Feedback on Alignment and Support for Teachers Study

• In Event: Implementation and Effects of Standards-Based Reform: A Five-Year, Five-State Study of the Multiple Levels and Dimensions of Ambitious Instructional Reforms

Abstract

The Feedback on Alignment and Support for Teachers (FAST) program is designed to support teachers in providing instruction aligned to their state’s standards. We focus on findings from implementation of the program within a two-year experimental test of the impact of the program on 4th grade math and 5th grade English language Arts (ELA) teachers’ instruction and their students’ learning.

For three decades, standards-based reforms have been a core element of efforts to improve education through policy. Many believe that if standards-based reform is done right, it can lead teachers to change their practice in positive ways (Borko & Elliott, 1999) and promote student learning (Porter, 2000) but it should be supported with professional development (Smith & O’Day, 1991).

The FAST program provided this support through (1) Personalized Coaching. Teachers met with virtual FAST coaches to improve the alignment of their instruction to state standards. (2) Tools to Support Reflection. Teachers used instructional logs and video recordings to reflect on the alignment of their instruction. (3) Library of Resources. The portal included a library of resources to support teachers in aligning instruction to standards for all students.

The instructional logs and all discussions were grounded in the Survey of Enacted Curriculum (Porter et al., 2008), which uses a combination of topics and cognitive demands to examine the alignment of instruction to state standards.

We randomly assigned 29 of 56 participating schools from five districts spanning three states to the FAST program. We used coach logs completed at the end of each coaching session, teacher attendance sheets, study records documenting activity completion, and coach and teacher surveys to examine the fidelity of program implementation, teacher participation in planned activities, and coach and teacher perspectives of the program.

Preliminary analyses of the data indicate that most of the planned activities were implemented in year 2. FAST was best implemented in schools where there weren’t too many competing initiatives and teachers were provided time to complete the activities. It took teachers time to become familiar with the FAST technology and learn how to analyze alignment of instruction to standards using topics and cognitive demands. Teachers who participated in the program found it useful for improving their instruction. Coaches reported spending most of their time with teachers helping them to understand and support students in mastering the level of cognitive depth required by the standards, rather than the topics.

Borko, H., & Elliott, R. (1999). Hands-on pedagogy versus hands-off accountability: Tensions between competing commitments for exemplary math teachers in Kentucky. Phi Delta Kappan, 80, 394–400.

Porter, A.C. (2000). Doing high-stakes assessment right. The School Administrator, 11(57), 28-31.

Porter, A. C., Polikoff, M. S., Zeidner, T., & Smithson, J. (2008). The quality of content analyses of state student achievement tests and state content standards. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 27(4), 2-14.

Smith, M. S., & O’Day, J. (1991). Systemic school reform. In S. H. Fuhrman, & B. Malen (Eds.), The politics of curriculum and testing: The 1990 yearbook of the Politics of Education Association (pp. 233-267). London: The Falmer Press.

Authors

• Michael S. Garet, American Institutes for Research

• Toni M. Smith, American Institutes for Research