Standard Specific Student Achievement Scores and the Impact on Teacher Incorporation of Standards, Knowledge of Standards, and Student Achievement

There has been a steady focus in education on standards, assessment, and accountability. The purpose of this quantitative study was to find if research based PLCs focusing on standard specific student achievement data impacted teacher knowledge of standards, incorporation of standards, and student achievement. The research was guided by two research questions. Within the context of PLCs (data-based teams) utilizing standard specific student achievement data: 1) What impact, if any, was the use of PLCs on the teachers’ knowledge and incorporation of standards into the classroom setting? 2) Did student achievement on standardized tests improve as the result of the level of teacher knowledge and incorporation of standards into the classroom? The quantitative study was conducted over five years in a rural Minnesota school district. An anonymous survey was used to gather teacher opinion and student achievement data from the district. The study included thirty-three teachers who ranged from Pre-K to twelfth grade. Positivism was the theoretical framework for the study to find concrete information. The quantitative study found PLCs, with standard specific student achievement data, increased teacher knowledge of standards and incorporation of standards. The increased teacher knowledge of academic standards and incorporation of standards had a correlation to higher student achievement scores. Running Head: STANDARD SPECIFIC STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT SCORES 9 CHAPTER 1: Introduction Education is shaped by legislation and policy and in the last twenty years, there has been a shift in education towards standards and accountability. Karr, Marsh, Ikemoto, Darilek, and Barney (2006) detailed how the legislation has created an environment in education that requires districts to monitor progress on standards and hold districts accountable. With this shift towards standards and accountability, there has been a shift in the way schools operate. According to Lai and McNaughton (2016) “there is an increasing international emphasis on using data as part of teacher and school leader decision-making to improve teaching and student achievement” (p. 1). The increased emphasis on data has brought about many ideas and processes on how to best use data to improve instruction and student achievement. There has been an increased focus on standards and the student achievement scores associated with the tests based upon those standards. With the increased focus on data and progress monitoring, research has focused on the effective data practices, but not on impactful data types and its impact on teacher instruction and student achievement. A lost portion of this equation is the teacher knowledge level of standards themselves, their incorporation of the standards, and whether standards equate to student success. This study focused on whether standard specific student achievement data are an impactful data type. There is research on standard specific student achievement data, but it has not detailed how this data type impacts standards incorporation, standards knowledge, and student achievement. The research attempted to determine whether standards specific student achievement data impacted teacher incorporation of standards into instruction, knowledge level of state standards, and whether standards resulted in a direct link to student growth levels as measured by standards. Running Head: STANDARD SPECIFIC STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT SCORES 10 Brief Literature Review There has been limited research into the impact standard specific student achievement scores. Nabrs, Olah, Lawrence, and Riggan (2010) found that when using interim or progress monitoring assessments data, teachers used the benchmark reports to identify areas of emphasis, linked the reports to state standards, and if benchmark reports were not showing progress then teachers adjusted instruction. Bulkley, Christman, Goertz, and Lawrence (2019) also found that “assessments that fulfill an evaluative purpose by providing teachers, principals, and administrators with school-level information about how test items link to content standards can be meaningful tools for teachers” (p. 203). Although the benchmark report used by Nabrs, Olah et al. (2010) and Bulkley et al. (2019) differ from benchmark reports from the Minnesota Department of Education (2019) this research provides an example of what can be done with data that can be linked to academic standards. Previous studies have focused on what successful data based decision-making looks like and the processes to make data based decision-making successful. Portman and Schildkamp (2016) found that successful data teams had access to high quality data, school leadership participation and support, and having a shared goal. These are concepts that are consistent across the literature, but the literature does not delve into specific types of data and their impacts. Studies that explore the association between student performance data usage and instructional change have not described the type of data used nor the type of standards set by the state. There is also literature that defines successful professional learning communities (PLCs) or professional development. Themes of successful PLCs that are consistent across the literature are that PLC’s provide collaboration time, are focused, and are ongoing. Ruchti, Jenkins, and Agamba (2013) identified that “a powerful insight was that 98–99 percent (strongly agree and Running Head: STANDARD SPECIFIC STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT SCORES 11 agree) of respondents indicated that their priority was collaborative time with other teachers” (p. 86). Collaboration was the strongest central factor in successful PLCs and staff development. Polikoff (2012) noted that “studies generally indicated that 80–90 percent or more of teachers across states, grades, and subjects reported increases in instructional alignment over time” (p. 362). The Polikoff study is helpful in detailing how standards have increased instructional alignment, but the literature is limited. The current literature is sparse in detailing if student achievement data increases instructional alignment of standards or if teacher’s incorporation of standards into instruction is impacted by student achievement data. The literature is very limited on teacher knowledge of standards. The literature detailed alignment of standards and impacts on a variety of factors, but there is relatively little research on teacher knowledge of standards. Kanter and Kanstantopolous (2009) did link teacher knowledge of standards to student achievement. Kanter and Kanstantopolous (2009) found that teacher knowledge of “specific content area were statistically significant predictors of minority student achievement in mastering the same content at all levels of cognitive difficulty” (p. 871). This means the higher the teacher’s knowledge of content or standards, the better students achieve. Student achievement can be linked to a variety of topics. There has been research that has linked data-based decision making to student achievement, but not specific data types. Anderson, Leithwood, and Strauss (2010) found weak statistical evidence of a positive relationship between student achievement and district or school data use. There is limited research linking student achievement to teachers’ knowledge of standards and incorporation of standards, but not research regarding specific types of data to student achievement. There is an absence of research on the impact of PLCs and data-based teams using standard specific student Running Head: STANDARD SPECIFIC STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT SCORES 12 achievement data on teacher knowledge of standards, incorporation of standards, and student achievement. Statement of the Problem The increased emphasis on data review by districts has brought about many ideas and processes on how to best use data to improve instruction, curriculum, and student achievement. Legislation has required schools to show progress through standardized tests, but Minnesota has not provided access to high quality and timely data from standardized tests. Is standard specific student achievement data high quality data that is impactful for teachers to improve their own knowledge of standards, the incorporation of standards, and the resultant impact on student achievement? The Minnesota Department of Education’s stated purpose on the Academic Standards (2019) is to “identify the knowledge and skills that all students must achieve by the end of a grade level or grade band. ” Students in select grades are tested on the Minnesota state standards through the MCA-III and MTAS. According to the Academic Standards (2019), the purpose of the MCA-III and MTAS is to “help districts measure student progress toward Minnesota's academic standards and also meet federal and state legislative requirements. ” The standards are a guide for local school districts, and the MCA and MTAS are used to measure student progress on those standards. Part of that student progress that we see relates directly back to if teachers know the standards, are incorporating the standards into instruction, and if that has an impact on student achievement. Minnesota schools take the MCA tests in grades three, eight, ten, and 11 for math, science, and English language arts in the spring. The tests are based upon the Minnesota state standards. The official results from these tests are not given to the schools until the fall of the Running Head: STANDARD SPECIFIC STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT SCORES 13 next year and most results are proficiency percentages from the tests (see Appendices A and C). The Minnesota Department of Education recently started releasing benchmark reports that give schools grade level progress on the standards that are tested. The benchmark reports from the MCA-III tests are standard specific student achievement data because each report gives districts achievement data on if each grade level is achieving their expected results