The 2001 Teacher Survey: Summary of Results
Download complete report from Hedges

Author: Larry Hedges, University of Chicago

Relation of author to model: independent evaluator

Date evaluation report completed: Fall, 2001

Months/years covered by evaluation: 2000-2001

Number of teachers involved: 2482 surveyed; response rate is 64%

Demographics of sample population: Teachers at MRSH sites in 22 different states, slightly less teaching experience than national average, and larger proportion of minority teachers than national average.

Purpose of study: To assess level of implementation at participating sites against benchmarks and to determine teachers’ perceived level of impact of MRSH professional development activities.

Methodology: Surveys were provided to MRSH schools, which, in turn, distributed them to teachers. Our records indicate that a total of 2,482 teachers were surveyed. Of the 2,482 surveys distributed, a total of 1,578 were returned from 57 MRSH schools. Thus the overall response rate to the teacher survey was 63.6%. The response rate in each school varied from 12% to 100%, with a median of 82.5%. In 24 schools, the response rate was 100%.

Measures/indicators used to assess effectiveness: The teacher survey was organized around the benchmarks established by the MRSH staff to monitor implementation of the MRSH programs. The individual benchmarks are organized into the six core elements of the MRSH design:

• Assessment
• Instruction
• Organization
• Parent and community involvement
• Technology
• Professional development

For assessing the impact of training, reported here, teachers were asked about the extent to which they agree that—
MRSH training has had a SIGNIFICANT IMPACT on your school and classroom¹ in these areas:

• Your approach to planning
• The instructional strategies you utilize in the classroom
• The coherence of instruction across grade levels in your school
• The coherence of instruction across subjects in your school
• The degree to which you collaborate with colleagues
• Teachers’ use of technology in their classrooms
• Parent and/or community involvement
• Performance-based assessment strategies used in the classroom
• Achievement levels of all students

Findings: Implementation:

Element 1: Assessment—Almost all (92%) of teachers in the first year of implementation say that state assessments guide instructional goals (see question 83), and 93% of them agree that, regardless of grade level or area that they teach, teachers in their school consider themselves responsible for helping students achieve (see question 93).

Almost two-thirds of teachers (61%) say that they use interdisciplinary performance assessments based on standards most or all of the time (see question 101). However only 40% of teachers report that they always post standards addressed in current assignments most or all of the time and just 28% say that they post rubrics for performance assessments most or all of the time (see questions 102 and 103).

Only a little over a quarter of teachers (27%) believe that their students can explain how their assignments relate to the academic standards they are expected to master most or all of the time and only 30% say that their students can explain how their work would be rated by the relevant rubric most or all of the time (see questions 39 and 40).

Element 2: Instruction—Almost all (90%) of the teachers agree that school-wide scope and sequence covers the state standards most or all of the time; 91% of teachers agree that school-wide scope and sequence is designed to build student mastery of all standards (see questions 43 and 95).

Almost all (90%) of teachers also report that they understand how work in their classroom prepares students for future grades (see question 42). Over three-quarters (76%) report sharing scope and sequence with other teachers at their grade level (see question 45).

A large majority of teachers report efficient organization of the classroom and arrangement of materials (see questions 98-100).

Element 3: Organization—The majority of teachers report that they have at least some influence on what happens in the school generally, in setting performance standards for students and school-wide scope and sequence, discipline policy, and in deciding how the school budget will be spent (see questions 75, 76, 77, 81, and 82). However, the majority of teachers do not feel that they have much influence on hiring or evaluating teachers (see questions 79 and 80).

Most of the teachers report relatively high quality of teacher participation in the school. Over half report that task forces recommend initiatives, focus on activities that foster student achievement, and use of data to establish their priorities most or all of the time (see questions 71-73).

There is a considerable amount of collaboration reported among teachers to improve quality of instruction, with over three-quarters (78%) reporting that they collaborate most or all of the time to improve instruction and 81% reporting that they discuss how specific student work demonstrates mastery of standards at least once a month (see questions 46 and 14).

Element 4: Parent and Community Involvement—About half (50%) of the teachers report that a preponderance of their students’ parents understand academic expectations (see question 17). Relatively few teachers report being very effective at getting parents to volunteer help with classroom learning activities (see question 20), although there is some evidence that they are more successful in obtaining parental volunteers for other roles such as providing refreshments or community volunteers on an occasional basis (see questions 18, 19, and 23).

Over half (56%) of teachers report notifying parents at least once a month when student have done something particularly well, but only 43% of teachers report communicating with parents about topics studied in class most of the time (see questions 16 and 68). Only 31% of the teachers report that parents have home activities to support instructional goals (see question 69). Only a minority of teachers report that they communicate with parents by voicemail or electronic means such as email (see questions 34 and 35).

Element 5: Technology—Over three-quarters (77%) of teachers report having Internet access in their classroom, and just over two-thirds (69%) report having a printer in their classroom, but less than two-thirds (58%) report having a computer reserved exclusively for their use or two or more computers in the classroom (see questions 88-91).

Over two-thirds of teachers reported using the Internet to gain information for their classrooms at least once a month, but relatively few teachers report frequent use of the computer to communicate with other teachers (see questions 27, 28, and 29).

Only a minority of teachers uses technology for instructional management. Just 35% report using the computer for recording grades or attendance and only 28% report using the computer for managing or revising lesson plans (see questions 86 and 87).

Relatively little instructional uses of technology are reported, except use of the computer for drill and practice (see questions 31, 32, and 38).

Element 6: Professional Development—The majority of teachers report having at least some influence on determining the content of professional development programs (see question 78).

In general, implementation appears to be strong in assessment, instruction, and organization. While computer technology appears to be available to three-fourths of the respondents, less than half appear to be using it to support student activities or manage instruction.

Impact:

Table 3 shows the results for all teachers, regardless of year of implementation of the MRSH model. Seventy or more percent of respondents thought MRSH had a significant impact on their approach to planning, the coherence of instruction across grade levels, the alignment of instruction across subject areas, collaboration with colleagues, instructional strategies, and the use of performance-based assessments. A clear majority also thought that MRSH had had a significant impact on the use of technology and community and parent involvement. Seventy percent of the teachers thought that MRSH had had a significant impact on achievement levels of all students.