ABSTRACT THE RELATIONSHIP OF REFORM STYLE PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND STUDENT ACHIEVMENT Amy Colucci July 12, 2016 The adoption of the Common Core State Standards CCSS in mathematics re
Throughout the past 200 years, educational reform in the United States (U.S.) has brought about a host of changes in attempts to increase academic achievement
Since its introduction, the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) have aimed to raise academic achievement across the United States Often described as one of the most significant policy shifts in American education in decades, CCSS seeks to replace a patchwork of state standards with a unified, higher‑quality framework that clearly defines what all students should know and be able to do The standards were developed to prepare 21st‑century learners for college and careers while encouraging teachers to elevate the rigor of classroom instruction This move toward more rigorous nationwide standards has pushed nearly every district to pursue reform efforts and implement robust professional development for teachers In tandem with higher expectations, districts are deploying heightened benchmark assessments to track progress and ensure alignment with the new curricula The ongoing evolution of mathematics instruction under CCSS underscores the need for continuous, effective teacher professional development to sustain gains and support improved student outcomes.
The Common Core State Standards aim to raise math literacy for all students by guiding instruction that emphasizes critical thinking, communication, and collaboration Students who demonstrate strong math literacy are better at analyzing problems, reasoning through approaches, and formulating, solving, and interpreting solutions across a range of contexts In the 21st century workplace, mathematical capability is a key indicator of productivity As learners face unprecedented global competition in a knowledge-based economy, accelerating college readiness has become a national priority With CCSS having been adopted in 43 states, educators are committed to delivering a free education that equips students to meet the complex challenges of today and tomorrow.
The United States struggles with mathematics performance among elementary students, currently placing 27th on international rankings (Program for International Student Assessment, 2012) Despite numerous education reforms, including George W Bush’s No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, mathematics performance continues to fall short in the United States, especially among minority subgroups and students of poverty (Confer & Ramirez, 2012) An analysis of countries that routinely outperform the United States highlights the persistent gaps and points toward strategies used by higher-performing nations to improve math outcomes.
States are moving toward mathematics education built on a unified set of standards—the Common Core State Standards (CCSS)—rather than the patchwork of disjointed standards that preceded them, and this shift is linked to higher achievement (McCarthy, 2012) NAEP 2015 data show that only 35% of U.S students reached or exceeded math proficiency, ranking the United States 27th among 34 OECD countries By contrast, math proficiency is substantially higher in several peers: Korea (65%), Japan (59%), and Switzerland (57%) Other outperformers include Finland (52%), Canada (51%), Germany (50%), Australia (45%), and France (42%).
Mathematics achievement in the United States has not increased significantly over the last thirty years, despite numerous standards-based reform movements Therefore, changes must be made to raise math performance nationwide This stagnation underscores the need to evaluate reform effectiveness and adopt evidence-based strategies to improve student outcomes across classrooms.
Results from the 2012 NAEP long-term trend assessment show no significant improvement in elementary students' math knowledge and skills from 1973 to 2012 A similar lack of significant change is observed for the same age group in the shorter window from 2008 to 2012 (NAEP, 2012) Notably, the average score for nine-year-olds rose by 25 points in 2012 compared with 1973, increasing from 219 to a higher level.
244 Thirteen-year-olds scored higher in 2012 than in all the previous assessment years, with a 19-point gain from 1973 and a four-point gain from 2008 The average score in
2012 for 17-year-olds was not significantly different from the score in 1973 The 40-year time span only provides a gain of only two points, from a score of 304 in 1973 to 306 in
2012 Stagnant scores prevail in the United States, even in the face of numerous educational reform movements
Kentucky was the first state in the nation to adopt the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) and overhaul the entire criterion-referenced portion of the Kentucky Performance Rating for Educational Progress (K-PREP) in mathematics in a concerted effort to raise student achievement The new math assessment was built around CCSS and aligned closely with the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) (Innes, 2012) By 2011, Kentucky appeared to be on target with these CCSS-aligned reforms.
In 2012, Kentucky fourth graders achieved Proficient or higher on the NAEP, and 39.6% of Kentucky fourth graders were Proficient or higher in K-PREP math Because statewide proficiency fell below 40%, Kentucky schools must intensify efforts to strengthen math education In response to these assessment results, Kentucky has proactively pursued opportunities to boost student learning by leveraging federal programs.
Race to the Top (RTTT) reshaped the federal role in education by providing political cover for state reformers and by building the administrative capacity needed to implement innovative practices The program requires districts to adopt standards-based reforms that tie teacher and principal evaluations to evidence of student learning, with the goal of increasing teacher effectiveness and turning around underperforming schools to close the achievement gap To achieve the aim of restoring the United States as a world leader in college graduates by 2020, educators must transform mathematics instruction and develop a deep mastery of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) Consequently, mathematics teachers must shift from merely delivering content to guiding and enabling learning, helping students understand why their answers are correct or incorrect, a shift that depends on strong, targeted professional development.
Prior to RTTT, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 stated that high-quality professional development is an essential strategy for turning around failing schools High-quality teacher professional development aims to implement a solid curriculum and teaching practices that research indicates will support student success Districts often struggle to determine which professional development styles most effectively raise student achievement Traditional PD approaches—consultants, auditorium-style lectures, and generic group discussions—are no longer sufficient to drive transformative changes in teaching that improve student outcomes To boost student achievement, districts must provide high-quality professional development aligned with rigorous standards and evidence-based instructional practices.
Professional development in school districts is delivered through diverse methods—study groups, peer coaching, induction for new teachers, mentoring for beginners, peer observation, networking, conferences, workshops, and institutes—and can be categorized into reform style and traditional style (Garet et al., 2001) Reform-style PD is a focused set of activities designed to coach and provide feedback that ensures classroom implementation of an innovation, and it is sustainable, ongoing, and embedded in daily practice Research suggests reform-style PD is more effective because it connects with classroom teaching and is sustained over time, enabling teachers to discuss concepts, share materials, and address common student needs By contrast, traditional PD tends to be a fragmented, one-time approach led by a leader or expert, typically occurring outside the teacher’s classroom, often off district property, and sometimes in another city or state, through workshops, institutes, courses, and conferences.
Effective professional development has evolved as education has progressed and is most effective when closely aligned with district or school initiatives, grounded in research, encompasses curriculum content and design, respects adult learners, draws on teachers’ expertise, provides sufficient time for follow-up support, and is viewed as an integral part of teachers’ work (Corcoran, 1995) Significant shifts in teachers’ attitudes and beliefs typically occur after they see evidence of improvements in student learning, which usually stem from changes in classroom practices prompted by the professional development they attended, a new instructional approach, the use of new materials or curricula, or a modification of teaching procedures (Guskey, 2002) Twenty-five years ago, a groundbreaking study by Carpenter, Fennema, Peterson, Chiang, and Loef (1989) demonstrated that teacher professional development can improve student achievement, based on a randomized design.
In a randomized study of 40 first-grade teachers, participants were assigned to two professional development conditions: a brief four-hour PD program and an extensive 80-hour PD program focusing on instructional practices From each class, 12 students (six girls and six boys) were randomly selected to assess outcomes, excluding students with special learning needs; data included the Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) math achievement and interviews evaluating students’ problem-solving strategies Students taught by teachers who completed the 80-hour instructional practices PD outperformed their peers on both achievement measures Policymakers, encouraged by such findings, have aimed to make teacher PD more effective at raising student achievement, including PD provisions under No Child Left Behind (NCLB) that promote adoption of programs and practices supported by scientifically-based research (Birman, LeFloch, Lekotka, Ludwig, Taylor, & Walters).
2007) Research-based professional development, provided consistently, and focusing on instructional practices, can increase student achievement
Kennedy's 1998 literature review of mathematics teacher professional development is among the first widely circulated analyses to investigate what makes PD effective It demonstrates that well-designed professional development can be impactful and lays the groundwork for identifying the key characteristics that drive success in mathematics instruction.
Kennedy's 1998 synthesis identified the features of effective professional development by categorizing studies according to the PD focus, and she found that the relevance of the PD content mattered: programs centered on teachers’ knowledge of the subject, the curriculum, and how students learn produced larger gains in student achievement than those that focused mainly on changing teachers’ behaviors The review highlighted content emphasis as a crucial determinant of high-quality PD and spurred later research that largely echoed this conclusion, linking robust professional development to increased student achievement as shown in studies by Desimone, Porter, Garet, Yoon, and Birman (2002); Garet et al (2001); and Yoon, Garet, Birman, and Jacobson (2006).
A growing body of evidence over the past decade has raised concerns about the mathematics achievement of students in the United States (Darling-Hammond et al., 2009) This evidence suggests that too few students are receiving the high-quality mathematics education needed to be college- and career-ready To propel the United States forward in this global economy, we must educate our students in mathematics (McCarthy).
According to PISA 2012 findings, only about half of U.S twelfth graders could correctly answer questions requiring reasoning and problem solving with fractions, decimals, and percents, and merely one in twenty could handle questions in beginning statistics or probability In response, Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act has long required low-performing schools to reserve 10 percent of their funds for school-wide professional development, a policy that helped channel more than $3 billion into professional development (Darling-Hammond et al., 2009) More than 40 states have adopted standards that call for effective professional development for all educators responsible for student learning Across national studies, effective school-wide collaborative professional learning consistently emerges as a critical factor in the success of high-performing, high-poverty schools Yet as a nation we have failed to fully leverage this evidence and opportunity to ensure every educator and student benefits from high-quality professional learning that improves student achievement (Yoon, Duncan, Lee, Scarloss, & Shapley, 2007).
Improving professional learning for educators is a crucial step in transforming schools and boosting academic achievement (Yoon et al., 2007) To meet federal requirements and public expectations for school and student performance, the nation must increase teacher content knowledge so every teacher can teach diverse learners, understand how students learn, and be competent in the core academic content (Darling-Hammond et al., 2009) Achieving these goals requires school systems to plan and organize professional learning that engages teachers regularly and benefits all students, with high-quality, sustained professional development throughout the school year In an effective professional development plan, school leaders learn from experts, mentors, and peers about how to become instructional leaders (Darling-Hammond et al., 2009).
The Common Core State Standards: World-Class Standards Movement
The Common Core State Standards (CCSS) mark an unprecedented shift away from disparate state content guidelines toward a single, cohesive, research-based framework, created through a collaboration between the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers.
Common Core State Standards Initiative is a state-led effort to build consensus on the knowledge and skills students should develop across grades K-12 (Porter, McMaken, Hwang, & Yang, 2011) The mathematics standards focus explicitly on what students must learn, while not prescribing how that content should be taught, allowing flexibility in instructional approaches Internationally benchmarked, these standards redefine grade-level expectations to be rigorous, clear, and specific.
The Common Core State Standards Initiative (2010) introduced national standards designed to address uneven expectations across states about what students should know and be able to do By elevating these standards, the CCSS aims to prepare graduates for postsecondary education and the workforce.
Before CCSS, although NCTM offered a common set of standards, states treated them as guidelines rather than a unified system to measure student progress, producing a patchwork of content and grade placements across the country The CCSS addressed this fragmentation by establishing a single, high-quality, rigorous set of standards designed to standardize mathematics education and ensure students leave school with the ability to apply and articulate deep conceptual understanding of mathematical skills and practices across diverse career contexts (Rotman, 2012; Conley, 2014).
The Committee of Ten lead one of the earliest national public education initiatives in 1892 by publishing a report entitled The Report of the Committee of Ten on Secondary
School Studies This report attempted to conform high school educational standards to increase rigor and prepare certain students for college (United States Bureau of
The Committee of Ten recommended common standards for English, mathematics, history, and the sciences, and sought alignment between high school and college, forming the foundation of the most recent Common Core Initiative (Porter et al., 2011) It urged colleges to retain high admission standards, which would in turn push high schools to raise their rigor (Wallender, 2014) A twelve-year education was proposed, with eight years of elementary education followed by four years of high school, and it explicitly addressed student tracking and course differentiation based on the likelihood of postsecondary pursuit (Wallender, 2014) The Committee also identified the necessity of highly qualified educators and proposed that universities could enhance training by offering subject-education courses, and by lowering tuition for traveling teachers who could instruct college students aspiring to be teachers.
Educational reform movements in the United States pressed for higher standards and highly qualified educators, with public attention to these goals rising in the 1950s as reformers echoed the Committee of Ten’s call for an academically challenging curriculum (Tyack & Cuban, 1995) This group, comprising academics and business executives, argued that schools were lackluster and anti-academic (Wallender, 2014), blaming a watered-down curriculum, poor discipline, incompetent teachers, and insufficient focus on gifted students as core problems The push for prepared, successful high school graduates continued to justify new legislation (Larson, 2012), and this public critique of the school curriculum intensified after the Soviet launch of Sputnik in 1957 (Tyack).
& Cuban, 1995) The Sputnik launch added fuel to accountability concerns as it created a link between education and national security
In 1958, President Dwight D Eisenhower signed the National Defense Education Act (NDEA), which aimed to place greater emphasis on science, mathematics, foreign languages, and the liberal arts within K-12 education Policymakers sought increased rigor, higher cognitive expectations for students, expanded teacher training, and tighter classroom regimentation, reflecting a push toward more disciplined schools (Tyack & Cuban, 1995) The legislation fused these aims—enhanced academic rigor with standardized, regimented instructional practices across schools—aligning education policy with national defense needs (New York State Education Department, 2009).
To strengthen American schools’ college readiness, global competitiveness, and national security, the National Defense Education Act (NDEA) provided targeted support to develop a skilled workforce in science and technical fields It included student loans to expand the teaching corps, improvements in science and mathematics education, and additional training for teachers This initiative marked the first educational reform to place high-quality teacher preparation at the core of boosting students’ mathematics achievement (NDEA, 2015; Larson, 2012).
Educational reform movements redirected again in the 1960s, with ESEA (Tyack
Since its inception with the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965, the goal was to deliver high-quality education to all students, regardless of gender, disability, or socioeconomic status Over time, ESEA evolved to include standards, mandated assessments aligned with those standards, the elimination of achievement gaps, and the promotion of research-based programs In tandem with the 1965 War on Poverty and civil rights momentum, the federal government identified learning gaps among marginalized groups, including students of color, students with special needs, and English Language Learners (ELLs), spurring legislative action to improve access to quality education Through ESEA, legislators sought to make quality education available and fair for all students, with funding for primary and secondary schools under Title III to support innovative approaches to meet diverse needs The act also authorizes funds for professional development, instructional materials, and parental involvement as part of its mandate to reduce achievement gaps and provide equal opportunities to receive a high-quality education.
During the late 1970s and 1980s dozens of commissions sought to improve the mediocrity of academic performance, poor discipline, and poor quality teachers
Among the most influential critiques was A Nation at Risk, which argued that education should focus on the basics, hard work, and competition The National Commission on Excellence in Education warned that America's schools were inadequate and not globally competitive, criticizing the nation's emphasis on equality over excellence and suggesting it had undermined standards and achievement The report noted that Stanford Achievement Test scores declined—verbal scores by more than 50 points and mathematics by nearly 40 points—from 1963 to 1980 It also cited results from 1970s tests showing that on 19 academic measures, U.S students were never first or second, and relative to other industrialized nations, were last seven times In response, the commission offered 38 recommendations across five major categories: Content, Standards and Expectations, Time, Teaching, and Leadership and Fiscal Support, with two top priorities: strengthen the curriculum through more rigorous standards and boost teacher competency via effective training models.
The standards-based education outlined in A Nation at Risk (National
Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983) was not yet synonymous with creating national educational standards (i.e., common core state standards), but the assertion that
In its 1983 report, the National Commission on Excellence in Education warned that, for the first time in American history, a generation’s educational skills would not surpass, would not equal, and would not even approach those of their parents The finding, symbolized by the report often titled A Nation at Risk, struck fear across the nation and exposed a looming crisis in U.S education with far-reaching implications for workforce readiness, national competitiveness, and long-term economic growth.
Policy makers in the United States began to redefine educational success as a single metric—test scores—and tie student achievement to both personal opportunity and national economic competitiveness A Nation at Risk joined a wave of elite 1980s commissions that argued faulty schooling was eroding the economy, and that the cure for both educational and economic decline lay in boosting academic achievement The report warned that the United States was falling behind other nations in the resource that matters most in the new global economy: human capital.