Search

The pursuit of multiple educational outcomes makes teaching a complex craft subject to potential conflicts and competing commitments. Using a data set in which teachers were randomly assigned to classes paired with videotaped lessons, we both document and unpack such a tradeoff. Upper-elementary teachers who excel at raising students' math test scores often are less successful at improving student-reported engagement in class (and vice versa). Furthermore, teaching practices that improve test scores (e.g., cognitively demanding content) can simultaneously decrease engagement. At the same time, paired quantitative and qualitative analyses reveal two areas of practice that support both outcomes: active mathematics with opportunities for hands-on participation, physical movement, and peer interaction; and established routines and procedures to proactively organize the classroom. In addition to guiding practice-based teacher education, our sequential, explanatory mixed-methods analysis can serve as a model for rigorously studying and identifying dimensions of "good" teaching that promote multidimensional student development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The public narrative surrounding efforts to improve low-performing K-12 schools in the United States has been notably gloomy. But what is known empirically about whether school improvement works, which policies are most effective, which contexts respond best to intervention, and how long it takes? We meta-analyze 141 estimates from 67 studies of post-No Child Left Behind Act turnaround policies. On average, policies had moderate positive effects on math and no effect on English Language Arts achievement on high-stakes exams. We find positive impacts on low-stakes exams and no evidence of harm on nontest outcomes. Extended learning time and teacher replacements predict greater effects. Contexts serving majority-Latina/o populations saw the largest improvements. We cannot rule out publication bias entirely but find no differences between peer-reviewed versus nonpeerreviewed estimates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We present results from a meta-analysis of 95 experimental and quasi-experimental pre-K–12 science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) professional development and curriculum programs, seeking to understand what content, activities, and formats relate to stronger student outcomes. Across rigorously conducted studies, we found an average weighted impact estimate of +0.21 standard deviations. Programs saw stronger outcomes when they helped teachers learn to use curriculum materials; focused on improving teachers' content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, and/or understanding of how students learn; incorporated summer workshops; and included teacher meetings to troubleshoot and discuss classroom implementation. We discuss implications for policy and practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Critics of test-based accountability warn that test preparation has a negative influence on teachers’ instruction due to a focus on procedural skills. Others advocate that the adoption of more rigorous assessments may be a way to incentivize more ambitious test preparation instruction. Drawing on classroom observations and teacher surveys, we do find that test preparation activities predict lower quality and less ambitious mathematics instruction in upper-elementary classrooms. However, the magnitudes of these relationships appear smaller than the prevailing narrative has warned. Further, our findings call into question the hypothesis that test rigor can serve as a lever to elevate test preparation to ambitious teaching. Therefore, improving the quality of mathematics instruction in the midst of high-stakes testing likely will require that policymakers and school leaders undertake comprehensive efforts that look beyond the tests themselves. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]