Thevoicesofteachersaredifficulttoquantifyineducationpolicydiscussions–thustheyremainsubjecttopolicieswithfewopportunitiestoprovidefeedback.Policymakershaveemployedasuiteofteacherpoliciescenteredoncollege-and-careerreadiness(CCR)standards.Butevidenceforthesepoliciesremainsmixed,andschoolautonomyadvocatespointtothefindingthatdistrict-levelpolicyisresponsibleforonly1-2percentofthetotalvariationinstudentachievement(Chingos,Whitehurst&Gallaher,2015).ThispapermatchesteachersurveysofpolicieswiththeStanfordEducationDataArchive(SEDA)toexaminerelationshipsbetweenpolicyandstudentachievement(Reardonet.al,2017).Imeasuredtheseenvironmentsusinga“policyattributestheory”(Porteret.al,1988)inthreestates-Texas,OhioandKentucky–andfoundthattheconsistencyofteacherpoliciespredictsstudentachievement.Whenanalyzingurbandistrictsseparately,stabilitywastheonlypositivepredictor.

Numberofdistricts=165.Includesstatefixedeffects,percentageofELLsandperpupilexpenditures.

Policy Attribute Base Coefficient Interaction with

Poverty

Specificity -0.774 3.303

Consistency 2.260** -8.299**

Authority -0.166 1.1927

Power -0.569 1.498

Stability -0.432

r2 0.143

ConsistencyMatters:TeacherPolicy,Poverty,andStudentAchievementAdamKirkEdgerton,Ph.D.Student,EducationPolicy,UniversityofPennsylvaniaGSE

§  Whenteachersfeelthatpoliciesandmaterialsare

workinginconcertwitheachother,studentachievementappearstobenefit,comparedtospecificcurriculum,whetherthestandardsareappropriate,andrewardsorsanctions.

§  Stabilitymaybemoreimportantthanthepoliciesthemselvesinurbandistricts.

§  Strongaccountabilitypoliciesorspecificcurriculadonotshowrelationshipstodistrict-levelachievement.

Towhatextentdoteacherpolicyenvironmentsmoderatetherelationshipbetweendistrictpovertyandstudentachievement?ThisresearchwassupportedinpartbyGrantR305C150007fromtheInstituteofEducationSciencesintheU.S.DepartmentofEducationtotheUniversityofPennsylvania.ThecontentissolelytheresponsibilityoftheauthorsanddoesnotnecessarilyrepresenttheofficialviewsoftheInstituteofEducationSciencesortheU.S.DepartmentofEducation.

Chingos,M.M.,Whitehurst,G.J.&Gallaher,M.R.(2015).Porter,A.C.,Floden,R.,Freeman,D.,Schmidt,W.,&Schwille,J.(1988).Porter,A.C.(1994).Reardon,S.,Ho,A.,Shear,B.,Fahle,E.,Kalogrides,D.,&DiSalvo,R.(2017).

§  Specificity=Howspecificistheguidancethatteachers

receiveontheCCRstandards?(pacing,curriculum,etc.)§  Consistency=Howalignedarethestandards-basedpolicies

thatteachersexperience?§  Authority=Howmuchdoteachersbelievethatthestandards

areappropriate,rigorousandflexibleenoughforallstudents?

§  Power=Towhatextentdoteachersexperiencerewardsandsanctionsforstandardsimplementation?

§  Stability=Howlongdoteachersthinkthepolicieswilllast?

PleaseindicateyouropiniononthedegreetowhichthefollowingwerealignedtotheCCRstandardsfor(ELAormath):a)The(ELAormath)sectionsofthetestb)District-mandatedsummativeassessmentsc)Formativeordiagnosticassessmentsdevelopedbyschoold)Formativeordiagnosticassessmentsuseddistrict-widee)Textbooksusedinyourschoolf)Curriculumselectedordevelopedbyyourdistrictg)State-developedororganizedprofessionaldevelopmenth)District-developedororganizedprofessionaldevelopmenti)  Administratorfeedbackprovidedtoyoufromclassroom

observations(1=stronglydisagree,2=somewhatdisagree,3=somewhatagree,4=stronglyagree)

§  Povertyisalargermagnitudepredictorforachievementthan

FRL–isthismoreevidencefordecreasingtheuseoftheFRLmeasure?

§  Thereisnoise/measurementerrorInthesurveymetricasthesampledesignisstratifiedbystate,notdistrict–ruraldistrictshaveasfewas2teacherrespondents.

§  Metaregressioncorrectsforsomeofthemeasurementerrorintheoutput,butr2islow.Districtsaretheunitofanalysis(notweightedbyenrollment).

-10

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

POV/FRL Consistency InteractionTerm

Pred

ictiv

eCo

efficientfo

rAc

hievem

ent

PovertyFRL

Poverty Coefficient Stability Coefficient

-12.779* (5.542) 3.177* (1.339)

FRL Coefficient Stability Coefficient

-6.095* (2.192) 3.891* (1.327)

39 districts are included in the sample. Teacher responses

in these districts are greater than 30.