Search

This study examines implementation of college-and-career-ready (CCR) education standards across five school districts in Ohio, Texas, California, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts. Drawing on the policy attributes theory, we found that the specificity of districts' approaches to two long-recognized policy levers, curriculum and professional learning, was critical in shaping how stakeholders implemented and experienced CCR policies. We identified an approach we called "flexible specificity"--flexibility informed by ongoing data collection and evaluation that allowed districts to develop specific, useful guidance about curriculum and professional learning based on stakeholder needs. We present four shared practices characterizing this approach in two districts, analyzing why those districts seemed to find the right balance of specificity and flexibility while others struggled.

The current context of standards-based reform has positioned regional service centers (RSCs), intermediary governmental agencies that support state policy implementation in local districts, as a critical source of professional development (PD). In this article, we ask how a governing body that districts often interact with during challenging reform processes manages maintain strong relationships with district and school staff, and thus maintain their image as trustworthy experts on standards implementation. We explore these questions using data from 108 interviews of state, district, and regional administrators in education agencies in Ohio, Texas, and California over a three-year period. We illustrate that by providing districts with (a) differentiated support specific to their unique needs, (b) materials and tools consistent with state content standards, and (c) expertise in supporting students with disabilities and English learners in standards-based environments, RSC staff become, in the words of one state leader, the state's trusted "boots on the ground." [For the corresponding grantee submission, see ED616594.]

Coaching is a popular and high-leverage instrument for instructional reform. Coaching holds potential to accelerate teacher learning and school improvement. Linking results from current research, we portray how coaching benefits from robust infrastructure. This article offers three design recommendations that leaders can implement to optimize coaching: (1) identify infrastructural resources; (2) align coaching with instructional priorities and standards; and (3) ensure coaches have the knowledge they need, particularly in relation to the local context. We share insights on how educational reformers and leaders can re-set systems and optimize coaching to accelerate learning and change.

Though scholars agree that professional development (PD) is a key mechanism for implementing education policies that call for teacher change, and that PD generally needs to be content-focused, active, collaborative, coherent, and sustained, the application of this framework has yielded mixed results. In this qualitative study, we employed structured interviewing methods to explore how district leaders across five states are implementing college- and career- readiness (CCR) standards across the United States by creatively adapting and integrating the features of this PD framework in order to meet the demands of this mandated educational policy. We illustrate a revised model for how 70 district officials are conceptualizing these features of PD to support CCR standards-based learning.

Background/Context: Instructional policy aims to shift the nature of teaching and learning. Decades of policy studies have highlighted the challenges inherent in these aims and the conditions necessary to support such change, including a robust infrastructure to support teacher learning. Further, teachers themselves must perceive and experience their policy environment to be supportive of calls to shift instruction. Purpose/Objective/Research Question/Focus of Study: In this study, we examine the connection between teachers' perceptions of their policy environments and their instructional practices over time, in the context of college-and-career-readiness (CCR) standards implementation. While conducted in the context of standards implementation, our findings apply to supporting instructional change through policy more broadly. Setting: We examine implementation of CCR standards in two unique state contexts: Texas and Ohio. These states represent important differences in demographics and in their approaches to CCR standards implementation over time. Research Design: We use a convergent mixed-methods design that draws on state-representative teacher survey data at two points in time (allowing for a trend analysis to understand how teachers' perceptions and experiences evolve), longitudinal interview data with state education leaders, and interview data with educators in one case study district in each state. Data Collection and Analysis: Surveys measured teachers' perceptions of their policy environments, as well as their self-reported instructional practices. Interviews focused on understanding state- and district-level policies, guidance, and resources, and educators' enactment of standards. Survey analysis included descriptive analysis of patterns over time and hierarchical linear modeling. To unpack broad-based survey patterns, we coded qualitative data and developed assertions based on emergent patterns. Findings/Results: We found that Texas teachers agreed more strongly than Ohio teachers that their policy environment had aligned, specific, and stable resources, as well as accountability mechanisms in place. Specificity of guidance and resources for standards implementation predicted teachers' use of standards-emphasized instruction in 2019. These patterns reflected each state's approach to policy implementation: a robust state-level infrastructure for guidance and support in Texas, compared with fewer state-developed resources in Ohio in favor of local control. Still, aspects of teachers' local context--in particular, lack of infrastructure for ongoing, embedded professional learning--limited teachers' ability to engage in state-developed guidance. Conclusions/Recommendations: Our study offers enduring lessons about how to establish the policy conditions necessary to support teachers to change instruction. Findings suggest a need for states to develop resources that clarify instructional shifts for teachers, and districts must balance these top-down resources with ongoing opportunities for educators to adapt resources to suit their students' needs.

Using state-representative teacher surveys in three states--Texas, Ohio, and Kentucky--we examine teachers' implementation of college- and career-readiness (CCR) standards. What do teachers report about the specificity, authority, consistency, power, and stability of their standards environment? How does their policy environment predict standards-emphasized instruction? Do these relationships differ for those who teach different subjects (math and English Language Arts [ELA]), different grades (elementary or high school), different populations (English Language Learners [ELLs], students with disabilities [SWDs]), and in different areas (rural, urban, or suburban)? We found elementary math teachers taught significantly more standards-emphasized content than elementary ELA teachers, whereas secondary ELA teachers taught significantly more standards-emphasized content than secondary math teachers. Teachers of SWDs and rural teachers taught significantly less of the emphasized content. In all three states, we found greater buy-in (authority) predicted increased emphasized content coverage among ELA teachers but not among math teachers. [For the corresponding grantee submission, see ED593919.]

Purpose: Our primary purpose is to examine the implementation of college- and- career- readiness content standards in Kentucky, Ohio, and Texas through the lens of distributed leadership theory, and to determine the affordances and challenges of this distributed leadership through the lens of policy attribute theory. Research Methods/Approach: We analyze data from 66 hour-long interviews of state and district administrators across the three states collected from Spring 2016 to Spring 2017. Using a deductive coding approach, we developed themes around distributed leadership as they pertain to the five attributes of policy implementation: specificity, consistency, authority, power, and stability. Findings: Using the distributed leadership and policy attribute theories, we find similar trends in state leaders distributing instructional leadership to regional, district, and organizational leaders to add specificity to the college and career readiness standards at the expense of compromising the consistency and power of the reform. This distribution of leadership is thought to contribute to the authority of the reform, though this authority is made tenuous by the instability of educational policies at the national and state levels. Implications: We highlight the need to examine the implementation of education policy using leadership frameworks and to understand leadership relationships between the state their regional and district partners. We extend the use of the distributed leadership theory beyond the K-16 level and the use of policy attribute theory to showcase where state actors can strengthen their reform initiatives. [The grantee submission for this article is ED589658.]

Objective: The aim of this work was to determine whether minority women are more likely to die of cervical cancer. A population-based cohort study was performed using Texas Cancer Registry (TCR) data from 1998 to 2002. Methods: A total of 5,166 women with cervical cancer were identified during 1998–2002 through the TCR. Measures of socioeconomic status (SES) and urbanization were created using census block group-level data. Multilevel logistic regression was used to calculate the odds of dying from cervical cancer by race, and Cox proportional hazards modeling was used for cervical cancer-specific survival analysis. Results: After adjusting for age, SES, urbanization, stage, cell type, and treatment, Hispanic women were significantly less likely than non-Hispanic White women to die from cervical cancer (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] = 0.69; 95% CI [confidence interval] = 0.59–0.80), whereas Black women were more likely to die (aHR = 1.26; 95% CI = 1.06–1.50). Black and Hispanic women were more likely to be diagnosed at a later stage than White women. Black women were significantly less likely to receive surgery among those diagnosed with localized disease ( p = 0.001) relative to both White and Hispanic women. Conclusions: Relative to non-Hispanic White women, Black women were more likely to die of cervical cancer while Hispanic women were less likely to die; these survival differences were not explained by SES, urbanization, age, cell type, stage at diagnosis, or treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]