimate dependent measure; teachers’ reported classroom practice in mathematics is an influence on achievement, but practice also is a measure of the effects of teachers’ learning opportunities about new math curriculum. We present results which show that teachers’ learning opportunities influenced their practice, and that both teachers’ learning opportunities and their practice influenced students’ mathematics achievement. The results suggest that teachers’ practice can change in ways that favorably influence student achievement, and that policy can play an important role in making those changes possible. We begin with a review of the California reform, briefly describe the research approach, and then discuss the major findings

Instructional Policy and Classroom Performance: The Mathematics Reform in California

Educational reformers increasingly seek to manipulate policies regarding assessment, curriculum, and professional development in order to improve instruction. They assume that manipulating these elements of instructional policy will change teachers\u27 practice, which will then improve student performance. We formalize these ideas into a rudimentary model of the relations among instructional policy, teaching, and learning. We propose that successful instructional policies are themselves instructional in nature: because teachers figure as a key connection between policy and practice, their opportunities to learn about and from policy are a crucial influence both on their practice, and, at least indirectly, on student achievement. Using data from a 1994 survey of California elementary school teachers and 1994 student California Learning Assessment System (CLAS) scores, we examine the influence of assessment, curriculum, and professional development on teacher practice and student achievement. Our results bear out the usefulness of the model: under circumstances that we identify, policy can affect practice, and both can affect student performance

NEPC Review: The Mirage: Confronting the Hard Truth About Our Quest for Teacher Development

The Mirage: Confronting the Hard Truth About Our Quest for Teacher Development argues for fundamental changes in the way public school districts think about teacher growth. Using original data collected from teachers and administrators in three public districts and one charter network, the authors contend that although the public districts invest heavily in teacher professional development, what is offered is often a poor fit to teacher needs and ultimately ineffective as a means to improving teacher evaluation scores. Many descriptive portions of this study are strong – including evidence that public district teachers are doubtful about the utility of their own professional development and that public district offerings often lack coherence. The per-teacher cost estimate for professional development, however, was calculated by including teacher salary increases that result from professional development credits and master’s degrees, a choice at odds with much of the prior research on this topic. As well, the analysis comparing growth in teacher evaluation scores to teachers’ professional development experiences suffers from a number of issues, including a mis-match between the behaviors rewarded by teacher evaluation and the professional development features explored in this study. That said, readers who rely more on the report’s empirical evidence and less on its hyperbolic statements will profit from reading this report

Knowing Mathematics for Teaching: Who Knows Mathematics Well Enough To Teach Third Grade, and How Can We Decide?

Reprinted with permission from the Fall 2005 issue of American Educator, the quarterly journal of the American Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO.In this article, the authors describe a program of research they have been developing for more than a decade into the mathematical knowledge and skills that are used in teaching. Their research begins with examining the actual work of teaching elementary school mathematics and noting all of the challenges in this work that draw on mathematical resources; this is followed by analyzing of the nature of such mathematical knowledge and skills – how they are held and used – in the work of teaching. Through this type of analyses, they've derived a practice-based portrait of what they call “mathematical knowledge for teaching.” This article traces the development of these ideas and describes this professional knowledge of mathematics for teaching.The research reported in this paper was supported in part by grants from the U.S. Department of Education to the Consortium for Policy Research in Education (CPRE) at the University of Pennsylvania (OERI-R308A60003) and the Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy at the University of Washington (OERI-R308B70003); the National Science Foundation (REC-9979863 & REC-0129421, REC-0207649, EHR-0233456, and EHR-0335411), and the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, and the Atlantic Philanthropies.http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/65072/4/Ball_F05.pd

The role of atmospheric CO2 in controlling sea surface temperature change during the Pliocene,

We present the role of CO2 forcing in controlling Late Pliocene sea surface temperature (SST) change using six models from Phase 2 of the Pliocene Model Intercomparison Project (PlioMIP2) and palaeoclimate proxy data from the PlioVAR working group. At a global scale, SST change in the Late Pliocene relative to the pre-industrial is predominantly driven by CO2 forcing in the low and mid-latitudes and non-CO2 forcing in the high latitudes. We find that CO2 is the dominant driver of SST change at the vast majority of proxy data sites assessed (17 out of 19), but the relative dominance of this forcing varies between all proxy sites, with CO2 forcing accounting for between 27 % and 82 % of the total change seen. The dearth of proxy data sites in the high latitudes means that only two sites assessed here are predominantly forced by non-CO2 forcing (such as changes to ice sheets and orography), both of which are in the North Atlantic Ocean.We extend the analysis to show the seasonal patterns of SST change and its drivers at a global scale and at a site-specific level for three chosen proxy data sites. We also present a new estimate of Late Pliocene climate sensitivity using site-specific proxy data values. This is the first assessment of site-specific drivers of SST change in the Late Pliocene and highlights the strengths of using palaeoclimate proxy data alongside model outputs to further develop our understanding of the Late Pliocene. We use the best available proxy and model data, but the sample sizes remain limited, and the confidence in our results would be improved with greater data availability

Examining High and Low Value-Added Mathematics Instruction: Can Expert Observers Tell the Difference

The question of how to measure effective teachers and teaching has long been of interest to policymakers and school leaders. While recent policy initiatives have focused on the use of value-added measures (VAM) to assess teacher quality, there is a much longer tradition of using observations of practice to make such determinations. However, empirical evidence suggests these two indicators often identify different sets of teachers as effective. For example, the Measures of Effective Teaching project finds low correlations between teachers’ VAM scores and their quality of instruction as measured by observational metrics. Studies with the explicit intent of identifying differences in instruction between teachers with high and low VAM scores also have generally failed to uncover substantial differences across classrooms. In this study, we take advantage of a dataset containing both videotaped lessons and value-added scores to mount an exploratory study of the instruction of teachers with high- and low-value-added rankings. Specifically, we seek to answer two questions: First, what is the degree of convergence between observers’ impressions of mathematics instruction and teachers’ mathematics value-added scores? Second, are there a set of instructional practices that consistently characterize high but not low-value-added ranked teachers’ classrooms, and vice versa