The Role of Districts in Fostering Instructional Improvements Lessons from Three Urban Districts Partnered with the Institute for Learning

by Marsh, Julie A.; Kerr, Kerri A.; Darilek, Hilary; Suttorp, Marika; Zimmer, Ron W.

• ISBN13: 9780833038531
• ISBN10: 0833038532
• Format: Paperback
• Copyright: 2005-12-01
• Publisher: RAND Corporation

Summary

Analyzes three urban school districts' efforts to iprove the instructional quality and performance of their schoolas and assesses the contribution to those efforts made by an intermediary organization, the institute for Learning.

Table of Contents

Preface	iii
Dedication	v
Figures	xiii
Tables	xv
Summary	xvii
Acknowledgments	xxvii
Abbreviations	xxix
Introduction	1	(6)
Study Purpose	3	(1)
Methodology	4	(1)
Organization of the Report	5	(2)
Research Background, Framework, and Methods	7	(18)
What We Know from Prior Research	7	(4)
School Districts and Instructional Improvement	7	(2)
Intermediary Organizations and District Reform	9	(2)
Conceptual Framework	11	(6)
Methods	17	(6)
Sample	18	(1)
Data Sources	18	(4)
Data Analysis	22	(1)
Study Limitations	22	(1)
Formative Feedback	23	(2)
Setting the Stage: Overview of Study Districts and the IFL	25	(14)
The Three Study Districts: Characteristics and Context	25	(2)
Institute for Learning: Background and History	27	(5)
Stage One: Early History and Evolution	27	(2)
Stage Two: Shift to On-Site Support and Articulated Notions of High-Performing Districts	29	(1)
Current Status and Scope of IFL Work	30	(2)
IFL-District Partnerships in the Case Study Districts	32	(4)
Monroe	33	(1)
Roosevelt	34	(1)
Jefferson	35	(1)
Summary	36	(3)
District Strategies to Improve Instruction: Implementation and Outcomes	39	(40)
Principals' Instructional Leadership	40	(10)
Consistent Emphasis on Professional Development and Supervision of Principals	41	(2)
Greater Alignment of District Actions in Monroe and Roosevelt	43	(1)
Principals Varied in Degree of Reported Instructional Leadership Actions	43	(2)
Factors Affecting District Efforts to Support Principals' Instructional Leadership	45	(4)
IFL's Role in Supporting Instructional Leadership Was Consistent and Strong	49	(1)
School-Based Coaches to Support the Professional Learning of Teachers	50	(8)
Districts Implemented Different Coaching Models: Curriculum-Versus School-Centered Approaches	51	(1)
Coaching Role Valued in General, Yet Teachers Reported Strong Preferences for Individualized Interactions	52	(3)
Factors Affecting the Implementation of School-Based Coaches	55	(2)
IFL's Role in Influencing School-Based Coaching Models Varied	57	(1)
Curriculum Specification	58	(8)
Curriculum Guides Were a Driving Force for Improving Instruction in Two Districts	58	(2)
Curriculum Guides Useful for the System, but Challenges Existed at the Classroom Level	60	(2)
Factors Affecting Implementation and Perceived Usefulness of Curriculum Guides	62	(2)
IFL Role in Affecting District Curricular Reforms Varied	64	(2)
Data Use	66	(9)
Strong Focus on Data in Jefferson and Monroe	66	(6)
Factors Affecting Data Use	72	(3)
IFL Role in District Use of Data to Inform Instruction Was Limited	75	(1)
Summary	75	(4)
Overarching Findings About District Instructional Improvement: Common Constraints and Enablers	79	(20)
A Comprehensive Set of Strategies Was Important for Addressing All Facets of Instruction	80	(2)
Focus on a Limited Number of Initiatives Assisted in Implementing Reforms, but Tradeoffs Resulted	82	(2)
Insufficient Capacity Was a Significant Obstacle to Instructional Improvement	84	(2)
On-Site Assistance for Teachers and Principals Enhanced Instructional Capacity at the School Level	86	(1)
Strategies That Were Aligned and Mutually Supportive Facilitated Reform; Misalignment Greatly Constrained Efforts	87	(2)
Districts Struggled to Design Reform Strategies That Enabled Multiple Stakeholders to Engage in Instructional Improvement	89	(1)
Achieving a Balance Between Standardization and Flexibility Proved Difficult for Districts	90	(2)
Local Accountability Policies Created incentives and Disincentives That Affected the Quality of Implementation of Reform Strategies	92	(2)
Policy Decisions at Higher Levels Influenced Policy Decisions and Actions at the District Level, Often with Unintended Consequences	94	(1)
Summary	95	(4)
Impact of the Institute for Learning	99	(26)
IFL Contribution to the Four Main Areas of Instructional Reform	99	(3)
IFL Made Greatest Contribution to District Instructional Leadership Strategies	100	(1)
IFL Had Less Influence on Other Areas of Reform	101	(1)
IFL Resources: The Most Influential Ideas and Tools	102	(5)
Learning Walks Supported Multiple Instructional Improvement Efforts	104	(2)
Principles of Learning Provided a Common Language	106	(1)
IFL's Overall Impact on Districts: The Bottom Line	107	(7)
IFL Had a Strong Reported Impact on Organizational Culture	107	(2)
IFL Was Reported to Affect Administrators' Capacity	109	(3)
Less Evidence to Suggest IFL's Impact on Teachers	112	(2)
Factors Affecting the IFL's Reported Impact on Districts	114	(8)
The IFL Had Limited Capacity---and Possibly Limited Intentions---to Assist Districts with the Full Range of Instructional Improvement Efforts	115	(1)
Leadership Buy-In at All Levels Enabled Partnership Efforts and Impact	116	(1)
The Perception of IFL as a Vendor Hindered Its Effect on District Reform	117	(2)
Trust in IFL Staff, Ideas, and Tools, and Their Perceived Credibility, Was Important for Building Teacher, Principal, and District Leader Support	119	(1)
Practical Tools Supported Application of IFL Ideas but Raised Concerns About Superficial Implementation	120	(1)
Turnover Challenged IFL Efforts to Sustain and Deepen Reform	121	(1)
Summary	122	(3)
Conclusions and Lessons Learned	125	(58)
Summary of Findings	125	(2)
Lessons Learned for Policy and Practice	127	(7)
Lessons for Instructional Improvement	128	(3)
Lessons for District-Intermediary Partnerships	131	(3)
Conclusion	134	(3)
APPENDIX
A. Survey Instruments	137	(26)
B. Technical Notes on Research Methods	163	(8)
C. Student Achievement Trends	171	(10)
D. Principles of Learning	181	(2)
Bibliography	183