Improving Human Capital Through Social Capital: Teacher Networks and Collaboration in Massachusetts Public Schools
Allison Kimmel Government 98QA Professor Putnam May 1, 2012
Kimmel 2 Introduction Recent evidence from the International Trends in Math and Science Study (TIMSS) and Programme for International Assessment (PISA) highlights America’s declining stance among the world’s school systems. While the United States used to rank at the top of the world in terms of student achievement, American 15-year-olds now rank 15th in the world in reading and 9th in the world in mathematics.1 In the search for factors to improve school systems, researchers have found that teacher quality is the most important school-level factor in promoting student achievement.2 Students with higher quality teachers are more likely to experience gains in test scores in the current year, as well as more likely to have higher earnings, attend college, and are less likely to become teen parents than those with lower quality teachers.3 Despite this evidence, United States suffers from a shortage of teacher quality, particularly in schools that serve predominantly low-income and minority students.4 The general teacher quality shortage stems in part from the culture of the teaching profession in the United States. There is wide agreement that in countries that outperform the United States, teaching is a highly respected profession, while in the United States, teaching is much less respected and tends to draw applicants from the bottom third of their college classes.5 Further, America faces a large “achievement gap” based on socioeconomic and racial lines in part due to its unequal distribution of teacher quality.
1
Provasnik, Stephen, Patrick Gonzales, and David Miller. U.S. Performance Across International Assessments of Student Achievement. Washington D.C: National Center for Education Statistics, 2009. 2 Rivkin, Steven G., Eric A. Hanushek, and John F. Kain. "Teachers, Schools, and Academic Achievement." Econometrica 73.2 (2005). 3 Rockoff, Jonah, John Friedman, and Raj Chetty. The Long Term Impact of Teachers: Teacher Value Added and Student Outcomes in Adulthood. Working paper no. 17699. NBER Working Paper Series. Cambridge: National Bureau of Economic Research, 2012. 4 Peske, Heather, and Kati Haycock. Teaching Inequality: How Poor and Minority Students Are Shortchanged on Teacher Quality. Washington D.C: Education Trust, 2006, 1. 5 Auguste, Byron, Paul Kihn, and Matt Miller. Closing the Talent Gap: Attracting and Retaining Top-third Graduates to Careers in Teaching. McKinsey and Company, 2010, 10.
Kimmel 3 Therefore, policymakers have proposed many reforms to improve the “human capital problem” in the teaching profession.6 Some researchers suggest that the United States should focus on recruiting high quality applicants to the teaching profession through alternative route programs such as Teach for America. However, taking into account their high turnover rate, Teach for America graduates are on average equally as effective as traditionally trained teachers.7 Others suggest that America’s human capital problem stems from policies that do not differentiate teachers based on their effectiveness. Reformers have proposed creating nuanced evaluation systems, increasing the requirements necessary to earn tenure, differentiating compensation based on effectiveness, and tying evaluation results to staffing decisions in order to ensure that teachers meet an objective standard of quality in order to staff America’s schools. However, it is difficult to define this objective standard, especially as many qualities of effective teachers cannot be tested or observed in one lesson. Finally, some suggest that teachers need high quality professional development opportunities in order to develop the knowledge and skills to be effective in the classroom. However, many professional development opportunities do not give teachers time for ongoing, rigorous study, and thus, are not effective in improving student outcomes.8 In light of these difficulties, some reformers believe that in order to increase teacher effectiveness, policymakers should concentrate less on individual teachers, and more on building system-wide human capital in the teaching profession through increasing school-wide social 6
Rotherham, Andrew. Title 2.0: Revamping the Federal Role in Education Human Capital. Ideas at Work. New York: Carnegie Foundation, 2008. 7 Kane, Thomas, Jonah Rockoff, and David Staiger. "What Does Certification Tell Us about Teacher Effectiveness? Evidence from New York City." Economics of Education Review 27, no. 6 (March 2008): 61531. 8 Chung Wei, Ruth, Linda Darling-Hammond, Althea Andree, Nikole Richardson, and Stelios Orphanos. Professional Learning in the Learning Profession: A Status Report on Teacher Development in the U.S. and Abroad. Stanford: National Staff Development Council, 2009.
Kimmel 4 capital. As Putnam describes, social capital is the “collective value of all social networks and the inclinations that arise from these networks to do things for each other.”9 High levels of social capital in neighborhoods, families, and schools have been shown to increase trust, decrease crime, and improve life outcomes.10 In education, social capital can arise from relationships between practitioners and parents, practitioners and the larger community, teachers within a school, and teachers and administrators within a school. While researchers have found that social capital, and even teacher-to-teacher social capital in particular contributes to increasing student achievement outcomes, researchers have not systematically studied how teachers build and sustain social capital. Thus, it is difficult to disentangle the different aspects of teacher-to-teacher social capital and examine how reforms to build social capital may lead to increases in student achievement. In the next section, I describe how various studies have shown that different types of social capital in education are associated with increases in student achievement. I then describe the specific ways that researchers have defined teacher-to-teacher social capital, and how these relationships and networks contribute to increases in student achievement. Next, I explain the current study and, in particular, the methods I used to explore the different types of teacher-to-teacher social capital and their effects on student achievement in Massachusetts using the 2008 MassTells survey, as well as the hypotheses that I will test in my study. Then, I describe the results of my analyses, including a factor analysis, bivariate correlations, and linear (OLS) regressions. Finally, I provide conclusions from my analyses, and their implications for building teacher-to-teacher social capital in schools. 9
Putnam, Robert D. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2000, 14. 10 Putnam, Bowling Alone, 318.
Kimmel 5 Literature Review Researchers suggest that high levels of social capital between schools and the communities in which they are located contribute to positive effects on student outcomes. In particular, Mark Warren argues that school reform will not be as effective in isolation from community-development initiatives because students need social supports in order to achieve academically.11 Therefore, he believes the two should be interwoven in efforts to create “community schools.” These “community schools” would partner with community-based organizations to provide services as well as high quality learning opportunities to children and families. He argues that these partnerships will create relationships and trust between community members and their schools.12 For example, Harlem Children’s Zone (HCZ), a community-wide initiative, provides high quality, rigorous academics in addition to a broad range of social supports from birth through college to students in Harlem. The relationships and social networks created through the community-school partnership in Harlem have contributed to increasing students’ academic achievement.13 The U.S. Department of Education is now working to scale this initiative through its Promise Neighborhoods Grant program, in hopes that other communities will use Harlem Children’s Zone’s model to increase social capital and ultimately, student achievement in low-income communities.14 Other researchers have focused on how social capital between schools and parents, and specifically parent involvement in schools, is important for helping students succeed 11
Warren, Mark. "Communities and Schools: A New View of Urban Education Reform." Harvard Educational Review 75, no. 2 (2005). 12 Warren, “Communities and Schools,” 140. 13 Dobbie, Will, and Roland Fryer. Are High-Quality Schools Enough to Close the Achievement Gap?: Evidence from Evidence from a Bold Social Experiment in Harlem. Report. Cambridge: Harvard University, 2009. 14 U.S. Department of Education. "Promise Neighborhoods." April 27, 2012. Accessed May 01, 2012. http://www2.ed.gov/programs/promiseneighborhoods/index.html
Kimmel 6 academically. Parents in communities with high levels of school-to-parent social capital tend to help their children finish their homework, participate in parent-teacher organizations, and contact their school when they have concerns about their children’s wellbeing.15 The relationships between parents and between parents and school personnel are also important for preventing students from dropping out of high school. This is particularly crucial for low-income students, who are at the highest risk of dropping out.16 Many charter networks have begun to mandate parent involvement by issuing “parent contracts” to ensure that parents spend more time at their children’s schools, thereby increasing parent involvement in predominantly low-income communities.17 However, traditional public schools still suffer from a lack of parent involvement and parent-to-school social capital. Parent-to-parent social capital also contributes to improving school environments. As Coleman describes, “A school with extensive social capital in the community of parents is one in which parents have been able among themselves (or sometimes with the help of the school) to set standards of behavior and dress for their children, to make and enforce rules that are similar from family to family, and to provide social support for their own and each others’ children in times of distress.”18 Parent networks improve student outcomes for both participants’ children as well as children in the larger community. An extreme example of how parent social capital can improve schools can be found when examining the “parent trigger law,” which allows for a 51 percent majority of parents in a failing school in California to petition the state to make large-scale 15
McNeal, Ralph. "Parental Involvement as Social Capital: Differential Effectiveness on Science Achievement, Truancy, and Dropping Out." Social Forces 90.2 (2011). 16 Mapp, K. Family engagement. In F. P. Schargel & J. Smink (Eds.), Helping students graduate: A strategic approach to dropout prevention (pp. 99-113). Larchmont, NY, 2005, 99. 17 Nathan, Joe. Charter Schools: Creating Hope and Opportunity for American Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1996, 152. 18 Coleman, James M., Thomas Hoffer, and Sally Kilgore. Public and Private Schools. Washington, D.C.: Educational Resources Information Center, 1981, 19.
Kimmel 7 changes in their child’s school.19 Because parents must organize in order to obtain the signatures to “pull the parent trigger,” social capital between parents increases the likelihood that parents can make the necessary changes to improve student achievement in schools. Finally, social capital within schools, specifically amongst teachers and between teachers and teachers and administrators can improve student outcomes. Carrie Leana focuses on how communication between teachers can help to facilitate collaborative efforts to increase student achievement.20 Leana and Pil found that teachers with higher social capital, even controlling for teachers’ experiences or abilities, were likely to promote larger student achievement gains on standardized tests.21 Similarly, Jackson and Bruegmann found that a teacher’s students experience larger achievement gains in math and reading when he or she has more effective colleagues (as measured by prior value-added scores in reading and math).22 The researchers found that a teacher’s peers can affect his or her classroom by increasing the teacher’s motivation and effort, as well as through on-the-job learning, thereby increasing social capital.23 Johnson, Lustick, and Kim define social capital as the “resources that teachers can access through peer collaboration to support their ongoing learning. ”24 They believe that professional development can be viewed as a way to “increase the ability of social capital” by introducing new resources or increasing teachers’ access to resources that already exist.25 In their 19
The parent trigger allows for implement one of four changes: conversion to a charter school, the “transformation” model under No Child Left Behind, more local control over staffing and budgeting, or school closure. More information can be found at: http://theparenttrigger.com/in-your-state/ 20 Leana, Carrie. "The Missing Link in School Reform." Stanford Social Innovation Review, Fall 2011, 35. 21 Leana, Carrie R., and Frits K. Pil. "Social Capital and Organizational Performance: Evidence from Urban Public Schools." Organization Science 17, no. 3 (May/June 2006): 353-66. 22 Jackson, C. Kirabo, and Elias Bruegmann. "Teaching Students and Teaching Each Other: The Importance of Peer Learning for Teachers." American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 1, no. 4 (2009). 23 Jackson and Bruegmann, 89. 24 Johnson, Lustick, and Kim, 1. 25 Johnson, Wesley, David Lustick, and MinJeong Kim. "Teacher Professional Learning as the Growth of Social Capital." Current Issues in Education 14, no. 3 (September 11, 2011).
Kimmel 8 observations, they found that teachers shared resources such as lesson plans through professional development opportunities. They collected data from meetings, surveys, and interviews, and found that social capital teachers gained in professional development programs helped to increase student test scores in grades 3, 4, and 5. Thus, they believe that teacher-to-teacher social capital developed through professional learning opportunities can increase student learning. Many times, teachers do not have the time or resources to collaborate on their own. Thus, administrators must create structures that provide them with working environments that facilitate collaboration. For example, in Japan, teachers engage in “lesson study,” in which groups of teachers meet regularly over long periods of time to work on the design, implementation, testing and improvement of a model lesson.26 The lesson study process requires 10-15 hours of group meetings spread over a 3- to 4-week period. Though teachers in Asian countries who have participated in lesson study consider it a very beneficial activity for developing knowledge and skills, teachers in the United States frequently do not have the time and support structures in place to engage in this process.27 Researchers have also found that teacher empowerment is crucial for building social capital. Molenaar, Sleegers, and Daly believe, “teachers’ collective efficacy is a plausible mechanism that explains the suggested relationship between teacher collaboration networks and student achievement.”28 The authors argue that by offering shared experiences and aligning collective goals, schools’ social networks may enhance teachers’ perceptions of their collective 26
Stigler, James W., and James Hiebert. The Teaching Gap: Best Ideas from the World's Teachers for Improving Education in the Classroom. New York: Free Press, 1999, 121. 27 Fernandez, Clea. "Learning from Japanese Approaches to Professional Development: The Case of Lesson Study." Journal of Teacher Education 53.5 (2002): 395. 28 Moolenaar, Nienke, Peter Sleegers, and Alan Daly. "Teaming Up: Linking Collaboration Networks, Collective Efficacy, and Student Achievement." Teaching and Teacher Education 28, no. 2 (February 2012), 252.
Kimmel 9 capacity to increase student learning. Teachers can develop feelings of collective efficacy through engaging in teacher research, defined as “systematic and intentional inquiry carried out by teachers,” in which teachers work in groups to reflect on their practices and obtain new knowledge that they can publish for other practitioners.29 As Henson found, teachers who engaged in collaborative teacher research felt better about their ability to influence student learning more effectively.30 This practice builds social capital because teachers develop relationships through their participation in research groups. Teachers also develop feelings of efficacy through their involvement in policymaking that affects their practice. For example, Teach Plus selects “teaching policy fellows” based on teachers’ performance to write policy briefs and conduct studies for influential policymakers.31 This program empowers teachers to have a voice in the decisions that impact them. Teachers also build relationships and social capital through the fellows’ cohort model. Tony Bryk and Barbara Schneider describe how “relational trust” between teachers is an important resource that helps schools improve. Schools with high levels of relational trust are those in which teachers have trust, respect, and personal regard for one another.32 The authors found that schools in which a large percentage of teachers had a very strong sense of trust in their colleagues were more likely to be high achieving than those with lower levels of teacher-to-
29
Lassonde, Cynthia A., and Susan E. Israel. Teacher Collaboration for Professional Learning: Facilitating Study, Research, and Inquiry Communities. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2010, 4. 30 Henson, Robin. The Effect of Participating in Teacher Research Professional Development on Teacher Efficacy and Empowerment. Paper Presented at the Mid-South Educational Research Association Annual Meeting. Little Rock, 2001. 31 Teach Plus. "Teaching Policy Fellows." Accessed May 01, 2012. http://www.teachplus.org/page/teachingpolicy-fellows-65.html. 32 Bryk, Anthony S., and Barbara L. Schneider. Trust in Schools: A Core Resource for Improvement. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2002, 92.
Kimmel 10 teacher trust. They also found that schools with higher levels of trust were more likely to be improving.33 Finally, responsive leaders can help teachers develop social capital. In order to improve their teaching practices, teachers need feedback about their strengths and weaknesses. However, principals many times do not have the time or training to provide high quality instructional feedback. Thus, many responsive leaders advocate for a “peer assistance and review” (PAR) model of teacher evaluation, in which “consulting teachers,” teachers identified for excellence who are released from classroom duties for a period of time, conduct formal personnel reviews and provide planning assistance and general emotional support for the other teachers in the building (participating teachers).34 This practice can help to increase teachers’ knowledge and empowerment, as well as build relationships and social capital between consulting and participating teachers. Despite evidence that teacher networks and opportunities for collaboration are likely to improve student achievement, Massachusetts has not yet developed policies that increase teacher-to-teacher social capital. Instead, Massachusetts has a decentralized school system that allows districts to adopt their own models of scheduling and strategies for promoting school culture. However, this situation also allows researchers to use a large and representative survey from across Massachusetts to examine how these different aspects of social capital impact student growth scores on the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) test. This data can be used to explore how different models and activities can help to build social capital and increase student achievement in the Commonwealth. Thus, this study examines the 33
Bryk & Schneider, Trust in Schools, 110. Goldstein, Jennifer. "Taking the Lead With Peer Assistance and Review, the Teaching Profession Can Be in Teachers’ Hands." American Educator, Fall 2008, 5.
34
Kimmel 11 different dimensions of teacher-to-teacher social capital in Massachusetts schools, and their implications for increasing student achievement. Methods Survey I used the 2008 MassTells survey to explore how different components of teacher-toteacher social capital impacted student achievement in Massachusetts in the 2008-2009 school year.35 The survey was developed by the New Teacher Center, a national non-profit dedicated to improving student learning by accelerating the effectiveness of new teachers.36 All school personnel received an access code to take the survey, and 40,005 participants from a representative sample of over 1,200 schools in 250 districts participated (a 51% response rate).37 In the survey, teachers were asked to respond to questions about eight broad themes concerning their work environment: time, facilities and resources, empowerment, leadership, professional development, school context and readiness, curriculum and instruction, and new teacher support. Many of these questions asked teachers to respond on a scale from 1-5. Dependent Variable The dependent variable is the school’s aggregate student growth percentile (SGP) score in English Language Arts for the 2008-2009 school year. SGP is a growth measure of student learning that describes how a child performed on an end of the year assessment (in this case, MCAS), relative to similar students across the state. Each student in grades 4 through 8 and 35 Hirsch,
Eric, Casia Freitas, Keri Church, & Anthony Villar. Massachusetts Teaching, Learning, and Leading Survey: Creating School Conditions Where Teachers Stay and Students Thrive. Santa Cruz: New Teacher Center, 2008. 36 New Teacher Center. "About New Teacher Center." Accessed May 01, 2012. http://www.newteachercenter.org/about-ntc. 37 Participants included 35,272 teachers, 876 principals, 541 assistant principals, and 3,340 and other professionals.
Kimmel 12 grade 10 with at least two consecutive years of MCAS scores received a student growth percentile score between 1 and 99.38 I chose to use SGP scores in English Language Arts because much of the research around teacher collaboration and professional learning focuses on strategies and activities for teaching literacy, which is a difficult area for many teachers. Further, though teachers across schools teach different subjects, all teachers contribute to literacy development by engaging in activities that require reading and comprehension. I chose to use 8th grade SGP scores because 8th grade students were more likely to have two consecutive years of MCAS data. I aggregated each student’s score to the school-level to compute the school’s average SGP. Independent Variables In order to explore how various factors concerning teacher collaboration and support impacted school-level SGP data, I first aggregated all of the questionnaire responses to the school-level in order to match the responses to the SGP data. Next, conducted a varimax factor analysis of 30 of the 147 questions that concerned various aspects of teacher-to-teacher social capital and were significant predictors of student growth percentile scores in ELA. I found that there were six factors that together explained 76.27% of the variance in teachers’ responses. Based on the questions that that loaded on each factor, I labeled these factors: Professional Learning, Responsiveness, Empowerment, Resources, Collaboration, and Trust (see table 1). The first factor, which I labeled “Professional Learning,” explained 39.85% of the variance. The three highest loading questions were: “teachers have input on determining professional development,” “teachers receive feedback that can help them improve teaching,” and “professional development provides teachers with the knowledge and skills most needed to teach effectively.” I hypothesized that schools with higher scores on professional learning would 38
Because SGP scores follow a normal distribution, between 60 and 65 percent of groups score between the 40th and 60th percentile.
Kimmel 13 be associated with larger student achievement gains in ELA because teachers in these schools were engaging in professional learning activities that helped them improve their practices. The second factor explained 13.17% of the variance. I labeled this factor, “Responsiveness” because questions concerned teachers’ and leaders’ ability to respond to problems in their schools. Questions include “in this school we take steps to solve problems,” “school leadership makes a sustained effort to address teacher concerns about the use of time in my school,” and “sufficient resources are available to allow teachers to take advantage of professional development opportunities.” I hypothesized that because teachers know what kind of supports they need to be effective, teachers with responsive leaders would see larger student achievement gains in ELA. The third factor explained 8.25% of the variance. I labeled this factor, “Empowerment” because the questions concerned teachers’ sense of individual and collective efficacy. Questions included “teachers are held to “high professional standards for delivering instruction,” and “all of the faculty are committed to helping every student learn.” I hypothesized that where teachers feel empowered as strong educators, teachers will trust their colleagues more, which will lead to more opportunities for collaboration, and larger student achievement gains in ELA. The fourth factor explained 6.13% of the variance. I labeled this factor “resources” because the highest loading questions asked if teachers “have adequate professional space,” “access to a broad range of professional support personnel,” and whether “teachers are meaningfully involved in decision making about educational issues.” I hypothesized that teachers who had the resources to develop social capital would engage in more collaboration, and their schools would experience higher growth in ELA.
Kimmel 14 The next factor explained 4.89% of the variation. I labeled this factor “Collaboration” because it considers how often teachers collaborate. Questions on this factor included whether “teachers have time to collaborate with their colleagues”, as well as whether “teachers feel the non-instructional time provided for them is sufficient.” Because research suggests that teacherto-teacher collaboration develops social capital, I hypothesized that schools with a higher score on this measure would be more likely to see larger student achievement gains. The final factor explained 3.99% of the variation in teacher responses. I labeled this factor “Trust.” Questions on this factor include “teachers feel comfortable raising issues and concerns,” and “teachers have sufficient instructional time to meet the needs of all students.” I hypothesized that schools with a higher degree of trust in their colleagues would have more social capital, which would lead to larger student achievement gains.
Kimmel 15 Varimax Factor Analysis Question
1
2
3
4
5
6
Teachers have input in determining the content of in-service professional development programs. The school leadership makes a sustained effort to address teacher concerns about professional development.
.709
.171
-.012
.149
.137
-.036
.688
.445
.040
.330
.191
.236
Professional development provides teachers with the knowledge and skills most needed to teach effectively. In this school we take steps to solve problems.
.653
.210
.235
.384
.223
.002
.226
.774
-.064
.129
.232
-.173
The school leadership makes a sustained effort to address teacher concerns about the use of time in my school.
.339
.780
-.028
.207
.133
.068
Sufficient resources are available to allow teachers to take advantage of professional development activities. The faculty are committed to helping every student learn.
.253
.770
.321
.094
.331
.053
.346
.112
.793
-.018
.209
-.170
Teachers are held to high professional standards for delivering instruction. Teachers have adequate professional space to work productively.
-.076
.179
.880
.008
-.019
.178
.404
-.103
-.092
.758
.109
-.083
Teachers have sufficient access to a broad range of support (professional) personnel.
-.059
.358
-.066
.825
.056
.015
Teachers have time available to collaborate with their colleagues.
.319
.257
-.060
.127
.817
.008
Teachers have sufficient instructional time to meet the needs of all students. Teachers feel comfortable raising issues and concerns that are important to them. Teachers have sufficient instructional time to meet the needs of all students. Total variance explained (percent)
.166
.315
.078
.130
.824
.031
.207
-.089
.028
.164
.166
.842
.290
.120
-.369
.107
.188
.738
39.85
13.17
8.25
6.13
4.89
3.99
Cronbach’s alpha
.730
.831
.785
.593
.802
.668
Kimmel 16 Results First, I examined the means for all of the factors (see Table 1). On average, teachers were likely to score lowest on the index of Collaboration (M = 2.56), indicating that teachers in Massachusetts do not have enough non-instructional time to collaborate with their colleagues. Teachers in Massachusetts scored the highest on Resources (M = 3.35), meaning that teachers were likely to say that they have a broad range of support personnel and the professional space to collaborate. Teachers also scored lower on Professional Learning (M = 2.82), and higher on Responsiveness (M = 3.26), Trust (M = 3.29), and Empowerment (M = 3.19). Next, I created groups of schools with high SGP and low SGP ratings in ELA (see Table 1). Because SGP follows a normal distribution, I defined high SGP as those schools with an SGP score higher than 50, and schools with a low SGP as those with an SGP score below 50. I then conducted t-tests on all of the factors to determine whether high and low SGP schools differed on these factors. T-tests for all of the factors were significant, indicating that high SGP schools had higher scores on each of the factors than low SGP schools. I also examined correlations between the factors and schools’ SGP for English Language Arts. All of the factors were positively correlated with SGP for ELA. Professional learning had a correlation of .144, Responsiveness had a correlation of .148, Empowerment was correlated .082, Resources had a correlation of .129, Collaboration had a correlation of .204, and Trust was correlated .095. Correlations between all of the factors and SGP in ELA were significant at the .01 level. Researchers have shown that socio-economic status is correlated with factors influencing student achievement in schools. In the MassTells survey, teachers were asked to respond on a scale from 1 to 5 about whether poverty influences children’s ability to learn at their school. The mean on this factor across all schools was 3.77, indicating that teachers on average thought
Kimmel 17 poverty played a relatively large role in children’s ability to learn. Schools with low SGP ratings were not significantly more likely to say that poverty influences children’s ability to learn at the school. The correlation between school-level responses to this question and SGP in ELA was also not significant (r = .009). This may be because student growth percentile ratings already capture the variation in poverty measures by controlling for the school’s starting score. However, in order to ensure that trends in social capital were not confounded by socio-economic status, I continued to control for this measure in various statistical tests.
Kimmel 18
Table 1: Means and Standard Deviations of Factors by Student Growth Percentile (Low, High) Variable Professional Learning Responsiveness
Empowerment
Resources
Collaboration
Trust
Poverty
All Schools
Low SGP
High SGP
2.82
2.76
2.89
(.45)
(.45)
(.46)
3.26
3.21
3.32
(.47)
(.42)
(.52)
3.19
3.13
3.27
(.93)
(.94)
(.91)
3.35
3.28
3.46
(.68)
(.91)
(.73)
2.56
2.46
2.68
(.50)
(.45)
(.52)
3.29
3.25
3.34
(.65)
(.61)
(.70)
3.77
3.77
3.74
(.85)
(.81)
(.89)
Note: Standard deviations are in parentheses.
Correlation with SGP
Significance Level
.144
.000
.148
.000
.082
.000
.129
.000
.204
.000
.095
.000
.009
.392
Kimmel 19 Linear (OLS) Regressions In order to account for other factors that may be influencing a school’s average SGP score, I conducted linear (OLS) regressions (see Table 2). The first model includes all of the factors that I uncovered in my factor analysis. I found that empowerment, resources, collaboration, and trust were significant predictors of SGP in ELA. In particular, a one-point increase in the average score on the school’s empowerment measure corresponded to a .507 increase in SGP. A one-point increase in the ability of resources to develop social capital corresponded to a 1.075 increase in SGP for ELA. The most influential measure in predicting student achievement gains in ELA was the collaboration index. A one-point increase in the time available for collaboration corresponded to a 3.614 increase in SGP. The trust index was also significant, in that a one-point increase in the school’s average trust score corresponded to a 1.170 increase in SGP for ELA. Interestingly, professional learning and responsiveness were not significant predictors of SGP in ELA.
Kimmel 20 Table 2: Predictors of Student Growth Percentile Rankings (SGP) in ELA Model
Model 1
Model 2
Professional Learning
.007
-.264
(.369)
(.379)
1.075
.614*
(.322)
(.326)
.507***
Responsiveness Empowerment Resources Collaboration Trust
Model 3
Model 4
.677***
.538***
.689***
(.128)
(.140)
(.126)
(.137)
1.075***
1.050***
1.159***
1.101***
(.195)
(.195)
(.174)
(.175)
3.614***
3.542***
3.379***
3.700***
(.285)
(.286)
(.245)
(.247)
1.170***
1.538***
1.158***
1.478***
(.182)
(.220)
(.181)
(.215)
Poverty
-.548**
-.493***
(.185)
(.179)
R
.060
.059
.060
.044
N
8186
8186
8186
8186
P < .10 * p < .05 ** p < .01 *** Note: Standard errors are in parentheses.
Kimmel 21 In the second model, I included all of the factors from the first model, as well as whether poverty affects students’ ability to learn at the school. Empowerment, Resources, Collaboration, and Trust continued to be significant predictors of SGP, and Professional Learning continued to be a nonsignificant predictor. Interestingly, when the measure of socioeconomic status is included, responsiveness becomes marginally significant (p < .10). A one-unit change in a school’s responsiveness measure corresponded to a .614 increase in SGP. While socioeconomic status was not a significant predictor of ELA in the bivariate analyses, it was a significant predictor in this model. When school personnel believe that poverty does not impact students’ ability to learn in the school, the school is more likely to see larger student achievement gains in English Language Arts. Specifically, a one-unit increase in a school’s average response to this question (where school personnel believe that poverty influences children’s ability to learn more) corresponded to a .548 decrease in SGP in ELA. The third model only includes the significant predictors of student achievement gains in English Language Arts: empowerment, resources, collaboration, and trust. All of the factors continue to be significant predictors of student achievement gains when professional learning and responsiveness were omitted from the model. When I controlled for socioeconomic status in model 4, all of the factors remain significant, and socioeconomic status is also a significant predictor of SGP in ELA, though the coefficient decreases when the nonsignificant factors are omitted. Discussion The results of my analyses showed that there are four dimensions of teacher-to-teacher social capital that are associated with increases in student achievement on the MCAS assessment. First, schools with empowered teachers, who have a strong sense of individual and collective
Kimmel 22 efficacy, are likely to promote higher student achievement gains. As mentioned earlier, teaching is not a highly valued profession in the United States, which has profound implications for teacher morale. However, in schools in which teachers feel that they and their colleagues are held to high professional standards, students are likely to experience higher achievement gains. Teachers with stronger senses of efficacy and empowerment are likely to trust one another and work together to plan lessons, such as in Japanese lesson study, or to trust one another to complete professional evaluations, such as in the â&#x20AC;&#x153;Peer Assistance and Reviewâ&#x20AC;? evaluation model. These activities build social capital through repeated interactions that facilitate trust between colleagues. Therefore, teacher empowerment builds social capital, which contributes to student achievement gains. However, the relationship between teacher empowerment may also run in the opposite direction. Teachers who know that they are effective at improving student achievement may be more likely to say that they are instructional experts, and therefore score higher on this factor. However, while this may occur at an individual level, it is less likely to be true at the schoollevel. Teachers in schools that score higher on the empowerment index are likely to already trust one another and have worked together to improve student achievement. Having adequate resources including support staff and professional space for developing social capital was also a significant predictor of student achievement gains. While many teachers would like to develop relationships with their colleagues, it is difficult for them to do so without structures and supports that facilitate collaboration. For example, in professional learning communities, teachers are able to solve problems in their schools because their school leaders designed a schedule that provides time for collaborative work. Support personnel are sometimes necessary for developing social capital because teachers may need to leave their classrooms to
Kimmel 23 attend professional development workshops, evaluate their peers, or work in professional learning communities. As Leana found, teachers who had the time and resources to collaborate with colleagues were more likely to promote student achievement gains.39 Time for collaboration builds social capital because teachers can come together to share lesson plans, reflect on their work, and solve problems together in structured ways. While teachers traditionally work in isolation, opportunities for collaboration provide teachers with the resources and professional, emotional, and social supports to improve their practices. Collaboration also builds a sense of collective efficacy because teachers work together as a unit to serve their students. Having a sense of trust in one’s colleagues was also an important predictor of growth in student test scores. Teachers who feel comfortable raising issues in their work environment, and also trust that their colleagues are serving students as best they can were more likely to see significant student achievement gains. As Bryk describes, relational trust is important in schools because teachers must feel that they are working for a common purpose.40 Trusting relationships are facilitated through repeated interactions in which teachers realize a strong sense of collective efficacy. Teachers may be more willing to consider their colleagues’ feedback in a Peer Assistance and Review evaluation process, or in a lesson study activity. While it is unclear which particular activities contribute to building trust in schools, schools with a high degree of trust are likely to experience larger gains in student achievement. Interestingly, strong professional learning opportunities and teachers’ ability to provide input into professional development practices were not significant predictors of student achievement gains. This may be because teachers do not know which professional development 39 40
Leana, "The Missing Link in School Reform." Bryk and Schneider, Trust in Schools, 91.
Kimmel 24 opportunities will be effective. Many schools have one-time professional development workshops in which teachers learn a skill, but do not provide opportunities for teachers to try out the skill, evaluate themselves, reflect on the activity, and improve. Instead, teachers are likely to choose professional development opportunities with the lowest opportunity costs, and not necessary those that will be most effective.41 Therefore, even though teachers have input in determining their professional development opportunities and feel that the programming helps them to improve their teaching, they may be reflecting on one-time professional development workshops, and not high quality collaboration and ongoing learning opportunities. Leadership responsiveness was also not a significant predictor of student achievement gains. Leaders who make an effort to address teacher concerns and provide sufficient resources for teachers to take advantage of professional development opportunities may face similar problems to teachers in planning high quality professional learning opportunities. Leaders may listen to teachers about what they want to learn in professional development, but teachers may choose one-day workshops that require less effort, and have not been shown to be effective in improving student achievement. Limitations There are many limitations to my study. In particular, the dependent variable may not capture the full range of student achievement because there are other cognitive measures and character traits that children develop that should be taken into account when evaluating schools. Student growth percentile rankings also capture the change in standardized test scores from one year to the next, and not a raw measure of academic achievement. Therefore, schools that are achieving at lower levels may have higher student growth percentile rankings than those that 41
National Partnership for Excellence and Accountability in Teaching, Revisioning Professional Development: What Learner-centered Professional Development Looks like. Oxford, 1998.
Kimmel 25 achieve at high but similar levels year-to-year. Finally, not all of the schools had a school-level SGP measure. This may have been because they are new schools, and do not have enough classroom level data to calculate a school-level SGP rating or because the school did not assess students in 8th grade. Further, because the dependent variable concerns student achievement in ELA, the measure cannot capture the variation in student achievement gains in other subjects. Also, not all of the teachers in Massachusetts completed the survey. Therefore, there may be an element of self-selection because only teachers who were motivated to tell the state how they felt about their schools completed the survey. Therefore, teachers who had disproportionately negative perceptions of their school environment may have responded because they wanted to express their concerns. However, teachers also understood that the survey results were only available to schools with a response rate higher than 50%. As a result, motivated teachers who wanted to use MassTells data to improve their schools on their own would have been likely to take the survey. Therefore, I believe that these situations cancelled each other out and the survey is still a good proxy for how Massachusetts teachers felt about their schools. The survey also canâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t be generalized to other states because Massachusetts is the highest achieving state in the nation as measured by the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP). Therefore, Massachusetts presumably has a higher degree of teacher-toteacher social capital than other states as evidenced by its relatively higher standardized test scores. Implications While this study may not be applicable to all states or in all subject areas, the results have implications for how school leaders allocate teachersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; time during the school day. School leaders should find ways for teachers to connect with their colleagues and collaborate in lesson planning,
Kimmel 26 problem solving, and evaluation. In order to do so, teachers need time allocated throughout the day for professional learning, as well as common planning periods. Further, schools in which there is a culture of mutual respect and in which teachers recognize themselves and others as instructional experts are likely to promote student achievement gains. School leaders should provide teachers with opportunities to interact with one another in order to build this culture of trust. Further research is needed on how to create the optimal environments and schedules to promote teacher collaboration and develop social capital. Also, it is important to study how these factors contribute to growth in student achievement in other subjects, including those that are not assessed by standardized tests. While there are still many questions about how teacher-to-teacher social capital influences teacher human capital, this study provides the first step in exploring how teacher relationships and networks are likely to promote student achievement. Conclusion In conclusion, researchers have shown that teacher quality is the most important schoollevel factor in promoting student achievement. Though developing individual human capital in the teaching profession is important for raising student achievement, it is also important to focus on how teacher-to-teacher social capital will increase teacher quality and therefore student achievement. In order to explore the different dimensions of teacher-to-teacher social capital, I conducted a study using teachersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; responses to various questions concerning their working environments on schoolsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; aggregate student growth percentile (SGP) scores in 8th grade English Language Arts in Massachusetts. I found that there were six factors that explained three quarters of the variation in student achievement scores: Professional Learning, Resources, Empowerment, Collaboration, Responsiveness, and Trust. However, after controlling for all of the other factors in linear (OLS) regressions, four factors (Empowerment, Resources, Collaboration, and Trust)
Kimmel 27 were significant predictors of student achievement gains. Therefore, I concluded that the relationship between teacher-to-teacher social capital and student achievement gains is not a result of professional learning opportunities or leadership responsiveness to teachersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; professional development requests, because current professional development opportunities may not provide teachers with opportunities to develop social capital. Instead, teachers who have opportunities to share ideas, learn from one another, and develop feelings of individual and collective efficacy are more likely to develop social capital through repeated interactions that facilitate trust. Therefore, in order to promote student achievement, leaders should provide the time, resources, and structures to facilitate collaboration between teachers in their schools.
Kimmel 28 References Auguste, Byron, Paul Kihn, and Matt Miller. Closing the Talent Gap: Attracting and Retaining Top-third Graduates to Careers in Teaching. McKinsey and Company, 2010. Bryk, Anthony S., and Barbara L. Schneider. Trust in Schools: A Core Resource for Improvement. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2002. Chung Wei, Ruth, Linda Darling-Hammond, Althea Andree, Nikole Richardson, and Stelios Orphanos. Professional Learning in the Learning Profession: A Status Report on Teacher Development in the U.S. and Abroad. Stanford: National Staff Development Council, 2009. Coleman, James M., Thomas Hoffer, and Sally Kilgore. Public and Private Schools. Washington, D.C.: Educational Resources Information Center, 1981. Dobbie, Will, and Roland Fryer. Are High-Quality Schools Enough to Close the Achievement Gap?: Evidence from Evidence from a Bold Social Experiment in Harlem. Cambridge: Harvard University, 2009. Fernandez, Clea. "Learning from Japanese Approaches to Professional Development: The Case of Lesson Study." Journal of Teacher Education 53.5 (2002): 393-405. Goldstein, Jennifer. "Taking the Lead With Peer Assistance and Review, the Teaching Profession Can Be in Teachersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Hands." American Educator, Fall 2008. Henson, Robin. The Effect of Participating in Teacher Research Professional Development on Teacher Efficacy and Empowerment. Paper Presented at the Mid-South Educational Research Association Annual Meeting. Little Rock, 2001. Hirsch, Eric, Casia Freitas, Keri Church, & Anthony Villar. Massachusetts Teaching, Learning, and Leading Survey: Creating School Conditions Where Teachers Stay and Students Thrive. Santa Cruz: New Teacher Center, 2008. Jackson, C. Kirabo, and Elias Bruegmann. "Teaching Students and Teaching Each Other: The Importance of Peer Learning for Teachers." American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 1, no. 4 (2009). Johnson, Wesley, David Lustick, and MinJeong Kim. "Teacher Professional Learning as the Growth of Social Capital." Current Issues in Education 14, no. 3 (September 11, 2011). Kane, Thomas, Jonah Rockoff, and David Staiger. "What Does Certification Tell Us about Teacher Effectiveness? Evidence from New York City." Economics of Education Review 27, no. 6 (March 2008): 615-31.
Kimmel 29 Lassonde, Cynthia A., and Susan E. Israel. Teacher Collaboration for Professional Learning: Facilitating Study, Research, and Inquiry Communities. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2010. Leana, Carrie R., and Frits K. Pil. "Social Capital and Organizational Performance: Evidence from Urban Public Schools." Organization Science 17, no. 3 (May/June 2006): 353-66. Leana, Carrie. "The Missing Link in School Reform." Stanford Social Innovation Review, Fall 2011. Mapp, K. Family engagement. In F. P. Schargel & J. Smink (Eds.), Helping students graduate: A strategic approach to dropout prevention (pp. 99-113). Larchmont, NY, 2005. Moolenaar, Nienke, Peter Sleegers, and Alan Daly. "Teaming Up: Linking Collaboration Networks, Collective Efficacy, and Student Achievement." Teaching and Teacher Education 28, no. 2 (February 2012). Nathan, Joe. Charter Schools: Creating Hope and Opportunity for American Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1996. National Partnership for Excellence and Accountability in Teaching, Revisioning Professional Development: What Learner-centered Professional Development Looks like. Oxford, 1998. New Teacher Center. "About New Teacher Center." Accessed May 01, 2012. http://www.newteachercenter.org/about-ntc. Peske, Heather, and Kati Haycock. Teaching Inequality: How Poor and Minority Students Are Shortchanged on Teacher Quality. Washington D.C: Education Trust, 2006. Provasnik, Stephen, Patrick Gonzales, and David Miller. U.S. Performance Across International Assessments of Student Achievement. Washington D.C: National Center for Education Statistics, 2009. Putnam, Robert D. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2000. Rivkin, Steven G., Eric A. Hanushek, and John F. Kain. "Teachers, Schools, and Academic Achievement." Econometrica 73.2 (2005). Rockoff, Jonah, John Friedman, and Raj Chetty. The Long Term Impact of Teachers: Teacher Value Added and Student Outcomes in Adulthood. Working paper no. 17699. Rotherham, Andrew. Title 2.0: Revamping the Federal Role in Education Human Capital. Ideas at Work. New York: Carnegie Foundation, 2008.
Kimmel 30 Stigler, James W., and James Hiebert. The Teaching Gap: Best Ideas from the World's Teachers for Improving Education in the Classroom. New York: Free Press, 1999. Teach Plus. "Teaching Policy Fellows." Accessed May 01, 2012. http://www.teachplus.org/page/teaching-policy-fellows-65.html. U.S. Department of Education. "Promise Neighborhoods." April 27, 2012. Accessed May 01, 2012. http://www2.ed.gov/programs/promiseneighborhoods/index.html. Warren, Mark. "Communities and Schools: A New View of Urban Education Reform." Harvard Educational Review 75, no. 2 (2005). Â Â