![Sample our Education journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5932/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Education.jpg"})
Abstract
This paper explicates the elements of several policy instruments used in Connecticut, the political conditions under which they were chosen, and their intended targets and expected effects on teacher quality and student learning. The purpose of the paper is to explain how the Connecticut General Assembly (CGA) and the Connecticut State Department of Education (CSDE) were able to implement and sustain a set of integrated policies related to teaching and learning over a 20‐year period from 1985 to 2005. We argue that this occurred for three primary reasons. First, the state legislature combined changes in teacher certification requirements in the 1980s with significant increases in teacher salaries in order to build strong political support among teachers and teacher union leaders for the new requirements. Second, in the 1980s and 1990s, CGA and CSDE repeatedly combined policy instruments in ways that involved multiple stakeholders and strong elements of capacity‐building, thereby increasing their likelihood of success. Third, several policies enacted in Connecticut in the 1990s were directly connected to and strongly reinforced each other.
Notes
1. As discussed below, this paper analyzes state policies in Connecticut related to teacher salaries, teaching and student standards and assessments, new teacher mentoring and induction, accountability, and teacher preparation program accreditation. We chose to focus on policies in these areas between 1985 and 2005 because they seemed to strongly influence incentives to teach, expectations for instructional practice, new teacher support, and student assessment and accountability (which themselves shaped expectations for instructional practice). A number of other areas of state policy are not addressed in this paper. These include state incentives to go into teaching targeted to specific populations (e.g., racial/ethnic minorities), state policies related to construction of school buildings and athletic facilities, state policies related to alternative certification, and state professional development policies for experienced teachers. While these and other state policies undoubtedly had some effect on teacher quality, teaching, and learning in Connecticut between 1985 and 2005, they seemed to have a much less salient influence on these factors than the policies analyzed in this paper.
2. In Connecticut, the state legislature is known as the CGA. The terms ‘state legislature’ and ‘CGA’ are used synonymously in this paper.
3. See Youngs (Citation2007) for an analysis of how district policies in two Connecticut districts mediated the implementation of several state teacher policies.
4. Between 1985 and 2005 (the time period addressed in this paper), CSDE employed a classification system involving ERGs in order to group together school districts that served public school students from similar socioeconomic backgrounds. Grouping similar districts together enabled CSDE to make legitimate comparisons among districts. Seven variables were used to categorize districts into ERGs. These variables included income, education, occupation, poverty, family structure, home language, and district enrollment. All variables were based upon families with children attending public school.
5. Commissioners of education in Connecticut are appointed by the state board of education, which, in turn, is appointed by the governor.
6. At the time, Wise was director of RAND Corporation’s Center for the Study of the Teaching Profession.
7. Educational Testing Services developed the Praxis series in the 1990s to replace the National Teachers Examination. Praxis I measures basic skills in reading, writing, and mathematics. Praxis II tests include tests of subject matter knowledge and knowledge of pedagogy. Finally, Praxis III is an observation instrument that was based in part on the CCI. Many states currently use Praxis I and II in making certification decisions.
8. The Connecticut Teaching Competencies were a set of 15 teaching standards that the state adopted in 1984 as guidelines for teacher education program standards. The 10 indicators used by CCI assessors in evaluating first‐year teachers were based on the 15 teaching competencies.
9. Teachers, administrators, and teacher educators all served as assessors and the three‐day assessor training focused on strategies for recording evidence, sorting it, and evaluating it in relation to different performance levels on the indicators. For each observation, an assessor recorded teacher and student behaviors during a lesson and carried out pre‐ and post‐observation interviews with the teacher. Following the observation, the assessor sorted evidence by indicator and evaluated the teacher’s performance in relation to each of the 10 indicators. Six observations were planned for each new teacher although teachers who performed exceptionally well during the first four had the remaining ones waived.
10. Like mentors, though, principals did not serve as CCI assessors for the first‐year teachers in their schools.
11. Bristol and New Britain are two medium sized, urban districts in Connecticut that served about 10,000 students each in the early 2000s.
12. The 2005–06 fourth‐grade reading test, for example, included a reading passage and several questions designed to measure students’ understanding of story content, structure, author’s perspective, and alternative outcomes (CSDE Citation2006d). The 2005–06 fourth‐grade mathematics test assessed students’ ability to use place value concepts correctly, relate fractions to pictorial representations, identify appropriate operations to solve story problems, and add and subtract fractions correctly (CSDE Citation2006e).
13. In the 2005–06 English/language arts CAPT, for example, students read text and then had to identify the author’s organizational patterns, make judgments about the quality and themes of the text, and use evidence from the text to support conclusions (CSDE Citation2006b). The 2005–06 CAPT mathematics items measured students’ knowledge of such topics as algebra and functions, spatial relationships and geometry, probability and statistics, and discrete mathematics. Each CAPT math item was presented in a context and required students to solve a problem. Further, all open‐ended math items required students to show their work and explain their reasoning, thereby communicating their understanding of the relevant mathematics (CSDE Citation2006a). For the 2005–06 science CAPT, students engaged in hands‐on performance tasks and then completed written tests that included multiple‐choice and open‐ended items. These items assessed students’ conceptual understanding and ability to apply scientific knowledge and experimentation in life science, physical science, and earth science (CSDE Citation2006c).
14. These entries included a description of the teaching context, a set of lesson plans, videotape of instruction during the unit(s), samples of student work, and written reflections on the teacher’s planning, instruction, and assessment of student progress.
15. Participants discussed strategies for establishing trust, instructional coaching, promoting reflective inquiry, and providing portfolio‐related support. Further, participants were taught how to help beginning teachers align their lessons and units with the teaching standards.
16. In most content areas, the seminars addressed such topics as aligning unit and lesson objectives, instructional strategies, and assessments; linking analyses of student learning to analyses of teaching; creating inquiry‐based lessons; developing portfolios; and reviewing model portfolios.
17. The TIRs were paid their full teaching salaries by their districts while they served in the TIR positions. Although this was a significant expenditure for districts, many district administrators deeply valued having former TIRs in their districts who had returned to teaching positions or taken on administrative positions (Author 2002). Such individuals were able to provide expertise to other school and district staff regarding the state teaching standards and BEST portfolio requirements.
18. While many states border one or more other states, Connecticut, like a few other small states in the USA, is uniquely positioned in close proximity to states with large populations, New York and Massachusetts.