THE STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT / THE UNIVERSITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK / ALBANY, NY 12234

TO:	The Honorable the Members of the Board of Regents
FROM:	James A. Kadamus
COMMITTEE:	EMSC-VESID
TITLE OF ITEM:	The Effect of Raising Learning Standards in New York State Public Schools for English Language Arts, Mathematics, and Career Development and Occupational Studies – Year IV Standards Implementation Study
DATE OF SUBMISSION:	December 19, 2003
PROPOSED HANDLING:	Discussion
RATIONALE FOR ITEM:	Monitoring of Implementation of Regents Policy
STRATEGIC GOAL:	Goal 1
AUTHORIZATION(S):

SUMMARY:

Attached is the fourth and final report of a multi-year research effort concerning the implementation of selected standards in the State’s public school districts. The report re-examines the implementation of standards in English language arts (ELA), mathematics, and career development and occupational studies (CDOS). A new component of the Year IV study includes an examination of the relationship between student performance and the degree to which the State learning standards is being implemented for ELA and mathematics.

The building-level report addresses six areas of standards implementation: curriculum alignment, instructional practices, professional development, instructional leadership, academic interventions, and parent/community involvement.

Some of the highlights in the building level study include:

Curriculum Alignment

· A vast majority of the responding ELA teachers reported either district-level curriculum alignment activities or school-level alignment activities.

· Sixty-six percent of the ELA teachers felt “very well prepared” and 29 percent felt “somewhat prepared” to integrate their English language arts with other subjects/standards areas.

· Mathematics teachers at all levels reported that curriculum alignment activities were better implemented at the classroom level where teachers had more direct control and responsibilities for the alignment activities.

· Mathematics teachers reported that district-level curriculum alignment activities were only about 40 percent completed. New York City and high school teachers reported the lowest levels of alignment.

· Eighty-seven percent of the career and technical education (CTE) teachers believed the career major area curriculum that they teach is very well or moderately well aligned with the CDOS learning standards. Eighty percent of these teachers believe the career major area curriculum that they teach is very well or moderately aligned with the learning standards for mathematics and English language arts. Seventy-six percent of the CTE teachers believed the curriculum for their career major area is very well or moderately well aligned with the learning standards for science.

· Nearly half of the respondent CTE teachers reported direct involvement in activities to integrate CDOS into the career major area that they teach.

Instructional Practices

· ELA teachers across all school levels reported frequent use of instructional activities that engage students in performing tasks similar to those in the State assessments, such as listening, note taking, response to ideas, and analysis and interpretation of information. Teachers also frequently employed small group or independent learning activities and a variety of writing activities. Teachers also reported frequent use of multiple assessment strategies to monitor student progress.

· Mathematics teachers reported that their students engage extensively in problem-solving activities, work in small groups, use hands-on materials, use educational technology (including computers and calculators), and have a variety of homework activities. Mathematics teachers in New York City reported high levels of students’ engagement in problem-solving activities, and working in small groups.

· Career and technical education teachers felt they have significant input or control over what they teach in their career major area and how they teach their career major area. Between 75 percent and 90 percent of the teachers say they have a lot of input in determining course goals and objectives; selecting content, topics, and skills to be taught; selecting textbooks and supplemental instructional materials; setting the instructional pace; determining homework; and choosing grading criteria.

Professional Development

· About 90 percent of the ELA teachers’ felt “very well prepared” to teach their respective subject area at the level they are assigned. Between 72 and 78 percent of these teachers felt “very well prepared” to implement instruction that meets all of the standards in their respective subject area. However, ELA teachers at all levels felt less prepared to teach students with special needs.

· Overall, ELA teachers gave a passing grade to the quality of the staff development they received on standards implementation indicating that staff development had a moderate impact on classroom instruction. However, two out of five teachers expressed dissatisfaction concerning the quality, quantity and relevance of the staff development provided to them to implement the learning standards. Also, a majority of the teachers were dissatisfied with the staff development provided to develop and implement an integrated curriculum.

· About 90 percent of responding mathematics teachers felt “very well prepared” to teach their respective subject area at the level they are assigned. Approximately 75 percent of these teachers stated that they were “very well prepared” to implement instruction that meets all of the standards in their respective subject area. New York City teachers and elementary level teachers rated their satisfaction higher on staff development and collegial work environment than other groups. New York City mathematics teachers also reported the largest number of continuing education credit hours (17).

· Mathematics teachers also felt less prepared to teach special populations, including English language learners and pupils with disabilities. Teachers in New York City and in low need districts rated themselves higher on this scale than any other groups. Teachers also reported they were only moderately prepared to integrate career and real-life situations into their class activities. New York City teachers also rated themselves higher on this scale than any of the other groups.

· For the most part, mathematics teachers reported very inadequate time for shared planning. Importantly, New York City mathematics teachers were more satisfied with availability of shared planning time than teachers in all other need/resource capacity categories. High school mathematics teachers reported the least time for shared planning.

· About 85 percent of the CTE teachers felt “well prepared” to teach in their career major area at the assigned grade level. Seventy-two percent of the CTE teachers felt “well prepared” to integrate knowledge about the world of work into their lesson plans and to integrate knowledge of the life skills necessary to succeed in the work place.

· Nearly 90 percent of the CTE teachers felt supported by their colleagues to try new teaching ideas; 77 percent of the CTE teachers indicated that teachers in their schools share ideas and materials. Further, 50 percent said they have many opportunities to learn new things about CTE and their career major area.

Instructional Leadership

· ELA teachers gave moderate to high marks to school leadership in three areas: organizing curriculum alignment and staff development, hands-on instructional leadership, and engaging parents and the community in the standards implementation process. Generally, elementary school teachers rated their school leadership the highest in all three areas.

· Mathematics teachers gave moderate to high ratings to school leadership in the areas of organization activities, supports for staff, and engaging staff, parents and the community in the standards implementation process. Elementary-level teachers, and teachers in New York City and low need districts, tended to rate their school leadership higher than other groups.

· Over two-thirds of the CTE teachers reported that building leadership is actively involved in curriculum development and alignment activities. Building leadership with some regularity helps to design or select instructional programs, organizes curriculum development and modification activities, and participates in curriculum alignment activities. Over 80 percent of the CTE teachers reported that building leadership is actively involved in performing professional development-related activities on a regular basis.

Academic Interventions

· In the area of Academic Intervention Services (AIS), more than 85 percent of the ELA teachers indicated that tutorials with students having difficulty in these subject areas are “most or moderately effective.” Both ELA and mathematics teachers also indicated that smaller classes, extended time, summer school, before- and after-school programs, and peer tutoring are “most or moderately” effective for these students as well.

· Mathematics teachers in New York City, low-need districts and elementary level teachers rated AIS higher than other groups. However, when asked specifically about the extent to which low-performing students were well served, teachers were considerably lower in their ratings. AIS in high schools and in other high-need districts were rated far lower than other groups.

· Tutorials with individual teachers were at the top of the list for 85 percent of the high school students surveyed if they needed extra help with school work or needed help passing the required State tests. Eighty percent also preferred peer tutoring, before- and after-school programs, and a study group/study hall structure. Only 34 percent of the students preferred summer school.

· There is evidence of a shortage of AIS for high school students. About two-thirds of the 3,000 responding high school students reported that they encountered difficulty with coursework or passing required State tests. However, only a small minority of those who needed extra help received it. The shortage of AIS was most evident in New York City schools.

· Forty-one percent of the CTE teachers indicated that they have students who have difficulty grasping the academic components of their career and technical education classes. Forty-three percent of these teachers believed the difficulties are serious enough to impact negatively on student success in their CTE classes. Seventy-eight percent of these CTE teachers indicated that these students find the mathematics component most difficult and 47 percent of the CTE teachers indicated that the science component is the most challenging for their students. Two ELA components are also very challenging to a lesser degree—writing (44 percent) and reading (36 percent).

Parent and Community Involvement

· Respondents in general felt that schools are doing an effective job of informing parents about the State learning standards and high school graduation requirements. However, further efforts are needed in informing parents of students’ rights to AIS services.

· Elementary-level teachers and New York City teachers rated themselves higher than teachers in other groups.

· Eighty-seven percent of the CTE teachers stated that they speak with parents about their child’s strengths and challenges on a regular basis. Seventy-two percent of the CTE teachers encouraged parents to ask for what they believe their child needs to improve and excel educationally. Sixty-eight percent of the CTE teachers provided parents with information on how to assist students learn the skills that they need to master for promotion, graduation, employment, college, and life-long learning.

Performance Trends

· During the period between 1999, when the new State assessments associated with the high learning standards were first administered, and 2002, all public elementary schools as a whole made steady and significant improvements in ELA performance. The percentage of students meeting the State ELA learning standards increased significantly in over 90 percent of the elementary schools, with a median gain of 13 percent.

· ELA performance gains between 1999 and 2002 were positively related to more district-level curriculum alignment activities and more frequent use of multiple assessment strategies. Schools where students read more books and did more homework showed greater performance gains. Schools where teachers reported time and opportunity for shared planing, high quality staff development, and collegial work environment enjoyed greater performance gains. Also, schools where teachers reported stronger leadership, where more adequate AIS was provided to students, and where parents and local community were more supportive, posted bigger performance gains.

· Middle schools where more teacher-level curriculum alignment activities took place, where teachers reported having shared planning time with other teachers, where more teachers felt more prepared to teach ELA content, improved their ELA performance significantly.

· Such teacher factors as greater input in instructional matters, more frequent use of computers to build student academic skills, more experienced and prepared teachers, and stronger principal leadership in involving parents are positively related to higher high school performance. Schools where students read more books, spent more time studying school subjects and did more homework, enjoyed more favorable school and home learning environments, and were provided with adequate AIS, are more likely to be higher performing schools. In addition, schools where principals had more autonomy over personnel and instructional issues, involved teachers in hiring new staff, reported supportive parents and community, and fewer barriers to implementation, tended to perform better.

· In 1999 through 2002, a larger percentage of tested students succeeded in meeting the State standards on the elementary mathematics assessment than any other assessment area. In 2002, 68 percent of students taking the test scored at Levels 3 and 4 compared to 67 percent in 1999. On average, students in public schools outside New York City were more likely to meet the standards than were students in New York City.

· At the middle school level, the majority of tested eighth graders were not able to demonstrate proficiency in mathematics, with 48 percent scoring at Levels 3 and 4. In 2002, only 30 percent of middle-level New York City students were able to meet the mathematics standards.

· The 1999 and 2002 grade mathematics scores at all levels were significantly correlated with the following factors: number of years teaching mathematics, extent of teacher autonomy and input, extent students were served and supported with AIS (significant for 2002 mathematics scores only), extent to which school leadership involves others, sufficiency of resources, satisfaction with staff development, and collegial work environment. The number of barriers to implementation of the standards and AIS was inversely related to mathematics performance. Teachers in high poverty schools reported that students in high poverty schools were supported less well by AIS.

I. Introduction

Since September 2001, students entering 9^th grade in New York State are expected to pass a rigorous set of Regents examinations in order to graduate with a Regents-endorsed diploma. The full impact of the revised course and assessment requirements is becoming evident and there is continued concern about how all students can be supported to achieve this goal. Central to this issue is the extent to which the learning standards have been implemented at the district, building, and classroom levels.

The Board of Regents and the Commissioner agree that all constituencies must be fully informed of the extent to which public school districts implement strategies and practices to achieve the higher learning standards. The State Education Department has undertaken a four-year Standards Implementation Study to assess how districts are providing support and directing instruction so that all students will achieve a Regents-endorsed diploma.

Specifically, this four-year study seeks to: add quality knowledge to the general information base for reform initiatives; document or describe local school district activities associated with installing support mechanisms and instruction directed at the 28 learning standards; evaluate how well districts are able to implement the standards and regulations; recommend appropriate actions calling for administrative policy or legislative policy where needs are so systemic or widespread that mid-course corrections may be appropriate; evaluate whether the outcomes of the reform effort are commensurate with the intent of the policy; and inform districts during the compilation of Comprehensive District Education Plans.

The Year I study evaluated the level of implementation of the State learning standards for English Language Arts (ELA), Mathematics, and Career Development and Occupational Studies (Career and Technical Education). In Year II the study focused on the implementation of the State learning standards for Social Studies, Languages Other Than English (LOTE), and the Arts. Year III assessed the degree of implementation for Science, Technology, Health, Physical Education, and Family and Consumer Sciences.

The current report summarizes findings from the Year IV building level study in which the implementation of the learning standards for ELA, Mathematics and Career and Technical Education are reexamined. Data for the Year IV study were collected in the winter of 2002 from multiple sources, including surveys of and interviews with school administrators, teachers, high school students and parents.

II. Purpose of the Year IV Study

A primary component of the Year IV study included an examination of the relationship between student performance and the degree to which the State learning standards were implemented for ELA and mathematics. The study also assessed the level of standards implementation in the following four areas:

Communication: To what extent have districts and schools communicated and made available/accessible information about the State learning standards and graduation requirements to teachers, school counselors, parents and students?

Alignment: To what extent have districts and schools aligned their curriculum, instructional activities, and staff development programs with the State learning standards?

Building Capacity: To what extent have the State and districts helped schools build capacity for implementing the State learning standards?

Intervention: To what extent have districts and schools provided academic intervention services to those students experiencing difficulty achieving the State learning standards?

III. Methodology

A. Study Components

The Year IV Standards Implementation Study consists of three components: 1) a survey mailed to a sample of 579 public school buildings throughout New York State; 2) site visits and interviews with principals and a group of ELA and mathematics teachers in buildings in districts that had not had an opportunity to participate in a site visit/interview during the first three years of the study; and 3) site visits to buildings in the Big Five Cities. The survey data were collected through a mailing to the schools in all groups; trained staff from the State Education Department and Boards of Cooperative Educational Services (BOCES) conducted the site visits/interviews.

B. Selection of Schools and Participants

A stratified sampling procedure was used to select the participating schools. A total of 579 schools were selected across the State. The sample was stratified by type of district and school level. The number of schools in each category is presented in the following table.

Number of Schools Selected by School Level

and Type of District

Type Of

District

School Level

Total

Elementary

School

Middle

School

High

School

New York City

205

Big 4 Cities

Other Cities

Suburban

212

Rural

Total:

224

187

168

579

For purpose of the study, an elementary school contained grades 3-4; a middle school included grades 6-8; and a high school included grades 10-12.

C. Instruments

Questionnaires were designed to collect information from school principals, English language arts (ELA) teachers, mathematics teachers, career and technical education (CTE) teachers, parents, and students. Protocols were developed for interviews with school administrators and teachers. The participant selection process is delineated in the following chart.

Participant Selection Process

Data Collection Instrument	Participant Selection Process
Administrator Questionnaire	The principal or assistant principal completed the questionnaire.
Administrator Interview	The principal or assistant principal participated in the interview, which focused on questions about Academic Intervention Services.
Teacher Questionnaire	Principals were furnished with a list of teachers extracted from the most currently available information at the State Education Department. If the district no longer employed a selected teacher, the principal was instructed to substitute another teacher. - Elementary Schools: Two teachers from each of grades 3 and 4 were selected to fill out one ELA and one mathematics questionnaire, respectively, for a total of four (4) questionnaires per building; - Middle schools: Principals were furnished with a list of ELA, mathematics, and CTE teachers (two per subject area) from grades 7 and 8, for a total of six (6); and - High schools: Principals were furnished with a list of ELA, mathematics, and CTE teachers (three each from ELA and mathematics, two from CTE), for a total of eight (8).
Group Teacher Interview	Principals were asked to select up to eight teachers from the groups surveyed (but not necessarily the survey respondents), including at least one special education teacher and an Academic Intervention Services coordinator or teacher.
High School Student Questionnaire	The high school principal distributed questionnaires to up to 50 non-Advanced Placement (AP) grade 11 students from two social studies classes.
Parent Questionnaire	Up to 25 parent questionnaires with postage-paid return envelopes were distributed in classrooms (Elementary: a grade 4 class; Middle: a grade 8 ELA class; High School: a non-AP grade 11 ELA class). The questionnaire was written in both English and Spanish.

The mathematics teacher questionnaire was modified from an instrument that was developed for a study conducted by the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). Special acknowledgment is made to the CCSSO for its permission to use the modified survey form for the Year IV Standards Implementation Study conducted by the Office of Research and Evaluation at the New York State Education Department.

D. Response Rate

Of the 579 schools that were selected for the Year IV building level study, questionnaires were returned from 499 schools for an overall response rate of 86 percent. As shown in the following two tables, the response rate was relatively consistent across all school levels. The response rate for New York City schools was less than that for those in the other Need/Resource categories.

School Response Rate by School Level

School Level

Number of Schools

Response Rate (%)

Selected

Responded

Elementary

224

197

Middle

187

154

High

168

148

Total

579

499

School Response Rate by Need/Resource Category

Need/Resource

Sample Representativeness

Need/Resource

Number of Questionnaire Responses by School Level

and Participant Category

Participant Category

School Level

Total

Elementary

School

Middle

School

High

School

Principals

182

150

126

458

English Language Arts

Teachers

356

255

353

964

Mathematics Teachers

348

264

333

945

Career and Technical Education Teachers

XXX

227

216

443

Parents

1,661

1,171

730

3,562

Students

XXX

3,265

Total

2,547

2,067

5,023

9,637

Number of On-Site Interviews by School Level

and Participant Category

Participant Category

School Level

Total

Elementary

School

Middle School

High

School

Administrators

116

Teachers

116

Total

232

IV. Findings

A. English Language Arts

1. Implementation of Higher Learning Standards and School Practices

The impact of high learning standards is reflected in district and school practices. Six areas of standards implementation were studied: 1) curriculum alignment, 2) instructional practices, 3) professional development (capacity building), 4) instructional leadership, 5) academic interventions, and 6) parent and community involvement.

a. Curriculum Alignment

A vast majority of the responding ELA teachers reported either district-level curriculum alignment activities or school-level alignment activities. However, ELA teachers reported significantly more school-level curriculum alignment activities, such as developing/modifying school curriculum, grade-level units, and lesson plans to align with State standards, than they did district-level alignment activities, including developing new comprehensive PreK-12 curriculum and student assessment system. The amount of building-level curriculum alignment activities reported by teachers varied greatly, with elementary school teachers reporting the most alignment activities and high schools reporting the fewest. Also, teachers from the low need/high resource and average need/average resource groups reported more alignment activities than their counterparts in the high need/low resource and New York City schools.

b. Instructional Practices

ELA teachers reported highly frequent use of a variety of instructional methods to implement the State standards. For example, teachers across all school levels reported frequent use of instructional activities that engage students in performing tasks similar to those in the State assessments, such as listening, note taking, response to ideas, and analysis and interpretation of information. Teachers also frequently employed small group or independent learning activities and a variety of writing activities. Teachers also reported frequent use of multiple assessment strategies to monitor student progress. Elementary schools teachers reported more frequent use of computers to build academic skills than did middle and high school teachers. Teachers enjoyed high levels of input in instructional matters and collegial work environment in which teachers share new ideas and materials, and observe each other teaching classes. Significantly more elementary and middle school teachers than high school teachers reported shared planning time.

c. Professional Development (Capacity Building)

About 90 percent of the ELA teachers felt “very well prepared” to teach their respective subject area at the level they are assigned. Between 72 and 78 percent of these teachers felt “very well prepared” to implement instruction that meets all of the standards in their respective subject area. The perceived level of preparedness decreases for these teachers when the focus is on integration or interdisciplinary work.

Sixty-six percent of the ELA teachers felt “very well prepared” and 29 percent felt “somewhat prepared” to integrate their English language arts with other subjects/standards areas. Forty-five percent of the math teachers are “very well prepared” and 43 percent are “somewhat prepared” to integrate mathematics with other subjects/standards areas, including CDOS.

Overall, ELA teachers gave a passing grade to the quality of the staff development they received on standards implementation indicating that staff development had a moderate impact on classroom instruction.

However, two out of five teachers expressed dissatisfaction concerning the quality, quantity and relevance of the staff development provided to them to implement the learning standards. Also, a majority of the teachers were dissatisfied with the staff development provided to develop/implement an integrated curriculum.

d. Instructional Leadership

ELA teachers gave moderate to high marks to school leadership in three areas: organizing curriculum alignment and staff development, hands-on instructional leadership, and engaging parents and the community in the standards implementation process. Generally, elementary school teachers rated their school leadership the highest in all three areas, while high school teachers rated theirs the lowest. Teachers from New York City and the low need/high resource schools rated their school leaders higher than teachers elsewhere on organizing curriculum alignment and providing instructional support, such as arranging demonstration of best practices and securing instructional materials and equipment for teachers.

e. Academic Interventions

ELA teachers were asked about the effectiveness of AIS services as well as about any obstacles to the success of AIS in their school buildings. More than 85 percent of the ELA teachers indicated that tutorials with students having difficulty in these subject areas are “most or moderately effective.” Both ELA and mathematics teachers also indicate that smaller classes, extended time, summer school, before- and after-school programs, and peer tutoring are “most or moderately” effective for these students as well.

Tutorials with individual teachers were at the top of the list for 85 percent of the high school students surveyed if they needed extra help with school work or needed help passing the required State tests. Eighty percent also preferred peer tutoring, before- and after-school programs, and a study group/study hall structure. Only 34 percent of the students preferred summer school.

There is evidence of a shortage of AIS for high school students. About two-thirds of the 3,000 responding high school students reported that they encountered difficulty with coursework or passing required State tests. However, only a small minority of those who needed extra help received it. The shortage of AIS was most evident in New York City schools and least evident in the low need schools. Of those students who received AIS, a large majority rated the services as adequate or fairly adequate. Nine out of ten teachers perceived the AIS services as adequate or somewhat adequate for students as a whole. However, teachers were significantly less positive about AIS services for students with disabilities and English language learners (ELL).

f. Parent and Community Involvement

Respondents felt that schools are doing an excellent job in informing parents of the State learning standards and high school graduation requirements. However, further efforts are needed in informing parents of students’ rights to AIS services. A large majority of the school principals reported such strategies as involving parents in school-based shared decision-making committees, enlisting the help of PTA and other parent groups, inviting community members to school to enrich school programs, and informing parents of educational resources for parents and students. Four out of five principals perceived parents and local community as very supportive or fairly supportive. However, parents and community in the average and low need schools were viewed as more supportive than those in New York City and other high need schools.

2. Relationship between Standards Implementation and School Performance

a. General Performance Trends

The impact of the implementation of New York State higher learning standards on school academic performance is significant, yet unbalanced. During the period between 1999, when the new State assessments associated with the high learning standards were first administered, and 2002, all public elementary schools as a whole made steady and significant improvements in ELA performance. The percentage of students meeting the State ELA learning standards increased significantly in over 90 percent of the elementary schools, with a median gain of 13 percent.

The performance improvement was less evident at the secondary school levels. The overall middle school ELA performance decreased slightly during the four-year period. Although 30 percent of all middle schools posted positive gains in their ELA performance, 70 percent lost ground. At the high school level, the percent of the general-education students in the cohort group meeting the graduation requirement (a score of 55 or higher) for ELA in four years declined from 90 percent in 2000 (Cohort 96) to 89 percent in 2002 (Cohort 98), with 13 percent of the responding high schools making positive gains and the rest making zero or negative gains. High schools in the high need/low resource group, including the Big Four Cities, showed the largest decline during the three-year period, while New York City and low need high schools posted the smallest decreases.

b. Elementary School Level

ELA performance gains between 1999 and 2002 were positively related to more district-level curriculum alignment activities and more frequent use of multiple assessment strategies. Schools where students read more books and did more homework showed greater performance gains. Schools where teachers reported time and opportunity for shared planing, high quality staff development, and collegial work environment enjoyed greater performance gains. Also, schools where teachers reported stronger leadership, where more adequate AIS was provided to students, and where parents and local community were more supportive, posted bigger performance gains. Conversely, schools where principals and teachers reported more barriers to standards implementation and more obstacles to AIS showed a negative impact on school performance. In addition, a combination of such factors as more teacher input in instructional matters, stronger principal leadership, more experienced staff, more supportive parents, and fewer barriers to implementation had a significant positive impact on elementary school ELA performance.

c. Middle School Level

Middle schools where more teacher-level curriculum alignment activities took place, where teachers reported having shared planning time with other teachers, where more teachers felt more prepared to teach ELA content, improved their ELA performance significantly. Schools where principals reported high level of autonomy over personnel and instructional matters and where principals involved teaches in hiring new staff made larger ELA performance gains. Conversely, schools whose principals reported more barriers to standards implementation were less likely to make performance gains. In addition to these variables related to performance gains, many others were significantly related to better performing schools. Such factors as higher level of teacher input into instructional matters, more frequent use of computers to build student academic skills, quality and relevant staff development, and collegial work environment were positively related to school performance. Schools with better prepared teachers, stronger principal leadership in instructional matters and involved and more supportive parents were more likely to perform better. Also, schools where teachers reported greater impact of staff development on their classroom instruction and more adequate AIS services were better performing schools. In summary, more teacher-level alignment activities, more teacher input in instructional matters, adequate AIS, more principal autonomy on personnel matters, involvement of teachers in hiring new staff, more supportive parents, and fewer barriers to implementation were the most important factors in explaining better middle school performance.

d. High School Level

Such teacher factors as greater input in instructional matters, more frequent use of computers to build student academic skills, more experienced and prepared teachers, and stronger principal leadership in involving parents are positively related to higher high school performance. Schools where students read more books, spent more time studying school subjects and did more homework, enjoyed more favorable school and home learning environments, and were provided with adequate AIS are more likely to be higher performing schools. In addition, schools where principals had more autonomy over personnel and instructional issues, involved teachers in hiring new staff, reported supportive parents and community, and fewer barriers to implementation tended to perform better. In summary, such factors as more teacher input in instructional issues, strong principal leadership, and safe and orderly school environment, frequency of homework, adequate AIS, supportive parents and more experienced teachers had a combined positive impact on high school ELA performance.

3. Barriers to Full Implementation of the Standards

At the elementary level, obstacles such as lack of AIS or services options, lack of staff development opportunities related to AIS, lack of student transportation and lack of student participation and parental support had a significantly negative relationship with school performance. Barriers cited by teachers and principals that were found to have negative effects on performance gains included such factors as lack of instructional materials and equipment, lack of shared planning time and classroom level staff development or mentors, unmotivated and unprepared students, and lack of parent and community support.

At the middle school level, obstacles such as lack of instructional materials aligned with the standards, lack of transportation for before- and after-school programs, scheduling difficulties, and lack of student participation and parent support were especially detrimental to successful academic interventions. Other impediments to standards implementation were high staff turnover and student mobility, unprepared and unmotivated students, lack of support from parents and community, and lack of student/parent respect for teachers and schooling.

High schools with higher percentages of students who experienced difficulty with schoolwork coupled with less adequate AIS services were more likely to perform poorly. Barriers such as high student mobility, lack of support from parents and community, unprepared students, low motivation, lack of prepared teachers and teacher mentors were also found to negatively affect school performance.

ELA teachers at all levels felt less prepared to teach students with special needs.

B. Mathematics

1. Implementation of Higher Learning Standards and School Practices

On extensive surveys of implementation activities, classroom activities and numerous other factors, 945 mathematics teachers reported their experiences. Six areas related to the implementation of higher learning standards were studied: 1) curriculum alignment, 2) instructional practices, 3) professional development (capacity building), 4) building leadership, 5) academic interventions, and 6) parent/community involvement.

a. Curriculum Alignment

Mathematics teachers reported that district-level alignment activities were only about 40 percent completed. At the classroom level, under more direct control of the teachers, about half of the alignment activities were completed. Teachers at the elementary level, and in low need schools, reported higher levels of alignment activities, compared with other groups. New York City and high school teachers reported the lowest levels of alignment.

Mathematics teachers at all levels reported that curriculum alignment activities were better implemented at the classroom level where teachers had more direct control and responsibilities for the alignment activities.

b. Instructional Practices

Mathematics teachers reported a high level of autonomy and input related to instructional practices. New York City teachers reported substantially less autonomy, perhaps due to more prescriptive instructional structures.

Mathematics teachers reported that their students engage extensively in problem-solving activities, work in small groups, use hands-on materials, use educational technology (including computers and calculators), and have a variety of homework activities. Mathematics teachers in New York City reported high levels of students’ engagement in problem-solving activities, working in small groups. Elementary teachers reported a greater extent of students’ use of hands-on materials than other school levels.

Mathematics teachers used a variety of assessment strategies to evaluate their students’ work. Teachers were highly influenced by State and local standards and expectations. New York City teachers reported a greater extent of assessment of student work with a wider variety of assessment strategies, compared with other need/resource capacity categories.

In most of the need/resource capacity categories of schools, mathematics teachers reported they expected their students to spend about 100 minutes on mathematics homework in a typical week. However, in New York City, teachers reported their expectation of 136 minutes of homework per week.

c. Professional Development (Capacity Building)

About 90 percent of the mathematics teachers felt “very well prepared” to teach their respective subject area at the level they are assigned. Approximately 75 percent of these teachers stated that they were “very well prepared” to implement instruction that meets all of the standards in their respective subject area. However, teachers reported they were less well prepared to teach mathematics strategies, with high school teachers substantially lower on this scale. Teachers in New York City and in low need districts rated this scale higher than any other groups.

The perceived level of preparedness decreases for these mathematics teachers when the focus is on integration or interdisciplinary work. Only 45 percent of the mathematics teachers felt “very well prepared” and 43 percent felt “somewhat prepared” to integrate Mathematics with other subjects/standards areas.

Mathematics teachers also felt less prepared to teach special populations, including English language learners and pupils with disabilities. Teachers in New York City and in low need districts rated themselves higher on this scale than any other groups. Teachers also reported they were only moderately prepared to integrate career and real-life situations into their class activities. New York City teachers also rated themselves higher on this scale than any of the other groups.

Mathematics teachers reported on the availability of shared planning time. For the most part, mathematics teachers reported very inadequate time for shared planning. Importantly, New York City mathematics teachers were more satisfied with availability of shared planning time than teachers in all other need/resource capacity categories. High school mathematics teachers reported the least time for shared planning.

Mathematics teachers were also asked about the opportunity for, and satisfaction with, staff development. New York City teachers and elementary level teachers rated their satisfaction higher than other groups. The least satisfied were high school teachers, and teachers in other high need schools. Teachers reported a modest impact of staff development on their instruction and on the assessment of students. Teachers indicated only some impact on specific classroom and professional activities.

Mathematics teachers reported an average of 10 credit hours of continuing education in mathematics. New York City teachers had the largest number of credit hours (17 hours), followed by teachers in low need districts (15 hours). Teachers in the average need and other high need districts reported an average of seven continuing education credit hours.

Mathematics teachers reported on their general professional satisfaction in a collegial work environment. Schools did not fare well in this rating, especially elementary schools and other high need schools. New York City teachers rated their schools higher on collegial work environment than any other groups.

d. Instructional Leadership

Mathematics teachers gave moderate to high ratings to school leadership in the areas of organization activities, supports for staff, and engaging staff, parents and the community in the standards implementation process. Elementary-level teachers, and teachers in New York City and low need districts, tended to rate their school leadership higher than other groups.

e. Academic Interventions

When asked about the extent to which students in general were well-served and supported to meet State standards, mathematics teachers rated academic intervention services moderately high. Mathematics teachers in New York City, low need districts and elementary level teachers rated AIS higher than other groups. However, when asked specifically about the extent to which low performing students were well served, teachers were considerably lower in their ratings. AIS in high schools and in other high need districts were rated far lower than other groups.

The effectiveness of various intervention strategies was rated. Among the 16 strategies presented, the highest rated were tutorial with individual teacher, smaller class sizes, extended time, peer tutoring, and before- and/or after-school programs.

f. Parent and Community Involvement

In addition to the results based on principal surveys reported in the Part I (ELA) report, mathematics teachers reported moderately extensive support for parents or guardians in support of their child’s education. Elementary-level teachers and New York City teachers rated themselves higher than teachers in other groups.

2. Relationship between Standards Implementation and School Performance

a. General Performance Trends

In 1999 through 2002, a larger percentage of tested students succeeded in meeting the State standards on the elementary mathematics assessment than any other assessment area. In 2002, 68 percent of students taking the test scored at Levels 3 and 4 compared to 67 percent in 1999. On average, students in public schools outside New York City were more likely to meet the standards than New York City students were. However, at the middle school level, the majority of tested eighth graders were not able to demonstrate proficiency, with 48 percent scoring at Levels 3 and 4. In 2002, only 30 percent of middle-level New York City students were able to meet the mathematics standards.

At the high school level, 86 percent of the general-education students in the 1998 cohort obtained a score of at least 55 in Regents mathematics after four years, a nine percent increase over the 1996 cohort. Seventy-seven percent in the 1998 cohort scored at 65 or above, compared to 73 percent in the 1996 cohort. More than 74 percent of the New York City 1998 cohort obtained a score of at least 55. This is a higher percentage than other Large City Districts (73 percent) but below Total Public (86 percent) and Districts Outside of the Big 5 (92 percent).

Significant relationships were found between school implementation practices and the level of school mathematics performance.

b. Elementary School Level

The 1999 and 2002 grade 4 mathematics scores were significantly correlated with the following factors: number of years teaching mathematics, extent of teacher autonomy and input, extent students were served and supported with AIS (significant for 2002 mathematics scores only), extent to which school leadership involves others, sufficiency of resources. The number of barriers to implementation was inversely related to mathematics performance.

c. Middle School Level

The 1999 and 2002 grade 8 mathematics scores were significantly correlated with the following factors: number of years teaching mathematics, extent of teacher autonomy and input, extent that students are served and supported with AIS (significant for 2002 math scores only), and sufficiency of resources (significant for 2002 mathematics scores only). The number of barriers to implementation was inversely related to math performance.

d. High School Level

Significantly correlated with 2002 high school mathematics outcomes (percent meeting graduation standard) were the following factors: extent of teacher autonomy and input, extent students were served and supported with AIS, satisfaction with staff development collegial work environment, and sufficiency of resources, The number of obstacles impeding successful AIS and number of barriers to implementation are inversely related to mathematics outcomes.

3. Barriers to Full Implementation of the Standards

The most frequently indicated barriers to fully implementing the learning standards for mathematics were: students coming to school unprepared to learn (68 percent); poor student attendance and motivation to learn (50 percent); lack of student or parental respect for teachers or schooling (49 percent); lack of supportive or involved parents and community (41 percent); large class sizes (40 percent); inadequate hardware and software technology for instruction (40 percent), inadequate time to cover all mathematics standards or topics (50 percent); and inadequate time for shared planning (55 percent). Out of 28 items listed on the survey, these eight were indicated by at least 40 percent of the respondents. In addition, more experienced mathematics teachers are located in schools with lower rates of poverty.

The most frequently indicated obstacles which impede the success of academic intervention strategies (AIS) were: scheduling difficulties, lack of parental support, lack of student participation, lack of AIS teachers, and too few service or placement options available (each indicated by at least 32 percent of respondents). Schools where teachers reported more obstacles to AIS had lower rates of students meeting the mathematics standards. Teachers reported that students in high poverty schools were supported less well by AIS.

At the elementary level, the extent to which teachers reported that their building leadership (including principals) involved others in advisement and decisions was negatively related to per pupil expenditure. In higher poverty schools, teachers reported that school administrators involved other staff less in school decisions compared with lower poverty schools.

At the middle school level, per pupil expenditure was positively correlated with mathematics teachers’ reports of a collegial school environment, preparation level to teach special populations and integration of career activities. In addition, support for parents was reported as higher both in high poverty and wealthier schools.

At the high school level, mathematics teachers reported greater sufficiency of resources in schools with higher per pupil expenditures. High school level per pupil expenditure was positively correlated with teachers’ reports of a collegial school environment, preparation level to teach special populations and integration of career activities.

Career Development and Occupational Studies

1. Implementation of Higher Learning Standards and School Practices

Career and technical education (CTE) teachers from across the State were asked to provide information about the implementation of the learning standards for Career Development and Occupational Studies (CDOS) in year I and year IV of the study, 1999 and 2002 respectively. In both years, the Department distributed questionnaires and conducted interviews to determine the extent to which: 1) curricula and instructional activities are aligned with the State learning standards; 2) teachers receive the necessary supports to implement the standards in the classroom; and 3) students who experience difficulty meeting the standards receive the necessary assistance to succeed. Additionally, participating CTE teachers in year four were asked to share information about their experiences integrating the CDOS standards into their primary teaching assignment and about their experiences with teachers of other disciplines to integrate the CDOS standards into the building-level curriculum.

a. Communication

In Year I of the study, this section focused on the extent to which the State, district, or school building leaders communicated and made information about the learning standards for Career Development and Occupational Studies (CDOS) and related documents available and accessible to all teachers.

In the current study, 73 percent of the career and technical education teachers found the learning standards for Career Development and Occupational Studies a "very or somewhat" useful document. However, only 52 percent of the CTE teachers found the Career Development and Occupational Studies Resource Guide which includes key ideas, performance indicators describing expectations for students, and sample tasks suggesting evidence of progress toward the standards, a "very or somewhat useful" document.

Fifty-nine percent of school administrators surveyed are aware of, and know the content of, the CDOS learning standards. However, 70 percent or more of mathematics and ELA teachers are “unaware of or have not seen” these CDOS resources. Less than 20 percent of the mathematics and ELA teachers from all grade levels who were aware or had seen these CDOS documents, found them useful.

Career and technical education teachers were asked about the usefulness of other documents to support implementation of the State learning standards. Forty-eight percent of the CTE teachers reported finding the General Education and Diploma Requirements brochure very useful or somewhat useful; however, 42 percent have not seen this brochure. Thirty percent of the CTE teachers found the brochure for parents, “What Parents Should Know About Standards,” very useful or somewhat useful; 64 percent reported not having seen the brochure. Similar to the responses of school administrators, 72 percent of responding CTE teachers are not familiar with the New York State Academy for Teaching and Learning and the lesson plans offered to teachers.

b. Curriculum Alignment

Alignment of the school curriculum with the State standards is another key aspect of standards implementation. Several questionnaire items focused on how well aligned the school curriculum is with the CDOS standards. Items focused on school activities to integrate the new CDOS learning standards and reasons for lack of involvement in the integration of CDOS standards. Principals and teachers were asked: 1) whether districts/schools had instructional programs or plans that provide students with work-based learning and connecting activities; 2) whether districts/schools had used career plans or student portfolios to record student progress toward attaining the CDOS learning standards; and 3) whether districts/schools had offered instruction in a series of career areas cited in the CDOS learning standards.

Eighty-seven percent of the CTE teachers believed the career major area curriculum that they teach is very well (38 percent) or moderately well (49 percent) aligned with the CDOS learning standards. Eighty percent of these teachers believe the career major area curriculum that they teach is very well (26 percent) or moderately well (54 percent) aligned with the learning standards for mathematics and English language arts. Seventy-six percent of the CTE teachers believed the curriculum for their career major area is very well (24 percent) or moderately well (52 percent) aligned with the learning standards for science.

Building or school administrators were asked about how well aligned they thought their building curriculum is with the State learning standards for mathematics, ELA, and CDOS. About 98 percent of the administrators believe that their building curriculum is “very or moderately well” aligned with the mathematics and ELA learning standards. Seventy one percent believed that their building curriculum is “very or moderately well” aligned with the State standards for CDOS. Only 19 percent of the administrators (compared to 66 percent and 70 percent for ELA and Mathematics respectively, believed the building curriculum was “very well” aligned with the CDOS standards. Conversely, 28 percent of them (compared to one percent and two percent for ELA and mathematics respectively), believe the building curriculum is “not well” aligned with the CDOS learning standards

Nearly half of the respondent CTE teachers reported direct involvement in activities to integrate CDOS into the career major area that they teach. The remaining 51 percent said they are not involved in such activities. This same question was asked of mathematics and ELA teachers. A small percentage of mathematics teachers (8 percent) and ELA teachers (11 percent) reported direct involvement in activities to integrate the CDOS standards into their teaching areas.

Career and technical education teachers felt they have significant input or control over what they teach in their career major area and how they teach their career major area. Between 75 percent and 90 percent of the teachers say they have a lot of input in determining course goals and objectives; selecting content, topics, and skills to be taught; selecting textbooks and supplemental instructional materials; setting the instructional pace; determining homework; and choosing grading criteria.

c. Instructional Practices

Effective September 1, 2001, the Regents Policy on Career and Technical Education allows for greater flexibility in curriculum and courses for high school students who want to pursue career and technical education programs to meet graduation requirements. The policy addresses the question of time—allowing students to take integrated or specialized courses that combine academic and career/technical skills and content—and will promote and upgrade career and technical education programs in the State. This is not a mandate, but an option for school districts and BOCES to provide quality career and technical education programs for students, with flexibility in their delivery. CTE teachers were asked about the effectiveness of the integrated instruction model employed in their schools.

Fifty-five percent of the CTE teachers believed the integrated instruction model is “very or moderately” effective toward improving student interest and motivation in learning. However, 45 percent of the CTE teachers said the integrated model is “not effective at all” or that they are “unsure” of the effectiveness (34 percent indicated unsure). This pattern pertains to all other school concerns—school climate, dropout rate, performance gap, attendance rate, and graduation rate—the majority of CTE teachers are unsure of the effectiveness of the integrated instruction model used in their schools.

d. Professional Development (Capacity Building)

Strengthening the ability of school personnel to meet the demands of the State learning standards is an ongoing Department priority. Teachers of all levels and across all disciplines and principals were asked a series of questions regarding several aspects of capacity building. These aspects included teacher preparedness, staff/professional development activities, instructional capacity, planning and collaboration, and parent/community education and development.

Less than 40 percent of CTE teachers indicated that they have regularly scheduled planning periods with other CTE teachers, nor do they have planning periods for interdisciplinary work with core teachers. Whatever time they do have for planning is insufficient.

Slightly more than 50 percent of the CTE teachers have input into the content and design of the staff development provided at the district or building level; slightly more than half contribute actively to making decisions about their career major area and the implementation of CDOS. Well under half of the CTE teachers, however, have sufficient opportunity for staff development necessary to implement the CDOS learning standards. Only a third or so of the CTE teachers are satisfied with the amount of time for and the relevance, quantity, and quality of staff development.

Nearly 90 percent of the CTE teachers feel supported by their colleagues to try new teaching ideas; 77 percent of the CTE teachers indicated that teachers in their schools share ideas and materials. Further, 50 percent said they have many opportunities to learn new things about CTE and their career major area.

About 33 percent of the CTE teachers did participate in or were offered the opportunity to participate in a professional development activity dealing with Regents Policy on Career and Technical Education. Similarly, professional development focused on parental involvement was offered to slightly less than half of the respondents or slightly less than half of them did participated in this type of activity within the last 12 months.

About 85 percent of the CTE teachers felt “well prepared” to teach in their career major area at the assigned grade level. Twelve percent are “somewhat prepared” and a very small percent is somewhat unprepared or not prepared at all to teach in their career major area at the assigned grade level. Seventy-two percent of the CTE teachers are “well prepared” to integrate knowledge about the world of work into their lesson plans and integrate knowledge of the life skills necessary to succeed in the work place.

Only 67 percent felt “well prepared” to integrate the exploration of various career options and related skills into their lesson plans and 66 percent are “well prepared to introduce real-life applications of career and technical concepts.” Slightly more than half of the CTE teachers said they are “well prepared” to integrate core subject areas within their career major area.

e. Instructional Leadership

Administrators/building principals in particular play a pivotal role in the education of all children as confirmed by a number of research studies focused on principal leadership. More and more, principals are viewed as instructional leaders, program managers, fiscal managers, and community leaders. In Year IV, teachers indicated how often building leadership (including principal, assistant principals, and department heads) performed certain tasks within four categorical areas: 1) curriculum development/alignment, 2) staff development, 3) instructional support/resources, and 4) parental and community involvement.

Over two-thirds of the CTE teachers reported that building leadership is actively involved in curriculum development and alignment activities. Building leadership with some regularity helps to design or select instructional programs, organizes curriculum development and modification activities, and participates in curriculum alignment activities. Over 80 percent of the CTE teachers reported that building leadership is actively involved in performing professional development-related activities on a regular basis.

Eighty-seven percent of the CTE teachers said that leadership in their school regularly provides teachers with the resources necessary to ensure students understand what they are learning, why they are learning, and how to use or apply what they are learning.

Ninety-four percent of the CTE teachers reported that the leadership in their building encourages teachers to assume an instructional leadership role. In fact, 63 percent said this task is often performed.

About 80 percent of the CTE teachers said that building leadership regularly communicates with parents about the State learning standards and assessments; encourages meaningful parental involvement in school decision-making processes and the education of school-aged children; and engages parents and communities in partnerships to help students meet the learning standards. About one-fifth of the CTE teachers want the leadership to do more in the area of parental and community involvement.

f. Academic Interventions

Regents policy and Commissioner’s Regulations require schools to provide students who have difficulty meeting the standards or who need extra help to attain the high standards with appropriate and sufficient Academic Intervention Services (AIS). Teachers, principals, school counselors, and students were asked a series of questions regarding the availability of AIS, the adequacy of AIS in their schools, student participation in and student preferences for AIS programs, and impediments to the success of academic interventions.

Forty-one percent of the CTE teachers indicated that they have students who have difficulty grasping the academic components of their career and technical education classes. Forty-three percent of these teachers believed the difficulties are serious enough to impact negatively on student success in their CTE classes. Seventy-eight percent of these CTE teachers indicated that these students find the mathematics component most difficult and 47 percent of the CTE teachers indicated that the science component is the most challenging for their students. Two ELA components are also very challenging to a lesser degree—writing (44 percent) and reading (36 percent).

Eighty-eight percent of the CTE teachers identify “tutorials with an individual teacher” as a “most/somewhat effective” academic intervention strategy for students having difficulty. Seventy-eight percent of the CTE teachers also found that “extended time” or giving students more time to grasp a concept or skill is very important for their students. Additionally, 75 percent of these teachers also reported that peer tutoring is “most effective or somewhat effective.”

g. Parent and Community Involvement

Research shows that parental involvement (which includes parents, families, and community) is a significant factor in the personal and academic development of children. Moreover, research shows that there are any number of ways that school leadership can encourage parent/family/community participation and involvement in the education of their children. Administrators and teachers were asked to indicate what they do to help parents/guardians support their children’s education and how often they help. Parents were asked questions to assess their level of knowledge of the standards and assessments and to assess how accessible the school leadership and staff are to parents.

Eighty-seven percent of the CTE teachers stated that they speak with parents about their child’s strengths and challenges on a regular basis. About 13 percent seldom speak with parents about their children. Seventy-two percent of the CTE teachers encouraged parents to ask for what they believe their child needs to improve and excel educationally. Sixty-eight percent of the CTE teachers provided parents with information on how to assist students learn the skills that they need to master for promotion, graduation, employment, college, and life-long learning. A slightly smaller percent of CTE teachers (62 percent) provided parents with tips on how to monitor and discuss school work at home.

Fifty-eight percent of the CTE teachers felt that they regularly provided parents with information about the learning standards and academic requirements and about the same percent provided guidance to families to help their child set academic and career goals.

While ELA and mathematics teachers appear to lend support to parents on a regular basis in most of the areas measured, about half of the CTE teachers encouraged parents to be involved in leadership activities, schedule homework that requires the interaction of a family member, and assist families to help their child set academic and career-related goals.

Eighty-nine percent of the school administrators stated that they engaged parents in shared decision-making activities in their buildings and 83 percent enlisted the assistance of parent groups such as the PTA to communicate standards-related information. Only about half of principals engaged or developed partnerships within their school communities focused on student achievement. Yet, 77 percent of the principals invited community members into the school as a means of enriching school instructional programs.

School administrators were asked to rate the support the school receives from parents and the community to advance student learning. Forty-five percent of the principals indicated that parents are “very supportive”; 39 percent reported that the community is also “very supportive.” About 40 percent said both the community and parents are “fairly supportive” of their schools.

2. Relationship between Standards Implementation and School Performance

Career Development and Occupational Studies (CDOS) does not have a formal State assessment to compare general school performance.

3. Barriers to Full Implementation of the Standards

With a response rate similar to ELA and mathematics teachers, 47 percent of CTE teachers indicated that scheduling difficulty impacts most on the success of intervention strategies in their school buildings.

Approximately 30 percent of the CTE teachers indicated that a lack of parent support for AIS services and a lack of student participation in the AIS services offered are obstacles to the success of AIS. Thirty to 40 percent of the ELA and mathematics teachers share this view. Over 30 percent of the building administrators or principals are slightly more concerned about the lack of parental support, contractual issues, and the lack of AIS teachers, in addition to scheduling difficulties, as barriers to successful intervention strategies.

All respondent groups were asked to identify what they believe are factors or barriers that prevent the learning standards from being fully implemented in their school buildings. Teacher responses generally included inadequate time to cover all standards, inadequate time to plan, lack of textbooks and technology, students coming to school unprepared to learn, frequent staff changes, and insufficient funding.

About 62 percent of the CTE teachers reported that they lack the time for shared planning as a primary barrier to full implementation of the CDOS learning standards. Forty-nine percent of the CTE teachers said they also lack the time to cover all of the CDOS standards and topics. The class periods are too short to fully permit coverage of the CDOS standards. Class size also appeared to be a factor as reported by 40 percent of the teachers. About a third of these teachers also said they lack adequate hardware and software (technology) for instruction.

Half of the CTE teachers indicated that their students come to school unprepared to learn—some teachers say this means that some students do not have sufficient or adequate backgrounds and others say this means some students are not doing enough work daily to prepare for the next day’s work. Additionally, 35 percent of the CTE teachers indicated that their students are not motivated to learn and/or lack respect for teachers or schooling as a whole. Twenty-six percent of the teachers believed that parental involvement and community support are lacking. However, student mobility appears not to be a significant barrier to implementation.

CTE teachers also reported the existence of barriers that fall under the general category of professional development. Thirty-eight percent of these teachers reported the lack of strong interdisciplinary strategies as a barrier to the full implementation of the learning standards for CDOS. Although 97 percent of the CTE respondents have certification in one or more areas, 36 percent said that some CTE teachers lack content knowledge. In addition, about one-third of the CTE teachers indicated that classroom level professional development is not adequate and that curriculum is not fully aligned.

V. SUGGESTIONS FOR ACTION

The following summarizes key suggestions for action. The items are a compendium of some of the pertinent recommendations that have been derived from the last year of the study as well as from evidence obtained during the three prior years.

Curriculum Alignment

1. Districts and schools should continue their efforts to fully align the curriculum with the State learning standards. New York City and other high need districts as well as middle and secondary schools, with the assistance of the State Education Department, should continue to make curriculum alignment efforts a priority.

2. The State Education Department should actively support a coordinated effort to help schools integrate the Career Development and Occupational Studies standards into the core curriculum areas.

3. Schools, especially middle and high schools, should provide regular shared planning time for curriculum development for teachers who teach the same subject. The curriculum should be articulated across all school levels. Interdisciplinary planning should be strengthened.

4. Schools should augment the opportunities for individuals responsible for Career and Technical Education to meet regularly with core academic and other teachers in a collaborative effort to achieve the State standards for each of these areas.

Instructional Practices

5. The State Education Department should coordinate efforts to identify and integrate research-based, highly effective instructional methods into classroom activities.

Professional Development

6. Schools and professional organizations should encourage and motivate teachers to participate in staff development activities, especially training that improves teachers’ content knowledge, ability to employ effective strategies to assess and monitor student progress, and use effective instructional methods to accommodate a variety of student learning styles.

7. Schools should provide sufficient time for teachers to participate in professional development activities.

Instructional Leadership

8. The State Education Department should coordinate the development of effective teacher training programs in partnership with teacher training institutions, professional organizations, and Boards of Cooperative Educational Services (BOCES).

9. The State Education Department should foster the development of instructional leadership training programs for school administrators and instructional coordinators.

Academic Interventions

10. Schools and the State Education Department should make a concerted effort to inform students and parents of the availability of Academic Intervention Services (AIS) for students.

11. New York City and other high need school districts should increase their capacity to provide AIS to all students who need assistance to meet the State standards, including low performing students, English Language Learners (ELLs), and students with disabilities. Schools should provide more options designed to meet student academic needs and increase the number of teachers available to deliver AIS at times that would encourage more students to utilize these services.

Parent and Community Involvement

12. Schools, especially high schools, should provide more parent education programs so that parents can better assist their children to achieve the State standards. These activities should be provided at times and locations that are conducive to parent participation.

13. School administrators should design mechanisms and develop strategies to involve parents and other community members in activities that will help the schools improve student performance.

The Honorable the Members of the Board of Regents

II. Purpose of the Year IV Study

III. Methodology

Number of Schools Selected by School Level

and Type of District

Participant Selection Process

D. Response Rate

School Response Rate by School Level

School Response Rate by Need/Resource Category

Sample Representativeness

Number of Questionnaire Responses by School Level

and Participant Category

Number of On-Site Interviews by School Level

and Participant Category

Total

A. English Language Arts

Career Development and Occupational Studies

Instructional Practices

Professional Development

Instructional Leadership

Academic Interventions

Parent and Community Involvement