Evaluating Kentucky School Strategies for Improving Teacher Quality

Since implementation of the Kentucky Education Reform Act (KERA) of 1990, Kentucky's teachers have been at the forefront of a high-stakes accountability system in which schools have been rewarded if they show significant improvements on statewide tests, or sanctioned if their scores fail to improve or decline. To improve their students' scores on the annual tests, teachers themselves have had to learn new techniques and use new tools.

To update teachers' skills, schools relied on teacher professional development. Specifically, schools chose professional development from a variety of sources that were related to cooperative learning, use of manipulatives, writing techniques, higher-order thinking skills, and other techniques associated with improved state assessment scores. Schools also trained teachers in the use of new tools, such as Kentucky's Core Content for Assessment, which indicates topics that might be included on the state tests.

HumRRO recently completed two studies evaluating these strategies for improving teaching quality. No clear link was found between student assessment scores and either professional development or the use of the Core Content for Assessment, however those studies did lead to the following findings and conclusions:

• Professional development time, funding, and opportunities increased under KERA.
• Many professional development sessions were ineffective or redundant, although the number that fell into these categories dropped in more recent years.
• Large-scale professional development required by the district was generally rated poorly by teachers.
• Content-specific, small-scale training was rated positively by teachers.
• Teachers reported more control over their own training than in past years.
• Professional development planning was typically conducted at the school level with minimal district involvement.
• Coordination of professional development across grade levels and disciplines had begun, but was still in the early stages.
• Strong influences from the school district and school principals in selecting professional development were positively related to student assessment scores.
• The Core Content for Assessment was closely related to released assessment items in science and social studies.
• The Core Content was a primary focus in everyday classroom curriculum planning.

Perhaps surprisingly, a major difference between science and social studies was found in the way items assessed Core topics. Although questions for both subjects required students to combine knowledge from two or more areas of competence, the science questions were much more specific in terms of the exact content knowledge required. Social studies questions allowed students more choice in constructing responses.

HumRRO plans to continue to perform studies related to Kentucky's accountability system by examining the relationship between school practices and the assessment system.

For more information, contact:
Dr. Gene Hoffman or Research Notes