Research and Development

This paper explicates the elements of several policy instruments used in Connecticut, the political conditions under which they were chosen, and their intended targets and expected effects on teacher quality and student learning. The purpose of the paper is to explain how the Connecticut General Assembly (CGA) and the Connecticut State Department of Education (CSDE) were able to implement and sustain a set of integrated policies related to teaching and learning over a 20‐year period from 1985 to 2005. We argue that this occurred for three primary reasons. First, the state legislature combined changes in teacher certification requirements in the 1980s with significant increases in teacher salaries in order to build strong political support among teachers and teacher union leaders for the new requirements. Second, in the 1980s and 1990s, CGA and CSDE repeatedly combined policy instruments in ways that involved multiple stakeholders and strong elements of capacity‐building, thereby increasing their likelihood of success. Third, several policies enacted in Connecticut in the 1990s were directly connected to and strongly reinforced each other.

Reformers suggest that parental choice will improve equity by making it possible for parents to select better schools for their children. A key assumption behind this claim is that parents choose from a set of schools that range in quality. Data from this longitudinal interview study suggest this assumption may be false. In one Midwestern city, parents of different social

The research we report examines the impact of a nationally disseminated professional development program, Developing Mathematical Ideas (DMI), on teacher's specialized knowledge for teaching mathematics. DMI participants were compared with colleagues from similar schools in the same region. Teacher knowledge was measured with two instruments: multiple choice items developed by the Study of Instructional Improvement and open-ended items developed primarily

This case study investigates how several universities in the state of Connecticut (United States) responded to teacher education accreditation policy between 2002 and 2006. Using a cognitive perspective on policy implementation and a purposeful sample, we describe three common responses: articulation of a programme-wide conceptual framework, greater focus on teacher candidate assessment, and the creation of data collection systems. In addition to these substantive responses, there were also more symbolic responses that allowed for compliance without significant change. Variation in responses was partially explained by the resources available to programmes, programme size and structure, and participants' beliefs about professional practice.

Classroom observation of teachers is a significant part of educational measurement; measurements of teacher practice are being used in teacher evaluation systems across the country. This research investigated whether observations made live in the classroom and from video recording of the same lessons yielded similar inferences about teaching. Using scores on the Classroom Assessment Scoring System–
Secondary (CLASS-S) from 82 algebra classrooms, we explored the effect of observation mode on inferences about the level or ranking of teaching in a single lesson or in a classroom for a year. We estimated the correlation between scores from the two observation modes and tested for mode differences in the distribution of scores, the sources of variance in scores, and the reliability of scores using generalizability and
decision studies for the latter comparisons. Inferences about teaching in a classroom for a year were relatively insensitive to observation mode. However, time trends in the raters’ use of the score scale were significant for two CLASS-S domains, leading to mode differences in the reliability and inferences drawn from individual lessons. Implications for different modes of classroom observation with the CLASS-S are discussed.

Formative assessment is increasingly held up as a practice that can help teachers adjust and improve their daily instruction. But how do teachers learn to use formative assessment? This paper describes the changes teachers experienced as they went through a sustained professional development program focused on formative assessment. Teachers reported that learning formative assessment affected their professional practices, student practices, and support system. We discuss the implications of these changes for how professional development leaders listen to, support, and challenge teachers learning formative assessment. Introduction As a result of the ongoing standards movement and No Child Left Behind, there is a plethora of data available to teachers today. Teachers have access to standardized test scores, interim assessment outcomes, and data they gather as part of their daily teaching practice. There is so much data, however, that teachers can become overwhelmed. Frequently they do not know how to interpret or change their teaching practice in response to those data. Some field experts think formative assessment could be a solution (e.g., Stiggins, 2004). Still, for formative assessment to help teachers change their classroom practices, they must learn about formative assessment—and that is where professional development (PD) comes in. Our knowledge of the subject-specific nature of high quality PD suggests there are important learning challenges that teachers face as they engage in content-specific professional development (e.g., Cohen & Hill, 1998; Wilson & Berne, 1999). Those challenges are related to the particular cognitive demands reform-minded teaching requires (e.g., Smith, 1996). We begin with the assumption that learning formative assessment also has particular cognitive challenges. For example, teachers must learn how to systematically collect evidence of all students' learning as that learning is happening in real time. Once teachers begin collecting such evidence, they must learn new ways of pacing, differentiating, organizing , and adapting their instruction in order to adequately address the range of student thinking in the classroom. This paper informs increasing calls for formative assessment (i.e., Black & Wiliam, 1998b; Popham, 2008; Stiggins, 2004) by describing the changes teachers saw in their professional practice as they were in the process of learning formative assessment. We discuss the implications of the changes for PD leaders. Specifically, we discuss the kinds of support teachers need as they begin to learn about formative assessment.