The Ambiguity of Teaching to the Test Standards

172 APPENDIX A
TABLE A.1
Socioeconomic Representativeness of Teacher Samples
District Factor Group
A-B
I-J
Percentage of: Poorest C-E F-H Wealthiest
Observed Teachers 22 27 16 35
Surveyed Teachers 2001 28 28 28
16
Surveyed Teachers 2000 34
22 23 21
Surveyed Teachers 1999 29
25 24 22
Students 30
24 26 19
had only one teacher completing the survey and questionnaire instruments,
whereas the highest participation was among the 7% of principals with four to
eight teachers. In 2000, 44% of the principals had only one teacher participating
in the study and reporting on her or his response whereas 17% had from
four to six teachers reporting. In 2001, 49% of the principals had only one
teacher participating in the study, and 20% had four to seven teachers who
participated in the survey.
Case Study Districts
In selecting districts, we did not so much seek a representative sample, as one
where there was likely to be a strong effort to use available professional development
resources to respond to the state’s standards and assessments. During
the study period, New Jersey had a National Science Foundation (NSF)–
funded SSI. The SSI used regional centers to connect school districts with
what NSF and the SSI considered to be among the best professional development
resources in mathematics and science education. Some districts were
much more active in working with regional centers than others. The research
team asked three regional centers that concentrated on elementary education
to nominate districts that used their services aggressively and had a reputation
for providing strong professional development in mathematics or
science. Through these nominations, the research team recruited seven districts
that varied in size and wealth but were among the most active users of
the regional center services and were willing to participate in the study. Data
were collected from these districts in the second year of the study. Repeat visits
were made to six districts in the third year. One district was not included
that year because there was so much turnover in its small district office that
the district was essentially reformulating its approach to mathematics and
science education. Table A.2 provides demographic information on the six
districts that participated in both years of the study.