CTP Working Papers
The Center's Working Paper series allows Center researchers to release interim results of their ongoing investigations when these are sufficiently well developed to be informative to the field. Also, it gives education and policy audiences the opportunity to make use of these "works in progress" in a timely manner. Prior to publication, CTP Working Papers go through one round of external review. We warmly encourage feedback on these documents to help us refine them further in preparation for final research reports, which require a further round of reviews.
Hint! Click on a title to see more information about it. Click on that title again to hide the information.
Preparation and Support for Teaching: Teachers' Response to State Education Reform
A Working Paper prepared for the Center for Strengthening the Teaching Profession (CSTP) by Ana M. Elfers, Michael S. Knapp, Amrita Zahir, and Margaret L. Plecki, March 2005.
Preparation and Support for Teaching: Support for Teachers' Professional Learning
A Working Paper commissioned by the Center for Strengthening the Teaching Profession (CSTP) by Ana M. Elfers, Beth Boatright, and Michael S. Knapp, with Margaret L. Plecki and Hilary Loeb, June 2004.
Preparation and Support for Teaching: Working Conditions of Teachers
A Working Paper commissioned by the Center for Strengthening the Teaching Profession (CSTP) by Hilary Loeb, Ana M. Elfers, Michael S. Knapp, and Margaret L. Plecki, with Beth Boatright, May 2004.
Development and Deployment of a "Fast Response" Survey System in Washington State: Methodological Notes
A Working Paper commissioned by the Center for Strengthening the Teaching Profession (CSTP) by Ana M. Elfers, Michael S. Knapp, and Margaret L. Plecki, with Beth Boatright and Hilary Loeb, April 2004.
Preparation and Support for Teaching: Teachers' Assignment and Certification
A Working Paper commissioned by the Center for Strengthening the Teaching Profession (CSTP) by Ana M. Elfers, Michael S. Knapp, and Margaret L. Plecki, with Beth Boatright, and Hilary Loeb, April 2004.
Using Student Work to Support Professional Development in Elementary Mathematics
A Working Paper by Elham Kazemi and Megan Loef Franke, April 2003.Description:
This CTP Working Paper charts the evolving conversations and pedagogical learning of one teacher workgroup as it met over the course of a year to discuss student work in elementary mathematics. Chronicled are details of the teachers' efforts to make sense of their students' reasoning in solving base ten system problems. The paper is organized into six sections that reflect the trajectory of the workgroup. The authors reflect upon that trajectory of teachers' talk to make several conjectures about the use of student work and the potential opportunities for learning that examining student work opens up for teachers. One such conjecture is that examining it is a promising way of beginning to work with a diverse group of teachers.Abstract:PDFAbstract
It is commonly argued that teachers need ongoing engagement with ideas about student reasoning, pedagogy, and subject matter if they are to make sense of the complex demands of current reforms in mathematics education. Drawing on similar arguments about the potential benefits of using student work to organize professional development, this study charts the development of one teacher workgroup over a year. The analysis addresses two questions: (a) How did teachers' talk about student work develop? and (b) What kinds of mathematical and pedagogical issues were raised as a result of their ongoing and changing talk? The study locates teacher learning in their interactions with one another in the workgroup. In monthly cross-grade meetings teachers brought and discussed student work that was generated by a similar mathematical problem posed to students in each of their classrooms. We document the teachers' efforts to detail their students' reasoning and discuss how their engagement with mathematical and pedagogical concerns created opportunities for teacher learning. We discuss the implications of this work for organizing teachers' collective deliberations about student reasoning and pedagogy.
Revisiting What States Are Doing to Improve the Quality of Teaching: An Update on Patterns and Trends
A Working Paper by Eric Hirsch, Julia E. Koppich, and Michael S. Knapp, February 2001.Description:
This updated version of an earlier CTP Working Paper takes a fresh look at recent developments in the realms of state policy related to teacher and teaching quality. The broad-brush, descriptive analysis covers state-level policy action pertaining to (1) development and promotion of high standards for student learning and for teaching; (2) attempts to attract, reward, and retain capable people in the teaching profession; (3) support for high-quality initial preparation and induction of new teachers; (4) attempts to motivate and support teachers' ongoing professional learning; and (5) enhancements to the school workplace environment.Abstract:PDFAbstractOriginal Study
This updated version of the 1998 CTP Working Paper What States Are Doing to Improve the Quality of Teaching takes a fresh look at recent developments in realms of state policy related to teacher and teaching quality. Paying closest attention to recent legislative activity, the analysis describes state-level policy action pertaining to: (1) development and promotion of high standards for student learning and for teaching; (2) attempts to attract, reward, and retain capable people in the teaching profession; (3) support for high-quality initial preparation and induction of new teachers; (4) attempts to motivate and support teachers' ongoing professional learning; and (5) enhancements to the school workplace environment. The results indicate that states have been particularly active with respect to the development of teacher standards and assessments, approaches to a growing recruitment challenge, more proactive ways to improve teacher preparation (and hold teacher education institutions accountable), and some targeted efforts to strengthen professional development. While the paper is descriptive, not evaluative, the authors call in their concluding remarks for more coherent, data-informed policy related to the quality of teachers and teaching, yet acknowledge the difficulty of bringing this about at the state level.
Resources, Instruction, and Research
A Working Paper by David K. Cohen, Stephen W. Raudenbush, and Deborah Loewenberg Ball, December 2000.Description:
This Working Paper looks at resource use in schools and discusses research designs that would be appropriate to identify resource effects. Whereas education policymakers have long believed that conventional resoures, i.e. books, bricks, class size, and teacher qualifications directly affect student learning and achievement, the authors here argue it's all about how those resources get used in instruction. How resource use is influenced by the management of certain key problems of instruction, including coordination, incentives to use the resources, and management of instructional environments, is also discussed.Abstract:PDFAbstractOriginal Study
Education policymakers have long believed that conventional resources, i.e., books, bricks, class size, and teacher qualifications, directly affect student learning and achievement. This working paper builds on more recent research and argues that learning is affected by how resources are used in instruction, not by their mere presence or absence. If use is central to resource effects, research on the effects of resources should be broadened to include the chief influences on use, including teachers' and students' knowledge, skill, and will, and features of teachers' and learners' environments, including school leadership, academic norms, and institutional structures. We discuss how resource use is influenced by the management of certain key problems of instruction, including coordination, incentives to use resources, and management of instructional environments. Having framed the issues in a way that places use by teachers and learners at the center of inquiry, we then discuss research designs that would be appropriate to identify resource effects.
Connecting Districts to the Policy Dialogue: A Review of Literature on the Relationship of Districts with States, Schools, and Communities
A Working Paper by Julie A. Marsh, September 2000.Description:
This Working Paper reviews literature about the key roles that districts play in supporting improvements in teaching and learning, including the district role in implementing state policies and enacting school-level change and what the key factors are that enable districts to effectively support improvements. It also considers how community involvement and collaboration contribute to districts' improvement efforts. The paper suggests directions for future research to advance the state of knowledge on school districts.Abstract:PDFAbstractOriginal Study
The current wave of education reform pays little attention to school districts. State and federal policies have increasingly identified schools as the most important units of change-rendering local districts virtual non-actors in the process of educational improvement (Elmore, 1993, 1997a; Elmore and Burney, 1999; Fullan, forthcoming; Massell and Goertz, 1999; Spillane, 1996). The focus on state-level education standards, curriculum frameworks, assessment, and accountability systems, along with state and federal efforts to serve specific populations through categorical programs, restructure schools, increase site-based decision-making, and introduce greater parental choice exemplify this trend in education policy. To some reformers, school districts are the problem. Critics claim that they have no empirically significant role to play, are inconsistent with sound policy, and are inefficient bureaucratic institutions (Chubb and Moe, 1990; Elmore, 1993, citing Finn, 1991). To other observers, school districts have become overly politicized and unresponsive to public, teacher, and student needs (Hill, 1999). Other policymakers simply view districts as relatively insignificant go-betweens through which policies and funding must pass to reach the more important school-level actors. Finally, some reformers have invented new organizational forms and networks (e.g., New American Schools Development Corporation) that bypass districts in order to directly target resources and support to schools.
Despite this trend in policy, an increasing number of studies in the past decade or so have documented the key roles that districts play in supporting improvements in teaching and learning-building a strong case that school districts matter (Spillane, 1996). The following paper examines this emerging body of literature and attempts to answer the following questions:
- What roles do school districts play in efforts to improve teaching and learning? How do they affect the implementation of state policies and the enactment of school-level changes?
- What are the key factors that enable districts to effectively support improvements in teaching and learning?
- How does community involvement or collaboration contribute to districts' improvement efforts?
In conclusion, this paper will examine several unanswered questions and suggest directions for future research to advance the state of knowledge on school districts.
New Tools for Research on Instruction and Instructional Policy: A Web-based Teacher Log
A Working Paper by Deborah Loewenberg Ball, Eric Camburn, Richard Correnti, Geoffrey Phelps, and Raven Wallace, December 1999.Description:
This Working Paper reports on the initial development and pilot-testing of a web-based instrument designed to collect daily data on instruction, which then could be aggregated to create portraits of content emphasis and pedagogy. The instrument was developed for use in the Study of Instructional Improvement and although it is not currently being used, the authors think there are elements of its design that may be of use to those interested in instructional tracking tools.Abstract:PDFAbstractOriginal Study
This working paper reports on the initial development and pilot testing of a Web-based instrument designed to collect daily data on instruction. This instrument, referred to as the teacher log, was being developed for use in the Study of Instructional Improvement, a large scale, longitudinal study focusing on school improvement in high poverty schools. Although the instructional log we are ultimately using in this research is not a Web-based tool, and its features are both similar to and different from the one under discussion in this report, we think that there are elements of our early instrument design work that may be of use to others interested in the development of such tools to track instruction.
In recent years, a number of studies seeking to generate more detailed data on instruction have pioneered the use of teacher logs. Such logs are generally self-administered instruments which ask teachers to report on topics covered, pedagogy, and more. Teachers fill out such logs on a daily basis and data from these daily reports is then aggregated to create portraits of content emphasis and pedagogy over time.
In this pilot work, we set out to further develop the potential of teacher logs by experimenting with Web-based technology and computer branching. These features open up possibilities for capturing a much wider range of data and for linking this data to the work of individual students in classrooms. Furthermore, where paper and pencil logs must be distributed to teachers and data from each log entered into a data base, Web technology allows data to be entered directly as teachers complete the log, potentially reducing the burden on both teachers and researchers. The teacher log pilot study was conducted in the spring of 1998 to test the feasibility of using a Web based instrument to collect data on instruction. Seven teachers in two schools used the teacher log to report on 29 lessons in mathematics and reading. In addition, project researchers observed classroom instruction, filled out log reports, and wrote detailed narrative descriptions for 24 of these lessons.
Results from this pilot were encouraging. All teachers were able to use the teacher log to report on instruction. Data was successfully entered through a Web interface into a data base and subsequently used to conduct provisional analyses of both instruction and the reliability and validity of the instrument.