avaliaÇÃo do prog. nenhuma crianÇa deixada para trÁs eua

8/3/2019 AVALIAO DO PROG. NENHUMA CRIANA DEIXADA PARA TRS EUA

1/26

LESSONS FROM THECLASSROOM LEVEL

FEDERAL AND STATE ACCOUNTABILITYIN RHODE ISLAND

November 2008


2/26

Executive Summary

In the winter and spring of 2007-08, the Center onEducation Policy (CEP) expanded its ongoing researchon the impact of the No Child Left Behind Act(NCLB) by conducting case studies of six schools inRhode Island.1 Our purpose was to learn more aboutthe influence of NCLB and related state accountabilitypolicies on curriculum, instruction, and studentachievement. The schools studied used a variety ofinstructional practices and included a mix of urban,

suburban, and rural schools, as well as elementary,middle, and high schools.

This study takes a more in-depth look at classroompractices than most other studies of NCLB, includingCEPs previous survey- and interview-based research.In this study of Rhode Island schools, we not onlyinterviewed school administrators, teachers, students,and parents, but we also conducted formal classroomobservations that documented the time spent on vari-ous types of instructional practices and teacher-studentinteractions in the six schools. These case studies showhow administrators and teachers in different schoolshave responded to federal and state accountability poli-cies designed to raise student achievement.

Key findings from the six case study schools includethe following:

The high-performing schools in the study (thosethat had already met state schoolwide performancetargets for 2011) and their school districts seemedto have the greatest alignment between curriculumand state standards. Since the implementation of

NCLB, all the schools studied had taken steps to aligncurriculum with state content standards, but someappeared to have done a better job with this task.Some of the higher-performing schools and districtshad administrators and teachers who were directly

involved in state-level discussions about the develop-ment of state standards and the New EnglandCommon Assessment Program (NECAP) tests,

which are used for NCLB accountability in RhodeIsland. The schools that were struggling to align cur-riculum and standards either had atypical, nontradi-tional curriculum or lacked sufficient direction,leadership, or funding at the district level.

Many teachers and administrators in case studyschools acknowledged the pressure to teach to

the test by focusing curriculum on specific con-tent or skills included on the state test. In addi-tion, most schools have incorporated some form oftest preparation, such as drilling students on skillslikely to be tested, using items released by the stateas practice tests, and discussing test-taking strategies

with students. This trend mirrors findings from abody of research which indicates that high-stakestesting may encourage teaching to the test.

The most common mode of instruction in theelementary and middle school classes we

observed was teacher-led discussion, where theteacher primarily lectures and leads the class indiscussion. Teachers also frequently askedclosed questions, those with only one or a fewcorrect answers. Other common modes ofinstruction at this level included seat work andsilent reading. Teachers said they felt pushed toadopt more teacher-directed instruction and pas-sive learning strategies to keep up with the fast-paced curriculum and cover as much content aspossible. Teachers at the higher-performingschools in our study tended to emphasize teacher-led discussion and closed questions, while teachersat the lower-performing schools used more indi-vidual student work.

y

LESSONS FROM THE CLASSROOM LEVEL

1 Rhode Island, a northeastern state, is one of threestatesin our larger studyof federal and state accountabilitypolicies. The other statesinclude a midwestern state,

Illinois, and a western state, Washington State. In addition to geographic distribution, states were chosen on other factors such asdemographic differences and

sizes of population.


3/26

Study participants reported focusing moreinstructional time on the tested subjects ofEnglish language arts (ELA) and mathematics atthe expense of other subject areas. In addition,more attention was devoted to bubble kids,(students who scored just below the proficient

level on state tests). In some of the elementaryschools we studied, social studies and sciencereceived less discrete instructional time and instead

was integrated into the ELA and math curriculum.Teachers at all school levels also expressed concernabout a loss of depth and richness in curriculumcontent as a result of the fast pace of instructionnecessary to cover the material likely to be tested.Parents, as well as teachers, noted that the pressureto quicken the pace of instruction restricts teachersto teaching to the standards, which generally corre-spond to lower levels of understanding, rather thanteaching to mastery. Teachers at several schoolspointed out that the time it takes to administer thetests themselves has reduced instructional time inthe subject being tested. And in five of the sixschools we studied, interviewees discussed howthey strategically targeted resources and interven-tions on bubble kids in an attempt to raise theirscores to the proficient level.

Administrators and teachers in case study schoolsare making greater use of test data to reach deci-sions about curriculum, instruction, teacher pro-fessional development, and other areas. Theincreased focus on testing and accountability hasyielded data that teachers can use to target instructionon students weaknesses. Some schools were observedto use data more effectively than others, however.

Some study participants expressed concernabout the negative effects of what they saw as anoverreliance on standardized tests to measureachievement. Teachers and administrators pointedto negative impacts of testing on teacher morale,

development of the whole child, and the depth ofthe curriculum. This was especially true in theschools that had large numbers of English languagelearners (ELLs) and high rates of poverty and wereunder intense pressure to meet state test score tar-gets. Furthermore, staff in schools with innovativeteaching and curriculum structures reported feel-ing, in the words of one teacher, like square pegsin a round hole.

Many of the participants from the case studiesreported that they lacked sufficient resources,including funding, staff, and materials, to pre-pare students for the NECAP tests. Participantsalso noted a lack of resources to meet state and fed-eral requirements.

Background and Study Methods

The No Child Left Behind Act, like earlier versions ofstandards-based reform, aims to raise student achieve-ment and close achievement gaps between students ofdifferent races, ethnicities, and income levels. CEPsstudies of student achievement have concluded that inmost of the states with adequate data, scores on statereading and math tests have gone up since NCLB was

enacted in 2002, and that achievement gaps have nar-rowed more often than they have widened (Center onEducation Policy, 2007a; 2008a). Other CEP studiesof NCLB implementation at the local level have foundthat many schools have increased instructional time forEnglish language arts and mathematics but have some-times done so at the expense of other subjects andactivities (CEP, 2007c; 2008b).

This study seeks to better understand and explain thesetrends by taking a closer look at practices at the schooland classroom levels. In particular, the study examines

the changes that districts, schools, and teachers havemade in curriculum and instruction in response toNCLB and related state accountability policies.

To gather data for this study, CEP researchers con-ducted interviews and in-depth classroom observationsin six schools in Rhode Island with diverse economic,geographic, and demographic characteristics. Researchfor the study was conducted from November to Mayduring school year 2007-08.

FOCUS OF THE STUDY

We focused on changes in policies and practices thataffect curriculum and instruction in reading (or Englishlanguage arts at the higher grades) and mathematics, theonly two subjects tested for NCLB accountability before2008. These include the following changes, which havebeen commonly reported in other studies of the localeffects of NCLB (Hamilton & Berends, 2006; Booher-

Jennings, 2005; Center on Education Policy, 2003;2004; 2005; 2006; and Sunderman et al., 2004):

Lessonsfrom

theClassroom

Level

2


4/26

Increasing alignment between instruction and statestandards for curriculum content

Focusing on tested content at the expense of othersubject matter

Ignoring, reducing, or deleting aspects of the cur-riculum that are not tested

Targeting (through instructional time and resourceallocation) students who are closest to scoring atthe proficient level on state tests in an attempt tomake AYP

Continually changing educational programs, par-ticularly in high-poverty districts and low-perform-ing schools, in response to calls for reformaphenomenon sometimes known as policy churn

(Sunderman et al., 2004, p. 4)

Using data to drive decisions in curriculum andinstruction

Addressing achievement gaps

SELECTION OF CASE STUDY SCHOOLS

CEP researchers worked with Rhode IslandDepartment of Education officials to identify districtsand schools to participate in this study. We chose sixschools in five school districts, including three elemen-tary schools, one middle school, and two high schools.

Several factors guided this selection. Although theschools chosen do not constitute a representative sam-ple, we did take steps to ensure they represented differ-ent characteristics to help us gain a more nuancedunderstanding of the effects of NCLB in differenttypes of public schools. We chose school districts indifferent kinds of communities (urban, suburban, orrural) and of various sizes. We made sure our sampleincluded both schools that received federal Title Ifunds for low-achieving students in low-income areasand schools that did not. We took into account schooldemographics and selected several schools with a rela-tively diverse student population. In addition, wechose schools that were in some phase of NCLBimprovement. Finally, we chose schools from both the

elementary and secondary levels. It should be notedthat the findings from the six case study schools are notgeneralizable to every school in Rhode Island.

In order to elicit straightforward responses from andavoid possible repercussions for the people we inter-

viewed, we guaranteed anonymity to participatingschools. The list below describes schools and districtsparticipating in this study, identified by pseudonyms.2

The information below about the adequate yearlyprogress (AYP) and NCLB improvement status of theseschools represents their status during school year 2007-08, which was based on tests administered in schoolyear 2006-07. Although Rhode Island has since pub-lished the AYP status of schools for school year 2008-09, based on 2007-08 testing, that information is notincluded in this report because it had not been releasedat the time the report was written and because our

study looked at activities during school year 2007-08.

Chace Elementary School is a rural Title I schoolin Catalina School District, which serves an outersuburban community. The majority of Chaces stu-dents are white. Roughly one-third of the schoolsstudents are eligible for free or reduced-price lunch(meaning that they come from low-income fami-lies). At the time of our study, the school was des-ignated as high-performing under Rhode Islandsstate accountability system and had made adequateyearly progress under NCLB based on tests admin-

istered in both 2005-06 and 2006-07.

Farnum High School in WindPath School Districtis a suburban school and does not receive Title Ifunds. The enrollment is mostly white and includesstudents from diverse economic backgrounds. When

we conducted our research, the school was classifiedas making insufficient progress under the stateaccountability system; the school did not make AYPbased on either 2005-06 or 2006-07 testing and wasidentified for improvement under NCLB. Over thepast five years, Farnum has lowered its dropout rateand has seen an increase in test scores among stu-dents who receive free or reduced-price lunch.

Hutchinson Elementary School is located inBeneteau School District, an urban district.Roughly half of the students are white, and half are

y

2 School pseudonyms are based on famous women in Rhode Island history, and district pseudonyms are based on sailboat manufacturers.


5/26

minority students. About three-fourths of the stu-dents are eligible for free or reduced-price lunch. Atthe time of our visits, Hutchison was classified bythe state as a high-performing school and had made

AYP based on both 2005-06 and 2006-07 testing.

Lewis Elementary School, a Title I school, islocated in Jeanneau School District, a large urbandistrict. Nearly all of Lewis students qualify for freeand reduced-price lunch. At the time of our study,the school was labeled as moderately performingunder Rhode Islands accountability system and hadbeen identified for improvement under NCLB.

Wittman Middle School, a Title I school, islocated in the outer suburban area of the TartanSchool District. One-third of the student popula-tion is Latino, and more than three-fourths of the

students qualify for free or reduced-price lunch.During the time of our research, Wittman hadmoved up in ranking on the state accountability sys-tem from insufficient progress (based on 2004-05testing), to moderately performing (2005-06 test-ing), to caution (2006-07 testing). Wittman made

AYP based on 2005-06 testing but did not meetAYP targets based on 2006-07 testing.

Vare High School in Jeanneau School District isan urban school. One-third of the students areLatino, and about half are eligible for free or

reduced-price lunch, but the school does notreceive Title I funds. Vare made AYP based on2006-07 testing, and at the time of our study, it

was in year 7 of NCLB improvement. According tothe state accountability system, the school was clas-sified as making insufficient progress.

CASE STUDY INTERVIEWS

To collect information for our case studies of the sixschools, CEP researchers interviewed 17 administra-tors, 79 teachers, 58 students, 38 parents, and 8 other

school representatives (librarians, reading and mathspecialists, administrative interns, and Reading Firstcoaches). Through these means, we hoped to not onlygain detailed knowledge of district and school practicesand policies but also probe the assumptions and beliefsunderlying the implementation of NCLB and test-driven accountability in general.

At the district level, CEP researchers spoke with thesuperintendent, director of curriculum and instruction,assessment director, and Title I coordinator, whereapplicable. In each of the case study schools, we askedthe principal to identify a staff member to act as studyliaison. This person arranged for school-level inter-

views. These included individual interviews with prin-cipals, assistant principals, and reading and/or mathcoaches, as well as focus group interviews with teachers,students, and parents.3 Appendix A provides moreinformation about the interview process for this study.

CLASSROOM OBSERVATIONS

The study used classroom observations to documentthe salient features of instructional practices andteacher-student interactions. The study liaison in eachschool scheduled these observations in read-

ing/language arts (or English) and mathematics classes.CEP researchers visited each school for two to threedays, depending on the schools schedule.

Through these classroom observations, we hoped tolook more deeply into teachers practices than manyprevious studies of school reform and NCLB imple-mentation have done. Prior studies have been basedlargely on survey and interview data; although theseare important research tools, they are based on self-perceptions and can be influenced by respondentsbeliefs. Indeed, some analysts have challenged the

accuracy of survey and interview data on issues of class-room instruction, particularly when the questionsaddress teachers own instructional practices(Hamilton et al., 2003; Spillane & Zeuli, 1999). Theclassroom observations in this Rhode Island study wereintended to address some of the limitations of earlierresearch, including CEPs own research, and to furtherexplore and validate the findings from our interviewdata. We acknowledge, however, that the inferencesthat can be drawn from the classroom observations arelimited in scope because our sample is limited.

CEP researchers observed 57 classes in three elemen-tary schools and one middle school, including 35English language arts classes and 22 math classes.Observations were also conducted in 14 more classes atone of the two high schools in our study. During all ofthe observations, the researchers recorded teachingpractices using a time-sampling technique: classroom

Lessonsfrom

theClassroom

Level

4

3 Researchers were not able to interview each of these groups at every school.


6/26

instruction was recorded at two-minute intervals for aclass period of 30-60 minutes. The researchers also

wrote detailed notes after each observation. Thesenotes provided important contextual information forinterpreting the time-sampling data and helped toimprove reliability among different researchers.

The researchers designed a time-sampling instrumentto record three aspects of classroom teaching: instruc-tional practices, class grouping, and noninstructionalissues. (See appendix B for more detail about observa-tion categories.) The instrument used drew from cur-rent findings about changes to instructional practicesand curricular choices and was adapted from priorstudies (Hamilton et al., 2007; Pianta et al., 2007;University of Michigan School of Education, 2007).The researchers were trained to use the instrument torecord teacher behaviors accurately during a classroom

observation and to take detailed notes.

OTHER DATA SOURCES

Researchers also analyzed policy documents and otherrecords at both the district and school levels, includingcurriculum and pacing guides where applicable, tounderstand how instructional policies have changed inresponse to NCLBs focus on student achievement.The analysis of documents allowed researchers todetermine how district and school administrators andteachers have attempted to comply with district poli-

cies and make AYP.

LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

Like any study, this study has certain limitations. Firstare the inherent limitations of interview and self-reported data, noted above.

Second, the schools and districts studied may not rep-resent the experiences of all Rhode Island schools, andtheir demographic characteristics may not reflect thestudent population in Rhode Island. For instance,

Rhode Island as a whole has a larger white and AfricanAmerican population than the districts studied.

Third, our efforts to include classroom observations asa supplement to interview data have shown promise,but we are cautious about drawing inferences that maybe misleading on a larger scale. Therefore, we haveused a design in which the qualitative data from inter-

views are dominant, and the quantitative classroomobservation data are used to supplement and validatethe qualitative data.

Lastly, this study does not draw a causal relationshipbetween policy and instructional changes, nor does it

aim to evaluate the effectiveness of the implementationof NCLB and related accountability policies. Rather,the study gives snapshots of how schools with differentprofiles have responded to state and federal accounta-bility systems in terms of curriculum and instruction.The study also illustrates how NCLBs requirementshave led to changes in educational practice in a sampleof diverse schools and districts and examines NCLB inthe context of reform efforts that may have beenunderway before the federal law took effect. To explorehow NCLB, state, and local policies interact and howthey affect student achievement requires the extra level

of in-depth analysis offered in this report.

NCLB and Rhode Island

Rhode Island is a small state that values local controlover education; 37% of education funds come fromthe state, a lower share of state funding than thenational average of 47.6%. It has pockets of diversity,

with Latinos comprising the largest minority group(14% of the student population).

To comply with the provisions of the No Child LeftBehind Act, the Rhode Island Department ofEducation (RIDE) made a number of significantchanges to its public school accountability system. Themost relevant changes for purposes of this study aredescribed below (Rhode Island Department ofEducation, 2006a).

ASSESSMENTS

Rhode Island has completely revamped its testing system

to meet NCLB requirements. Prior to NCLB, RhodeIsland students in grades 4, 8, and 10 were assessed inreading, writing, and mathematics in the spring, usingthe New Standards Reference Exam (NSRE), which is anoff-the-shelf test, and a state-developed writing assess-ment. During school year 2005-06, the state startedadministering its new statewide assessment, the NewEngland Common Assessment Program (NECAP) atgrades 3 through 8 in the fall. That same year, high

y


7/26


8/26

A previous CEP study (2006) found that schools areinvesting more time and attention into better aligningcurriculum and instruction to state standards. Ourfindings in Rhode Island, described below, support thisobservation and also highlight the critical role of dis-trict-level support and local participation in state stan-

dards creation in determining the success of theseefforts. Our Rhode Island research also revealed evi-dence of policy churn, defined earlier in this report.

Alignment to standards is a dominant theme in cur-riculum and instructional planning in Rhode Island.The most successful schools in terms of improvementstatus seem to be those that have achieved the greatestalignment between state standards and the curriculumdesigned to meet those standards. The schools that arestruggling to align curriculum to standards either haveatypical or nontraditional curriculum or lack sufficient

direction or support at the district level.

All three of the elementary schools we studied reportedchanging curriculum to better align it to state stan-dards. Staff at these schools also noted that alignmentto the curriculum as a driving force was a noticeablechange. The two high-performing elementary schoolsdescribed their activities as a never-ending process.Staff at both Hutchinson and Chace ElementarySchools mentioned being involved in the developmentof the states grade-level expectations (GLEs) andNECAP, which seems to have given them an advan-

tage. This in turn has allowed Hutchinson, for exam-ple, to design instructional pacing guides, discussedlater in this report, that are very specific to NECAP.

The teachers that we interviewed attributed improve-ments in their schools performance in part to districtsupport for and teacher buy-in of state standards.

Wittman Middle School in the Tartan School Districtimproved its status from insufficient progress to mod-erately performing for school year 2006-07. A Tartandistrict official commented that at the elementary andmiddle [schools], you can talk to most any teacher andthey will be able to tell you how what theyre teachingrelates to the GLEs very specifically. School adminis-trators also said that Wittmans math, reading, and

writing curricula are aligned with the GLEs. Oneadministrator noted that on a curriculum alignmentscale of 1 to 10, were probably at an 8 and half.

By contrast, the Jeanneau school districts lack of a uni-form, districtwide curriculum aligned to state stan-dards was described as a problem by study participantsat Lewis Elementary. As a result, interviewees describedthe development of curriculum aligned to standards asa massive task. Teachers reported that they rely on

the federally funded Reading First program to providesome guidance and consistency in reading instructionat the primary grades; however, there are still problemsin alignment with state standards.

Curriculum and instruction is atypical at Vare HighSchool, which is essentially divided into two schools.Students do not receive traditional grades; rather, theirprogress is measured by their ability to meet standards andapply learning objectives. The curriculum at Vare is proj-ect-based and interdisciplinary. Teachers recognized theadditional challenges involved in aligning their projects

with grade span expectations (GSEs) and keeping pacewith the rest of the district. One teacher described Varescurriculum as a square peg that doesnt fit in the roundhole because we do not follow scope and sequence ofother schools, which I think gives some people at the cen-tral administration level fits because they want standardi-zation across the board and we dont fit in.

Despite these challenges, Vare has made improvementfrom being classified for insufficient progress in previousyears to making AYP in 2006-07. Teachers reported thateach year they review their gateway documentwhich

stipulates the GSEs students must meet to advancetoensure the curriculum matches up with district man-dates. Teachers noted, however, that students feelaccountable for meeting learning goals rather than doing

well on standardized tests. [The learning goals and thetest] become separate things, said one teacher. Theresno real connection between what were doing in our proj-ect, our debates today, and the NECAP that I can see.

Most teachers andadministrators at Farnum High Schoolsaid that the schools curriculumis somewhat aligned withthe GSEs; however, very few participants spoke of a com-prehensive strategy to ensure it was truly aligned. Theirefforts seem more reflective of demonstrating alignmentof the existing curriculum to standards rather thanredesigning an entirelynew curriculum.To accommodatechanges in standards, teachers describe adapting currentcourse content and assignments to incorporate the GLEsand the subject matter likely to be tested, rather than sig-nificantly altering or adding courses.

y


9/26

Influence on Instruction

In this section we discuss the impact of NCLB andrelated state accountability policies on instructionalpractices, such as narrowing the curriculum and usingmore teacher-directed instruction, addressing issues of

instructional pace and depth, and preparing studentsto pass the NECAP.

CURRICULUM NARROWING AND TEACHER-DIRECTEDINSTRUCTION

Hamilton et al. (2008) cite several studies that point toa narrowing of curriculum to accommodate theincreased emphasis on tested subjects. Our study ofRhode Island also provides evidence of this unin-tended outcome of test-driven accountability systems.

At Hutchinson and Chace Elementary Schools, an

increase in instructional time in reading, writing, andmathematics has resulted in less time for social studiesand science; these latter two subjects are now inte-grated into the reading and math curriculum. Forexample, history and science are taught through read-ing or writing lessons with less depth or focus on devel-oping knowledge of history or science content.

Teachers reported that the pressure to teach to a singletest has led to cuts in what they felt was a rich curricu-lum to accommodate the skills stressed on a singlemeasurement of achievement. Several teachers

expressed frustration that they were forced to eliminatecontent they considered worthwhile or explore certaintopics in less depth to align their instruction to stan-dards and accommodate the testing schedule.

Generally speaking, in the classes we observed in RhodeIsland, the predominant mode of instruction wasteacher-directed, meaning that the teacher is mainlylecturing and leading the entire class in discussion. Thenext most common mode of instruction consisted ofindependent learning activities, such as seat work andsilent reading. Although this is not necessarily a change

from previous methods of instruction, some teachersdid report that they used teacher-directed methods tomake sure they covered enough key content before statetesting time.

TEST PREPARATION

CEP researchers asked study participants to talk aboutthe ways in which they helped students prepare for theNECAP. Many teachers and administrators acknowl-edged the pressure to teach to the test by focusing theircurriculum and instruction on specific content or skillsthat were likely to be included on the NECAP. Specificresponses and strategies varied, depending on the aca-demic level of the school and the degree of pressure toimprove scores to make AYP.

Teachers at all three elementary schools discussed theneed to instruct young children in test-taking skillsand build childrens familiarity with the test formatand test vocabulary. This was motivated partly by adesire to reduce stress for children unfamiliar withthese types of tests. The most commonly describedpractice was to use test items released by the state froma previous years test. Hutchinson teachers and stu-dents also described the use of worksheets and theavailability of after-school tutoring twice a week for afew weeks before the NECAP was administered.

Lewis Elementary, which was in improvement status atthe time of our visit, described the most extensive, sys-tematic preparation for the NECAP among the ele-mentary schools we studied. Study participantsdescribed how they had developed test preparationunits with sample questions, practiced multiple-choiceresponses, and engaged in other test-taking strategies.These test preparation activities began when studentscame back to school in September and continued untilthe assessment was over in October. School officialsacknowledged that theres more test preparation [atthat time] and everyone worries about the test. Oneadministrator commented that everyone in the school

was involved in test preparationan all hands ondeck approach that included resource teachers and theschool psychologist.

Test preparation was not limited to the elementary

schools, however. School officials, parents, and stu-dents all described some activities designed to preparestudents for the NECAP. At Wittman Middle School,parents were aware of the NECAP and said their chil-dren prepared for it and reviewed content at school.Students also talked about taking pre-tests, participat-ing in test reviews, and doing warm-up exercises at thebeginning of the school year to prepare for the exam.[Teachers] give us . . . strategies to help us, explained

Lessonsfrom

theClassroom

Level

8


10/26

one student. Other students said they could stay afterschool and get help from their teachers if they wanted.

Another student commented that teachers prepare thestudents for the NECAP throughout the school year.

The nature of Vares curriculum and authentic assess-

ment program does not lend itself to preparing studentsfor testing because students do not take many class-room tests. Administrators and teachers recognized thatstudents needed to be drilled on test-taking skills. Toaddress this need, the school decided that for the firstthree weeks of the school year, a morning period that

would normally be used by students to work on theiryearly projects would instead be used to concentrate onthe types of math and reading skills tested on theNECAP. The students we talked to had differences ofopinion about whether they felt well prepared for theNECAP and noted that the preparation varied depend-

ing on their teachers and course schedules.

While teachers at Farnum High School reported resist-ing teaching to the test, they acknowledged that theydo teach skills they know will be tested on the NECAP.

A few students commented that this attention to testitems was more transparent in math classes than inEnglish classes. Students reported being given a packetof worksheets in their math classes one week before thetest; they worked on these sheets during class and inde-pendently. In contrast, English teachers reported thatbecause the NECAP administers different kinds of

writing prompts to students randomly, students mustpractice different writing styles throughout the term torespond to various prompts or audiences.

COMMON INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES AND PACEOF INSTRUCTION

Our classroom observations in Rhode Island revealedthat teachers had adopted strategies to maximize theamount of curriculum content covered during theschool year. Figure 1 shows the percentage of timedevoted to various types of instructional activities

according to our classroom observations. Under thedefinitions used for this study, closed questions refer toquestions asked by teachers that have only one or avery limited number of correct answers. Open-endedquestions have more than one answer or can be inter-preted differently, and are used by teachers to encour-age students to explore possibilities and ideas. Problemmodeling refers to teachers showing students the steps

for solving a particular problem. Additional definitionsof instructional activities can be found in appendix B.The percentages of observed classroom time total morethan 100% because more than one instructional prac-tice can be observed and recorded in the two-minuteintervals used in classroom observations.

Different patterns of instruction were observed in theschools we studied in Rhode Island. At the elementaryand middle school levels, the most frequently observedactivities were directed by teachers; these teacher-directed activities are one way of maximizing theamount of content covered during the school year. Forexample, elementary and middle school teachers, onaverage, spent 30% of the observed classroom timeasking closed questions and 24% in teacher-led discus-sion. Significant amounts of time were also spent at theelementary and middle school levels on individual seat

work (19% of observed time), silent reading (17%),and hands-on activities (13%). At the high schoollevel, teachers spent less time on teacher-led discussion(9%) but more time on modeling problems (25%),particularly in math classes. On the other hand, no sig-nificant amount of time was spent on hands-on activ-ities or silent reading in high school classes.

Teachers in our study expressed concern that class timefor teacher-student interactions has been limited bythe pace of instruction. Parents, as well as teachers,noted that there is pressure to increase the pace of

instruction, which they felt restricts teachers to teach-ing to the standards rather than teaching to mastery.Teachers at several schools pointed out that the time ittakes to administer the tests also reduces instructionaltime in the subject being tested.

As mentioned earlier, teachers at Hutchinson reportedusing pacing guides developed by the district, which arevery specific to the NECAP. These pacing guides dictatethe topics teachers should focus on and in what order, theamount of days that should be spent on each topic, and

which topics could be skipped if teachers fall behind.Teachers at Chace also followed a pacing guide designedto improve consistency across districts in meeting GLEs.Teachers at both schools noted that the pacing guidesrestricted their flexibility in their daily teaching scheduleand reported gaps in the textbooks and curriculum mate-rials. As a result, teachers mentioned that they fill in thegaps with supplemental materials.

y


11/26

Similarly, teachers at Wittman Middle School reportedfollowing schoolwide curriculum and pacing guides inreading and math. Several teachers felt these pacingguides are well-aligned with and closely tied to the GLEs.Teachers said that all students, regardless of which teach-ers or course schedules they were assigned to, were doingthe same thing and that all teams covered the same con-tent. All teachers said the consistent curriculum hashelped with behavior problems and student familiarity.Some teachers cautioned, however, that even thoughevery classroom should progress evenly on the curricu-

lum in terms of the skill level being taught, teachers werenot necessarily addressing concepts simultaneously.

These responses to our interview questions support thefindings noted in the research literature by Hamilton et al.(2008) and othersnamely, that systematic reformefforts are having a direct impact on organizationalstructures and have led to changes in teacher practice. Asone teacher observed, however, everybody is more or

less left to their own to devise the materials and thestructure of their class, indicating that teacher behaviorin their classrooms remains somewhat autonomous andindependent of school-level organizational changes.

PERCEIVED IMPACT OF TEST-BASEDACCOUNTABILITY ON INSTRUCTIONAL ANDASSESSMENT STRATEGIES

Teachers at Vare High School spoke repeatedly ofchanges in their instruction and assessment strategies

to prepare for the NECAP. One teacher described thischange as teacher-centered, not project-based. It wasdifferent than what we normally do in a lot of ways.Several teachers described their understanding ofassessment in relation to their students abilities and tocarryover knowledge and contended that this philos-ophy is in opposition to test-driven accountability. Asan example of what is meant by carrying over knowl-edge, one teacher explained that authentic assess-

Lessonsfrom

theClassroom

Level

10

Figure 1. Percentage of Classroom Observation Time Spent on Various Types of InstructionalActivities, by School Level

Figure reads: Elementary and middle school teachers spent an average of 24% of observed classroom time in teacher-led discussion, while high

school teachers spent 9% of observed time in this type of activity.

Note: Percentages shown may total more than 100% because more than one instructional practice can be observed and recorded in the two-

minute intervals used in classroom observations.

Source: Center on Education Policy, Rhode Island classroom observation data, 2008.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

2425 25

30

9

13 13

10 10

23

10

12

19

17

15

11

36 1

0 0

9

Teacher-Led

Discussion

Hands-onActivity

Technology(Overhead)

WritingWork

GroupWriting

ProblemModeling

HomeworkReview

ClosedQuestions

Open-EndedQuestions

SeatWork(Individual)

SilentReading

AveragePercentageofObservationTime

Elementary andMiddle School Classes

High School Classes


12/26

ment at Vare in 2007-08 consisted of a series ofdebates that students prepared for and participated in.During a debate, one student referenced the schoolproject from the previous year. This teacher claimedthat the student had demonstrated retention of knowl-edge because she was able to recall and apply informa-

tion learned more than a year ago.

To understand whether there were differences ininstructional activities and classroom grouping betweenhigher- and lower-performing schools, we analyzedclassroom observation data from the three elementaryschools and one middle school participating in ourstudy. Our observations of classes in one high school

were excluded from this analysis because they differedconsiderably from the elementary and middle schoolsin instruction, curriculum, and school environment. Asnoted above in the discussion of study methods, the

observation data represent a snapshot of instructionalpractices in 57 elementary and middle school class-rooms during a 30-60 minute period of one school day.

As shown in figure 2, we found statistically significantdifferences across schools in the use of four instruc-tional activities: teacher-led discussion, closed ques-tions, open-ended questions, and seat work. Teachersin Hutchinson Elementary and Chace Elementary,two higher-performing schools, spent relatively more

time on teacher-student interactions, such as discus-sion and questioning. For instance, teachers inHutchinson spent an average of 38% of the observedclassroom time on teacher-led discussion, more thanthree times as much as teachers at Wittman MiddleSchool and Lewis Elementary, two schools that were inNCLB improvement during school year 2007-08. Bycontrast, students in Wittman and Lewis spent moretime on seat work than those in Hutchinson andChace. Classes at Lewis spent an average of 35% ofclassroom observation time on seat work, compared

with 15% of observed time in Hutchinson and just5% in Chace. This finding indicates that teachers at

Wittman and Lewis emphasized individual studentwork, while those at Hutchinson and Chace empha-sized classroom discourse.

y

Figure 2. Differences in Time Spent on Various Instructional Activities at Four Rhode Island Schools

Figure reads: Teachers at Hutchinson Elementary spent an average 38% of observed classroom time on teacher-led discussion, while teachers at

Chace spent 28% percent of observed time on this activity and teachers at Wittman and Lewis spent 11%.

Note: Only major activities with significant differences across schools are shown in the figure. A major activity is defined as one that used more

than 10% of observed classroom time.

Note: Percentages shown may total more than 100% because more than one instructional practice can be observed and recorded in the two-

minute intervals used in classroom observations.


38

28

11 11

42

15

35

25

5

20

97

29

19

24

11

Teacher-Led Discussion Closed Questions Open-Ended Questions Seat Work

AveragePercentageofObservationT

ime

0

10

20

30

40

50

5

15

25

35

45 Huthinson

Chace

Wittman

Lewis


13/26

Figure 3 compared student grouping strategies at thefour schools. All four schools used whole-class instruc-tion as the predominant grouping: in three of theschools, at least 85% of the observed classroom time

was spent in whole-class instruction. Teachers atHutchinson and Chace also spent a considerable

amount of time on one-to-one instruction, 31% and45% respectively. At Hutchinson, teachers spent abouta quarter of the time (26%) on individual instruction.Often multiple grouping strategies were used simulta-neously; for example, some one-to-one instructionmay be incorporated into whole-class instruction. Forthis reason, the percentages of observed time totalmore than 100%.

It is interesting to note how much instruction variesacross schools despite the focus on state standards; thismay be partly because the curriculum was different in

each of the schools. The variations exist not onlyamong schools with different AYP performance, butalso between the two higher-performing schools.

Although grouping students by their abilities andlearningneeds is known to facilitate individualized instruction, wealso found that teachers in the schools we studied wereable to cover the material in the curriculum when theygrouped students of mixed abilities. Farnum HighSchool, for example, has eliminated the lowest track in

English as part of a push for more rigorous instruction.This has resulted in more heterogeneous grouping, whichrequires teachers to focus more on individualizing instruc-tion for students. According to one administrator, the useof collaborative classes, along with the schools literacyenhancement program, contributed to an increase in testscores in English. Farnum also eliminated self-containedclassrooms for lower-performing students with disabilitiesand has placed these students in a math class taught byboth a math teacher and a special educator.

Vare High School also uses a heterogeneous grouping

strategy called looping. Students are assigned toteams of heterogeneous ability groups, and teachers areassigned the same students for two to three years. Thisstrategy is designed to improve continuity in instruc-tion and develop stronger teacher-student relationships.

Lessonsfrom

theClassroom

Level

12

Figure 3. Comparison of Student Grouping Strategies at Four Rhode Island Schools

Figure reads: Teachers at Hutchinson Elementary spent an average of 50% of observed classroom time on whole-class instruction, compared with

85% of observed time at Chace Elementary, 87% at Wittman Middle School, and 86% at Lewis Elementary.

Note: Percentages shown may exceed 100% because more than one instructional practice can be observed and recorded in the two-minute

intervals used in classroom observations.


50

85 87 86

26 31

45

14

21

7 7

0Whole Class Individual One-to-One

0

20

40

60

80

100

10

30

50

70

90 Huthinson

Chace

Wittman

Lewis

AveragePercentageofObservationTime


14/26

Because the team of teachers has the same students fortwo years or more, they are better able to track studentsdevelopment and communicate to district and schooladministrators about the students characteristics thatare affecting their achievement. The makeup of theseteams is reconsidered if a large number of students fail

to meet expectations or if there is a need to reassign stu-dents to improve class dynamics. For example, said oneteacher, maybe we get some more talkerslike wehave one class thats very quiet, so were thinking aboutgetting some kids that will hold a conversation a littlemore. Looping also allows teachers to structure classesand move students so they work better as a team.Teachers, rather than the central administration, areresponsible for determining student schedules.

STRATEGICALLY TARGETING STUDENTS CLOSE TO

PROFICIENCYOne widely reported response to NCLB and other high-stakes accountability policies is to target resources andinterventions on students who are on the verge ofbecoming proficient on the state assessmentstudentscommonly referred to as bubble kids (Booher-

Jennings, 2005; Hamilton et al., 2007). These studentsoften receive targeted instruction or specialized curricu-lum in an attempt to raise their scores to the proficientlevel. Rhode Islands index proficiency score system alsogives credit for students moving up from levels wellbelow proficiency. According to the state, the system wasdeveloped in part to prevent strategic targeting of stu-dents. We found that our case study schools are usingthe strategy of targeting bubble kids, albeit in different

ways and to varying degrees. In five of the six schools westudied, teachers and administrators talked about howthey strategically target students who have scored closeto the proficiency mark on the NECAP. One districtadministrator contended that targeting students close toproficiency is the status quo in Rhode Island:

Well, I think if you were going to go throughoutRhode Island, thats what you would find becausethats how fragile the accountability system is . . . Iremember when the Rhode Island accountabilitysystem first started, this school had six students forwhom they had zero scores, and it happened that thekids just didnt participate in the assessment. So, allyou have to do is target a handful of kids, and youcan sway your results. And so I think that pattern offocusing on kids that are near proficiency is prettycommon throughout the state.

We also found that more intensive efforts to strategi-cally target students appeared to take place at the ele-mentary level. In all three elementary schools westudied, this strategy was reported by both teachers andadministrators. They often candidly discussed the rea-sons why they felt it was necessary to target students

close to proficiency, including the diversity of the stu-dents they serve and, in some cases, the mounting pres-sures to meet the numerous achievement targets underthe states accountability system. One intervieweeexplained how focusing on the bubble, or bump-up,kids could dramatically improve student achievement:

We looked at the small bump-up group . . . We had37 targets to meet. [So we were] . . . focusing onstrategies of test taking and making students aware of,if you got a 37 and you need a 39, look how closeyou were. Heres the one thing you could have done.

Access to assessment data was a necessary prerequisitefor targeting students. Teachers and administratorsprovided detailed descriptions of how assessment data

were used to identify students who would receive moreintensive instruction and specialized curriculum. Onegroup of teachers explained that, based on test scoredata, students were grouped into three levels labeledgreen, yellow, and pink. For instance, the yellow groupincluded students who were close to scoring proficient,

while the pink group was composed of students withsomewhat lower scores than those in the yellow group.

Two teachers further elaborated on the kinds of con-versations they had during this sorting process:

Teacher 1: We met with the principal. We looked atthe test scores, highlighted kids and said, Okay, thisones a green, this ones a pink, and a yellow. Andthen we grouped

Teacher 2: And analyzed them: Why do you thinktheyre pink?

Teacher 1: Right. Looked at the scores, saw what they

needed and then we actuallykids would get pulledout of the rooms into small groups. Then Id workwith some. So there was a lot of that going on.

Another teacher described how NECAP data were usedto strategically target the bump-up group for instructionand determine who would provide that instruction:

y

1


15/26

We group them by their scores . . . [For] our twos,the students that almost made it, we went deeper . . .There are some that are only two more points andthey would have passed. We took all those twos anddivided them up into three groups. The ones thatwere almost there, we call them our bump-up kids.

The [academic] coaches took the bump-up groupsbecause we thought it could have more impact byworking with the ones who were almost therepushing them harder, pushing them a little beyondtheir comfort zone, hoping that would help them.

Study participants provided unique insights into howthey strategically target students close to proficiencyfor special instruction and curriculum. For example,teachers in one elementary school explained that theysit in committees to break down test data and targetcertain populations of kids in different subject areas.

Once students are identified as being close to profi-cient in math, reading, or both, the school sends homemath or literacy baskets filled with materials tailoredto the students level. In reading, for example, the liter-acy baskets consist of fun things like Mad Libs, a writ-ing journal . . . fun board games, different activities,according to one administrator. And we went to thehomes of the kids nearly achieving based on NECAP.

Other Perceived Impacts of Test-Based

Accountability

Study participants at each of the three elementary schoolsdescribed some other consequences of the increasedemphasis on curriculum alignment and test scores.

On the negative side, some participants felt that an over-reliance on standardized tests to measure achievement isnegatively affecting teacher morale, development of the

whole child, and the depth of the curriculum.

In most of the schools we visited, teachers and admin-

istrators appeared to be working very hard, sometimesunder difficult circumstances, and several expressedfrustration that their hard work, as well as their stu-dents progress, was not being adequately recognizedby the accountability system.Teachers at Lewis, a high-poverty school that had been identified for improve-ment, described their constant worry about test scoresand its negative impact on their morale. It gets tiringafter a while to work and work and work and just con-

stantly be put down, said one teacher. Other teachersat Lewis talked about what they saw as the unfairnessof an accountability system that does not adequatelyconsider differences among schools in resources or instudents needs, backgrounds, and lives outside school.One interviewee explained the situation in this way:

You feel like a punching bag . . . [W]e have to meet37 targets. You know someone in the suburbs doesnthave to meet that many . . . [and] if I meet 36targets today, Im still going to be a failing school. Wedont feel like a failing school.

Another teacher talked about the pressure to help stu-dents do well on the state tests:

I mean, you work as hard as you can and do asmuch as you can to try to help students as much as

you can, and preparing them to be emotionally stableon the day of the test. And there are so many thingsyou cant help with . . . And youre about to receive areport on your scores from people who really donteven understand at all what went into getting thosescores. So I feel pressured to get a good score.

Some teachers also pointed to what they saw as negativeimpacts of test-based accountability on the academicand social development of children. One teacher atHutchinson observed that the increased focus on aca-demics as early as kindergarten allowed fewer opportu-

nities for children to gain social skills through play.Another teacher felt the lack of time for social studiesand the elimination of field trips was lessening the con-nection between the school and the community.

Teachers at Wittman Middle School expressed concernthat state standards and tests failed to recognize thecultural diversity present in their school and district.One teacher noted that a question on the NECAPincluded a reading passage about a snow day, eventhough many of the schools ELLs had never seensnow. They take the test in November, and theyve

never seen snow, the teacher said. How can they writeintelligently about what to do on a day of snow . . .Those things indicate a cultural bias. Math teachersalso felt that the language used in some math questions

was culturally biased, noting that many of their stu-dents did not understand the context of the mathproblems presented to them.

Lessonsfrom

theClassroom

Level

14


16/26

On the positive side, at the district level the increasedfocus on standards and accountability has motivatedschool officials to provide more opportunities forteachers to collaborate on curriculum and has pro-vided data to help target instruction to specific knowl-edge gaps. When staff at Lewis decided to make a

concerted effort to raise test scores, teachers met bygrade level during the school day to analyze test scoresand previously released NECAP items. These meet-ings included classroom teachers, specialists, and spe-cial education staff. Consistent with the state initiativeto create more collaborative time, the schedule wasrearranged to free classroom teachers and specialistsfor two half-day sessions. Teachers from differentgrades were paired up so that they could attend. Forexample, 2nd grade students would go to 3rd gradeteachers while 2nd grade teachers attended the morn-ing meeting, and vice versa in the afternoon.

A focus on standards-based accountability has alsodrawn more attention to low-performing subgroups ofstudents, according to study participants, a shift thatone administrator at Farnum described as an awaken-ing. Another administrator said that NCLB andRhode Islands state accountability system has trulyhad a positive impact in waking up people to under-performing subgroups, adding that the federal lawhas created data as an impetus to focus on all kids.Many administrators explained recent efforts by them-selves and teachers to learn how to use test data strate-gically, as explained in more detail below.

Additional Impacts of Federal and StateAccountability

As we began to collect data and interview teachers, stu-dents, parents, and administrators, we found thatmany participants wanted to focus on how they wereattempting to increase student achievement outside offormal accountability policies. Therefore, we present

some findings related to the participants perceptionsabout additional influences on student achievement.

USE OF DATA

All case study schools have significantly increased theiruse of data since the implementation of the NECAP.These schools are using data to make decisions aboutcurriculum, instruction, professional development for

teachers, and other areas. According to study partici-pants, some schools appeared to be more effective thanothers in using data, and the effectiveness of dataanalysis impacted the success of the school.

Teachers and administrators are using data to better

understand their own teaching, identify students whoneed additional help, pinpoint specific areas where stu-dents need additional support and discern other fac-tors that might be impacting students performance. Ateacher at Lewis Elementary described the kinds of dis-cussions teachers had about data when they met ingrade-level groups:

We began by poring through the data and reallylooked at ourselves personally and down deep. I meanwe first looked at our overall scores based on ourinterim assessments and our NECAP scores. We then

went deeper from the school level, we went to gradelevel, ultimately to [the] classroom. And then downinto the students themselves individually.

In addition to data from the state assessment, teachersand administrators in our case study schools used datafrom a variety of standardized diagnostic assessmentsto pinpoint areas where students need specific help inlearning reading skills.

Teachers in Beneteau and other school districts nowhave the opportunity to design formative assess-

ments in their ATI Galileo systems (an integrativetechnology system that links assignments, grade-books, and online testing with district goals and stateacademic standards).

Many district and school administrators and teacherssaid that the use of data at Wittman has changed sig-nificantly over the past five years. One teacher notedthat Wittman teachers hardly looked at data in the pastbecause schools were not held as accountable for stu-dent performance as they are now. Study participantsat Hutchinson also reported changing their use of data

significantly. Ten years ago, detailed achievement datawere nonexistent, according to one administrator, buttoday, the use of data is pervasive, and district-man-dated professional development is driven by data. Ananalysis of the districts strategic plan supports thiscontention; every district objective begins with thephrase, Student data will . . .

y


17/26

Many of the teachers interviewed reported thatNECAP data help them to make better decisionsabout teaching, classroom management, and studentplacement in classes, and in some cases to make betterschoolwide and classroom-level decisions. Forinstance, a Tartan district administrator noted that the

current system of using data has helped in three majorareas: student achievement, classroom managementand organization, and teacher instruction. Since

Wittman Middle School (in the Tartan district) uses alooping approach in assigning students to teachers, thedata are useful in determining how students have pro-gressed from year to year.

Farnum High School offers a good example of the useof data to improve the school and increase accountabil-ity. One Farnum administrator reported that data havehelped to highlight the schools strengths and weak-

nesses compared with other Rhode Island schools andindicate the areas that faculty and staff need to work on.

Another administrator added that data have also helpedFarnum transform from a traditional high schoolfocusing on college preparatory skills to one that servesall the needs of all students, especially those who arestruggling. For instance, the administrator reported,weve eliminated a lot of tracks in the school, collapsedlevels of courses, added and eliminated a lot of the non-rigorous coursework in the school. Study participantsat Chace also discussed how they use NECAP data toguide curriculum, instruction, and teacher professionaldevelopment, as well as to target students for particularinterventions and remediation.

Some teachers interviewed reported that decisionsbased on data have been oriented more toward testpreparation and indicated that the district was prima-rily responsible for this decision. For instance, a teacherat Vare High School noted that the language programis a hundred percent data driven because the skills stu-dents learn in language classes are the skills they needto pass the state test.

In Lewis and other schools, study participants men-tioned that data have been used to target individual stu-dents for interventions as well as to identify gaps in thecurriculum, and these actions have contributed to anincrease in students test scores for school year 2006-07.Teachers and administrators at Lewis also stressed thatthis more intensive focus on data has been broughtabout specifically by test-driven accountability.

School administrators at Vare are also developing pro-fessional development activities to train teachers to usedata more effectively. According to a district adminis-trator, Vare is moving in the right direction by look-ing at [data] systematically, and actually using the rightmeasures on the test is something that is being

embraced now. In the past, this administrator said,we looked at the SAT 10 results, we looked at theNECAP results or previously the NSRE results, but we

were missing a lot of other tools that you need such asscreening measures, progress-monitoring tools, diag-nostic tools, and program assessment.

Data use and interpretation was not limited to admin-istrators or teachers. At Wittman Middle School, stu-dents and parents also reported that they are familiar

with at least some of the state test data and understoodits application to their achievement and progress. For

instance, students said that from looking at theirNECAP results, which they received with their reportcards, they understood how they were doing in com-parison to other students in the district.

Most study participants also mentioned, however,that the NECAP data arrive too late for effectiveanalysis. For instance, at Hutchinson, a few teachersindicated that they received test results too late in theschool year, so they cannot use them to work withtheir current students. A state official said, however,that for the school year 2008-09 ad future years,

scores should be available by January.

In addition, many teachers reported that some data aremore useful than others. Hutchinson teachers, forexample, explained that assessments used in the lowerelementary grades, such as the Phonemic AwarenessLiteracy Screening, tend to be more useful in assessingand guiding improvement among their students thanthose used in the upper grades. Overall, however,teachers reported that the recent focus on accountabil-ity at the state level has increased the level of monitor-ing of student progress. [W]ere monitoring our kidsmuch more closely now to see what works, what does-nt work, how do we change our approaches to [meet]their needs. And [its] more screening than weve everdone, commented a Hutchinson teacher.

Lessonsfrom

theClassroom

Level

16


18/26

PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT

Parental involvement varied across the Rhode Islandcase study schools. Strong parental involvement wasevident in just two of the schools, Wittman Middleand Hutchinson Elementary.

Many interviewees reported that parental involvementis high at Wittman. School administrators, forinstance, noted that activities held for parents, such asschool report nights, generally attracted around 50parents, even before the activities were mandated bythe state. School report nights are used to inform par-ents about test scores, and these scores are used to pre-pare their students for the NECAP.

Teachers added that their principal is primarily respon-sible for getting parents involved in school activities.The principal has honor roll award ceremonies with

parent breakfasts, one teacher said. And [we] have anactive parent/teacher association. Wittman also has ahome/school liaison charged with making sure schoolinformation and resources reach all parents.

Strong parental involvement was also evident atHutchinson Elementary School. Some of the parentsat the school have developed a program called Friendsof Hutchinson that helps to connect parents withother parents, their children, and teachers in an effortto build school-community relationships. One parentdescribed the benefits of these efforts:

Parents have a busy schedule after they drop theirchildren off. But we try to do a couple of thingsduring the school year so parents can get together andmeet other parents. And students can socialize. [Wecreate an environment where it is] nice and closeknit, that if you have a question, if you want to askthe teacher something . . . you get to know theteachers on a one-to-one basis.

LEADERSHIP

Interviewees spoke about how strong leadership facili-tates student achievement. At Wittman, for example,most study participants pointed to strong administra-tive leadership at both the district and school levels asa key ingredient in the positive change in school cli-mate. The actions of administrative leaders at Wittmanand at the district indicate that these leaders are risk-takers and visionaries, and that they hold high expec-

tations for teachers and students. Furthermore, accord-ing to study participants, school and districts leadershave also provided their staffs with the necessary toolsto be successful.

Most teachers agreed that the schools administrators

are strong leaders, especially the principal. I think thebiggest change has been with leadership . . . from thesuperintendent on down to the principal, said onefaculty member. Another interviewee reported that theprincipal is a never-ending ball of energy, positiveness,bringing in interventions, staying on top of the teach-ers. Some study participants noted that the schoolsprincipal has high expectations for teachers and, in the

words of one interviewee, has this mantra . . . we cando it; we can do it . . . and everyone is believingaround here that we can do that.

Interviewees from Hutchinson also cited strong leader-ship as a factor associated with high student achieve-ment. Interviews with district officials revealed them tobe leaders with a commitment to equity and change.

At the school level, many teachers said that the schoolsleaders, past and present, have been strong principals

who were supportive of teachers. For example, onegroup of teachers interviewed discussed how the prin-cipal is willing to make time for teacher collaboration

whenever possible. Some teachers also stressed that theschool has always had strong educational leaders.

A current administrator remarked on a previous prin-cipals strength as a leader and the impact of her tenureon current student achievement: The woman who

was principal of this school when the school openedran a good, tight ship. And she had high expectationsfor her teachers, and they had high expectations for thestudents. She left a legacy.

Other case study participants did not discuss leader-ship in a positive light. For example, Lewis is undergo-ing considerable policy churn and administrativeturnover. Some study participants at Lewis cited as

problematic the high number of new curricular andinstructional programs (particularly in reading) imple-mented at the school and within the district over thelast ten years. Some teachers discussed the frequentimplementation of new programs at their school:

Teacher 1: Its awfully hard, too, to keep going, tokeep learning a new program.

y


19/26

Teacher 2: Its overwhelming, but when its a niceprogramI really like the math and social studies . . .

Teacher 3: When its a positive move, like [when]people have researched it, theyre thorough about it,and how it will affect all populations, [then] I dont

think teachers mind the change. But when yourethrown something, and theyre not organized aboutit, they dont roll it out appropriately; when theresnot enough training; when it was not researchedenough; then theyre finding its not working out formost students. I think thats what gets frustratingabout it.

TEACHER CHARACTERISTICS

The characteristics of teachers and their responses tostate standards, district and school leadership, and stu-

dents are also integral to a schools success, accordingto most study participants. Interviewees at all sixschools studied pointed to three teacher characteristicsas particularly important: teachers collaborated withone another, held high standards for their students,and were highly motivated.

At Hutchinson Elementary, for example, many studyparticipants pointed to these three teacher characteris-tics as key factors in the schools academic progress.Hutchinson teachers had high expectations for theirstudents; according to one administrator, the schools

teachers never believed that students cannot learn. Itsalways that they can learn. And they would hold themto the highest standard. Parents also spoke about theteachers sense of accountability at Hutchinson; teach-ers hold each other accountable, said one parent.

Interviewees from Chace Elementary also highlightedthe importance of these teacher characteristics in pro-moting student achievement. Several administratorsdiscussed how teachers at Chace do a wonderful jobcollaborating with one another.

Many study participants at Lewis and Chace identifiedteachers they thought were highly effective and notedhow teachers had contributed to their schools success.

A number of administrators and teachers emphasizedteachers work ethic, pointing out that many teachers

work very hard and often beyond their contractedwork day.

Interviewees at Wittman Middle School and FarnumHigh School discussed the importance of various profes-sional development activities for teachers. For instance,teachers were provided with training on how to betterinterpret data from school assessments and surveys anduse it effectively in their teaching. At Farnum, adminis-

trators implemented two initiatives to improve commu-nication and collaboration about instructional strategies:the Teacher Learning Center and common planningtime.The Teacher Learning Center responds to the needfor teachers to collaborate and communicate across dis-ciplines by looking at data, defining goals, and makingrecommendations to the school improvement team.The current accountability system has forced teachersto understand that theres a need . . . for them to worktogether, one administrator explained. Most of theFarnum teachers we interviewed said the TeacherLearning Center has been successful. As one result of thecollaboration encouraged by this center, teachers havestrategically integrated skills across classes, such as inte-grating the math skill of reading graphs (interpretingdata) into social studies.

RESOURCES

Many study participants said that resource limita-tionsincluding limited funding, shortages of highlyqualified staff, and inadequate materialswere ham-pering the success of their school.

Vare and Lewis schools use site-based management,which means that decisions about budgets, instruc-tion, and other crucial areas are made by a team ofschool administrators, teachers, parents, and commu-nity members rather than by the districts centraloffice. This type of management has contributed to theclimate and structure of these two schools. Bothschools experienced trouble with resources, however,because their site-based decisions interfered with dis-trict-level decisions on funding, recruitment and hir-ing of teachers, and other areas. Interviewees at bothschools stressed their lack of resources.

At Vare, a school administrator made the following com-ment about the schools high rate of teacher turnover:

I think we do a pretty good job of moving [ourstudents] forward, but the deficits are too large for usto totally overcome quite often. Weve gotten better atwhat we do, at our teaching, and I think that we

Lessonsfrom

theClassroom

Level

18


20/26

can still get better . . . Ive had to deal with 40%turnover in staff each year for the last fourconsecutive years.

According to this administrator, staffing problemsinclude the use of long-term substitutes and the hiring

of staff who are not highly qualified in their subjectarea (the district handles teacher hiring). For example,

when a position remained vacant at the beginning ofthe school year, we had day-to-day subs, and finallyin November we ended up with another mathteacher, the administrator explained. Students weredirectly affected by these staffing challenges, theadministrator said:

I have one group that didnt get math last year; Ihave another group that didnt get math the yearbefore. And so, when you talk about testing, you

know I get a group of 30 kids from two years agowho will be tested next year, who essentially had abad year of math or no real math. And this year myblue team, they have a year of bad math behindthem . . . [W]hen we do the test prep, we had tohave the science teacher do the math because themath teacher couldnt do the math. He just couldnteven control the kids to do the math.

At Lewis, teachers said a lack of materials, particularlythe lack of coherent reading curricular materials, hasaffected student achievement. A district administrator

admitted that a lack of funding has been an impedimentto effective teaching at Lewis and other district schools:

[T]he teachers dont have a lot in the way of tools forteaching students. So we also have to find funding sothat they have the proper tools for teaching. Theyhave a balanced literacy framework, and they dohave some tools and materials that were funded fromReading First. But its so much that its not focused.So teachers are doing a lot of everything instead offocusing on what they really need to do to move thosestudents forward.

One teacher described how inadequate funding andmaterials have made it difficult to implement instruc-tional strategies for underperforming students (those eli-gible for what thedistrict callsTier 2 and3 interventions):

We do not have enough supports to do [the Tier 2 orTier 3 interventions] because youre supposed to doextra on top of what they already do for reading thathour and a half that weve allotted. And they needinterventions at Tier 2 or a Tier 3. They should getat least 20 or 30 minutes extra time. We do not have

enough time nor enough staff to implement that typeof intervention.

Some school administrators viewed teachers unions,which are powerful players in Rhode Island education,as an obstacle to progress by constraining the materialand time teachers have to deliver their lessons. Theschool administrators interviewed felt the teachersunions have shaped how schools in Rhode Island shouldoperate. For instance, administrators in the Beneteaudistrict said that before the onset of grade-level expecta-tions and pacing guides, when the curriculum was very,

very, very loose in the words of one interviewee, thepowerful union [was] intertwined with politics and[allowed] teachers to do whatever they want[ed] to do.Since then, an increase in accountability has providedthe district with more leverage in its negotiations withthe union, according to one interviewee:

[W]e knew a lot of times things needed to change,but . . . there were so many obstacles in our way, theunion being one, or just lack of funding, too. I meanjust many reasons we just couldnt make the changethat we knew we needed to . . . when thataccountability system went into place, we could usethat as leverage. We have to do this because these arethe consequences if we dont.

District and school administrators from Tartan alsodiscussed the role of unions. One administrator saidthe union contract hampered reform:

[O]ur contract covers everything. The name, the word,a child isnt even mentioned in the contract. It isabsolutely an adult entitlement document thatconstricts and restricts in every way, shape, and form.

And the rank and file of the teachers are with us interms of the reform efforts . . . I can actually tell youhow many hours, how many conversations, how manytimes that faculty has had to meet to get what they aredemanding, and theyre fighting their own union.

y

1


21/26

Another administrator added that union rules can bea barrier in terms of moving forward as quickly as we

would like and that this has ultimately impacted stu-dent achievement and school progress in Rhode Island.

Over the past few years, however, the Beneteau district

and union have been able to work together to designprofessional development opportunities to meet teach-ers needs. As one district administrator explained, a rea-son why this cooperative work is possible is because theunion is very knowledgeable about education.

Another example of district and union cooperation inBeneteau relates to a teacher sick bank. According toa district administrator, this was not part of the nego-tiated contract but was something that both districtand union agreed was important. The sick bank pro-vides teachers with an assurance that if they are seri-

ously ill they will not have to worry about receivingtheir paycheck and health benefits. The result,explained district administrators, has been a surprisingpositive morale among teachers.

At Hutchinson Elementary, a lack of local funding is amajor limitation, according to study participants. Thestate contributes significant funds to the schoolbecause the local community cannot contribute thenecessary funding. Further, many changes made overrecent years were possible only because the district wasable to obtain additional funding. For example, the

district received a federal Comprehensive SchoolReform grant that it used to implement the ATIGalileo technology system. District officials alsopointed out that without Reading First and Title Ifunds, the district would have never been able to do

what weve done in the last five years.

Interviewees at Farnum High were also worried aboutfunding. One school administrator explained howlocal policies limit funding and could affect the avail-ability of resources for the school:

[B]asically now the funding mechanism for each townis that you cannot increase the amount that you taxpeople by more than . . . x percent. And it goes downeach year . . . And it doesnt matter whether you havemore tax dollars available or not. You cant. You knowif you had if it was three million dollars thatpeople were taxed it cant be taxed by more than Idont know what it is, 4 percent. And then the nextyear it goes down to 3.5 percent and then 3 percent.So funding is going to become an issue.

Wittman was the one case study school in which inter-viewees spoke positively about resources. In additionto its Title I funding, Wittman currently receives fund-ing from approximately 52 grants. Wittman also has agrants coordinator to help teachers search for and writegrants. The grants coordinator attributed the high vol-

ume of grants in Tartan to several factors:

[T]here is an actual position in the district [for a]grants coordinator and also because of the size of thedistrict being very small. And the communicationbetween [the grants coordinator] and the teachers or[the grants coordinator] and the administration is veryimportant informing them that there is a process,that [the grants coordinator] is here to help them.

Teachers in Wittman also receive funds through smallprivate grants, according to the grants coordinator,

including opportunities for . . . students to engage innonacademic programs, such as those supported bySCOPE, those supported by the Rhode Island Learnand Serve program.

Some Wittman teachers felt that funding and otherresources are not adequate. For instance, teachers saidthey do not have appropriate programs for advancedstudents. One teacher noted, however, that teachershave not allowed inadequate resources to become anexcuse for inaction:

Instead of focusing on what we dont have, I thinkwe do a good job at focusing [on] what we do haveand making it work. You know its real easy to getcaught up in the oh we dont have this. And youknow, [point a] finger [saying] we dont havetechnology, we dont have this, we dont have that.And that distracts from the mission. That doesntreally move you forward.

Conclusion

In the Rhode Island districts and schools that we stud-ied, test-driven, standards-based accountability haschanged curriculum and instruction many ways. Insome of our case study schools, these changes may haveinfluenced student achievement. Study participantsalso report some negative impacts of these changes. Itremains to be seen whether these sometimes dramaticchanges in curriculum and instruction will lead to sig-nificant gains in achievement in most schools.

Lessonsfrom

theClassroom

Level

20


22/26

References

Booher-Jennings, J. (2005). Below the bubble:Educational triage and the Texas accountabilitysystem. American Educational Research Journal,42(2), pp. 231-268.

Center on Education Policy. (2003). State and federalefforts to implement the No Child Left Behind Act.

Washington, D.C.: Author.

Center on Education Policy. (2004). From the Capitalto the classroom: year 2 of the No Child Left BehindAct. Washington, D.C.: Author.

Center on Education Policy. (2005). States test limits offederal AYP flexibility. Washington, D.C.: Author.

Center on Education Policy. (2006). From the capitalto the classroom: Year 4 of the No Child Left BehindAct. Washington, D.C.: Author.

Center on Education Policy. (2007a). Answering thequestion that matters most: Has student achievementincreased since NCLB?Washington, D.C.: Author.

Center on Education Policy. (2007b). Beyond themountains: An early look at restructuring results inCalifornia. Washington, D.C.: Author.

Center on Education Policy. (2007c). Choices,changes, and challenges: Curriculum and instructionin the NCLB era. Washington, D.C.: Author.

Center on Education Policy. (2008a). Has studentachievement increased since 2002? State test scoretrends through 2006-07. Washington, D.C.:

Author.

Center on Education Policy. (2008b). Instructionaltime in elementary schools: A closer look at changesfor specific subjects. Washington, D.C.: Author.

Firestone, W., & Mayrowetz, D. (2000, August).Rethinking high stakes: Lessons from theUnited States and England and Wales. TeachersCollege Record, 102(4), pp. 724-749.

Hamilton, L. S., & Berends, M. (2006). Instructionalpractices related to standards and

assessments. Working paper, RAND education,WR-374-EDU.

Hamilton, L. S., McCaffrey, D. F., Stecher, B. M.,Klein, S. P., Robyn, A., & Bugliari, D. (2003,Spring). Studying large-scale reforms ofinstructional practice: An example frommathematics and science. Education Evaluationand Policy Analysis, 25(1), pp. 1-29.

Hamilton, L. S., Stecher, B.M., Marsh, J., McCombs,J. S., Robyn, A., Russell, J., Naftel, S., & Barney,H. (2007). Implementing standards-basedaccountability under No Child Left Behind:Responses, of superintendents, principals, andteachers in three states. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

Hamilton, L. S., Stecher, B. M., Russell, J. L., Marsh,J. A., & Miles, J. (2008). Accountability andteaching practices: School-level actions andteacher responses. In B. Fuller, E. Hannum, & M.

Henne, (Eds.), Strong states, weak schools: Thebenefits and dilemmas of centralized accountability.Research in Sociology of Education, 16, pp. 3166.

Pianta, R.C., Belsky, J., Houts, R., & Morrison, F.(2007, March 30). Opportunities to learn in

Americas elementary classrooms. Science, 35, pp.1795-1796.

Rhode Island Department of Elementary andSecondary Education. (2006a). Office of theCommissioner, Rhode Island Education policy

home page,www.ride.ri.gov/commissioner/edpolicy/default.aspx.

Rhode Island Department of Elementary andSecondary Education. (2006b). Office ofProgressive Support and Intervention home page,

www.ride.ri.gov/PSI/default.aspx.

Spillane, J. P., & Zeuli, J. S. (1999, Spring). Reformand teaching: Exploring patterns of practice in thecontext of national and state mathematicsreforms. Educational Evaluation and Policy

Analysis, 21(1), pp. 1-27.

Sunderman, G. L., Tracey, C. A., Kim, J, & Orfield,G. (2004). Listening to teachers: Classroom realitiesand No Child Left Behind. Cambridge, MA: TheCivil Rights Project, Harvard University.

University of Michigan School of Education. (2007).Study of instructional improvement. Retrieved from

www.sii.soe.umich.edu.

y

2


23/26

Appendix A Additional Informationabout Study Interviews

To collect qualitative data for this study, CEPresearchers interviewed a variety of individuals, usingthe interview formats described below.

District- and school-level administrators. Researchersconducted interviews of 45 minutes to an hour inlength with both district- and school-level administra-tors. At the district level, the researchers spoke with thesuperintendent, director of curriculum and instruction,assessment director, and Title I coordinator, whereapplicable. Researchers also interviewed principals,assistant principals, and reading and/or math coaches.

Teachers. Researchers conducted focus group inter-views with 3rd- and 5th-grade teachers in the participat-

ing elementary schools, 8th-grade teachers in themiddle school, and 11th-grade teachers in the highschools. Teachers from these grade levels were chosenbecause these levels have been tested for state and fed-eral accountability purposes in Rhode Island for severalyears, unlike other grades where testing has beenphased in since enactment of NCLB.

Student

avaliaÇÃo do prog. nenhuma crianÇa deixada para trÁs eua

Documents