Beyond Accountability and Average Mathematics Scores: Relating State Education Policy Attributes to Cognitive Achievement Domains

Abstract

We found moderate correlations among four policy attributes (consistency, specificity, authority, and power), which suggest that in many states, at least in design, standards‐based reform is working as advocates imagined—aligned content standards and assessments established, backed up by detailed guidelines and frameworks, incentivized by rewards and sanctions, and supported with extra resources and programs for struggling students and their teachers. Our findings suggest that specificity and authority may be related to improvements in procedural knowledge, and no change in problem solving or conceptual understanding, while power (accountability) may be associated with a small decrease in all types of learning. We found that disadvantaged students showed gains in procedural knowledge and did not lose ground in either conceptual understanding or problem solving. Implications for developing an improved theory of policy effects on achievement are discussed.

The effect of classroom activities on students’ interest and career aspirations towards technology

“…Teacher professional development as a means toward developing quality teachers is cited as a significant variable in setting classroom practices and as positively influencing student learning (Borko, 2004;Desimone, Smith, Hayes & Frisvold, 2005). The results of this study are in line with Hampten-Thompson and Bennett (2013) that on the level of teacher education, continuing empirical research as to how to achieve gender equity in sciences and technology education should be incorporated in teacher training (e.g.…”

The Association of State Policy Attributes With Teachers’ Instructional Alignment

“…Similar databases were used in previous state policy analyses (e.g., Desimone et al, 2004;Desimone, Smith, & Phillips, 2007), and the Education Week data are seen as being of high quality and appropriate for use in constructing indicators of key constructs (Camilli & Firestone, 1999;Coe, 2003). The variables in the database contribute to a measure of the policy attribute of power.…”

The Black-White achievement gap: Do state policies matter?

“…This framework was used to evaluate the effectiveness of nine statewide systemic initiatives based on rich case studies. Desimone et al (2005), cited above, review some of the relevant literature and propose a policy framework comprising five attributes: consistency, specificity, authority, power and stability. These are described and operational definitions provided.…”

“…More recently, Desimone et al (2005) developed a five-dimensional framework for describing state education policies, as well as protocols for developing descriptors of each state with respect to the framework. They then used multiple regression to relate changes in state performance on NAEP 8 th grade mathematics, from 2000 to 2003, to various combinations of state policy descriptors.…”

“…Some studies have focused on states' accountability efforts (Carnoy & Loeb, 2003), some on policies regarding teachers , while others have considered a broader spectrum of reform initiatives (Swanson & Stevenson, 2002). Conclusions have been mixed and controversy is still the norm, particularly with respect to the long-term consequences of high-stakes testing (Amrein & Berliner, 2002;Carnoy & Loeb, 2003;Raymond & Hanushek, 2003;Braun, 2004;Desimone, Smith, Hayes & Frisvold, 2005;Nichols, Glass & Berliner, 2006). This should not be surprising because such evaluations are a type of observational study of a small population of units (typically, states), with non-random allocation of "treatments."…”