Post on 26-Jul-2020
Thevoicesofteachersaredifficulttoquantifyineducationpolicydiscussions–thustheyremainsubjecttopolicieswithfewopportunitiestoprovidefeedback.Policymakershaveemployedasuiteofteacherpoliciescenteredoncollege-and-careerreadiness(CCR)standards.Butevidenceforthesepoliciesremainsmixed,andschoolautonomyadvocatespointtothefindingthatdistrict-levelpolicyisresponsibleforonly1-2percentofthetotalvariationinstudentachievement(Chingos,Whitehurst&Gallaher,2015).ThispapermatchesteachersurveysofpolicieswiththeStanfordEducationDataArchive(SEDA)toexaminerelationshipsbetweenpolicyandstudentachievement(Reardonet.al,2017).Imeasuredtheseenvironmentsusinga“policyattributestheory”(Porteret.al,1988)inthreestates-Texas,OhioandKentucky–andfoundthattheconsistencyofteacherpoliciespredictsstudentachievement.Whenanalyzingurbandistrictsseparately,stabilitywastheonlypositivepredictor.
Numberofdistricts=165.Includesstatefixedeffects,percentageofELLsandperpupilexpenditures.
Policy Attribute Base Coefficient Interaction with
Poverty
Specificity -0.774 3.303
Consistency 2.260** -8.299**
Authority -0.166 1.1927
Power -0.569 1.498
Stability -0.432
r2 0.143
ConsistencyMatters:TeacherPolicy,Poverty,andStudentAchievementAdamKirkEdgerton,Ph.D.Student,EducationPolicy,UniversityofPennsylvaniaGSE
§ Whenteachersfeelthatpoliciesandmaterialsare
workinginconcertwitheachother,studentachievementappearstobenefit,comparedtospecificcurriculum,whetherthestandardsareappropriate,andrewardsorsanctions.
§ Stabilitymaybemoreimportantthanthepoliciesthemselvesinurbandistricts.
§ Strongaccountabilitypoliciesorspecificcurriculadonotshowrelationshipstodistrict-levelachievement.
Towhatextentdoteacherpolicyenvironmentsmoderatetherelationshipbetweendistrictpovertyandstudentachievement?ThisresearchwassupportedinpartbyGrantR305C150007fromtheInstituteofEducationSciencesintheU.S.DepartmentofEducationtotheUniversityofPennsylvania.ThecontentissolelytheresponsibilityoftheauthorsanddoesnotnecessarilyrepresenttheofficialviewsoftheInstituteofEducationSciencesortheU.S.DepartmentofEducation.
Chingos,M.M.,Whitehurst,G.J.&Gallaher,M.R.(2015).Porter,A.C.,Floden,R.,Freeman,D.,Schmidt,W.,&Schwille,J.(1988).Porter,A.C.(1994).Reardon,S.,Ho,A.,Shear,B.,Fahle,E.,Kalogrides,D.,&DiSalvo,R.(2017).
§ Specificity=Howspecificistheguidancethatteachers
receiveontheCCRstandards?(pacing,curriculum,etc.)§ Consistency=Howalignedarethestandards-basedpolicies
thatteachersexperience?§ Authority=Howmuchdoteachersbelievethatthestandards
areappropriate,rigorousandflexibleenoughforallstudents?
§ Power=Towhatextentdoteachersexperiencerewardsandsanctionsforstandardsimplementation?
§ Stability=Howlongdoteachersthinkthepolicieswilllast?
PleaseindicateyouropiniononthedegreetowhichthefollowingwerealignedtotheCCRstandardsfor(ELAormath):a)The(ELAormath)sectionsofthetestb)District-mandatedsummativeassessmentsc)Formativeordiagnosticassessmentsdevelopedbyschoold)Formativeordiagnosticassessmentsuseddistrict-widee)Textbooksusedinyourschoolf)Curriculumselectedordevelopedbyyourdistrictg)State-developedororganizedprofessionaldevelopmenth)District-developedororganizedprofessionaldevelopmenti) Administratorfeedbackprovidedtoyoufromclassroom
observations(1=stronglydisagree,2=somewhatdisagree,3=somewhatagree,4=stronglyagree)
§ Povertyisalargermagnitudepredictorforachievementthan
FRL–isthismoreevidencefordecreasingtheuseoftheFRLmeasure?
§ Thereisnoise/measurementerrorInthesurveymetricasthesampledesignisstratifiedbystate,notdistrict–ruraldistrictshaveasfewas2teacherrespondents.
§ Metaregressioncorrectsforsomeofthemeasurementerrorintheoutput,butr2islow.Districtsaretheunitofanalysis(notweightedbyenrollment).
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
POV/FRL Consistency InteractionTerm
Pred
ictiv
eCo
efficientfo
rAc
hievem
ent
PovertyFRL
Poverty Coefficient Stability Coefficient
-12.779* (5.542) 3.177* (1.339)
FRL Coefficient Stability Coefficient
-6.095* (2.192) 3.891* (1.327)
39 districts are included in the sample. Teacher responses
in these districts are greater than 30.