Search

Because of poverty, many children do not receive adequate prenatal care, nutrition, or early childhood education. These inequities combine to ensure that many students enter school with considerably less academic content knowledge and skills for learning than their peers. Teachers and schools did not create these gaps, but they must address them. The impact of schools in reducing gaps has been explored for decades only to yield inconsistent findings. One possible reason for these contradictory results is because these studies ignore classroom process. We argue for the inclusion of "process" in research on opportunity and achievement gaps to better articulate if schools provide inequitable learning opportunities. Further, we argue for "dyadic" (teacher to individual student) measurement of classroom process because commonly-used observation instruments only measure teachers' interactions with the whole class. These instruments obscure differential teacher treatment that may exist in some classrooms. To improve policy and practice, we call for supplementing extant measures of teachers' whole-class interactions (process) and student outcome (product) measures with those that measure dyadic interactions to learn how opportunities to learn in classrooms and schools are distributed among students to reduce, sustain, or enhance learning gaps.

Morgan, Hodge, Trepinski, and Anderson (2014) have written an article that continues to confirm what we have known for some time-teacher effects on student achievement have limited stability. In this commentary, we address the other potential contributions this work can make to inform practice, policy, and research. While illustrating Morgan et al.'s inattention to history, we take the opportunity to reframe their findings. Considering the authors' work in the context of past and current research, we illustrate that this collective set of stable evidence should convince policymakers that it is not reasonable to assume that teachers and teaching is stable across time. Beyond this important opportunity to influence policy, we believe these findings underscore the need to build upon and expand the dependent measures we use to define and understand good teaching. After all, as we have noted (Lavigne & Good, 2014; in press) good teaching involves much more than increasing students' scores on standardized achievement tests.

This article reviews Rosenthal and Jacobson's (1968) seminal study, "Pygmalion in the Classroom" (PC). We consider what preceded PC, the actual study, immediate criticisms of it, Rosenthal's reactions to the criticism, and, importantly, the research that followed PC from 1968 to roughly 1990. Despite critical criticisms of it, we conclude that PC had a tremendous impact because it stimulated researchers to study expectation effects in the classroom that established that some teachers do form and communicate differential expectations to their students and that some students internalise these expectations in ways that manifest in their actual performance. The research that followed PC has yielded rich concepts and findings that are relevant for theory, practice, and social policy.

In this article we examine student performance on mandated tests in grades 3, 4, and 5 in one state. We focus on this interval, which w e term "the fourth grade window," based on our hypothesis that students in grade four are particularly vulnerable to decrements in achievement. The national focus on the third grade as the critical benchmark in student performance has distracted researchers and policy makers from recognition that the fourth grade transition is essential to our understanding of how to promote complex thinking and reasoning that is built upon a foundation of basic skills that may be necessary, but are not sufficient, for the more nuanced learning expected in subsequent grades. We hypothesized that the basic skills that define a successful third grade performance do not predict successful performance in subsequent years. We examined student performance over time using two measures of student success: the Arizona Instrument to Measure Standards (AIMS), a standards-based test; and the Stanford 9 (SAT9), a norm-referenced test. Three groups of schools were included in these analyses. Schools were individually matched to the original sample of interest, which were schools serving students of poverty that received state funding to implement Comprehensive School Reform (CSR) models that emphasize continuity across grade levels. The first comparison sample includes schools that also serve students of poverty but did not receive CSR funding, "nonCSR" schools. The second comparison sample includes schools individually matched on all variables "except" economic status. These schools, which we term "low poverty" schools, are the wealthiest public schools in the state, with less than 10% of attending students receiving free or reduced lunch. Student test scores in math, reading, and writing (AIMS) or language (SAT9) were analyzed for the years 2000-2003. These intervals allowed the analysis of two cohorts of the fourth grade window. Our results suggest that the reliance on third grade performance to label students and schools is untenable. (Contains 7 tables.)

Gargani and Strong claim to have developed and validated an observation system that requires only 4 hr of training, but one that can identify effective teachers using just 20 min of one video-taped lesson. They further contend that their six-item inventory requires little judgment from those who use it. They describe their instrument, the Rapid Assessment of Teacher Effectiveness (RATE), as better, faster, and cheaper than other available instruments. Although we find some aspects of their work (e.g., their work describing instrument development) as well done, we find, more generally, that their claims are premature and inflated. Their work suffers from several problems including inattention to relevant historical work, no demonstrated ecological validity, no working theory, and lacks a clear conception of what RATE is. At this stage of development, we rate RATE as having limited, if any, capacity for improving teaching.

Background/Context: Since the 1970s, researchers have attempted to link observational measures of instructional process to student achievement (and occasionally to other outcomes of schooling). This paper reviews extensively both historical and contemporary research to identify what is known about effective teaching. Purpose/Objective: Good, after reviewing what is known about effective teaching, attempts to apply this to current descriptions of effective teaching and its application value for practice. Good notes that much of the "new" research on effective teaching has simply replicated what has been known since the 1980s. Although this is not unimportant (since it shows that older findings still pertain to contemporary classrooms), it is unfortunate that research has not moved beyond the relationship between general teacher behavior (those that cut across subject areas) and student achievement (as measured by standardized tests). How this information can be applied and the difficulty in using this information is examined in the paper. Research Design: The paper is a historical analysis and reviews research on teaching from the 1960s to today. Conclusion: This paper has stressed that our data base on effective teaching is limited--still it has some implications for practice. Even though the knowledge base is limited, there is no clear knowledge that teachers-in-training learn and have the opportunity to practice and use. It would seem that teacher education programs would want to assure that their graduates, in addition to possessing appropriate knowledge, would also have clear conceptual understanding and skills related to active teaching, proactive management, communication of appropriate expectations for learning, and the ability to plan and enact instruction that balances procedural and conceptual knowledge. Future research on the use of this knowledge base and its effects in teacher education programs would be informative. If done correctly, research on teaching can improve instruction. However, the research must be applied carefully if it is to have useful effects. And, as noted often in this paper, research must consider outcomes of schooling other than achievement such as creativity, adaptability, and problem finding.

Background: American students have done poorly in algebra and that has generated policy concerns about preparing students for STEM careers. There has been growing recognition that the algebra problem may begin in earlier grades when students do not adequately master rational numbers. Purpose: The study provided a series of workshops organized around problematic issues that students have in learning rational numbers. The research was designed to help all grade 3-5 teachers in a single school district help students gain in their knowledge of rational numbers. Population: The population was drawn from one large school district (13 schools) and included 140 teachers and 2,845 students matched pre to post. Research Design: The study used a quasi-experimental design. As all teachers in the district were involved, there was no control group. Findings: On the basis of pre-post testing, girl and boy students, as well as students from diverse SES schools demonstrated large gains in their knowledge of rational numbers. There were no significant differences in gains for girls and boys at any of the three grade levels, but SES remained a main effect for gains in achievement for grades 3 and 4 even after entering prior achievement as a covariate and the interaction between SES and gender was significant for grade 5. Recommendations: The findings provide clear evidence that students can make notable gains in learning rational numbers if they are given the opportunity to do so. The authors provide their intentions to further analyze the quantitative data (presented in this paper) with qualitative data that were collected in the study (e.g., providing open-ended response opportunities for students to respond to rational number questions like, "What is a fraction? What is a decimal? What is a percent?"

This article reflects on my 28-year tenure editing "The Elementary School Journal" ("ESJ"). During my tenure as editor, the educational system was in constant reform, from a Nation at Risk to No Child Left Behind. Considerable evidence suggests that these various reforms, which consumed vast resources, were not successful in raising the achievement of American students on standardized tests. As we move to a new reform era (A Race to the Top), I offer several reasons to explain past failures. Finally I advocate for the conceptualization of reform as a series of small, incremental wins. I believe that reform efforts have failed because they do not respect the wisdom of practice, do not build upon previous research, and ask too much of teachers too quickly. (Contains 1 note.)

Asked to review the four articles that appear in this special issue of "Educational Psychologist," these authors discuss the articles in alphabetical order, describe their major arguments, analyze strengths and weaknesses from their perspective, and provide some considerations. The analysis section about each article brings their perspective to the article and to the broader accountability issues that surround it. The review ends with a "General Considerations" section that advances points that may have good potential for moving this debate forward.

Background/Context: The U.S. federal government has been interested in improving the performance of students who come from low-income homes since the time of Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society" initiatives in the 1960s. The current administration strongly supports the belief that good schools can be created and has funded the Comprehensive School Reform (CSR) program to support these beliefs. This article provides information about recent school reform research and conditions of schooling. The article then reviews our research findings (drawing on all the preceding articles in the special issue) and considers implications for policy makers, principals, teachers, teacher educators, and researchers. Purpose: The basic intent of this study was to inform working theories of learning, motivation, and social/emotional development in school contexts in Grades 3-5. We hoped that an emphasis on theory, contextual enactment, and participant mediation would yield a richer picture of classroom practices and motivational dynamics that might underlie student achievement and CSR effectiveness. This study focused in particular on perspectives (principals and students) and classroom practices associated with CSR programs in elementary schools in the state of Arizona. Research Design: The research program includes interview (with principals), observation (of classroom practices), and survey measures, and an adaptation of Thematic Apperception Test procedures (with students). Conclusion/Recommendations: School reform initiatives can profit from more research on participant perceptions, actual classroom practices, and student mediation of those practices. These understandings can better link program design and student achievement to enhance the effectiveness of CSR initiatives. We believe that it is now possible to conduct field experiments for improving normative (typical) practice in elementary school classrooms. We offer considerations for doing this research and suggest the need for attention to students, both as social beings and learners, while altering classroom practices in small measured steps.

Background/Context: The role of the principal, and especially the role of the principal in promoting school reform to increase student achievement, is a topic with a long and evolving history. Principals are believed to play a critical role in school reform because they have the potential to impact all aspects of school policy, from time allocated to recess to decisions about curriculum and instruction, teacher hiring and evaluation, assignment of students to teachers, and after-school programs. There is a growing and complex literature about the role of principal and teacher leadership in school reform and improvement, and the degree to which the principal's leadership and management can improve academic achievement is actively debated. However, most of this debate occurs on logical grounds because the empirical evidence linking principal leadership to student achievement is sparse. Research Question: The interview questions assessed principals' perceptions about degree of program implementation, school progress, and issues of teacher and student stability, and their beliefs about what policy makers should know about school reform. Population: Twenty-one principals of schools involved in Comprehensive School Reform in Arizona. Research Design: The research was based on interviews conducted with each of the principals. The focus of this article centers on their discussions of English language learners, teacher turnover, what students are like, teacher effort, parent involvement, budget constraints, and principal expectations for improving achievement. Conclusions: Principals described some of the issues they faced in trying to improve student achievement. These issues included high numbers of students (and parents) with limited English skills, high turnover rates of teachers and students, difficulty of involving parents in schooling, inadequate and inflexible budgets, and the various constraints imposed by the pervasive conditions of poverty that surrounded these schools and their students. Yet, despite these obstacles, principals exhibited matter-of-fact and, in most cases, positive postures toward school improvement. Principals did not see their problems--especially those of students' learning--to be intractable, but they did urge policy makers to have patience and a fuller awareness of the difficulties they face.

Background/Context: The achievement effects of Comprehensive School Reform (CSR) programs have been studied through the use of input-output models, in which type of CSR program is the input and student achievement is the output. Although specific programs have been found to be more effective and evaluated more than others, teaching practices in CSR schools have received less attention. This study focuses on observations of math and reading/language arts lessons in classrooms implementing an array of CSR programs to better understand what occurs in CSR classrooms. Research Question: This article describes observed instructional practices and teacher-student dynamics that occurred in CSR classrooms in two different subject areas, reading/language arts and math, in Grades 3-5. Reading/language arts included several literacy-related areas such as spelling, vocabulary, phonetics, and writing. Math primarily consisted of computations and math applications. Our primary research questions were: (1) Does subject matter matter in CSR classrooms? (2) How does instruction in CSR classrooms differ among Grades 3, 4, and 5? (3) Are there major differences in classroom practices between fall and spring? Population: Teachers (N = 104) in Grades 3-5 in 16 CSR schools, totaling 248 observation periods in math and reading/language arts lessons. Research Design: Observational study using a systematic coding system to observe student/teacher classroom behaviors and dispositions. Data Analysis: Data were analyzed using basic descriptive statistics and analysis of variance procedures. Conclusion: We found that students were productively involved in assigned tasks and that classrooms were pleasant and task oriented in both mathematics and reading/language arts. Some subject matter differences were notable, particularly that math lessons were more structured and rigid than were reading/language arts lessons. Also of interest, third- and fifth-grade classrooms experienced more positive teacher-student relationships than did fourth-grade classrooms. Furthermore, instruction in the fall was more structured and more focused on basic skills than in the spring. Overall, students appeared to be engaged in learning basic facts/skills in an uninterrupted teacher-directed classroom. Students did what was asked of them, were given little choice about their social and academic tasks, and were in mostly comfortable classroom environments.

The authors present a program of research on the teaching practices of 1st-year teachers that has evolved within a partnership between and among a university and area school districts. The research links observed 1st-year teaching practices with school level (elementary, middle, high school) and type of teacher preparation (traditional bachelor's degree or nontraditional master's degree or postbaccalaureate certification). This study was conducted during 3 consecutive years, and results suggest that 1st-year teachers, as a group, performed adequately. School-level analyses reveal higher quality classroom management practices at the elementary level. Type of preparation analyses reveal higher quality management practices among teachers who attended traditional programs. The potential interaction between school level and type of preparation was not definitive but suggests further research is needed on the match between type of preparation and school level as expressed in quality of teaching practices. (Contains 4 tables.)

This observational study involved literacy and mathematics instruction of 145 teachers in grades 3 through 5 in 20 low-income schools enrolled in the U.S. government's Comprehensive School Reform (CSR) Demonstration program. Observed curriculum and instructional practices were primarily and coherently focused on acquisition of basic facts and skills and related elaborations and thinking. With few exceptions, students were on task and productive and teacher-student relationships were friendly and mutually supportive. Observations were compared with normative teaching practices. This comparison supported the conclusion that instruction in CSR classrooms did not differ from instruction typically observed in elementary school. Recommendations for enhancing normative practice within the constraints of modern school reform are made.

We report on comprehensive school reform (CSR) reform in 48 schools over 6 consecutive years. In 1998, a total of 24 schools received CSR awards to improve student achievement. Control schools were carefully matched on 26 demographic variables to form a comparison group. Students' average performance, as represented in publicly available school report card data, increased across the combined sample of CSR and non-CSR schools in nontrivial ways. CSR and non-CSR schools, however, were not differentiated on the basis of a discriminant analysis function both in terms of achievement (Stanford 9) and demographic variables. To examine effects over time, a mixed-design multiple analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) test was performed for third- through ninth-grade scores for each performance level on the Stanford 9 achievement test (reading, language, and math). In all three performance areas, the mean NCE scores for CSR and non-CSR schools had significant within-subject effects for all 6 years. However, there were no between-subjects effects in any performance areas for CSR or non-CSR schools. The combined gains for CSR and non-CSR schools across time were notable; average math performance increased 1.0 standard deviation. Mean scores in reading and language also increased (.62 and .11, respectively), with language performance the least malleable area.

Elementary school principals who received a Comprehensive School Reform (CSR) award in January or August 2002 (n = 21) were invited to be interviewed in the late spring and summer of 2003. A total of 19 principals consented to audiotaped interviews. The interviews focused on several CSR dimensions, including principals' beliefs about the extent to which schoolwide achievement would increase with CSR implementation, where achievement gains were most likely to occur, and the degree of teacher support for the program. In this article, our focus is on principals' perceptions of their relationship with the Arizona State Department of Education (ADE). In summary, principals perceived the relationship between ADE and CSR schools to be one of benign neglect. The state was only a vehicle for transferring funds and did not provide guidance or oversight after funds were awarded. Hence, federal CSR policies, as mediated by the ADE, resulted in single-school reform, not district or state reform.

Explores problematic charter-school characteristics that must be changed to improve American education: lack of innovative practices and improved academic outcomes; disproportionate administrative costs; segregation of students by ethnicity, income level, and special needs; and deplorable physical learning environments. More competition, planning, and research are needed. (MLH)

Introduces this special issue on non-subject matter outcomes of schooling. Provides a historical and current context for the argument that schools should emphasize non-subject matter outcomes more than they currently do. Includes discussion of the putative decline of public education, the debate on private versus public schools, and citizens' views on curricular issues in contemporary schools. (KB)

There are different ways to conceptualize management's controls and, within a particular management goal, there are many views about how to think about management. Teachers should promote the goal for students to develop their capacity for self-regulation. (JOW)

Explored gender differences in junior and senior high school students' perceptions of fairness. Surveys indicated that gender differences were pervasive. High school females, more frequently than males, reported feeling their school was fair in terms of personal experiences, and junior high school females, more frequently than males, reported their school was fair in terms of socioeconomic status and ethnicity differences. (SM)