• References

The new curriculum standards require teachers to make tremendous changes in what and how they teach and in their roles in classrooms and schools. The NCTM standards, for example, envision classrooms as places where students regularly explore interesting problems using important mathematical concepts, rather than memorizing isolated mathematical facts and computational procedures. These "active" classrooms should include the use of small group work, work with concrete materials, and problem solving in the context of projects. Students are encouraged to communicate mathematics ideas orally and in writing through questioning procedures and results, discussing and evaluating alternative approaches, and providing written explanations of their reasoning. Teachers are seen as facilitators of goals, rather than the exclusive source of mathematical knowledge (Lindquist, Dossey, and Mullis n.d.).

The push to include all students in standards-based reforms raises questions about how these kinds of learning opportunities are distributed across different kinds of students, classrooms, and schools. As decisions about promotion, high school graduation, and entry into either the job market or postsecondary education become tied to more rigorous tests, students must be given an equal opportunity to learn the new knowledge and skills that are being assessed.

The featured report, What Happens in Classrooms? Instructional Practices in Elementary and Secondary Schools: 1994-95, sheds light on the extent to which teachers use instructional practices recommended in the voluntary national curriculum standards and whether teachers' practices differ depending on the backgrounds of their students or their own experience and training. The authors examine four dimensions of instruction addressed by the national standards: the roles that teachers and students play in learning activities, the materials and technology used in the classroom, the kinds of learning tasks that students are asked to do both in the classroom and at home, and how teachers assess and evaluate student learning.

The data, from a nationally representative sample of elementary and secondary teachers in all subject areas, were collected in the 1994-95 Teacher Follow-up Survey (TFS:94-95).¹Because the survey items were designed to capture practices across subject areas and grade levels, the information is considerably less detailed than that provided in other National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) and National Science Foundation surveys devoted to specific subject areas. But What Happens in Classrooms? provides a unique opportunity to compare and contrast some aspects of teaching across all grade levels and subject areas, and across different kinds of teachers and schools.

Four broad findings about instructional practices and access to learning opportunities emerge from the analyses presented in this report. First, teachers at all grade levels and in different subject areas used a variety of instructional practices in their classes, combining traditional practices (such as giving lectures and having students read textbooks and do exercises that

This finding should not be surprising, as the new ideas about what students should know and be able to do, how students should be taught, and how they should be assessed challenge the conceptions of student learning and teaching that all actors in the education system—students, parents, educators, policymakers, and the public—hold dear. For example, while there is strong public support for the concept of higher academic standards, citizens want students to master the basics before moving on to "higher order" skills (Immerwahr and Johnson 1996). Even teachers who support the new directions of reform express the need to balance old and new ways of teaching reading, writing, and mathematics to ensure that their students learn spelling, grammar, mathematical computation, and number facts (Goertz, Floden, and O'Day 1995).

Second, elementary school teachers, particularly those who work in the primary grades (K-3), appeared more likely to have adopted reform-oriented instructional practices than were teachers in higher level grades. Elementary school teachers generally reported greater use of small groups, strategies involving student talk, supplementary print materials, and manipulatives and other hands-on materials. These teachers were also more likely to report that they had students work in class on tasks that involved higher order thinking or had some of the characteristics of authentic problems. The authors of the report hypothesize that these differences may result from the amount of time that teachers spent with their designated classes each week. Accomplishing group work or having students work individually on longer term assignments might be difficult within the 45- to 50-minute class periods typically available to secondary teachers. Indeed, some junior and senior high schools have instituted block scheduling to address these constraints.

Two other explanations for the differential use of instructional practices are possible, however. First, because much of the early standards-based curriculum development, especially in mathematics and science, focused on the elementary grades, commercial publishers began to make new instructional materials available at the elementary school level. In contrast, Porter and Associates (1994) found that instructional materials were not available to support mathematics and science reforms at the high school level in the early 1990s. Second, much of the professional development sponsored and supported by subject-matter associations, school districts, and states has targeted elementary school teachers. For example, most states that received grants from the National Science Foundation's Statewide Systemic Initiatives (SSI) Program targeted the majority of their funds to the elementary and middle school grades (Shields, Corcoran, and Zucker 1994).

A third finding from What Happens in Classrooms? supports this hypothesized connection between professional development and changes in instructional practice in elementary schools. Elementary school teachers were somewhat more likely to have participated in professional development on instructional methods, student assessment, and cooperative learning than other teachers (Choy and Chen 1998). And teachers who participated in professional development on new instructional practices were more likely than those who had not to use the recommended strategies in group work, teacher-student interactions, and assessments.

Finally, the data from this study show that low-achieving students and students who attend high-poverty schools and schools with large concentrations of LEP students have similar or greater access to many of the instructional practices endorsed by reformers.²For example, teachers in higher poverty schools or schools with more LEP students were more likely to facilitate a discussion, use manipulatives or models to demonstrate a concept, and use portfolios to assess student progress. But teachers were also more likely to have low-achieving students do routine exercises in class while giving students in higher ability classes more access to problems that require higher order thinking skills.

In summary, What Happens in Classrooms? paints a picture of teachers' instructional practices in the early days of standards-based reform. Teachers incorporated some recommended practices into their classrooms, but did not decrease their conventional practices. Pedagogical reforms appear to have penetrated more deeply into elementary than secondary classrooms, perhaps due to greater exposure to the reforms or perhaps because elementary teachers are more

The data from the TFS:94-95 provide an important baseline for tracking changes in teacher practices as states adopt and schools and districts implement curriculum standards in different subject areas. But these kinds of survey questions, by their design, can tell only part of the story of classroom change. Research tells us that teachers can change some dimensions of their teaching, such as materials and grouping arrangements, more readily than other dimensions, such as the content of academic tasks (e.g., Cohen and Ball 1990; Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 1990; Spillane and Zeuli 1999). And we are learning that student performance is more likely to improve when educational improvement is focused on having teachers learn and teach academic content (e.g., Cohen and Hill 1998).

Thus, policymakers and educators need data on the content, as well as the process, of instruction in order to document the extent and depth of reform in the nation's classrooms. The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), new longitudinal surveys launched by NCES, and the 1999-2000 administration of the Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) can provide more comprehensive information on teacher practice. These multiple data sources should expand our understanding of educational change.

² High-poverty schools are defined as those where 40 percent or more of the students receive free or reduced-price lunch. Schools with large concentrations of LEP students are those where the LEP enrollment is 10 percent or more.