Historical Instances of Measurement and Intervention in U.S. Schools (Part II)

Historical Instances of Measurement and Intervention in U.S. Schools (Part II)

this article is a continuation of a research entry from the July 30, 2019 edition:

The last two decades of the twentieth century brought greater influence from the federal government, along with greater potential for teachers to become more involved in decisions that might positively affect student outcomes. The Coleman Report, A Nation at Risk, as well as subsequent federal interventions in schools have led to further reform and legislation, but not until Public Law 107 – 110, commonly referred to as No Child Left Behind, did the federal government establish such a dominant presence and focused concern with measurable outcomes. In 2001, the law was introduced to Congress as, “an act to close the achievement gap with accountability, flexibility, and choice, so that no child is left behind” (NCLB, 2002, p. 1). The legislation was in effect until a bipartisan congress stripped away the federal requirements in 2015. This law focused on standards- based reforms in education, based on the belief that by setting high standards, making outcomes for students ambitious and clear, creating and monitoring measurable goals, schools and the students within them would experience greater, more consistent achievement (NCLB, 2002). All of these improvements are based on an understanding that the role of teachers would be a primary driver for positive change. In fact, the bill requires schools to attract, retain, and develop, “highly qualified” teachers. This phrase is used more than 60 times throughout the document (NCLB, 2002).

What was most promising about this legislation was the intent to open pathways for creative, innovative, and inspired teacher practices to promote learning outcomes. Thoughtful critics of the law such as Darling-Hammond (2007) acknowledge the potential in NCLB:

While recent studies have found that teacher quality is a critical influence on student achievement, teachers are the most inequitably distributed school resource. This first-time-ever recognition of students’ right to qualified teachers is historically significant. (p. 2)

Highly qualified teachers were the intended change-agents of the hoped-for successes in NCLB, with districts being charged with,

teacher mentoring from exemplary teachers, [...] induction and support for teachers, [...] incentives, including financial incentives, [...] innovative professional development programs, [...] tenure reform, merit-based pay programs, and testing of elementary school and secondary school teachers in the academic subjects that the teachers teach. (p. 1632)

However, where federal measures aimed to reverse negative trends and improve student outcomes, the emphasis on quality teachers and teaching quality still did not receive the attention necessary to dramatically increase student achievement and narrow the achievement gap in American schools. Generally speaking, critics have pointed out that the implementation of the law was in many respects counterproductive because it (a) did not adequately account for accumulated effects of mismanaged or underfunded schools, (b) narrowed the curriculum, precisely the opposite of what sensitive and nimble teaching practices ought to do when adjusting to students in their particular situations, and (c) brought too much focus upon testing and other measurement mechanisms. The most explicit feature of the law were the unpopular standardized tests, along with tactics like “drill and kill” for test preparation, which displaced creative attempts to nurture student learning and cognitive potential (Darling-Hammond, 2007; Dee & Jacob, 201; Hanushek & Raymond, 2005; Ladd & Lauen, 2010; Rustique-Forrester, 2005; Sunderman, Tracey, Kim & Orfield 2004).

Instead of placing teachers at the center of processes for better informing learning outcomes, and placing greater emphasis on surface, deep, and transfer-appropriate thinking strategies, schools and the teachers within them succumbed to the symptoms of surface processing, short-term memorization prioritization, and the hostile environment of overtaxing students with tests (Darling-Hammond, 2007). Rather than removing barriers that continue to obstruct learning potential in schools and open more opportunities for creative thinking, more frequent Aha! experiences, as well as more holistic means of supporting the development of a child’s full potential, the American education system remained unchanged from its former industrial model of generalized goals accompanied by generalized processes.

What's the Difference Between Teacher Quality and Quality Teaching?

Contemporary researchers have published quantitative and qualitative research which examine learning in classrooms, particularly emphasizing learning outcomes and the effects of teacher quality and quality teaching in classrooms (Biggs, 2012; Gardner, 2011; Hattie 2016; Marzano, Frontier & Livingston, 2011; Nuthall, 2007). These two categories have specific influences and observable outcomes. Quality teaching and teacher quality both have tremendous impact on positive outcomes for students, particularly with regard to creating opportunities for moving learning objectives between surface processing and deep processing – at times into transfer-appropriate strategies for learning.

Recent arguments have been made that help to differentiate between quality of teachers and quality of teaching (or teaching efficacy) (Hanushek, 2011; Harris & Sass, 2011; Taylor, Roehrig, Hensler, Connor, & Schatschneider, 2010). Darling-Hammond and Jaquith (2012) posit that teacher quality and quality of teaching should be considered independently, but as equally important. Darling-Hammond and Jaquith argue that the talents, personal mannerisms, and paradigms each teacher draws from in order to inform their teaching should not be evaluated independently of factors that enable, “a wide range of students to learn” (p. i), asserting that teaching efficacy,

is also strongly influenced by the context of instruction: the curriculum and assessment system; the “fit” between teachers’ qualifications and what they are asked to teach; and teaching conditions, such as time, class size, facilities, and materials. If teaching is to be effective, policymakers must address the teaching and learning environment as well as the capacity of individual teachers. (p. i)

It is crucial to understand these distinctions while exploring the potential for introducing insight learning opportunities into learning environments. Teachers may be effective at implementing pedagogy, but lack the requisite training to maximize Aha! moments in learning. Similarly, an expert pedagogue may be inducing preconditions for Aha! moments but may lack the effectiveness to maximize their effect in learning, especially for moving from superficial information acquisition to deeper thinking strategies and transfer-appropriate opportunities.

Goe (2007) outlines a comprehensive framework for better understanding teacher quality in terms of its effect upon student success, following on from the concern with measurable and broad impacts upon the widest range of students. The graphic representation in Figure 2 presents teacher quality as a combination of inputs and processes, and student outcomes as measurable effects of teacher quality. These inputs and processes include teacher certification, beliefs, instructional delivery, interactions with students, teacher test scores and experience, and classroom management. Student achievement is both an input and output, often part of teacher evaluations and other forms of feedback influencing practice. Inputs, processes, and feedback from outcomes (generally in the forms of grades from student assessment) all inform the basis for teacher quality.

Goe .png

Figure 1. Graphic representation of a framework for teacher quality (Goe, 2007, p. 9).