Implementation of School Instructional Improvement and Student Growth in Math: Testing a Multilevel Longitudinal Model

Stacey M. Takanishi*
University of Hawaii, Manoa College of Education Institute for Teacher Education.
Periodicity:August - October'2012
DOI : https://doi.org/10.26634/jpsy.6.2.2005

Abstract

NCLB policies in the United States focus schools’ efforts on implementing effective instructional processes to improve student outcomes. This study looks more specifically at how schools are perceived to be implementing state required curricula and benchmarks and developing teaching and learning processes that support the teaching of state standards and influence student learning. This longitudinal, multilevel study focuses on how the implementation of standards-based learning and monitoring of student progress affects students’ likelihood to attain proficiency in math over time. All 5th-grade students enrolled in a western United States public school district who attended the same school in both 3rd- and 5th-grades and had complete 3rd- and 5th-grade test results for mathematics (11,345 students, 79% of all Grade 5 students, in 172 schools). A multilevel value-added model (hierarchical logistic regression) was used to estimate the extent to which school processes influenced math outcomes at single and at multiple points in time. The results of this study identify effective schools and practices and illustrate the relationship between schools’ academic organization and students’ growth; they show that organizational processes do impact student learning over schools’ contextual features. The quality of schools’ implementation of the required Standards Based Learning curriculum is strongly related to students’ likelihood to be proficient in math. Implications for practice: Build human and social capital by focusing on school process variables for school improvement. Because school leaders have relatively greater control over organizational processes, they can proactively focus on identifying needs, providing staff professional development and follow-up support, and implementing and evaluating changes. Growth models and case studies may provide more information about learner outcomes in math over time.

Keywords

School Improvement,Elementary,Mathematics,Assessment,Hierarchical Logistic Regression.

How to Cite this Article?

Stacey M. Takanishi (2012). Implementation of School Instructional Improvement and Student Growth in Math: Testing a Multilevel Longitudinal Model. i-manager’s Journal on Educational Psychology, 6(2), 41-49. https://doi.org/10.26634/jpsy.6.2.2005

References

[1]. Barr, R., & Dreeban, R. (1983). How schools work. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
[2]. Bidwell, C. E., & Karsada, J. D. (1980). Conceptualizing and measuring the effects of schools and schooling. American Journal of Education. 88: 401- 430.
[3]. Bryk, A. S., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1992). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
[4]. Cicourel, A. V., & Mehan, H. (1983). Universal development, stratifying practices and status attainment. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, 4, 3-27.
[5]. Clark, D., Lotto, L., & Astuto, T. (1984). Effective schools and school improvement: A comparative analysis of two lines of inquiry. Educational Administration Quarterly, 20(3), 41-68.
[6]. Creemers, B. P. (1994). The effective classroom. London: Cassell.
[7]. Firestone, W. A., & Corbett, H. D. (1988). Planned organizational change. In N. Boyan (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Educational Administration. New York: Longman, 321-340.
[8]. Firestone, W. A., Louis, K. S. (1999). Schools as cultures. In J. Murphy & K. S. Louis (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Educational Administration. San Francisco, CA: Jossey- Bass, 297-322.
[9]. Fullan, M. (1982). The meaning of educational change. New York: Teachers College Press.
[10]. Hall, G., & Hord, S. (1987). Change in schools. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
[11]. Haney, W. (2001). Response to Skrla et al. The illusion of educational equity in Texas: A commentary on “accountability for equity.” International Journal of Leadership in Education, 4, 267-75.
[12]. Heck, R., & Hallinger, P. (2005). The study of educational leadership and management: Where does the field stand today? Educational Management, Administration & Leadership, 33(2), 229-244.
[13]. Lee, V. E., & Bryk, A. S. (1989). A multilevel model of the social distribution of high school achievement. Sociology of Education, 62, 172-192.
[14]. Leithwood, K., Louis, K. S., Anderson, S., & Wahlsttom, K. (2004). Review of research: How leadership influences student learning. Wallace Foundation. Downloaded from http://www.wallacefoundation.org/NR/rdonlyres/E3BCCF A5-A88B-45D3-8E27-B973732283C9/0/ Review of Research Learning From Leadership.pdf on December 19, 2007.
[15]. Linn, R. L., & Haug, C. (2002). Stability of schoolbuilding accountability scores and gains. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(1), 29–36.
[16]. Louis, K. S., Toole, J., & Hargreaves, A. (1999). Rethinking school improvement. In J. Murphy & K. Seashore Louis (Eds.) Handbook of research on educational administration (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 251-276.
[17]. Mehan, H. (1992). Understanding inequality: The contribution of interpretive studies. The Sociology of Education, 65, 1-20.
[18]. Oakes, J. (1985). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
[19]. Ouston, J. (1999). School effectiveness and school improvement: Critique of a movement. In T. Bush, L. Bell, R. Bolam, R. Glatter, & P. Ribbins (Eds.), Educational Management: Redefining theory, policy and practice. London: Paul Chapman.
[20]. Page, R. N. (1987). Teachers' perceptions of students: A link between classrooms, school culture, and the social order. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 18, 77-99.
[21]. Raudenbush, S., Bryk, A., Cheong, Y., and Congdon, R. (2004). HLM6: Hierarchical linear and nonlinear modeling. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software.
[22]. Teddlie, C., & Reynolds, D. (2000). The international handbook of school effectiveness Research. New York: Falmer Press.
[23]. Van Houtte, M. (2004). Tracking effects on school achievement: A quantitative explanation in terms of the academic culture of the school. American Journal of Education, 110, 354-388.
If you have access to this article please login to view the article or kindly login to purchase the article

Purchase Instant Access

Single Article

North Americas,UK,
Middle East,Europe
India Rest of world
USD EUR INR USD-ROW
Pdf 35 35 200 20
Online 35 35 200 15
Pdf & Online 35 35 400 25

Options for accessing this content:
  • If you would like institutional access to this content, please recommend the title to your librarian.
    Library Recommendation Form
  • If you already have i-manager's user account: Login above and proceed to purchase the article.
  • New Users: Please register, then proceed to purchase the article.