"System-wide Change: An Experimental Study of Teacher Development and Student Achievement in Elementary Science" tests the impact on student achievement of a content-rich, systemic intervention in teacher development for elementary school science in a large, urban school district. "System-wide Change" is a broad-based approach to science teaching and learning that involves a partnership among university scientists, science educators, and K to 12 practitioners. It addresses preservice and in-service teacher education and curricular development and is supported by a comprehensive NSF Math and Science Partnership (MSP) known as SCALE (System-wide Change for All Learners and Educators). The study will test the achievement benefits of the System-wide Change elementary science component, which provides fourth- and fifth-grade teachers with professional development in summer institutes and ongoing coaching and mentoring in the use of detailed instructional guides for elementary science. The instructional guides contain conceptual lessons coupled with science immersion units that bring teachers and students through a full cycle of inquiry in core problems of scientific investigation. This should lead to deeper understanding of science, higher scores on science achievement tests, and reduced inequality of science achievement. The experiment contrasts (a) schools with lead teachers who attended a summer institute and all of whose fourth- and fifth-grade teachers receive coaching and mentoring to implement the instructional guides, with (b) control schools whose teachers received the instructional guides but not the associated professional development. This research will reveal the causal impact of the teacher development activities on student learning of standards-based science. It will take place in Los Angeles, the largest district in the SCALE partnership and a context in which raising test scores in science is a great need and high priority.
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of teacher professional development on teaching and learning of grade 4-5 elementary science in the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD). LAUSD’s participation in a comprehensive Mathematics and Science Partnership led to an innovative science curriculum called Science Immersion, an inquiry-oriented approach that immersed teachers and students in the practice of science. Week-long professional development institutes, focused on science content and inquiry practices, prepared teachers for implementation. The reform was phased in; to assess impact, schools were randomly selected to participate in professional development in the first phase, or the last phase (two years later). District officials nominated 191 schools for the study; 80 were randomly selected, and then 40 were randomly assigned to the treatment group for initial professional development, and 40 were assigned to the control. After three years, the intervention failed to elevate student achievement in treatment schools compared to control schools. Initially, achievement was lower in treatment schools – an "implementation dip," not uncommon in intervention studies – and at the end of the period, achievement in treatment and control schools was similar. Observations, interviews, and surveys shed light on conditions that may lead to greater success in the future. First, classroom observations revealed that that more inquiry teaching occurred in treatment classrooms than in control classrooms. Thus, the intervention did change classroom practice. However, inquiry teaching was mainly limited to the early steps in the inquiry cycle (engaging in scientifically oriented questions, giving priority to evidence, formulating explanations from evidence) and almost never reached the later steps (connecting explanations to scientific knowledge, communicating and justifying explanations). Because the full inquiry cycle may be necessary to enhance student understanding, changes in teaching may not have sufficed to stimulate changes in student learning. Second, instabilities in the district environment constrained the success of the intervention. There were 4 superintendents during the 5 years of our study, and the entire district leadership team turned over. Thirty percent of the principals changed between the initial and final implementations of immersion professional development, and teacher turnover ranged from 18%-40% in the schools in our study. During the study’s second year, LAUSD adopted a new elementary science curriculum, so the alternative to our intervention changed in the midst of the study. In addition, over the three years of the study, the district systematically eliminated science instructional supports: (a) the science leadership team ceased its collaboration after most central and local district positions were eliminated; (b) four of six Math/Science/Technology Centers, a key resource for elementary science teaching, were closed; and (c) the role of "science lead teacher," which provided crucial leverage for introducing new curricula and teaching practices at school sites, was curtailed. While it is important to recognize these instabilities, they do not adequately explain our results. Large, urban district environments are inherently unstable, and our goal is to elevate achievement despite the instability. Several conclusions may inform future efforts: Reconsider the "cascade" model of teacher development: in an environment of substantial turnover, leveraging teacher change by providing training to teacher leaders who pass along their expertise to colleagues may not be a viable model. Despite the additional cost, it may be necessary to train all teachers directly Align implementation with authority relationships: In our study, science experts intended to support immersion teaching, but their mission was not necessarily consistent with the priorities of school principals, who had authority over teachers’ activities. Teachers were more likely to participate in professional development if their principals were engaged. Support teacher learning communities: While the intervention initially benefited the school climate for professional development, the benefits were short-lived; by the time of our Year 3 survey, no differences were apparent between immersion and control schools. Yet instructional collaboration with grade-level colleagues and content experts was valued, and the groups' collective expertise supported teacher learning and improved practice. Prioritize organizational resources: Sustaining innovative instructional practices at scale requires a sustained commitment of organizational resources. In our study, the intervention team initially obtained buy-in from teachers in many schools in addition to instructional supports from schools, local districts, and the central district. However, few district actors maintained their commitment for the duration of the study, largely because funding for the intervention ended, and district actors were focused on implementation of the alternative curriculum. Ongoing, authentic engagement of all involved actors is needed to maintain the intervention as a priority in the face of competing demands. District-driven instructional reform has the great advantage of coordinated change at scale. In the future, we need to design reforms with the inevitable instabilities of large urban districts in mind. These conclusions make it clear that the target of reform is not just the classroom, but the system in which teaching and learning are embedded.
