Review of the literature and the school vision

Assume you are the new principal of [fill in the blank] Junior High School that consists of approximately 500 students in grades 7-8. Students are randomly assigned to grade-level, subject-specific classroom teachers. The school is diverse socioeconomically with several students qualifying for free or reduced-price meals. The ethnic composition of the school is relatively diverse consisting primarily of African-American, Hispanic, Asian, and Caucasian students.

There are three teachers who teach 8th-grade math at the school, each doing their own thing when it comes to teaching math. Ms. Harrington, a young African-American lady who is certified to teach science and math, has been teaching for a total of 5 years and has taught math for the past 3 years. Ms. Richardson, a Caucasian lady in her 40s who is certified to teach Spanish and math, has taught Spanish for 12 years but has taught math for the past 3 years. Ms. Browning, an older Caucasian lady and the sister of the school board president, has been teaching PE for 24 years and has been assigned to teach math for the past 3 years. Each teacher was allowed to use their preferred teaching method and to select their own textbook three years ago. All three use different textbooks.

Ms. Browning’s approach to teaching math would be broadly defined as the traditional method. The traditional math teacher adheres to a top-down approach in which knowledge originates from the teacher and is disseminated to the students. The teacher is recognized by the students (and often by the teacher herself) as the authority on the subject matter. Traditional math teachers tend to thrive on structure and order, resulting in quiet, calm learning environments. There is research that indicates certain behavioral issues are minimized in a traditional classroom resulting in effective, direct instruction.

Ms. Harrington and Ms. Richardson’s approach to teaching math would be more broadly defined as the standards-based method. The standards-based math teacher adheres to a literal interpretation of well-written standards. The teacher facilitates the learning in a constructivist environment in which students develop, explore, conjecture and test their conjectures within the confines of the standard. The teacher believes there is research that a majority of children learn more and deeper mathematics and are better problem solvers when in the standards-based classroom.

During a meeting with the math department you suggest that the three 8th-grade math teachers should be using the same teaching method and the same textbook. Ms. Browning, being quite vocal, feels strongly that her approach is the better of the two because of the ethnic composition and sociological background of the students. She further believes and proposes that the students should be grouped among the three teachers according to the students’ ethnicity. She suggests that Ms. Harrington who is African-American teach the majority of the African-American students and that she, Ms. Browning, would primarily teach the Caucasian and Asian students. Ms. Richardson, who speaks fluent Spanish, would teach the majority of the Hispanic students. She also proposes that students be grouped within each teacher’s class by their ability with the high-ability students in a group by themselves and the lower-ability students in a group by themselves because she believes, based on a “gut” feeling, that the students will perform better if they are segregated into groups within the classroom. To support her argument she provides a copy of an article she located in the ASU library (see the Ross article entitled “Math and Reading Instruction in Tracked First-Grade Classes”) to each member of the department. She mentions that she has discussed this with her brother, the school board president, and that it will probably be discussed at the next board meeting. She further states that math is math and teachers should be allowed to teach using the style in which they are most comfortable.

Ms. Richardson does not agree with Ms. Browning’s proposal and shares an article that she has read (see the Thompson article about standards based math). She states that research indicates students in traditional programs may have better procedural skills, but definitely lack in problem-solving creativity. She proposes that all three teachers should be using the standards-based approach to teaching.

​Knowing that you have less than 30 days before the next board meeting you know that you need to have a proposal prepared based on school performance data. You have access to the latest student standardized math scores and personal data for the students taught by the 3 teachers (see file named Research Project Data). In order to protect confidentially, student names have been replaced by numbers. You try to anticipate and list any question that might be raised about student performance. (The questions are listed below.) You also decide to examine the school’s vision to see how the teaching methods align with it but are dismayed to find the school has no vision statement. Your first task is to create a Vision Committee consisting of four school staff members and three community members to review the literature about vision statements and to write a vision statement for the school.

The next day you receive a call from the superintendent about a visit from the school board president regarding the two teaching methods used by the teachers. The superintendent directs you to prepare a written paper that he can disseminate to the board that argues your case for a specific teaching method – standards-based or traditional – based on your analysis of the 8th grade test scores. He wants the following components in the paper since it is unlikely that you will be invited to address the board. The paper should use the following format:

. Introduction
Grade context: Descriptive statistics- What is the socioeconomic makeup of the grade and the ethnic composition of the class?

. Review of Literature and Vision Statement
a. What does the literature say about a school vision? Use at least 5 references.
b. Who should serve on the Vision Committee? Explain who would serve on your committee and why they would be asked to serve. These seven individuals should be actual people in your district/community. Write a brief description of each team member including age range, economic level, and explain why they were selected to serve on the committee. Do not use their actual name! [ELCC 4.2 – Candidates demonstrate the ability to capitalize on the diversity (Cultural, ethnic, racial, economic, and special interest groups) of the school community to improve school programs and meet the diverse needs of all students.]
c. Based upon your review of literature what would be your new vision statement? (This can be a revision of your existing vision if you have one.) [ELCC 1.1- Candidates base development of the vision on relevant knowledge and theories including, but not limited to an understanding of learning goals in a pluralistic society, the diversity of learners and learners’ needs, schools as interactive social and cultural systems, and social and organizational change.]

. Methodology
Who is being studied and what statistical tests are being used?

. Results
Descriptive statistics of the group
Answers to these questions:
1. Do all students taught by the traditional method used by Ms. Browning do significantly better than all students taught by the standards-based method used my Mss. Harrington and Richardson?

2. Do Caucasian students taught by the traditional method used by Ms. Browning do significantly better than all Caucasian students taught by the standards-based method used my Mss. Harrington and Richardson combined?

3. Do Asian students taught by the traditional method used by Ms. Browning do significantly better than all Asian students taught by the standards-based method used my Mss. Harrington and Richardson combined?

4. Do African-American students taught by the traditional method used by Ms. Browning do significantly better than all African-American students taught by the standards-based method used my Mss. Harrington and Richardson combined?

5. Do Hispanic students taught by the traditional method used by Ms. Browning do significantly better than all Hispanic students taught by the standards-based method used my Mss. Harrington and Richardson combined?

6. Do female students taught by the traditional method used by Ms. Browning do significantly better than all female students taught by the standards-based method used my Mss. Harrington and Richardson combined?

7. Do male students taught by the traditional method used by Ms. Browning do significantly better than all male students taught by the standards-based method used my Mss. Harrington and Richardson combined?

8. Do low SES, socio-economic status, (free) students taught by the traditional method used by Ms. Browning do significantly better than all low SES (free) students taught by the standards-based method used my Mss. Harrington and Richardson combined?

9. Do higher SES (paid) students taught by the traditional method used by Ms. Browning do significantly better than all higher SES (paid) students taught by the standards-based method used my Mss. Harrington and Richardson combined?

10. Do African-American students taught by Ms. Harrington perform significantly better than all African-American students taught by Mss. Richardson and Browning individually?

11. Do Hispanic students taught by Ms. Richardson perform significantly better than all Hispanic students taught by Mss. Harrington and Browning individually?

12. Do Caucasian students taught by Ms. Browning perform significantly better than all Caucasian students taught by Mss. Harrington and Richardson individually?

13. Do Asian students taught by Ms. Browning perform significantly better than Asian students taught by Mss. Harrington and Richardson individually?

. Discussion
. Explain, based upon the analysis of the data and review of the readings, which method of math instruction you would recommend for your junior high school when considering factors such as socioeconomic background, ethnicity, gender. [ELCC 2.2- Candidates demonstrate the ability to make recommendations regarding the design, implementation, and evaluation of a curriculum that fully accommodates learners’ diverse needs.]
. Should students be grouped by ethnicity for instructional purposes? By gender? By socioeconomic background? What ethical and/or legal questions might be raised by Ms. Browning’s suggestion to group students by ethnicity and/or ability? [ELCC 5.3 – Candidates make and explain decisions based upon ethical and legal principles.]
. Write a summary brief (similar to a closing argument in a court case) explaining your recommendation(s) to the board. [ELCC 6.3 – Candidates advocate for policies and programs that promote equitable learning opportunities and success for all students, regardless of socioeconomic background, ethnicity, gender, disability, or other individual characteristics.]
. Explain how much it will cost the district to purchase a new set of textbooks to implement the method of instruction for those students who are switching to your recommended method? Go to a textbook publisher website and select a text, calculate the cost of enough textbooks so every student has one plus 20 extras, include shipping & handling and taxes, if applicable. [ELCC 3.1 – Candidates develop plans of action for focusing on effective organization and management of fiscal, human, and material resources, giving priority to student learning, safety, curriculum, and instruction.]

. References

There is no minimum or maximum length specified. The paper should be of sufficient detail to address questions that might be asked by the superintendent, board members, or staff.

ELCC Standards

ELCC 1.1(b)- Candidates base development of the vision on relevant knowledge and theories including, but not limited to an understanding of learning goals in a pluralistic society, the diversity of learners and learners’ needs, schools as interactive social and cultural systems, and social and organizational change.

ELCC 2.2(b)- Candidates demonstrate the ability to make recommendations regarding the design, implementation, and evaluation of a curriculum that fully accommodates learners’ diverse needs.

ELCC 3.1(b) – Candidates develop plans of action for focusing on effective organization and management of fiscal, human, and material resources, giving priority to student learning, safety, curriculum, and instruction.

ELCC 4.2(d) – Candidates demonstrate the ability to capitalize on the diversity (Cultural, ethnic, racial, economic, and special interest groups) of the school community to improve school programs and meet the diverse needs of all students.

ELCC 5.3(a) – Candidates make and explain decisions based upon ethical and legal principles.

ELCC 6.3(c) – Candidates advocate for policies and programs that promote equitable learning opportunities and success for all students, regardless of socioeconomic background, ethnicity, gender, disability, or other individual characteristics.

TABLE 1. Test Scores (Summer 2013)
(data for the Research Project)
Name Teacher Method Gender Ethnic Freeredu Period Math
1 Harrington Std-Based female White paid 1st 53
2 Harrington Std-Based male White free 1st 56
3 Harrington Std-Based male Asian paid 1st 67
4 Harrington Std-Based female White free 1st 64
5 Richardson Std-Based male Black free 2nd 57
6 Richardson Std-Based male Hispanic paid 2nd 74
7 Harrington Std-Based female White paid 1st 74
8 Richardson Std-Based female Asian free 2nd 63
9 Richardson Std-Based male Black paid 2nd 56
10 Richardson Std-Based female Hispanic paid 2nd 73
11 Richardson Std-Based female Hispanic paid 2nd 73
12 Richardson Std-Based female Hispanic free 2nd 55
13 Richardson Std-Based female Hispanic paid 2nd 54
14 Harrington Std-Based female Black paid 1st 81
15 Harrington Std-Based male Hispanic paid 1st 78
16 Harrington Std-Based male Hispanic paid 1st 74
17 Richardson Std-Based female Black free 2nd 83
18 Richardson Std-Based female Hispanic free 2nd 72
19 Harrington Std-Based male Hispanic free 1st 58
20 Harrington Std-Based male Hispanic paid 1st 52
21 Harrington Std-Based male Hispanic paid 1st 76
22 Richardson Std-Based male Hispanic free 2nd 84
23 Harrington Std-Based female White paid 1st 79
24 Richardson Std-Based male Hispanic free 2nd 82
25 Harrington Std-Based female Asian paid 1st 59
26 Harrington Std-Based male Asian free 1st 82
27 Richardson Std-Based male Black paid 2nd 77
28 Harrington Std-Based female White paid 1st 84
29 Richardson Std-Based male Black free 2nd 55
30 Richardson Std-Based female Hispanic paid 2nd 71
31 Harrington Std-Based male Black free 1st 58
32 Richardson Std-Based male Black paid 2nd 82
33 Harrington Std-Based male Black paid 1st 77
34 Harrington Std-Based male Hispanic free 1st 79
35 Richardson Std-Based male White free 2nd 63
36 Browning Traditional male White paid 1st 80
37 Harrington Std-Based male Asian paid 1st 83
38 Richardson Std-Based male White paid 2nd 81
39 Richardson Std-Based male Hispanic paid 2nd 68
40 Browning Traditional female Black free 1st 75
41 Browning Traditional male Black paid 1st 54
42 Harrington Std-Based female White free 1st 80
43 Browning Traditional male Black free 1st 57
44 Richardson Std-Based female Black free 2nd 50
45 Browning Traditional female Hispanic paid 1st 68
46 Richardson Std-Based female Black free 2nd 85
47 Richardson Std-Based female Hispanic free 2nd 57
48 Browning Traditional female Black free 1st 66
49 Richardson Std-Based male Asian paid 5th 83
50 Browning Traditional female Asian paid 1st 60
51 Richardson Std-Based male Hispanic free 5th 68
52 Harrington Std-Based male Asian free 1st 53
53 Richardson Std-Based male Asian free 5th 77
54 Harrington Std-Based male Hispanic free 1st 52
55 Harrington Std-Based male Hispanic paid 1st 73
56 Richardson Std-Based male Black paid 5th 72
57 Browning Traditional female Asian paid 1st 77
58 Browning Traditional male Hispanic free 1st 63
59 Richardson Std-Based male Black free 5th 68
60 Harrington Std-Based male Black free 3rd 80
61 Harrington Std-Based female Asian paid 3rd 76
62 Harrington Std-Based male Asian paid 3rd 65
63 Browning Traditional male Black free 1st 51
64 Richardson Std-Based male Asian free 5th 88
65 Browning Traditional female Asian free 1st 60
66 Browning Traditional female White paid 1st 76
67 Harrington Std-Based male Black free 3rd 86
68 Browning Traditional male Hispanic paid 1st 51
69 Harrington Std-Based male Hispanic free 3rd 61
70 Browning Traditional male Asian free 1st 50
71 Richardson Std-Based male White paid 5th 54
72 Richardson Std-Based male Asian paid 5th 54
73 Harrington Std-Based male Black paid 3rd 53
74 Browning Traditional female Asian paid 1st 57
75 Richardson Std-Based male Hispanic paid 5th 65
76 Harrington Std-Based male White free 3rd 68
77 Harrington Std-Based male Asian paid 3rd 71
78 Browning Traditional male Black paid 1st 74
79 Richardson Std-Based male Black free 5th 69
80 Richardson Std-Based female Black paid 5th 83
81 Harrington Std-Based male Hispanic paid 3rd 71
82 Richardson Std-Based female Black free 5th 66
83 Richardson Std-Based male Hispanic paid 5th 85
84 Browning Traditional male Hispanic paid 1st 71
85 Browning Traditional female Black paid 1st 66
86 Richardson Std-Based female White free 5th 58
87 Browning Traditional female Hispanic paid 1st 69
88 Richardson Std-Based male Black paid 5th 66
89 Richardson Std-Based male Hispanic paid 5th 70
90 Richardson Std-Based female Asian free 5th 69
91 Richardson Std-Based male Hispanic free 5th 56
92 Richardson Std-Based female Asian paid 5th 56
93 Browning Traditional male Asian free 1st 80
94 Harrington Std-Based male Black free 3rd 56
95 Browning Traditional female Black free 1st 47
96 Richardson Std-Based female Asian free 5th 51
97 Harrington Std-Based male Asian paid 3rd 55
98 Browning Traditional male Asian free 1st 82
99 Browning Traditional male White paid 1st 64
100 Richardson Std-Based male White paid 5th 69
101 Harrington Std-Based male Hispanic paid 3rd 53
102 Harrington Std-Based male Hispanic free 3rd 84
103 Harrington Std-Based male Asian paid 3rd 87
104 Browning Traditional male Hispanic free 1st 77
105 Harrington Std-Based male Black paid 3rd 54
106 Harrington Std-Based male Asian paid 3rd 53
107 Harrington Std-Based female Asian free 3rd 66
108 Browning Traditional male White paid 4th 77
109 Richardson Std-Based male White paid 5th 66
110 Harrington Std-Based male White paid 3rd 87
111 Richardson Std-Based male Black free 5th 51
112 Browning Traditional female White paid 4th 57
113 Richardson Std-Based male Hispanic paid 5th 73
114 Harrington Std-Based female Asian paid 3rd 65
115 Richardson Std-Based male Asian paid 6th 58
116 Harrington Std-Based female Hispanic paid 3rd 59
117 Browning Traditional female Asian free 4th 78
118 Browning Traditional male White paid 4th 73
119 Harrington Std-Based female Hispanic free 3rd 62
120 Richardson Std-Based female Hispanic paid 6th 87
121 Browning Traditional female White paid 4th 59
122 Browning Traditional male White free 4th 62
123 Richardson Std-Based female Black paid 6th 68
124 Browning Traditional male Black paid 4th 83
125 Browning Traditional female White paid 4th 56
126 Browning Traditional male Black free 4th 55
127 Browning Traditional female Hispanic free 4th 54
128 Browning Traditional male Hispanic paid 4th 57
129 Browning Traditional female Black free 4th 47
130 Harrington Std-Based female Hispanic free 3rd 83
131 Browning Traditional female White paid 4th 46
132 Browning Traditional female Hispanic free 4th 66
133 Browning Traditional female Hispanic free 4th 72
134 Richardson Std-Based female Asian free 6th 71
135 Browning Traditional male Black paid 4th 48
136 Browning Traditional male Asian free 4th 62
137 Browning Traditional male Black free 4th 58
138 Browning Traditional male Asian free 4th 68
139 Harrington Std-Based male Asian paid 3rd 77
140 Browning Traditional male Hispanic free 4th 72
141 Browning Traditional female Hispanic paid 4th 70
142 Browning Traditional male White free 4th 73
143 Richardson Std-Based female Asian free 6th 81
144 Richardson Std-Based female Hispanic paid 6th 61
145 Browning Traditional female Black paid 4th 73
146 Harrington Std-Based male White free 3rd 62
147 Richardson Std-Based male Asian paid 6th 84
148 Browning Traditional male Hispanic free 4th 57
149 Browning Traditional female Asian free 6th 47
150 Harrington Std-Based male Asian free 4th 56
151 Browning Traditional female Hispanic free 6th 48
152 Harrington Std-Based female Hispanic paid 4th 72
153 Browning Traditional female Black free 6th 68
154 Browning Traditional male Hispanic paid 6th 63
155 Browning Traditional female Asian free 6th 82
156 Browning Traditional female Black paid 6th 78
157 Browning Traditional male Asian free 6th 79
158 Harrington Std-Based female Hispanic free 4th 59
159 Harrington Std-Based female White paid 4th 53
160 Harrington Std-Based female Black free 4th 53
161 Richardson Std-Based male White free 6th 85
162 Browning Traditional male Black free 6th 83
163 Richardson Std-Based female Black paid 6th 83
164 Harrington Std-Based female White paid 4th 78
165 Richardson Std-Based male Hispanic paid 6th 58
166 Browning Traditional male White paid 6th 66
167 Harrington Std-Based male Black free 4th 83
168 Richardson Std-Based male Hispanic paid 6th 51
169 Richardson Std-Based male Hispanic paid 6th 87
170 Browning Traditional male White free 6th 82
171 Browning Traditional female White free 6th 63
172 Browning Traditional male White free 6th 65
173 Richardson Std-Based female Black free 6th 80
174 Browning Traditional male Black paid 6th 82
175 Harrington Std-Based male Asian paid 4th 60
176 Richardson Std-Based male Asian free 6th 70
177 Browning Traditional male White free 6th 59
178 Browning Traditional female Hispanic free 6th 56
179 Harrington Std-Based male Hispanic paid 4th 73
180 Browning Traditional female Hispanic free 6th 49
181 Richardson Std-Based female Asian paid 6th 79
182 Richardson Std-Based female Asian free 6th 58
183 Richardson Std-Based male Hispanic free 6th 81
184 Richardson Std-Based female Hispanic free 6th 78
185 Harrington Std-Based female Asian paid 4th 57
186 Browning Traditional male White paid 6th 53
187 Richardson Std-Based male Asian free 6th 58
188 Browning Traditional male Black paid 6th 60
189 Richardson Std-Based male White free 6th 76
190 Browning Traditional female Hispanic paid 6th 67
191 Browning Traditional female Hispanic free 6th 72
192 Richardson Std-Based female Asian paid 6th 75
193 Richardson Std-Based male White free 6th 65
194 Richardson Std-Based female Hispanic paid 6th 82
195 Browning Traditional female Asian free 6th 67
196 Harrington Std-Based male White paid 4th 59
197 Browning Traditional female Hispanic free 6th 82
198 Browning Traditional male White paid 6th 61
199 Browning Traditional male Hispanic free 6th 49
200 Browning Traditional female Asian paid 6th 55
201 Browning Traditional female White free 6th 62
202 Harrington Std-Based male Black paid 4th 64
203 Richardson Std-Based female White free 6th 82
204 Harrington Std-Based female Hispanic paid 4th 67
205 Harrington Std-Based male Black paid 4th 76
206 Richardson Std-Based female Black paid 6th 60
207 Richardson Std-Based female Asian free 6th 88
208 Richardson Std-Based male White paid 6th 53
209 Richardson Std-Based female Hispanic paid 6th 64
210 Harrington Std-Based female Asian free 1st 82
211 Harrington Std-Based female Black paid 4th 57
212 Harrington Std-Based female White paid 4th 53
213 Harrington Std-Based male Asian paid 4th 81
214 Harrington Std-Based female Hispanic paid 4th 61
215 Harrington Std-Based female Hispanic paid 4th 75
216 Harrington Std-Based female Black free 4th 87
217 Harrington Std-Based female Asian paid 4th 88
218 Harrington Std-Based male Hispanic free 4th 66
219 Harrington Std-Based male Black free 4th 62
220 Richardson Std-Based female White paid 2nd 82

Preparation, practice, and performance
An empirical examination of the impact of Standards-based Instruction on secondary students’ math and science achievement
Carla J.Thompson University of West Florida, Pensacola
Introduction and rationale
Historically math and science education reform efforts have consistently advocated specific classroom practices as substantial influences in instruction and learning. However, there are few research efforts available that have empirically connected specific reform-driven instructional strategies with student learning (NCTM, 1989; NRC, 1996). The political community and general public were awakened to the need for math and science educational reform by the announcement of the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS, 2005). The 2002 US ‘No Child Left Behind’ Act has also raised public consciousness of the importance of Standards-based Instruction (SBI) in reform efforts (ESEA, 2002). However, there is a lack of empirical evidence to identify which specific math and science SBI strate- gies significantly influence student learning; the specific influences of non- reform instructional strategies (non-SBI) on students’ math and science learning are also unclear. The present study seeks to add to this research base.
Specific reform strategies known as Standards-based Instruction consist of classroom activities that encourage participatory student-centred classrooms rather than teacher-directed (lecture-based) classrooms. SBI classroom strat- egies include student self-assessment, inquiry-based activities, group-based projects, hands-on experiences, use of computer technologies, and the use of calculators. The use of Standards-based Instruction in the retraining and preparation of teachers and in the teaching of math and science (grades 6 to 12) has been the focus of the Oklahoma City Public Schools, Oklahoma, Urban Systemic Program (OK USP) since 1999. The OK USP SBI approaches emphasise hands-on, inquiry, connections, communica- tions, problem solving, real-world applications, and co-operative learning approaches to math and science learning. Examples of SBI strategies that illustrate the student-centred focus of Standards-based Instruction include the following: (1) using manipulatives or hands-on materials such as Styrofoam balls and toothpicks for building molecular models, dominoes, base ten blocks, tangrams, spinners, rulers, fraction bars, algebra tiles, coins,and geometric solids; (2) incorporating inquiry, discovery, and problem- solving approaches such as making binoculars out of recycled materials, using scenarios from nature and everyday life events for groups of students to research and investigate using math and science concepts; (3) applying math and science concepts to real-world contexts such as banking, energy concerns, environmental issues, and timelines; (4) connecting mathematics and science preparation skills to specific careers and occupations; (5) using calculators and technologies for capturing and analysing original data from original math and science experiments; and (6) communicating math and science concepts through journal writing, small-group discussions, and laboratory/technical reporting of experiments and results. These SBI prac- tices are delivered to teachers in the form of summer professional develop- ment academies, informal professional development (individual teacher consultations) and formal professional development (lesson modelling). Non-SBI practices utilised in math and science classrooms include activities such as teacher lecture, individual student drill and practice worksheets, and computer drill and practice programmes.
Data for this study were collected from a standards-based Preparation, Practice, and Performance (P3 model) data-driven framework. Through quantitative analysis the study seeks empirical connections between reform strategies (Standards-based Instruction: SBI) or non-reform instructional strategies (non-Standards-based Instruction: non-SBI) and student learning (achievement).
Model
The framework used for the study is a data-driven decision-making model entitled Preparation, Practice and Performance (P3) model developed for the investigation and presented in Figure 1. The model rigorously aligns the threefold areas of teacher professional development programmes (prepara- tion), classroom implementation (practices), and student outcomes (perfor- mance) to empirically assess SBI effectiveness. Data collection methods for
Preparation
Practice
Performance
Figure 1 P3 model: each of the three areas of teacher preparation, classroom practice, and student performance created a cohesive relational database for this investiga- tion. A relational database is defined as the data connecting specific teachers’ professional development data to data from specific classroom observations of these teachers’ classrooms and relating these data to their students’ performance data. The students’ performance data are then related back to address the appropriateness of the teachers’ professional development efforts. The focus of the P3 model mandates accountability from all three of the preparation, practice, and performance components. The purpose of the model is to clearly identify gains in student performance (achievement data) as well as pinpointing specific successful classroom practices (class- room observational data) and earmarking specific effective professional development strategies (teacher self-assessment data) by aligning these three components.
It is important to note that preparation does not imply practice. Aligning teachers with instructional strategies that represent reform strategies; edu- cating teachers on SBI activities and materials; and readying teachers to teach with those concepts and pedagogies that are reflective of Standards- based Instruction does not imply that these preparation efforts will be implemented in the classroom. Similarly, reform in teacher professional development does not assume positive change in student performance.
Method
The study methodology consists of the following subsections: (1) the instru- mentation used in the study (2) the description of the subjects or participants used in the study; and (3) the procedures used in the study.
Instrumentation
The instrumentation developed and used in the study is summarised in Table 1.
Preparation
Teacher assessment form. This self-report instrument is used to assess teach- ers’ levels of knowledge and attitudes concerning standards-based mathe- matics and science education. This form was developed using information and adapted items from the NCTM and NSTA standards and the TIMSS survey (NCTM, 1989; NRC, 1996; TIMSS, 2005). A pilot test of the instru- ment revealed an internal consistency reliability coefficient of 0.93. The form contains five sections:
1 Demographic information. Teachers supply general demographics, including information on math and science formal preparation.
2 Instructional considerations for math and science. Teachers respond to statements that reflect the instructional beliefs or philosophy set forth database structure
Table 1 P3 model instrumentation Model
components
Preparation
Practice
Performance
Instrumentation
Teacher assessment form
Classroom observation form
Iowa Test of Basic Skills (Hoover et al., 1996)
Description Reliability
Overall reliability 0.93 Four subscales:
1 Instructional considerations 0.87 2 Preparation considerations 0.95 3 Time considerations 0.92 4 Assessment considerations 0.91 Overall reliability 0.78 Three subscales:
1 Math SBI 0.73 2 Science SBI 0.84 3 Non-SBI 0.76 Norm-referenced test n.a.

by TIMSS (2005) that are directly related to Standards-based Education. A high score on this scale implies that the teacher understands and strongly agrees with the use of the instructional considerations necessary for the standards to be implemented in the classroom. There are twelve items on this subscale, with respondents provided with a 1 to 10 (‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree’) rating scale for a possible score range of 12 to 120. The reliability of this subscale was found to be 0.87.
3 Preparation considerations for math and science. Teachers respond to specific content and process topics reflected by the standards that are necessary for teachers to have solid preparation and skills for teaching. A high score on this subscale indicates greater perceived preparation of the teacher for teaching standards-based math and science. There are twenty items on this subscale, with respondents provided with a 1 to 10 (‘not at all prepared’ to ‘very prepared’ ) rating scale for a possible score range of 20 to 200. The reliability of this subscale was found to be 0.95.
4 Instructional time considerations for math and science. Teachers review specific kinds of classroom activities that are endorsed by standards- based education and indicate how much time they spend on those types of activities. The higher the score on this subscale the more time the teacher is spending on standards-based activities in the classroom. There are twenty items on this subscale, with respondents provided with a 1 to 10 (‘no time spent’ to ‘virtually all of the time spent’) rating scale for a possible score range of 20 to 200. The reliability of this subscale was found to be 0.92.
5 Assessment considerations for math and science. Teachers indicate their use of specific kinds of assessment procedures in evaluating students’ progress, with half of the suggested types reflecting standards-assessment procedures and half reflecting non-standards-based assess- ment procedures to provide teachers with a full selection of the most commonly practised assessments utilised in the classroom. A high score on this scale indicates a high number of assessment procedures (SBI or non-SBI) being used by the teacher. There are twelve items on this sub- scale, with respondents provided with a 1 to 10 (‘very unfavourable’ to ‘very favourable’) rating scale for a possible score range of 12 to 120. The reliability of this subscale was found to be 0.91.
Practice
Student observation form. This form is used as an observation instrument within math and science classrooms by an external observer. The form was developed using information and adapted items from math and science education standards and the TIMSS survey (NCTM, 1989; NRC, 1996; TIMSS, 2005). Observers were trained to use the instrument to observe math and science classrooms in grades 6 to 9. The selected observers for the study are former Oklahoma City math and science teachers who had been selected to serve as coaches and were used throughout the project with the math and science classroom teachers. These coaches were utilised as classroom observers because they are not perceived as a threat or intimidat- ing by the classroom teachers being observed. The observation form consists of four sections: (1) demographics, including the school, grade, time, teacher, and class being observed; (2) math standards-based activities/behaviours; (3) science standards-based activities/behaviours; (4) non-standards-based activities/behaviours that are observed in the classroom. Each of the three observation subscales contains eight items representing specific activities/ behaviours. Selected examples of SBI math activities/behaviours include: (1) students using manipulatives, (2) students engaged in self-assessments, (3) students working in pairs or small groups. Selected examples of non-SBI activities/behaviours include (1) students listening to a teacher lecture, (2) students working on pencil/paper worksheets, (3) students taking tests and quizzes. Observers mark 1 if the item is observed and 0 if the item is not observed during the classroom observation period (approximately fifty minutes per period). The higher the score on each of the math and science standards-based subscales the higher the degree of SBI implementation in the classroom, whereas the higher the score on the third subscale (non-SBI) the lower the degree of SBI implementation. This form was pilot-tested prior to being used in the study and observers received formal training from the external evaluator in how to observe and use the instrument to establish inter-rater reliability. The internal consistency reliability coefficient for the instrument was found to be 0.78.
Performance
Iowa Test of Basic Skills, forms K, L, and M (Hoover et al., 1996). This norm-referenced test is given annually to Oklahoma City public school stu- dents in grades 6 to 12 to assess basic skills and cognition levels in reading,
students qualifying for free lunch services and with the following racial/ethnic composition: white (29 per cent), black (36 per cent), Hispanic (27 per cent), Indian (5 per cent), and Asian (3 per cent). The randomly selected math and science classrooms of teachers and students in grades 6 to 9 for participation in this study parallel the demo- graphic composition represented by the school district.
Procedures
The relational database, that is, the empirical connections of teachers’ prepa- ration data with those same teachers’ classroom observation data and their students’ achievement data substantiate the threefold framework of the study: the three areas of teacher preparation, classroom practices, and student performance relative to the common goal of assessing SBI effective- ness. Data collection methods for each of the three areas of teacher prepara- tion, classroom practices, and student performance using the instrumentation appropriate for each component delivered a cohesive database. Teacher (preparation) data were obtained from secondary math and science teachers in the district during summer professional development academies focused on training in SBI classroom implementation. Classroom observational data (practices) were obtained from over 400 randomly selected math and science classroom observation sessions conducted by the OK USP Partners in Excel- lence members. Separate types of math and science classes were included in the random sampling of classroom observation sessions to include student achievement (performance) data in the form of ITBS math and science scores provided by the school district’s research office.
Analysis of data procedures to examine interrelationships and specific contributions of SBI teacher preparation and practices (as well as non-SBI practices) on student achievement includes key inferential analyses involving stepwise multiple regression procedures. A stepwise regression procedure was selected to first utilise a full regression model, then sequentially identify variables for elimination (Christensen, 1998, p. 427). Specific SBI and non- SBI practices serve as the independent variables for the regression analysis,with student achievement (math and science ITBS scores) as the dependent variables to determine significant (p < 0.05) contributions of individual math and science SBI practices and non-SBI practices to student achievement. Additional analyses of SBI and non-SBI practices using stepwise multiple regression analysis were performed relative to disaggregated data by student gender and ethnicity. Descriptive statistical analyses reflecting the degree of implementation of math and science SBI and non-SBI practices within the observed classrooms provide additional information.
Results
Highlights of the descriptive and inferential statistical analyses for the study include the following results. (1) SBI practices that were found to be signi- ficant contributors to students’ math achievement include the use of manipulatives, self-assessment, co-operative group projects, and computer technology. (2) SBI practices that were found to be significant contributors to students’ science achievement include the use of inquiry, self-assessment, co-operative group projects, and computer technology. (3) Virtually none of the observed non-SBI practices was found to be a significant contributor to student math or science achievement by gender or ethnic groupings. (4) The 408 math and secondary teachers in the study have each received over 200 hours of informal (consultation and lesson modeling) training in SBI and over 160 hours of formal training in SBI from 2000 to 2002.
The observed frequencies of occurrence of SBI and non-SBI in math and science classrooms (n = 408 observations, with 204 math classrooms and 204 science classrooms observed) revealed the following observed SBI and non-SBI frequencies in the combined classroom observations reflective of the data from the student observation form: (1) math SBI 17 per cent, (2) science SBI 36 per cent, and (3) non-SBI 47 per cent of the total observed activities.
Results of inferential analyses report contributions of specific SBI practices on student performance (achievement). Multiple stepwise regression analyses were performed using twenty-four independent variables (each of the eight math SBI practices, the eight science SBI practices, and the eight non-SBI practices observed in math and science classrooms) and math and science ITBS scores as the separate dependent variables to determine the specific contributions of each of the specific SBI practices on student achievement. Table 2 summarises the significant (p < 0.05) findings of these analyses. It depicts the multiple effect contributions of specific SBI practices to perfor- mance, i.e. secondary students’ math and science achievement ITBS math and science scores. The multiple regression analysis results identify three (use of hands-on materials, self-assessments, and projects-based activities) of the eight SBI math practices and two (self-assessments and use of computers) of the eight SBI science practices as significant (p < 0.05) contributors to students’ ITBS math scores. None of the non-SBI practices observed in the classrooms was found to significantly contribute to math or science achievement.
Table 2 Summary multiple regression analysis results (n = 408 observations)
Math SBI
Manipulatives Self-assessments Projects-based
Science SBI
Self-assessments Computers
Non-SBI R2 (% of ITBS)
3% of variance in ITBS math
5% of variance in ITBS science None 0%

The effects of Standards-based Instruction on students’ math and science achievement disaggregated by gender and by ethnicity were also explored in the analysis, with the results indicating the following outcomes. The multiple effects of two SBI practices (manipulatives and self-assessments) contributed significantly (p < 0.05) to female students’ math achievement, whereas the only significant (p < 0.05) SBI practice found to contribute to male students’ math achievement was the use of calculators in the classroom. Both female and male students’ achievement levels were significantly influ- enced by the use of computers and self-assessments in science classrooms; however, none of the non-SBI practices contributed significantly to math or science achievement for either gender. The multiple effects of SBI practices (use of manipulatives and self-assessments) contributed 4 per cent of the variance in math achievement for white students and manipulatives contrib- uted 2.5 per cent of the variance in math achievement for minority students (black and Hispanic combined). Significant (p < 0.05) SBI contributors to white students’ science achievement are identified as the multiple effects of self-assessments and inquiry-based activities, whereas the multiple effect SBI contributors to minority students’ science achievement are identified as the use of computers and self-assessments. The only non-SBI practice found to contribute significantly (5 per cent, p < 0.05) to science achievement is lecture, found only for white students.
The study revealed the following summary findings. (1) Although substan- tially more non-SBI activities were observed in the secondary math and science classrooms participating in the study than the frequency of occur- rence of SBI practices, virtually none of the non-SBI practices was found to significantly contribute individually or in multiple effects to students’ math or science achievement. (2) Virtually none of the non-SBI practices pro- duced significant individual or multiple effects on students’ math or science achievement by gender or ethnicity, with one exception, that is, teacher lecture was found to contribute significantly to white students’ science achievement. (3) The use of manipulatives as a significant key contributor to students’ math achievement was identified for all students, regardless of gender or ethnic affiliation. (4) The use of self-assessments for students in the classroom was found to contribute to science achievement for all students, regardless of gender or ethnic affiliation. (5) The use of computertechnology in science classrooms was identified as a key contributor to both male and female minority students’ science achievement. (6) Co-operative learning-projects-based activities used in mathematics classrooms were iden- tified as a significant contributor (from multiple effects analysis) to students’ math achievement. (7) The use of inquiry-based projects and activities in science classrooms was found to be a significant contributor (from multiple effects analysis) to white students’ science achievement.
Discussion
The results of this study provide empirical evidence in support of specific SBI practices for math and science education. Findings support the views of reform organisations regarding the need for a re-examination of non- standards-based practices currently still dominating many math and science classrooms in American schools. The use of lecture, independent seat work, quizzes, and text homework still preponderates in many math and science classrooms. This study provides evidence in support of standards-based practices such as inquiry, problem solving, co-operative learning, and use of hands-on and technology in math and science classrooms as significant contributors to student achievement. Results add some evidence to the need for females and minorities to utilise self-assessment, hands-on materials, and co-operative projects-based activities as effective standards-based practices in both math and science education. These results corroborate Johnson’s (2002) indicators identifying standards-based reform efforts as key predic- tors of achievement gains in mathematics and science.
The findings inform the data-driven decision-making needs of schools grappling with strategic considerations of raising student achievement and increasing teacher quality (NCLB, 2000). The Preparation, Practice, and Performance (P3) model utilised by this study also highlights the somewhat neglected practice component in the model. The common belief that increas- ing teacher quality (preparation) will raise student achievement (perfor- mance) even though virtually no effort or focus has been aimed toward assessing the degree of improvement in classroom implementation (prac- tice), specifically SBI practices, cannot be assumed. The notion that highly prepared teachers will propagate high-performing students without assess- ing and carefully monitoring the degree of implementation of SBI activities that occur in classrooms is an inaccurate assumption (Johnson, 2002).
Results of this study also suggest the P3 model Preparation, Practice, and Performance as a viable framework for empirically validating the effectiveness of Standards-based Instruction as a successful reform effort for systemic change in math and science education. The empirical evidence produced by this study provides rigorous support for specific SBI practices as key contribu- tors to students’ math and science achievement and refutes non-SBI practices as effective contributors to students’ math and science achievement.
In addition, the study findings lend empirical support for examining instructional strategies (practice), student achievement (performance), andteacher professional development (preparation) as an effective process to improve learning and teaching in math and science education.
References
Christensen, R. (1998), Analysis of Variance, Design, and Regression, New York: Chapman & Hall.
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (2002), Outline of Programs and Selected Changes in the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Washington DC: US Printing Office.
Hoover, H. D., Hieronymus, A. N., Dunbar, S. B., and Frisbie, D. A. (1996), Iowa Tests of Basic Skills: Forms K, L, and M (on line), www.riverpub.com/products/ group/itbs_m/home.html (retrieved 25 January 2004), Rolling Meadows IL: Riverside Publishing.
Johnson, R. (2002), Using Data to Close the Achievement Gap, Thousand Oaks CA: Corwin Press.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (1989), Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics, Reston VA: NCTM.
National Research Council (1996), National Science Education Standards, Washington DC: National Academy Press.
Oklahoma City Public Schools (2000), Oklahoma City Public Schools Urban Sys- temic Program, Oklahoma City OK: OCPS.
TIMSS (2005), Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (on line), http://timss.bc.edu/ (retrieved 25 April 2005).
Address for correspondence
Department of Professional and Community Leadership, Building 77, Office 146, College of Professional Studies, University of West Florida, 11000 University Parkway, Pensacola, FL 32514, USA. E-mail cthompson1@uwf.edu

Not sure you need this article but it was in my research notes and there is not a limit on pages.