This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-10-18
entitled 'Student Achievement: Schools Use Multiple Strategies to Help
Students Meet Academic Standards, Especially Schools with Higher
Proportions of Low-Income and Minority Students' which was released on
November 16, 2009.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to Congressional Committees:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
November 2009:
Student Achievement:
Schools Use Multiple Strategies to Help Students Meet Academic
Standards, Especially Schools with Higher Proportions of Low-Income and
Minority Students:
GAO-10-18:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-10-18, a report to congressional committees.
Why GAO Did This Study:
The federal government has invested billions of dollars to improve
student academic performance, and many schools, teachers, and
researchers are trying to determine the most effective instructional
practices with which to accomplish this. The Conference Report for the
Consolidated Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2008 directed GAO to
study strategies used to prepare students to meet state academic
achievement standards. To do this, GAO answered: (1) What types of
instructional practices are schools and teachers most frequently using
to help students achieve state academic standards, and do those
instructional practices differ by school characteristics? (2) What is
known about how standards-based accountability systems have affected
instructional practices? (3) What is known about instructional
practices that are effective in improving student achievement? GAO
analyzed data from a 2006-2007 national survey of principals and 2005-
2006 survey of teachers in three states, conducted a literature review
of the impact of standards-based accountability systems on
instructional practices and of practices that are effective in
improving student achievement, and interviewed experts.
What GAO Found:
Nationwide, most principals focused on multiple strategies to help
students meet academic standards, such as using student data to inform
instruction and increasing professional development for teachers,
according to our analysis of data from a U.S. Department of Education
survey. Many of these strategies were used more often at high-poverty
schools—those where 75 percent or more of the students were eligible
for the free and reduced-price lunch program—and high-minority schools—
those where 75 percent or more of students were identified as part of a
minority population, than at lower poverty and minority schools.
Likewise, math teachers in California, Georgia, and Pennsylvania
increased their use of certain instructional practices in response to
their state tests, such as focusing more on topics emphasized on
assessments and searching for more effective teaching methods, and
teachers at high-poverty and high-minority schools were more likely
than teachers at lower-poverty schools and lower-minority schools to
have made these changes, according to GAO’s analysis of survey data
collected by the RAND Corporation. Some researchers suggested that
differences exist in the use of these practices because schools with
lower poverty or lower minority student populations might generally be
meeting accountability requirements and therefore would need to try
these strategies less frequently.
Research shows that standards-based accountability systems can
influence instructional practices in both positive and negative ways.
For example, some research notes that using a standards-based
curriculum that is aligned with corresponding instructional guidelines
can facilitate the development of higher order thinking skills in
students. But, in some cases, teacher practices did not always reflect
the principles of standards-based instruction, and the difficulties in
aligning practice with standards were attributed, in part, to current
accountability requirements. Other research noted that assessments can
be powerful tools for improving the learning process and evaluating
student achievement, but assessments can also have some unintended
negative consequences on instruction, including narrowing the
curriculum to only material that is tested.
Many experts stated that methodological issues constrain knowing more
definitively the specific instructional practices that improve student
learning and achievement. Nevertheless, some studies and experts
pointed to instructional practices that are considered to be effective
in raising student achievement, such as differentiated instruction.
Professional development for teachers was also highlighted as important
for giving teachers the skills and knowledge necessary to implement
effective teaching practices.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO makes no recommendations in this report. Education provided
comments about issues pertaining to the study’s approach that it
believes should be considered. GAO clarified the report as appropriate.
View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-18] or key
components. For more information, contact Cornelia Ashby at (202) 512-
7215 or AshbyC@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Background:
Principals and Teachers Used a Variety of Instructional Practices to
Help Students Meet Standards, and Many of These Practices Were Used
More Frequently at Schools with Higher Proportions of Low-Income and
Minority Students:
Research Shows That Standards-based Accountability Systems Can
Influence Instructional Practices through Standards and Assessments in
Both Positive and Negative Ways:
Research Highlights Some Potentially Successful Practices for Improving
Student Achievement, although Experts Contend That Methodological
Issues Constrain Reaching Definitive Conclusions about What Works:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix II: Analyses of the Relationship between School
Characteristics and Principals' Focus on School Improvement Strategies:
Appendix III: List of Education Researchers:
Appendix IV: Studies Meeting GAO's Criteria for Methodological Quality:
Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Education:
Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Table:
Table 1: Odds Ratios Indicating the Difference in Likelihood of
Principals to Make School Improvement Strategies a Moderate or Major
Focus after Controlling for Different Factors:
Figures:
Figure 1: Principals' Responses Indicating That a School Improvement
Strategy Was a Major or Moderate Focus of the School Improvement
Efforts:
Figure 2: Percent of Elementary and Middle School Math Teachers Who
Reported Increasing Their Use of Certain Instructional Practices as a
Result of State Test:
Figure 3: How Survey Responses Differed between Math Teachers at High-
Poverty and Low-Poverty Schools in Three States:
Abbreviations:
AYP: adequate yearly progress:
ESEA: Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965:
IASA: Improving America's Schools Act of 1994:
NCLBA: No Child Left Behind Act of 2001:
NLS-NCLB: National Longitudinal Study of No Child Left Behind:
NSF: National Science Foundation:
RAND: The RAND Corporation:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
November 16, 2009:
Congressional Committees:
The federal government has invested billions of dollars to help schools
meet requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLBA) to
improve student academic performance in reading, math, and science.
[Footnote 1] To this end, many schools, teachers, and researchers are
trying to determine the most effective instructional practices to
improve student achievement. Instructional practices refer to school or
district-level improvement strategies, such as aligning curriculum with
academic standards, restructuring the school day, or providing
additional professional development to teachers.[Footnote 2]
Instructional practices can also refer to classroom teaching practices
like assigning more homework or searching for more effective teaching
methods. Little is known about the extent to which instructional
practices have changed in response to NCLBA's accountability
requirements, whether these practices vary by type of school, and the
extent to which some practices have proven to be more effective than
others.
Under NCLBA, states are required to develop challenging student
academic achievement standards, administer tests based on those
standards (standards-based assessments) to measure student proficiency,
and develop targets for performance on these tests. Specifically, NCLBA
requires states to develop a plan to ensure that their students are
making adequate yearly progress (AYP) toward proficiency in reading,
math, and science by 2014 for students collectively and in key student
subgroups, including low-income and minority students.
While NCLBA creates requirements for student proficiency, it generally
allows states to determine how best to meet those requirements. The
Conference Report accompanying the Consolidated Appropriations Act for
Fiscal Year 2008 directed that GAO conduct a study of strategies used
to prepare students to meet state academic achievement standards. In
response, we agreed with the Senate and House Appropriations
Committees, the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and
Pensions, and the House Committee on Education and Labor to address the
following questions:
1. What types of instructional practices are schools and teachers most
frequently using to help students achieve state academic standards, and
do those instructional practices differ by school characteristics?
2. What is known about how standards-based accountability systems such
as that in NCLBA have affected instructional practices?
3. What is known about instructional practices that are effective in
improving student achievement?
To answer these questions, we analyzed data from two recent surveys of
principals and teachers that were conducted by the RAND Corporation
(RAND). The first survey, the nationally representative National
Longitudinal Study of No Child Left Behind (NLS-NCLB), was sponsored by
the U.S. Department of Education (Education) and asked principals the
extent to which their schools were focusing on certain strategies in
their school improvement efforts.[Footnote 3] We conducted an analysis
of the school year 2006-2007 survey data on school improvement
strategies by controlling for school characteristic variables, such as
the percentage of a school's students receiving free or reduced price
lunch (poverty); the percentage of students who are a racial minority
(minority); whether the school is in an urban, urban fringe or large
town, or rural area (school location); and the school's AYP performance
status. The second survey, a three-state survey sponsored by the
National Science Foundation (NSF), asked elementary and middle school
teachers in California, Georgia, and Pennsylvania how their classroom
teaching strategies differed due to a state math test.[Footnote 4] RAND
selected these states to represent a range of approaches to standards-
based accountability and to provide some geographic and demographic
diversity. Using school year 2005-2006 data from the three-state
survey, which is representative only of those three states
individually, we measured associations between the teacher responses
and the school characteristic variables. As part of these survey
analyses, we reviewed documentation and performed electronic testing of
the data obtained through the surveys and conducted interviews with the
primary RAND researchers responsible for the data collection and
analysis. We determined the survey data were sufficiently reliable for
the purposes of our study. To answer questions two and three, we
conducted a literature review and synthesis.[Footnote 5] We
supplemented our synthesis by interviewing prominent education
researchers identified in frequently cited articles and through
discussions with other knowledgeable individuals[Footnote 6]. We also
reviewed relevant federal laws and regulations.
We conducted our work from July 2008 to November 2009 in accordance
with all sections of GAO's Quality Assurance Framework that are
relevant to our objectives. The framework requires that we plan and
perform the engagement to obtain sufficient and appropriate evidence to
meet our stated objectives and to discuss any limitations in our work.
We believe that the information and data obtained, and the analysis
conducted, provide a reasonable basis for any findings and conclusions
in this product.
Background:
NCLBA reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965
(ESEA)[Footnote 7] and built upon accountability requirements created
under a previous reauthorization, the Improving America's Schools Act
of 1994 (IASA).[Footnote 8] Under ESEA, as amended, Congress sought to
improve student learning by incorporating academic standards and
assessments in the requirements placed on states. Academic standards,
which describe what students should know and be able to do at different
grade levels in different subjects, help guide school systems in their
choice of curriculum and help teachers plan for classroom instruction.
Assessments, which states use to measure student progress in achieving
the standards, are required to be administered by states.
NCLBA further strengthened some of the accountability requirements
contained in ESEA, as amended. Specifically, NCLBA's accountability
provisions require states to develop education plans that establish
academic standards and performance goals for schools to meet AYP and
lead to 100 percent of their students being proficient in reading,
math, and science by 2014. This proficiency must be assessed annually
in reading and math in grades 3 through 8 and periodically in science,
whereas assessments were required less frequently under the IASA.
[Footnote 9] Under NCLBA, schools' assessment data generally must be
disaggregated to assess progress toward state proficiency targets for
students in certain designated groups, including low-income students,
minority students, students with disabilities, and those with limited
English proficiency. Each of these groups must make AYP in order for
the school to make AYP. Schools that fail to make AYP for 2 or more
consecutive years are required to implement various improvement
measures identified in NCLBA, and these measures are more extensive
than those required under IASA. Education, which has responsibility for
general oversight of NCLBA, reviews and approves state plans for
meeting AYP requirements. As we have previously reported, Education had
approved all states' plans--fully or conditionally--by June 2003.
[Footnote 10]
NCLBA also recognizes the role of teachers in providing a quality
education by requiring states to ensure that all teachers in core
academic subjects are "highly qualified." Under this requirement,
teachers generally must have a bachelor's degree, be fully certified,
and demonstrate their knowledge of the subjects they teach. Previously,
there were no specific requirements regarding teacher quality under
ESEA, as amended.[Footnote 11]
Principals and Teachers Used a Variety of Instructional Practices to
Help Students Meet Standards, and Many of These Practices Were Used
More Frequently at Schools with Higher Proportions of Low-Income and
Minority Students:
According to our analysis of NLS-NCLB data from Education, most
principals reported their schools focused on multiple instructional
practices in their voluntary school improvement efforts.[Footnote 12]
These strategies were used more often at schools with higher
proportions of low-income students ("high-poverty schools") and schools
with higher proportions of minority students ("high-minority schools")
than at schools with lower proportions of low-income students ("low-
poverty schools") and schools with lower proportions of minority
students ("low-minority schools").[Footnote 13] Likewise, the survey of
math teachers in California, Georgia, and Pennsylvania indicates
teachers were using many different instructional practices in response
to their state tests, and teachers at high-poverty and high-minority
schools were more likely than teachers at low-poverty and low-minority
schools to have been increasing their use of some of these practices.
Some researchers we spoke with suggested that differences in the use of
these instructional practices exist because schools with low-poverty or
low-minority student populations might generally be meeting
accountability standards and, therefore, would need to try these
strategies less frequently.
Principals at High-Poverty and High-Minority Schools Emphasized Certain
School Improvement Strategies More Than Principals at Other Schools:
According to nationally representative data from Education's NLS-NCLB,
in school year 2006-2007 most principals focused on multiple strategies
in their school improvement efforts. The survey asked principals the
extent to which their schools were focusing on ten different strategies
in their voluntary school improvement initiatives. The three most
common strategies were: (1) using student achievement data to inform
instruction and school improvement; (2) providing additional
instruction to low-achieving students; and (3) aligning curriculum and
instruction with standards and/or assessments. (See figure 1.) Nearly
all school principals placed a major or moderate focus on three or more
surveyed strategies in their school improvement efforts, and over 80
percent of principals placed a major or moderate focus on six or more
strategies. However, as Education's report on the survey data
cautioned, the number of improvement strategies emphasized was not
necessarily an indication of the intensity or quality of the
improvement efforts.
Figure 1: Principals' Responses Indicating That a School Improvement
Strategy Was a Major or Moderate Focus of the School Improvement
Efforts:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustration]
School improvement strategies: Using student achievement data to inform
instruction and school improvement;
Percent saying major or moderate focus: 96%.
School improvement strategies: Providing additional instruction to low-
achieving students;
Percent saying major or moderate focus: 92%.
School improvement strategies: Aligning curriculum and instruction with
standards and/or assessments;
Percent saying major or moderate focus: 91%.
School improvement strategies: Increasing the intensity, focus, and
effectiveness of professional development;
Percent saying major or moderate focus: 85%.
School improvement strategies: Implementing new instructional
approaches or curricula in reading;
Percent saying major or moderate focus: 84%.
School improvement strategies: Implementing new instructional
approaches or curricula in mathematics;
Percent saying major or moderate focus: 80%.
School improvement strategies: Providing extended-time instructional
programs (e.g., before-school, after-school, or weekend instructional
programs);
Percent saying major or moderate focus: 64%.
School improvement strategies: Restructuring the school day to teach
core content areas in greater depth (e.g., establishing a literacy
block);
Percent saying major or moderate focus: 61%.
School improvement strategies: Implementing strategies for increasing
parents’ involvement in their children’s education;
Percent saying major or moderate focus: 54%.
School improvement strategies: Increasing instructional time for all
students (e.g., by lengthening the school day or year, shortening
recess);
Percent saying major or moderate focus: 32%.
Sources: GAO analysis of school year 2006-2007 NLS-NCLB survey data,
Art Explosion (images).
Note: Some of the voluntary school improvement strategies identified
above are similar to the corrective actions and restructuring options
schools identified for improvement under NCLBA are required to choose
from in preparing their school improvement plan. For example,
implementing a new curriculum and extending the school day are both
voluntary improvement strategies and possible strategies for
improvement under the law.
[End of figure]
While nearly all principals responded that they used multiple
improvement strategies, there were statistically significant
differences in principals' responses across a range of school
characteristics, including percentage of the school's students
receiving free or reduced price lunch (poverty), percentage of minority
students, the school's location, and AYP status.[Footnote 14] For
example, when comparing schools across poverty levels, we found that
principals at high-poverty schools were two to three times more likely
than principals at low-poverty schools to focus on five particular
strategies in their school improvement efforts:
* Restructuring the school day to teach core content areas in greater
depth;[Footnote 15]
* Increasing instructional time for all students (e.g., by lengthening
the school day or year, shortening recess);
* Providing extended-time instructional programs (e.g., before-school,
after-school, or weekend instructional programs);
* Implementing strategies for increasing parents' involvement in their
children's education; and:
* Increasing the intensity, focus, and effectiveness of professional
development.[Footnote 16]
Likewise, when comparing schools across minority levels, we found that
principals at high-and moderate-minority schools were approximately two
to three times more likely than principals at low-minority schools to
make six particular school improvement strategies a major or moderate
focus of their school improvement efforts.[Footnote 17] For instance,
principals at schools with a high percentage of minority students were
more than three times as likely as principals at schools with a low
percentage of minority students to provide extended-time instruction
such as after-school programs. A school's location was associated with
differences in principals' responses about the strategies they used as
well: principals at rural schools were only about one-third to one-half
as likely as central city schools to make five of these school
improvement strategies a moderate or major focus of their school
improvement efforts.[Footnote 18]
When we compared principal responses based on AYP status, there was
some evidence of a statistically significant association between AYP
status and the extent to which principals focused these strategies in
their school improvement efforts, but it was limited when the other
variables such as poverty and minority were taken into account. AYP
status had some correlation with the demographic characteristics of
poverty and minority, and those characteristics explained the patterns
of principals' responses more fully than the AYP characteristic.
However, our analysis generally showed that schools that had not made
AYP were more likely to make six of these school improvement strategies
a moderate or major focus of their school improvement plan than schools
that had made AYP. Additionally, Education reported that schools
identified for improvement under NCLBA--that is, schools that have not
made AYP for two or more consecutive years--were engaged in a greater
number of improvement efforts than non-identified schools. Therefore,
principals of the non-identified schools may have been less likely than
principals of identified schools to view specific strategies as a major
or moderate focus.
We spoke with several researchers about the results of our analysis of
the principals' responses, especially at high-poverty and high-minority
schools. While the researchers could not say with certainty the reasons
for the patterns, they noted that high-poverty and high-minority
schools tend to be most at risk of not meeting their states' standards,
so that principals at those schools might be more willing to try
different approaches. Conversely, the researchers noted that principals
at schools meeting standards would not have the same incentives to
adopt as many school improvement strategies.
Most Math Teachers in Three Surveyed States Have Increased Their Use of
Certain Instructional Practices in Response to State Tests, especially
in High-Poverty and High-Minority Schools:
The RAND survey of elementary and middle school math teachers in
California, Georgia and Pennsylvania showed that in each of the three
states at least half of the teachers reported increasing their use of
certain instructional practices in at least five areas as a result of
the statewide math test (see figure 2). For example, most teachers in
Pennsylvania responded that due to the state math test they: (1)
focused more on standards, (2) emphasized assessment styles and
formats, (3) focused more on subjects tested, (4) searched for more
effective teaching methods, and (5) spent more time teaching content.
Figure 2: Percent of Elementary and Middle School Math Teachers Who
Reported Increasing Their Use of Certain Instructional Practices as a
Result of State Test:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustration]
Change in instructional practices: Focus more on standards;
Percent change in California: 72%;
Percent change in Georgia: 75%;
Percent change in Pennsylvania: 75%.
Change in instructional practices: Focus more on topics emphasized in
assessment;
Percent change in California: 63%;
Percent change in Georgia: 72%;
Percent change in Pennsylvania: 71%.
Change in instructional practices: Emphasize assessment styles and
formats of problems;
Percent change in California: 53%;
Percent change in Georgia: 76%;
Percent change in Pennsylvania: 72%.
Change in instructional practices: Search for more effective teaching
methods;
Percent change in California: 65%;
Percent change in Georgia: 72%;
Percent change in Pennsylvania: 59%.
Change in instructional practices: Spend more time teaching content;
Percent change in California: 50%;
Percent change in Georgia: 56%;
Percent change in Pennsylvania: 52%.
Change in instructional practices: Spend more time teaching test-taking
strategies;
Percent change in California: 51%;
Percent change in Georgia: 53%;
Percent change in Pennsylvania: 49%.
Change in instructional practices: Focus more on students who are close
to proficient;
Percent change in California: 34%;
Percent change in Georgia: 37%;
Percent change in Pennsylvania: 28%.
Change in instructional practices: Assign more homework;
Percent change in California: 40%;
Percent change in Georgia: 30%;
Percent change in Pennsylvania: 28%.
Change in instructional practices: Rely more heavily on open-ended
tests;
Percent change in California: 19%;
Percent change in Georgia: 24%;
Percent change in Pennsylvania: 47%.
Change in instructional practices: Offer more assistance outside of
school for students who are not proficient;
Percent change in California: 29%;
Percent change in Georgia: 36%;
Percent change in Pennsylvania: 21%.
Change in instructional practices: Rely more heavily on multiple-choice
tests;
Percent change in California: 24%;
Percent change in Georgia: 37%;
Percent change in Pennsylvania: 17%.
Sources: GAO analysis of 2005 survey data from Standards-Based
Accountability Under No Child Left Behind: Experiences of Teachers and
Administrators in Three States. Hamilton et al. Art Explosion (images).
[End of figure]
As we did with the survey responses of principals, we analyzed the
teacher survey data to determine whether math teachers' responses
differed by school characteristics for poverty, minority, location, and
AYP status. As with the principals' responses, we found that elementary
and middle school math teachers in high-poverty and high-minority
schools were more likely than teachers in low-poverty and low-minority
schools to report increasing their use of certain instructional
practices, and this pattern was consistent across the three states (see
figure 3). For example, 69 percent of math teachers at high-poverty
schools in California indicated they spent more time teaching test-
taking strategies as opposed to 38 percent of math teachers in low-
poverty schools. In Georgia, 50 percent of math teachers in high-
poverty schools reported offering more outside assistance to non-
proficient students in contrast to 26 percent of math teachers in low-
poverty schools. Fifty-one percent of math teachers at high-poverty
schools in Pennsylvania reported focusing more attention on students
close to proficiency compared to 23 percent of math teachers doing so
in low poverty schools.[Footnote 19]
Figure 3: How Survey Responses Differed between Math Teachers at High-
Poverty and Low-Poverty Schools in Three States:
[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph]
Percentage of teachers changing instructional practices as a result of
state math test:
Way instruction changed: Assign more or more difficult homework:
California*:
Low poverty: 28%;
High poverty: 39%;
Georgia:
Low poverty: 21%;
High poverty: 44%;
Pennsylvania*:
Low poverty: 28%;
High poverty: 34%.
Way instruction changed: Search for more effective teaching methods:
California:
Low poverty: 48%;
High poverty: 75%;
Georgia:
Low poverty: 58%;
High poverty: 81%;
Pennsylvania:
Low poverty: 54%;
High poverty: 75%.
Way instruction changed: Focus more on state standards:
California:
Low poverty: 58%;
High poverty: 79%;
Georgia:
Low poverty: 62%;
High poverty: 87%;
Pennsylvania:
Low poverty: 72%;
High poverty: 91%.
Way instruction changed: Focus more on state test topics:
California:
Low poverty: 55%;
High poverty: 76%;
Georgia:
Low poverty: 51%;
High poverty: 78%;
Pennsylvania:
Low poverty: 64%;
High poverty: 86%.
Way instruction changed: Emphasize state test problem formats:
California:
Low poverty: 42%;
High poverty: 73%;
Georgia:
Low poverty: 59%;
High poverty: 85%;
Pennsylvania:
Low poverty: 75%;
High poverty: 85%.
Way instruction changed: More time teaching general test-taking
strategies;
California:
Low poverty: 38%;
High poverty: 69%;
Georgia:
Low poverty: 37%;
High poverty: 70%;
Pennsylvania:
Low poverty: 46%;
High poverty: 69%.
Way instruction changed: More time teaching math content;
California:
Low poverty: 38%;
High poverty: 67%;
Georgia:
Low poverty: 42%;
High poverty: 70%;
Pennsylvania:
Low poverty: 50%;
High poverty: 67%.
Way instruction changed: Focus more on students close to proficient;
California:
Low poverty: 25%;
High poverty: 48%;
Georgia:
Low poverty: 34%;
High poverty: 46%;
Pennsylvania:
Low poverty: 23%;
High poverty: 51%.
Way instruction changed: Offer outside assistance to non-proficient
students;
California:
Low poverty: 18%;
High poverty: 41%;
Georgia:
Low poverty: 26%;
High poverty: 50%;
Pennsylvania:
Low poverty: 16%;
High poverty: 43%.
Way instruction changed: Rely more on multiple-choice tests;
California:
Low poverty: 19%;
High poverty: 46%;
Georgia:
Low poverty: 26%;
High poverty: 47%;
Pennsylvania:
Low poverty: 15%;
High poverty: 38%.
Way instruction changed: Rely more on open-ended questions on tests;
California:
Low poverty: 10%;
High poverty: 27%;
Georgia*:
Low poverty: 23%;
High poverty: 30%;
Pennsylvania:
Low poverty: 42%;
High poverty: 60%.
* = Not statistically significant with a 95 percent level of confidence
for the difference between high-poverty and low-poverty schools.
Sources: GAO analysis of school year 2005-2006 survey data from
Standards-Based Accountability Under No Child Left Behind:Experiences
of Teachers and Administrators in Three States. Hamilton et al.
[End of figure]
Similar to what our poverty analysis showed, survey responses provided
some evidence that math teachers in high-minority schools were more
likely than those in low-minority schools to change their instructional
practices. Math teachers at high-minority schools in each of the three
states, as compared to those at low-minority schools, were more likely
to:
* rely on open-ended tests in their own classroom assessments;
* increase the amount of time spent teaching mathematics by replacing
non-instructional activities with mathematics instruction;
* focus on topics emphasized in the state math test; and:
* teach general test-taking strategies.
We also analyzed the RAND data with regard to school location and a
school's AYP status, but results from these characteristics were not
significant for as many instructional practices.[Footnote 20]
As we did regarding the survey responses of principals, we spoke to
several researchers, including the authors of the three-state teacher
study, regarding possible reasons for the patterns we saw in the
teacher survey data. The researchers we spoke with provided similar
possible reasons for the patterns in the teacher survey as they did for
patterns in the principal survey. For instance, the researchers noted
that high-poverty and high-minority schools are more likely to be at
risk of failing to meet the state standards, which might prompt
teachers to try different approaches. On the other hand, the
researchers stated that teachers at those schools meeting the standards
would not have the same incentives to change their instructional
practices.
Research Shows That Standards-based Accountability Systems Can
Influence Instructional Practices through Standards and Assessments in
Both Positive and Negative Ways:
Research shows that using a standards-based curriculum that is aligned
with corresponding instructional guidelines can positively influence
teaching practices. Specifically, some studies reported changes by
teachers who facilitated their students developing higher-order
thinking skills, such as interpreting meaning, understanding implied
reasoning, and developing conceptual knowledge, through practices such
as multiple answer problem solving, less lecture and more small group
work. Additionally, a few researchers we interviewed stated that a
positive effect of NCLBA's accountability provisions has been a renewed
focus on standards and curriculum.[Footnote 21]
However, some studies indicated that teachers' practices did not always
reflect the principles of standards-based instruction and that current
accountability policies help contribute to the difficulty in aligning
practice with standards. Some research shows that, while teachers may
be changing their instructional practices in response to standards-
based reform, these changes may not be fully aligned with the
principles of the reform. That research also notes that the reliability
in implementing standards in the classroom varied in accordance with
teachers' different beliefs in and support for standards-based reform
as well as the limitations in their instructional capabilities. For
example, one observational study of math teachers showed that, while
teachers implemented practices envisioned by standards-based reform,
such as getting students to work in small groups or using manipulatives
(e.g., cubes or tiles), their approaches did not go far enough in that
students were not engaged in conversations about mathematical or
scientific concepts and ideas.[Footnote 22] To overcome these
challenges, studies point to the need for teachers to have
opportunities to learn, practice, and reflect on instructional
practices that incorporate the standards, and then to observe their
effects on student learning. However, some researchers have raised
concerns that current accountability systems' focus on test scores and
mandated timelines for achieving proficiency levels for students do not
give teachers enough time to learn, practice, and reflect on
instructional practices and may discourage some teachers from trying
ambitious teaching practices envisioned by standards-based reform.
Another key element of a standards-based accountability system is
assessments, which help measure the extent to which schools are
improving student learning through assessing student performance
against the standards. Some researchers note that assessments are
powerful tools for managing and improving the learning process by
providing information for monitoring student progress, making
instructional decisions, evaluating student achievement, and evaluating
programs. In addition, assessments can also influence instructional
content and help teachers use or adjust specific classroom practices.
As one synthesis concluded, assessments can influence whether teachers
broaden or narrow the curriculum, focus on concepts and problem
solving--or emphasize test preparation over subject matter content.
[Footnote 23]
In contrast, some of the research and a few experts we interviewed
raised concerns about testing formats that do not encourage challenging
teaching practices and instructional practices that narrow the
curriculum as a result of current assessment practices.[Footnote 24]
For example, depending on the test used, research has shown that
teachers may be influenced to use teaching approaches that reflect the
skills and knowledge to be tested. Multiple choice tests tend to focus
on recognizing facts and information while open-ended formats are more
likely to require students to apply critical thinking skills.
Conclusions from a literature synthesis conducted by the Department of
Education stated that " teachers respond to assessment formats used, so
testing programs must be designed and administered with this influence
in mind. Tests that emphasize inquiry, provide extended writing
opportunities, and use open-ended response formats or a portfolio
approach tend to influence instruction in ways quite different from
tests that use closed-ended response formats and which emphasize
procedures."[Footnote 25] We recently reported that states have most
often chosen multiple choice items over other item types of assessments
because they are cost effective and can be scored within tight time
frames. While multiple choice tests provide cost and time saving
benefits to states, the use of multiple choice items make it difficult,
if not impossible, to measure highly complex content.[Footnote 26]
Other research has raised concerns that, to avoid potential
consequences from low-scoring assessment results under NCLBA, teachers
are narrowing the curriculum being taught--sometimes referred to as
"teaching to the test"--either by spending more classroom time on
tested subjects at the expense of other non-tested subjects,
restricting the breadth of content covered to focus only on the content
covered by the test, or focusing more time on test-taking strategies
than on subject content.[Footnote 27]
Research Highlights Some Potentially Successful Practices for Improving
Student Achievement, although Experts Contend That Methodological
Issues Constrain Reaching Definitive Conclusions about What Works:
Our literature review found some studies that pointed to instructional
practices that appear to be effective in raising student achievement.
But, in discussing the broader implications of these studies with the
experts that we interviewed, many commented that, taken overall, the
research is not conclusive about which specific instructional practices
improve student learning and achievement.
Some researchers stated that this was due to methodological issues in
conducting the research. For example, one researcher explained that,
while smaller research studies on very specific strategies in reading
and math have sometimes shown powerful relationships between the
strategy used and positive changes in student achievement, results from
meta-analyses of smaller studies have been inconclusive in pointing to
similar patterns in the aggregate. A few other researchers stated that
the lack of empirical data about how instruction unfolds in the
classroom hampers the understanding about what works in raising student
performance.
A few researchers also noted that conducting research in a way that
would yield more conclusive results is difficult. One of the main
difficulties, as explained by one researcher, is the number of
variables a study may need to examine or control for in order to
understand the effectiveness of a particular strategy, especially given
the number of interactions these variables could have with each other.
One researcher mentioned cost as a challenge when attempting to gather
empirical data at the classroom level, stating "teaching takes place in
the classroom, but the expense of conducting classroom-specific
evaluations is a serious barrier to collecting this type of data."
Finally, even when research supports the efficacy of a strategy, it may
not work with different students or under varying conditions. In
raising this point, one researcher stated that "educating a child is
not like making a car" whereby a production process is developed and
can simply be repeated again and again. Each child learns differently,
creating a challenge for teachers in determining the instructional
practices that will work best for each student.
Some of the practices identified by both the studies and a few experts
as those with potential for improving student achievement were:
* Differentiated instruction. In this type of instruction, teaching
practices and plans are adjusted to accommodate each student's skill
level for the task at hand. Differentiated instruction requires
teachers to be flexible in their teaching approach by adjusting the
curriculum and presentation of information for students, thereby
providing multiple options for students to take in and process
information. As one researcher described it, effective teachers
understand the strategies and practices that work for each student and
in this way can move all students forward in their learning and
achievement.
* More guiding, less telling. Researchers have identified two general
approaches to teaching: didactic and interactive. Didactic instruction
relies more on lecturing and demonstrations, asking short answer
questions, and assessing whether answers are correct. Interactive
instruction focuses more on listening and guiding students, asking
questions with more than one correct answer, and giving students
choices during learning. As one researcher explained, both teaching
approaches are important, but some research has shown that giving
students more guidance and less direction helps students become
critical and independent thinkers, learn how to work independently, and
assess several potential solutions and apply the best one. These kinds
of learning processes are important for higher-order thinking. However,
implementing "less instruction" techniques requires a high level of
skill and creativity on the part of the teacher.[Footnote 28]
* Promoting effective discourse. An important corollary to the teacher
practice of guiding students versus directing them is effective
classroom discussion. Research highlights the importance of developing
students' understanding not only of the basic concepts of a subject,
but higher-order thinking and skills as well. To help students achieve
understanding, it is necessary to have effective classroom discussion
in which students test and revise their ideas, and elaborate on and
clarify their thinking. In guiding students to an effective classroom
discussion, teachers must ask engaging and challenging questions, be
able to get all students to participate, and know when to provide
information or allow students to discover it for themselves.
Additionally, one synthesis of several experimental studies examining
practices in elementary math classrooms identified two instructional
approaches that showed positive effects on student learning. The first
was cooperative learning in which students work in pairs or small teams
and are rewarded based on how well the group learns. The other approach
included programs that helped teachers introduce math concepts and
improve skills in classroom management, time management, and
motivation. This analysis also found that using computer-assisted
instruction had moderate to substantial effects on student learning,
although this type of instruction was always supplementary to other
approaches or programs being used.
We found through our literature review and interviews with researchers
that the issue of effective instructional practices is intertwined with
professional development. To enable all students to achieve the high
standards of learning envisioned by standards-based accountability
systems, teachers need extensive skills and knowledge in order to use
effective teaching practices in the classroom. Given this, professional
development is critical to supporting teachers' learning of new skills
and their application. Specifically, the research concludes that
professional development will more likely have positive impacts on both
teacher learning and student achievement if it:
* Focuses on a content area with direct links to the curriculum;
* Challenges teachers intellectually through reflection and critical
problem solving;
* Aligns with goals and standards for student learning;
* Lasts long enough so that teachers can practice and revise their
techniques;
* Occurs collaboratively within a teacher learning community--ongoing
teams of teachers that meet regularly for the purposes of learning,
joint lesson planning, and problem solving;
* Involves all the teachers within a school or department;
* Provides active learning opportunities with direct applications to
the classroom; and:
* Is based on teachers' input regarding their learning needs.
Some researchers have raised concerns about the quality and intensity
of professional development currently received by many teachers
nationwide. One researcher summarized these issues by stating that
professional development training for teachers is often too short,
provides no classroom follow up, and models more "telling than guiding"
practices. Given the decentralized nature of the U.S. education system,
the support and opportunity for professional development services for
teachers varies among states and school districts, and there are
notable examples of states that have focused resources on various
aspects of professional development. Nevertheless, shortcomings in
teachers' professional development experiences overall are especially
evident when compared to professional development requirements for
teachers in countries whose students perform well on international
tests, such as the Trends in International Mathematics and Science
Study and the Program for International Student Assessment. For
example, one study showed that fewer than 10 percent of U.S. math
teachers in school year 2003-04 experienced more than 24 hours of
professional development in mathematics content or pedagogy during the
year; conversely, teachers in Sweden, Singapore, and the Netherlands
are required to complete 100 hours of professional development per
year.[Footnote 29]
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided a copy of our draft report to the Secretary of Education
for review and comment. Education's written comments, which are
contained in appendix V, expressed support for the important questions
that the report addresses and noted that the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009 included $250 million to improve assessment
and accountability systems. The department specifically stated that the
money is for statewide data systems to provide information on
individual student outcomes that could help enable schools to
strengthen instructional practices and improve student achievement.
However, the department raised several issues about the report's
approach. Specifically, the department commented that we (1) did not
provide the specific research citations throughout the report for each
of our findings or clearly explain how we selected our studies; (2)
mixed the opinions of education experts with our findings gleaned from
the review of the literature; (3) did not present data on the extent to
which test formats had changed or on the relationship between test
format and teaching practices when discussing our assessment findings;
and (4) did not provide complete information from an Education survey
regarding increases and decreases in instructional time.
As stated in the beginning of our report, the list of studies we
reviewed and used for our findings are contained in appendix IV. We
provide a description in appendix I of our criteria, the types of
databases searched, the types of studies examined (e.g., experimental
and nonexperimental) and the process by which we evaluated them. We
relied heavily on two literature syntheses conducted by the Department
of Education--Standards in Classroom Practice: Research Synthesis and
The Influence of Standards on K-12 Teaching and Student Learning: A
Research Synthesis, which are included in the list. These two syntheses
covered, in a more comprehensive way than many of the other studies
that we reviewed, the breadth of the topics that we were interested in
and included numerous research studies in their reviews. Many of the
findings in this report about the research are taken from the
conclusions reached in these syntheses. However, to make this fact
clearer and more prominent, we added this explanation to our
abbreviated scope and methodology section on page 5 of the report.
Regarding the use of expert opinion, we determined that obtaining the
views of experts about the research we were reviewing would be critical
to our understanding its broader implications. This was particularly
important given the breadth and scope of our objectives. The experts we
interviewed, whose names and affiliations are listed in appendix III,
are prominent researchers who conduct, review, and reflect on the
current research in the field, and whose work is included in some of
the studies we reviewed, including the two literature syntheses written
by the Department of Education and used by us in this study. We did not
consider their opinions "conjecture" but grounded in and informed by
their many years of respected work on the topic. We have been clear in
the report as to when we are citing expert opinion, the research
studies, or both.
Regarding the report section discussing the research on assessments, it
was our intent to highlight that, according to the research,
assessments have both positive and negative influences on classroom
teaching practices, not to conclude that NCLBA was the cause of either.
Our findings in this section of the report are, in large part, based on
conclusions from the department's syntheses mentioned earlier. For
example, The Influence of Standards on K-12 Teaching and Student
Learning: A Research Synthesis states "… tests matter--the content
covered, the format used, and the application of their results--all
influence teacher behavior." Furthermore, we previously reported that
states most often have chosen multiple choice assessments over other
types because they can be scored inexpensively and their scores can be
released prior to the next school year as required by NCLBA.[Footnote
30] That report also notes that state officials and alignment experts
said that multiple choice assessments have limited the content of what
can be tested, stating that highly complex content is "difficult if not
impossible to include with multiple choice items." However, we have
revised this paragraph to clarify our point and provide additional
information.
Concerning the topic of narrowing the curriculum, we agree with the
Department of Education that this report should include a fuller
description of the data results from the cited Education survey in
order to help the reader put the data in an appropriate context. Hence,
we have added information to that section of the report. However, one
limitation of the survey data we cite is that it covers changes in
instructional time for a short time period--from school year 2004-05 to
2006-07. In the its technical comments, the Department refers to its
recent report, Title I Implementation: Update on Recent Evaluation
Findings for a fuller discussion of this issue. The Title I report,
while noting that most elementary teachers reported no change from 2004-
05 to 2006-07 in the amount of instructional time that they spent on
various subjects, also provides data over a longer, albeit earlier
period time period, from 1987-88 to 2003-04, from the National Center
on Education Statistics Schools and Staffing Survey. In analyzing this
data, the report states that elementary teachers had increased
instructional time on reading and mathematics and decreased the amount
of time spent on science and social studies during this period. We have
added this information as well. Taken together, we believe these data
further reinforce our point that assessments under current
accountability systems can have, in addition to positive influences on
teaching, some negative ones as well, such as the curriculum changes
noted in the report, even if the extent of these changes is not fully
known.
Education also provided technical comments that we incorporated as
appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Education,
relevant congressional committees, and other interested parties. The
report also is available at no charge on the GAO Web site at
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please
contact me at (202) 512-7215 or ashbyc@gao.gov. Contact points for our
Office of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on
the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to
this report are listed in appendix VI.
Signed by:
Cornelia M. Ashby:
Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:
List of Congressional Committees:
The Honorable Tom Harkin:
Chairman:
The Honorable Thad Cochran:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related
Agencies:
Committee on Appropriations:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Dave Obey:
Chairman:
The Honorable Todd Tiahrt:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related
Agencies:
Committee on Appropriations:
House of Representatives:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
To address the objectives of this study, we used a variety of methods.
To determine the types of instructional practices schools and teachers
are using to help students achieve state academic standards and whether
those practices differ by school characteristics, we used two recent
surveys of principals and teachers. The first survey, a nationally-
representative survey from the Department of Education's (Education)
National Longitudinal Study of No Child Left Behind (NLS-NCLB)
conducted by the RAND Corporation (RAND), asked principals the extent
to which their schools were focusing on certain strategies in their
voluntary school improvement efforts. Education's State and Local
Implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act Volume III--
Accountability Under NCLB: Interim Report included information about
the strategies emphasized by principals as a whole, and we obtained
from Education the NLS-NCLB database to determine the extent to which
principals' responses differed by school characteristic variables. We
conducted this analysis on school year 2006-2007 data by controlling
for four school characteristic variables: (1) the percentage of a
school's students receiving free or reduced price lunch (poverty); (2)
the percentage of students who are a racial minority (minority); (3)
whether the school is in an urban, urban fringe (suburban), or rural
area (school location); and (4) the school's adequate yearly
performance (AYP) status.
We analyzed data from a second RAND survey, which was a three-state
survey sponsored by the National Science Foundation that asked math
teachers in California, Georgia, and Pennsylvania how their classroom
teaching strategies differed due to a state math test.[Footnote 31]
RAND selected these states to represent a range of approaches to
standards-based accountability and to provide some geographic and
demographic diversity; the survey data is representative only for those
three states individually. RAND's report on the three-state survey data
included information about how teachers within each of the three states
had changed their teaching practices due to a state accountability
test.[Footnote 32] RAND provided us with descriptive data tables based
on its school year 2005-2006 survey data; we analyzed the data to
measure associations between the strategies used and the school
characteristic variables.[Footnote 33] We requested tables that showed
this information for teachers in all schools, and separately for
teachers in different categories of schools (elementary and middle
schools) and by the school characteristics of poverty, minority, school
location and AYP status. We obtained from RAND standard error
information associated with the estimates from the different types of
schools and thus were able to test the statistical significance of
differences in likelihood between what teachers from different types of
schools reported.
As part of our analyses for both surveys, we reviewed documentation and
performed electronic testing of the data obtained through the surveys.
We also conducted several interviews with several researchers
responsible for the data collection and analyses and obtained
information about the measures they took to ensure data reliability. On
the basis of our efforts to determine the reliability of the data, we
determined the data from each of these surveys were sufficiently
reliable for the purposes of our study.
We reviewed existing literature to determine what researchers have
found regarding the effect of standards-based accountability systems on
instructional practices, and practices that work in raising student
achievement. To identify existing studies, we conducted searches of
various databases, such as the Education Resources Information Center,
Proquest, Dialog EDUCAT, and Education Abstracts. We also asked all of
the education researchers that we interviewed to recommend additional
studies. From these sources, we identified 251 studies that were
relevant to our study objectives about the effect of standards-based
accountability systems on instructional practices and instructional
practices there are effective in raising student achievement. We
selected them according to the following criteria: covered the years
2001 through 2008 and were either experimental or quasi-experimental
studies, literature syntheses, or studied multiple sites.[Footnote 34]
We selected the studies for our review based on their methodological
strength, given the limitations of the methods used, and not
necessarily on whether the results could be generalized. We performed
our searches from August 2008 to January 2009.
To assess the methodological quality of the selected studies, we
developed a data collection instrument to obtain information
systematically about each study being evaluated and about the features
of the evaluation methodology. We based our data collection and
assessments on generally accepted social science standards. We examined
factors related to the use of comparison and control groups; the
appropriateness of sampling and data collection methods; and for
syntheses, the process and criteria used to identify studies. A senior
social scientist with training and experience in evaluation research
and methodology read and coded the methodological discussion for each
evaluation. A second senior social scientist reviewed each completed
data collection instrument and the relevant documentation to verify the
accuracy of every coded item. This review identified 20 selected
studies that met GAO's criteria for methodological quality.
We supplemented our synthesis by interviewing prominent education
researchers identified in frequently cited articles and through
discussions with knowledgeable individuals. We also conducted
interviews with officials at the U.S. Department of Education,
including the Center on Innovation and Improvement, and the Institute
on Education Sciences' National Center for Education Evaluation and
Regional Assistance, as well as other educational organizations. We
also reviewed relevant federal laws and regulations.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Analyses of the Relationship between School
Characteristics and Principals' Focus on School Improvement Strategies:
In order to analyze the National Longitudinal Study of No Child Left
Behind (NLS-NCLB) principal survey conducted by the RAND Corporation,
we analyzed strategies on which principals most often focused, taking
into account the percentage of a school's students receiving free or
reduced price lunch (poverty), the percentage of students who are a
racial minority (minority), whether the school is in an urban,
suburban, or rural area (school location), and the school's adequate
yearly performance (AYP) status (see table 1).[Footnote 35] Our
analyses used "odds ratios," generally defined as the ratio of the odds
of an event occurring in one group compared to the odds of it occurring
in another group, to express differences in the likelihoods of schools
with different characteristics using these strategies. We used odds
ratios rather than percentages because they are more appropriate for
statistical modeling and multivariate analysis. Odds ratios indicate
how much higher (when they are greater than 1.0) or lower (when they
are less than 1.0) the odds were that principals would respond that a
given strategy was a major or moderate focus. We included a reference
category for the school characteristics (low minority, low poverty, and
central city) in the top row of table 1, and put comparison groups
beneath those reference categories, as indicated by the column heading
in the second row (high-minority, high-poverty, or rural schools). As
an example, the third cell in the "high-minority schools" column
indicates that principals in high-minority schools were 2.65 times more
likely to make "implementing new instructional approaches or curricula
in reading/language arts/English" a focus of their school improvement
efforts. In another example, the odds that principals would
"restructure the school day to teach core content areas in greater
depth (e.g., establishing a literacy block)" were 2.8 times higher for
high-poverty schools than low poverty schools, as seen in the sixth
cell under "high-poverty schools." Those cells with an asterisk
indicate statistically significant results; that is, we have a high
degree of confidence that the differences we see are not just due to
chance but show an actual difference in the survey responses. See
appendix I for further explanation of our methodology.
Table 1: Odds Ratios Indicating the Difference in Likelihood of
Principals to Make School Improvement Strategies a Moderate or Major
Focus after Controlling for Different Factors:
School demographic School Improvement Strategy: Using student
achievement data to inform instruction and school improvement;
(Compared to low-minority schools): High-minority schools: 1.24;
(Compared to low-minority schools): Middle minority schools: 3.01*;
(Compared to low-poverty schools): High-poverty schools: 2.51;
(Compared to low-poverty schools): Middle poverty schools: 1.34;
(Compared to central city schools): Rural schools: 0.46;
(Compared to central city schools): Suburban/fringe schools: 0.98.
School demographic School Improvement Strategy: Aligning curriculum and
instruction with standards and/or assessments;
(Compared to low-minority schools): High-minority schools: 1.24;
(Compared to low-minority schools): Middle minority schools: 2.09*;
(Compared to low-poverty schools): High-poverty schools: 1.81;
(Compared to low-poverty schools): Middle poverty schools: 0.92;
(Compared to central city schools): Rural schools: 0.58;
(Compared to central city schools): Suburban/fringe schools: 0.79.
School demographic School Improvement Strategy: Implementing new
instructional approaches or curricula in reading/language arts/
English;
(Compared to low-minority schools): High-minority schools: 2.65*;
(Compared to low-minority schools): Middle minority schools: 1.66;
(Compared to low-poverty schools): High-poverty schools: 0.99;
(Compared to low-poverty schools): Middle poverty schools: 1.24;
(Compared to central city schools): Rural schools: 0.80;
(Compared to central city schools): Suburban/fringe schools: 0.97.
School demographic School Improvement Strategy: Implementing new
instructional approaches or curricula in mathematics;
(Compared to low-minority schools): High-minority schools: 1.78;
(Compared to low-minority schools): Middle minority schools: 1.79*;
(Compared to low-poverty schools): High-poverty schools: 1.68;
(Compared to low-poverty schools): Middle poverty schools: 1.39;
(Compared to central city schools): Rural schools: 0.56*;
(Compared to central city schools): Suburban/fringe schools: 0.85.
School demographic School Improvement Strategy: Providing additional
instruction to low-achieving students;
(Compared to low-minority schools): High-minority schools: 2.39*;
(Compared to low-minority schools): Middle minority schools: 3.46*;
(Compared to low-poverty schools): High-poverty schools: 1.00;
(Compared to low-poverty schools): Middle poverty schools: 0.48*;
(Compared to central city schools): Rural schools: 0.31*;
(Compared to central city schools): Suburban/fringe schools: 0.83.
School demographic School Improvement Strategy: Restructuring the
school day to teach core content areas in greater depth (e.g.,
establishing a literacy block);
(Compared to low-minority schools): High-minority schools: 1.85*;
(Compared to low-minority schools): Middle minority schools: 1.29;
(Compared to low-poverty schools): High-poverty schools: 2.84*;
(Compared to low-poverty schools): Middle poverty schools: 1.66*;
(Compared to central city schools): Rural schools: 0.55*;
(Compared to central city schools): Suburban/fringe schools: 1.18.
School demographic School Improvement Strategy: Increasing
instructional time for all students (e.g., by lengthening the school
day or year, shortening recess);
(Compared to low-minority schools): High-minority schools: 1.86*;
(Compared to low-minority schools): Middle minority schools: 1.22;
(Compared to low-poverty schools): High-poverty schools: 2.48*;
(Compared to low-poverty schools): Middle poverty schools: 1.77*;
(Compared to central city schools): Rural schools: 0.53;
(Compared to central city schools): Suburban/fringe schools: 0.99.
School demographic School Improvement Strategy: Providing extended-
time instructional programs (e.g., before-school, after-school or
weekend instructional programs);
(Compared to low-minority schools): High-minority schools: 3.54*;
(Compared to low-minority schools): Middle minority schools: 2.11*;
(Compared to low-poverty schools): High-poverty schools: 2.51*;
(Compared to low-poverty schools): Middle poverty schools: 2.49*;
(Compared to central city schools): Rural schools: 0.46*;
(Compared to central city schools): Suburban/fringe schools: 1.12.
School demographic School Improvement Strategy: Implementing strategies
for increasing parents' involvement in their children's education;
(Compared to low-minority schools): High-minority schools: 1.86*;
(Compared to low-minority schools): Middle minority schools: 2.19*;
(Compared to low-poverty schools): High-poverty schools: 2.33*;
(Compared to low-poverty schools): Middle poverty schools: 1.33;
(Compared to central city schools): Rural schools: 0.76;
(Compared to central city schools): Suburban/fringe schools: 0.98.
School demographic School Improvement Strategy: Increasing the
intensity, focus, and effectiveness of professional development;
(Compared to low-minority schools): High-minority schools: 1.61;
(Compared to low-minority schools): Middle minority schools: 1.39;
(Compared to low-poverty schools): High-poverty schools: 2.38*;
(Compared to low-poverty schools): Middle poverty schools: 1.3;
(Compared to central city schools): Rural schools: 0.54*;
(Compared to central city schools): Suburban/fringe schools: 1.00.
* = Statistically significant at the 95% confidence level.
Source: GAO analysis of NLS-NCLB data.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix III: List of Education Researchers:
Name: Dr. David K. Cohen;
Affiliation: John Dewey Collegiate Professor of Education Walter H.
Annenberg Professor of Education Policy University of Michigan.
Name: Dr. Linda Darling-Hammond;
Affiliation: Charles Ducommon Professor of Education Stanford
University.
Name: Dr. Richard Elmore;
Affiliation: Gregory R. Anrig Professor of Educational Leadership
Director, Consortium for Policy Research in Education Harvard
University.
Name: Dr. David Figlio;
Affiliation: Institute for Policy Research Northwestern University
National Bureau of Economic Research.
Name: Dr. William A. Firestone;
Affiliation: Director, Center for Educational Policy Analysis;
Principal Investigator, New Jersey Math Science Partnership;
Professor Rutgers University.
Name: Dr. Susan Fuhrman;
Affiliation: President, Teachers College Columbia University.
Name: Dr. Margaret Goertz;
Affiliation: Professor Co-Director, Consortium for Policy Research in
Education University of Pennsylvania.
Name: Dr. Laura Hamilton;
Affiliation: Senior Behavioral/Social Scientist RAND.
Name: Dr. Jane Hannaway;
Affiliation: Director of Education Policy Urban Institute.
Name: Dr. Richard Murnane;
Affiliation: Juliana W. and William Foss Thompson Professor of
Education and Society Harvard University.
Name: Dr. William Sanders;
Affiliation: Senior Research Fellow University of North Carolina.
Name: Dr. Brian Stecher;
Affiliation: Senior Social Scientist RAND.
Source: GAO.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Studies Meeting GAO's Criteria for Methodological Quality:
Title: Accountability and Teaching Practices: School Level Actions and
Teacher Responses;
Author: Laura. S Hamilton; Brian M Stecher; Jennifer Linn Russell;
Julie A. Marsh; Jeremy Miles;
Source: "Strong States, Weak Schools: The Benefits and Dilemmas of
Centralized Accountability"; Research in Sociology of Education, vol.
16, 2008;
Method: Case studies of three states; representative surveys for these
states.
Title: Catching Up Impact of the Talent Development Ninth Grade
Instructional Interventions in Reading and Mathematics in High-Poverty
High Schools;
Author: Robert Belfanz; Nettie Legters; Will Jordan;
Source: Report 69 April 2004 The Johns Hopkins University Center for
Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk;
Method: Quasi-experimental design with matched groups; multiple
regressions used with data. Limitations: Two school districts (around
Baltimore); small percentage of all those enrolled in the 9th grade.
Title: Differentiated Curriculum Enhancement in Inclusive Middle School
Science: Effects on Classroom and High-Stakes Tests;
Author: Margo A. Mastropieri; Thomas E. Scruggs; Jennifer J. Norland;
Sheri Berkeley; Kimberly McDuffie; Elizabeth Halloran Tornquist; Nicole
Connors;
Source: The Journal of Special Education vol. 40, no. 3. 2006, 130-137;
Method: Quasi-experimental design; 13 classes matched by teacher, and
randomly assigned to treatment or control group. Limitations: some
external validity issues.
Title: Effective Programs in Elementary Mathematics: A Best-Evidence
Synthesis;
Author: Robert E. Slavin; Cynthia Lake;
Source: Review of Educational Research. Washington: September 2008.
vol. 78, issue 3. 427;
Method: Literature review using a best-evidence synthesis (related to a
meta-analysis).
Title: Feeling the Florida Heat? How Low-Performing Schools Respond to
Voucher and Accountability Pressure;
Author: Cecilia Elena Rouse; Jane Hannaway; Dan Goldhaber; David
Figlio;
Source: Calder/Urban Institute National Center for Analysis of
Longitudinal Data in Education Research Working Paper November 2007;
Method: Administrative data used to develop comparison groups of
schools; regression discontinuity design; results apply to Florida
schools only.
Title: Formulating Secondary-Level Reading Interventions;
Author: Debra M. Kamps; Charles R. Greenwood;
Source: Journal of Learning Disabilities, vol. 38, no. 6.
November/December 200, 500-509;
Method: Quasi-experimental; random assignment of schools, but not
students; Limitations: cannot be generalized beyond the 8 schools
involved in the study.
Title: Helping At-Risk Students Meet Standards A Synthesis of Evidence-
Based Classroom Practices;
Author: Zoe Barley; Patricia A. Lauer; Sheila A. Arens; Helen S.
Apthorp; Kelly S. Englert; David Snow; Motoko Akiba;
Source: Regional Education Laboratory; Office of Educational Research
and Improvement; U.S. Department of Education; Mid-continent Research
for Education and Learning October 2002 corrected 12/02;
Method: Literature review; in some cases a meta-analysis was conducted;
effect sizes were computed for meta-analysis when available; some
studies were outside the time frames of our search criteria.
Title: High Poverty Schools and the Distribution of Teachers and
Principals;
Author: Charles Clotfelter; Helen F. Ladd; Jacob Vigdor; Justin
Wheeler;
Source: Sanford Working Paper Series SAN06-08 December 2006;
Method: Time series analysis using administrative data for all schools
in North Carolina. Limitation: applies to North Carolina only.
Title: High Stakes Testing and Curricular Control: A Qualitative
Metasynthesis;
Author: Wayne Au;
Source: Educational Researcher; vol. 36, no. 5, June/Jul 2007; 258-267;
Method: Meta-synthesis of qualitative studies; Limitations: Results for
Chicago only; some coding issues.
Title: Instructional Policy and Classroom Performance: The Mathematics
Reform in CA;
Author: David K. Cohen; Heather C. Hill;
Source: Teachers College Record, vol. 102, no. 2. February 2000, 294-
343;
Method: Regression analysis of data from teacher surveys and
administrative data. Limitations: results based on a 1994 survey;
response rate was 61 percent.
Title: Instructional Time in Elementary Schools A Closer Look at
Changes for Specific Subjects;
Author: Center on Education Policy;
Source: From the Capital to the Classroom: Year of the No Child Left
Behind Act; Center on Education Policy February 2008;
Method: Survey of school districts and states, qualitative interviews;
Limitation: high non-response rate from school districts in large urban
areas.
Title: Standards in Classroom Practice: Research Synthesis;
Author: Helen S. Apthorp; Ceri B. Dean; Judy E. Florian; Patricia A.
Lauder; Robert Reichardt; Nancy M. Sanders; Ravay Snow-Renner;
Source: Regional Education Laboratory; Office of Educational Research
and Improvement; U.S. Department of Education; Mid-continent Research
for Education and Learning October 31, 2001;
Method: Literature review; no meta-analysis conducted; some studies
outside our time frame.
Title: Standards-Based Reform in Practice: Evidence on State Policy and
Classroom Instruction from the NAEP State Assessments;
Author: Christopher B. Swanson; David Lee Stevenson;
Source: Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, vol. 24, no. 1.
Spring 2002, 1-27;
Method: Hierarchical linear modeling on survey data from the National
Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP); limitation is that only 30
of the original 40 states are included, with some of the largest of the
states missing.
Title: Studying Large-Scale Reforms of Instructional Practice: An
Example from Mathematics and Science;
Author: Laura S. Hamilton; Daniel F. McCaffrey; Brian Stecher; Stephen
P. Klein; Abby Robyn; Delia Bugliari;
Source: Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, vol. 25, no. 1.
Spring 2003, 1-29;
Method: Regression analysis; Limited to 11 sites;
results small and positive, but not statistically significant.
Title: Supporting Literacy Across the Sunshine State: A Study of
Florida Middle School Reading Coaches;
Author: Julie A. Marsh; Jennifer Sloan McCombs; J.R. Lockwood;
Francisco Martorell; Daniel Gershwin; Scott Naftel; Vi-Nhuan Le;
Molly Shea; Heather Barney; Al Crego;
Source: RAND Corporation 2008;
Method: Case study of Florida; longitudinal data analysis of data from
1997-1998 to 2006-2007 based on a survey of teachers, principals, and
students in 8 middle schools.
Title: Teaching Methods for Secondary Algebra: A Meta-Analysis of
Findings;
Author: Matthew Haas;
Source: National Association of Secondary School Principals. NASSP
Bulletin, March 2005, 89, 642; Research Library 24;
Method: Meta-analysis of 35 studies.
Title: Test Preparation in New Jersey: inquiry-oriented and didactic
responses;
Author: William A. Firestone; Lora Monfils; Roberta Y. Schorr;
Source: Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, vol.
11, no.1. March 2004, 67-88;
Method: Survey, exploratory factor analysis, and hierarchical linear
modeling time series; results limited to New Jersey.
Title: The Influence of Standards on K-12 Teaching and Student
Learning: A Research Synthesis;
Author: Patricia A. Lauer; David Snow; Mya Martin-Glenn; Rebecca J. Van
Buhler; Kristen Stoutemyer; Ravay Snow-Renner;
Source: Regional Education Laboratory, August 19, 2005;
Method: Literature review; no meta-analysis; both quantitative and
qualitative studies used; comprehensive selection process.
Title: The New Accountability, Student Failure, and Teachers' Work in
Urban High Schools;
Author: Dorothea Anagnostopoulous;
Source: Educational Policy, vol. 17, no. 3. July 2003, 291-316;
Method: Case study of two high schools; findings are suggestive.
Title: Value-Added Assessment in Practice: Lessons from Pennsylvania
Value-Added Assessment System Pilot Project;
Author: Daniel F. McCaffrey; Laura S. Hamilton;
Source: RAND Corporation 2007;
Method: Quasi-experimental design for 93 non-random study districts in
Pennsylvania; not generalizable to the nation or the state.
Source: GAO analysis.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Education:
United States Department Of Education:
Office Of Planning, Evaluation And Policy Development:
400 Maryland Ave, SW:
Washington, DC 20202:
October 2, 2009:
Ms. Cornelia M. Ashby:
Director:
Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Ms. Ashby:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft GAO report,
Student Achievement: Schools Use Multiple Strategies to Help Students
Meet Academic Standards, Especially Schools with Higher Proportions of
Low Income and Minority Students.
GAO's report asks important questions about the effects of standards-
based accountability on instructional practices and the effectiveness
of specific instructional practices in improving student achievement,
and seeks to answer these questions through a literature review and
interviews with prominent education researchers. The report also
examines data on the types of instructional practices that schools and
teachers arc using to help students achieve to state academic
standards, in part based on surveys conducted for the Department's
National Longitudinal Study of No Child Left Behind. While the report
addresses important policy questions, there are some issues pertaining
to the study's approach that we recommend be taken into consideration.
First, the draft report does not clearly explain how GAO selected the
20 studies included in its literature review or the methods used in the
studies that were selected. Moreover, in discussing specific findings
from the literature review, the report frequently does not indicate
which studies are being relied on as evidence for each finding.
Second, the report mixes findings that may be based on rigorous
research with findings that appear to be based on conjecture and on
what "some researchers believe," and does not always present a complete
and balanced summary of the relevant research. For example, the report
states that "difficulties in aligning practice with standards were
attributed, in part, to current accountability requirements," but
appears to rely only on expert opinion for this causal conclusion.
Similarly, the report states that "a few researchers as well as some of
the literature we reviewed report some unintended negative consequences
on instruction as a result of assessment practices," including the
reported consequences of "multiple choice tests that do not
encourage more challenging teacher practices" and "instructional
practices that narrow the curriculum." These statements may accurately
report the opinions of the individuals interviewed, but the report
provides weak empirical evidence to support these conclusions and does
not include all of the available evidence.
With respect to the assertion that the assessment provisions in the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as amended by the No Child Left
Behind Act (NCLB), have resulted in multiple choice tests that do not
encourage more challenging teaching practices, the report does not
present any data on the extent to which test formats have changed or on
the relationship between test format and teaching practices. Instead
the report notes that some researchers believe that states are
increasingly using multiple-choice testing formats, and hypothesizes
that teachers "may be influenced" to change their teaching approaches
because of the tests. Any conclusions about what the "research shows"
should he supported by specific references to rigorous research that
used appropriate methods for measuring impacts.
In the discussion of whether there has been narrowing of the
curriculum, the report notes that a Department survey found that 18 to
22 percent of elementary teachers reported increasing instructional
time for mathematics and reading, respectively, and concludes that this
is occurring "at the expense of other non-tested subjects." However,
the report does not mention the finding from the same survey that most
elementary teachers reported no change from 2004-05 to 2006-07 in the
amount of instructional time that they spent on other subjects. The
report also notes that some research has raised concern that teachers
may be restricting the breadth of content covered within a particular
subject, but does not acknowledge the converse concern, based on
research conducted for the Third International Math and Science Study
(TIMSS), that curricula in American schools may be "a mile wide and an
inch deep" and thus some refocusing of curricula may be beneficial.
The Department recognizes that improvements in assessment and
accountability systems could help enable schools to strengthen
instructional practices and improve student achievement. As one step
toward that goal, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act included
$250 million for Statewide Data Systems to help ensure that states and
school districts have the robust data systems they need to provide
information on individual student outcomes that educators and
policymakers can use to drive educational improvement. More research is
needed to better understand what instructional practices and policy
changes could be most effective in closing achievement gaps and
improving educational outcomes.
Attached are technical comments provided by Department staff on the
text of the report. If you have any questions, we would he glad to
discuss our comments with your research team.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Alan Ginsburg:
Director:
Policy and Program Studies Service:
Enclosure:
[End of section]
Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Cornelia M. Ashby (202) 512-7215 or ashbyc@gao.gov.
Staff Acknowledgments:
Janet Mascia (Assistant Director), Bryon Gordon (Assistant Director),
and Andrew Nelson (Analyst-in-Charge) managed all aspects of the
assignment. Linda Stokes and Caitlin Tobin made significant
contributions to this report in all aspects of the work. Kate van
Gelder contributed to writing this report, and Ashley McCall
contributed to research for the report. Luann Moy, Justin Fisher, Cathy
Hurley, Douglas Sloane, and John Smale Jr. provided key technical
support, and Doreen Feldman and Sheila R. McCoy provided legal support.
Mimi Nguyen developed the graphics for the report.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] Pub. L. No. 107-110.
[2] We use the phrase "instructional practices" to include tools for
improving classroom teaching practices, such as providing additional
professional development.
[3] State and Local Implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act
Volume III--Accountability under NCLB: Interim Report. A report from
the National Longitudinal Study of No Child Left Behind (NLS-NCLB) and
the Study of State Implementation of Accountability and Teacher Quality
under No Child Left Behind (SSI-NCLB) Kerstin Carlson Le Floch, AIR,
Felipe Martinez, RAND, Jennifer O'Day, AIR, Brian Stecher, RAND, James
Taylor, AIR, Andrea Cook, AIR. Prepared for: U.S. Department of
Education Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development Policy
and Program Studies Service (2007).
[4] Laura S. Hamilton, Brian M. Stecher, Julie A. Marsh, Jennifer Sloan
McCombs, Abby Robyn, Jennifer Lin Russell, Scott Naftel, and Heather
Barney. "Standards-Based Accountability under No Child Left Behind:
Experiences of Teachers and Administrators in Three States." Sponsored
by the National Science Foundation. RAND 2007. The survey also asked
about reported changes in strategies for science instruction as a
result of the state science test, but we are only reporting on math
instruction.
[5] Of the 20 studies we used that met our criteria for methodological
quality, we relied heavily on two literature syntheses conducted by the
Department of Education because of the large number of studies they
included and the breadth of the topics they covered. For a list of
these and the other studies meeting our criteria for methodological
quality, see appendix IV. Additionally, a few other studies are cited
in footnotes throughout the report but not included in the list of
studies that we formally reviewed. Those cited in the footnotes were
used because they provided more details or supplementary information
about points that the experts made during our interviews.
[6] For a list of knowledgeable individuals with whom we spoke, see
appendix III.
[7] Pub. L. No. 89-10.
[8] Pub. L. No. 103-382.
[9] Assessments in science, which were first required under NCLBA in
school year 2007-2008, are required at least once in grades 3 to 5,
grades 6 to 9, and grades 10 to 12. High school students are required
only to be assessed once in math and reading or language arts. In
addition to annual assessments, high schools must include students'
graduation rate, and elementary and middle schools must include one
other academic indicator determined by the state to assess whether they
made AYP.
[10] GAO, No Child Left Behind Act: Improvements Needed in Education's
Process for Tracking States' Implementation of Key Provisions,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-734] (Washington, D.C.:
Sept. 30, 2004).
[11] For more information on teacher quality, see GAO, Teacher Quality:
Sustained Coordination among Key Federal Education Programs Could
Enhance State Efforts to Improve Teacher Quality, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-593] (Washington, D.C.: July 2009).
[12] For purposes of this report, we use the term "school improvement"
to refer to the voluntary strategies used by school administrators and
teachers to address various challenges within a school. By way of
contrast, under NCLBA, schools that are identified for "school
improvement" are those that have failed to make AYP for 2 or more
consecutive years. These schools must implement certain activities
identified in NCLBA that are meant to improve student academic
achievement.
[13] Education classified schools as having "high--75 percent or more,"
"moderate--35 to less than 75," or "low--35 percent or less"
percentages of low-income students using the number of students at the
school that were eligible for the free and reduced-price lunch program.
Schools were classified as having "high--75 percent or more,"
"moderate--25 to less than 75," or "low--25 percent or less"
percentages of minority students, based on the school population that
principals reported to be American Indian/Alaskan Native, Asian, Black
or African-American, Hispanic or Latino, and Native Hawaiian or other
Pacific Islander. Schools also were classified as central city (urban),
urban fringe/large town (suburban), or small/fringe town (rural).
[14] See appendix II for additional information about how principals'
responses differed across school characteristics.
[15] Core content areas include those subjects for which testing is
required under NCLBA--specifically, reading, math, and science.
[16] For the last three of these five strategies and one other-
providing additional instruction to low-achieving students--there were
also significant differences between moderate-poverty and low-poverty
schools.
[17] See appendix II for a table that indicates which six strategies
differed by school minority level.
[18] Urban fringe or large town schools were no different from the
central city schools with respect to making these strategies a major or
moderate focus. In the 2003-2004 school year, about 30 percent of all
U.S. elementary and secondary public schools were located in rural
areas and approximately 20 percent of public school students were
enrolled in rural schools. See S. Provasnik, A. KewalRamani, M. M.
Coleman, L. Gilbertson, W. Herring, and Q. Xie, Status of Education in
Rural America (NCES 2007-040). National Center for Education
Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of
Education (Washington, D.C.: 2007). See appendix II for a table that
indicates which five strategies differed by school geographic type.
[19] When we compared moderate-poverty schools to high-poverty and low-
poverty schools, we saw fewer statistically significant differences
than in our high-poverty and low-poverty school comparison.
[20] For the three state data, we conducted a simple analysis that did
not control for multiple factors, since we had access only to RAND's bi-
variate analyses of the data rather than the data itself. Because of
this, we could not perform a multivariate analysis, which would allow
us to control for other factors.
[21] The National Governors' Association and the Council of Chief State
School Officers are coordinating a committee of experts to develop
common academic standards for math and language arts skills. As of June
2009, 46 states had signed onto this effort to adopt the common
standards once they were completed.
[22] W. Firestone, R. Schorr, and L. Monfils, editors. Ambiguity of
Teaching to the Test: Standards, Assessments, and Educational Reform,
160-161 (2004).
[23] Helen S. Apthorp, et al., "Standards in Classroom Practice
Research Synthesis," Mid-Continent Research for Education and Learning
(October 2001).
[24] NCLBA added to the assessment requirements included in IASA. For
example, NCLBA requires states to implement annual assessments for all
students in every grade for grades 3-8 in reading and math; IASA
required assessments at least once in each of three grade spans: 3-5, 6-
9, and 10-12. Additionally, unlike IASA, NCLBA sets a uniform timeline
for when all students must meet state proficiency targets.
[25] P. A. Lauer, D. Snow, M. Martin-Glenn, R.J.Van Buhler, K.
Stoutemyer, R. Snow-Renner, The Influence of Standards on K-12 Teaching
and Student Learning: A Research Synthesis, Regional Education
Laboratory, August 19, 2005, p. 91.
[26] GAO, No Child Left Behind Act: Enhancements in the Department of
Education's Review Process Could Improve State Academic Assessments,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-911], (Washington, D.C.:
September 2009).
[27] For example, according to data from Education's national survey,
about 18 percent of elementary school teachers reported that
instruction time for math increased from school years 2004-2005 to 2006-
2007, and about 22 percent of elementary school teachers reported that
instruction time for reading/language arts increased over the same
period. However, approximately three-quarters of teachers reported no
change in instructional time in these two subjects. GAO, Access to Arts
Education: Inclusion of Additional Questions in Education's Planned
Research Would Help Explain Why Instruction Time Has Decreased for Some
Students, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-286]
(Washington, D.C.: February 2009). In addition, a report by the
Department of Education states that from 1987-1988 to 2003-2004,
teacher survey results from the Schools and Staffing Survey conducted
by the National Center for Education Statistics indicate that
elementary teachers had increased instructional time on reading and
mathematics and decreased the amount of time spent on science and
social studies during this period. See U.S. Department of Education,
Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development, Policy and
Program Studies Service, Title I Implementation--Update on Recent
Evaluation Findings (Washington, D.C.: 2009).
[28] The final report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel takes
a slightly different position regarding this practice stating that "All-
encompassing recommendations that instruction should be entirely
'student centered' or 'teacher directed' are not supported by research
...High-quality research does not support the exclusive use of either
approach." National Mathematics Advisory Panel. Foundations for
Success: The Final Report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel,
U.S. Department of Education (Washington, D.C.: 2008).
[29] L. Darling-Hammond, R. Wei, A. Andree, N. Richardson, and S.
Orphanos, Professional Learning in the Learning Profession: A Status
Report on Teacher Development in the United States and Abroad,
Technical Report (National Staff Development Council and The School
Redesign Network at Stanford University: February 2009) 18 and 22.
[30] GAO, No Child Left Behind Act: Enhancements in the Department of
Education's Review Process Could Improve State Academic Assessments,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-911] (Washington, D.C.:
September 2009).
[31] Several education experts we spoke to said the list of practices
was fairly complete, but one expert noted that professional development
is also an important instructional practice.
[32] Laura S. Hamilton, Brian M. Stecher, Julie A. Marsh, Jennifer
Sloan McCombs, Abby Robyn, Jennifer Lin Russell, Scott Naftel, and
Heather Barney, "Standards-Based Accountability under No Child Left
Behind: Experiences of Teachers and Administrators in Three States"
(Sponsored by the National Science Foundation. RAND 2007).
[33] Scott Naftel, Laura S. Hamilton, and Brian M. Stecher, "Working
Paper Supplemental Analyses of ISBA Survey Responses" (WR-628-EDU.
RAND. November 2008).
[34] Some research, including the syntheses that we reviewed, included
some studies outside these date parameters. Additionally, the syntheses
used to support some of the findings were not meta-analyses but
literature reviews, although both qualitative and quantitative studies
were included in the syntheses.
[35] Table 1 does not include AYP status, because we found that the
demographic characteristics of poverty and minority explained the
patterns of principals' responses more fully than AYP status.
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548: