Opportunity to Teach and Learn (OTL)

a “foundational” perspective

Jeannie OakesUCLA

What is OTL in the standards-based reform context?

“the criteria for, and the basis of, assessing the sufficiency of the resources, practices, and conditions necessary at each level of the system (schools, local education agencies, and states) to provide all students with an opportunity to learn the material in voluntary national content standards.”

Conference Report on HR 1804. Goals 2000, Educate America Act (1994), Congressional Record, 140 (32), H1625-H1684

Roots of OTL in standards-based reform

• 1980s Indicator projects– RAND/NSF science education indicators– OECD International indicators – USEd/CCSSO—State indicators projects

• 1989 Education Summit—national goals• 1991/1993—Smith & O’Day “systemic reform”• 1994—Goals 2000: Improving America’s

Schools Act

Systemic standards-based reform:A 3-legged Stool

• Content standards

• “Opportunity to Learn” Standards– “a quality education as the opportunity to learn

well the content” – delivery & practice standards

• Performance standards & assessments

What would OTL standards accomplish? Identify what students need to meet content standards

– Resources, conditions, and practices that reach students—not just $ into the system

Establish basic fairness & equity– Makes explicit a “floor”/threshold below which it’s not

reasonable to assess students meaningfully– Specifies what must be provided to all students

• Make reform/accountability systemic– Places responsibility on the system, as well as on teachers

and students

What happened to OTL standards?

• Professional debates about whether or not states would/should/could micro-manage curriculum and pedagogy

• Feasibility concerns related to operationalizing, measuring, and collecting OTL data for indicators and accountability.

• Ideological argument that a focus on “inputs” will deflect attention from outcomes, and serve as handy “excuses” for failure

Standards & Test-based Accountability: A 2-Legged Stool

• Content standards • OTL-- resources, conditions and practices• Performance standards + high stakes tests

Competing theories of educational improvement

• 3-legged stool (capacity building/learning theory): – Clear goals + aligned inputs + good information

about performance = high quality, equitable schooling

• 2-legged stool (incentives/behavioral theory): – Clear goals + input deregulation/de-emphasis +

incentives (rewards/sanctions/choice) = high quality, equitable schooling

Restoring the OTL leg to California’s standards stool

• Set state-level “foundational” OTL standards as necessary, but not sufficient

• Build/oversee local capacity to manage and use foundational OTL for high quality

• Make foundational OTL part of statewide accountability

• Engage local educators and communities with data to inform local OTL “standards,” foster professional learning, and improve practice

Setting foundational OTL standards

• Determine basic resources, conditions, and tools for– safe and decent school environments– learning what the content standards require– passing the CAHSEE– having a fair chance to compete for admission to UC

Berkeley or UCLA– Achieving other valued state goals

• Specify substance, sufficiency, and locus of authority/responsibility

Setting “foundational” OTL standards

• Professional judgment: Analyses of the demands of– content standards, CAHSEE, and higher ed requirements

• E.g., Koski analysis of instructional materials, technologies, teacher qualities, and facilities required by standards

– other valued educational goals

• Political consensus: Blue ribbon commission (SB 495 names the QEC), public engagement, official adoption, etc.

Caution: Resist temptation to prescribe the details of practice that transform OTL into learning

Candidate foundational OTL standards: what should, but can’t be assumed

• Qualified (fully certified) teachers in every classroom• Standards-aligned textbooks and instructional

materials in sufficient supply for use at school and home

• Instructional time (length of school year/day) • College preparatory coursework (including

advanced coursework) and prerequisite curriculum• Safe, well-maintained, uncrowded facilities

Ken Futernick, 2003

www.edfordemocracy.org/tqi

In schools where 90% or more of the student population is WHITE, the average TQI rating is 9.0

In schools where 90% or more of the student population is NON-WHITE, the average TQI rating is 5.3

The TQI and Student Ethnicity

Many Classrooms Lack Texts

Teachers Reporting (Overall Schools, Grades & Subjects): (n=1071)

Percent “yes”

responses

Percent

“not sure” responses

Inadequate supply: Not enough texts for students to use in class 12% 3% Not enough texts for students to take home 32% 12% Not enough or no materials in home language 36% 3% Not enough at students English reading level 15% 2% Inadequate quality: Only fair or poor quality of texts & materials 17% 1% Poor physical condition of texts 8% 4% Texts and materials not up to date 10% 4% Textbooks have only fair or poor coverage of standards

18% 2%

Source: Peter Harris Research Group Data tabulations, 2002

High school teachers reporting that a lack of materials limits the effectiveness of their

standards-related courses

Human Resources Research Organization, Independent Evaluation of the California High School Exit Examination (CAHSEE): AB 1609 Study Report—Volume 1. CDE: Sacramento, CA, May 1, 2003.

Fewer materials in schools with Latino and African American majorities

• greater shortages of textbooks and instructional materials;

• teachers twice as likely to report available materials to be “only fair” or “poor” quality

Harris teacher survey, 2002

AP courses offered by school enrollment and % black and Latino

Percent Black and Latino

0-10% 10-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100% Enrollment

1-500 0.70 0.64 0.78 0.50 0.56 500-1000 3.57 2.80 2.46 2.64 2.07 1000-1500 5.00 4.92 4.60 3.56 3.07 1500-2000 5.38 5.48 5.63 5.70 4.42 2000+ 10.12 9.30 6.77 6.81 6.75 Tomas Rivera Center, 1999

Disparities in AP Math and ScienceOfferings by School Racial Composition

% African American # of AP Math/Science Latino Offerings

more than 70% 3.8 fewer than 30% 5.3

Data collected by California Department of Education California Basic Educational Data System

AP course offering disparities

Time disparities—Concept 6 Schools

• 355,000 students

• schools at 150% capacity

• 3 tracks—2 on campus at any one time

• long, ill-timed breaks—2 2-month vacations

• 17 fewer school days

• median Latino enrollment 84% (34% statewide)

Support and oversee local capacity to acquire, manage, and use OTL resources

• Ensure a sufficient supply• Ensure fiscal capacity • Provide technical assistance & professional

development

Collect data & include OTL in state accountability system

• Identify locus of responsibility for various aspects of OTL—ensuring adequate supply, delivery to students, etc.

• Construct key indicators for universe data collection

• Supplement with sampled data collection to explore connections between foundational OTL, practice, and outcomes

• Report OTL index for every school along side the API, and OTL data disaggregated by subgroups

• Support and intervene at the appropriate levels

Feasibility of collecting census OTL data

• Add items to CBEDs teacher survey– Out of field assignments– Textbooks and Materials– Facilities conditions & overcrowding

• Develop “cover page” student survey as part of CAHSEE

• Modify CCR and WASC to focus systematically on collecting OTL data

• Inventory and conduct periodic inspections of facilities—like restaurants

• Take seriously SARC and 60119 data

Foundational OTL and learning outcomes

• Foundational OTL is necessary, but not sufficient. It can not be seen as the direct “cause” of those outcomes.

• The “cause” of achievement is located in instruction—how foundational resources are used.

• OTL data can guide intervention and support aimed as solving fundamental problems that constrain the “causes” of learning

Beyond foundational OTL

• OTL in practice--transforming basic tools into contextually appropriate instruction

• Districts, schools, and teachers ensuring a match between what is taught, what is tested, the particular school context, and students’ needs

OTL in practice

– Examine how foundational resources are used to create

• Safe and respectful learning environments• Curriculum aligned with content standards• Instructional interactions between students & teachers

around content that promote learning

– Use state- and locally generated OTL information “diagnostically” to guide professional development and improvement of practice

– Report to and engage the local community in holding the system accountable for high quality, equitable teaching and learning

Rhode Island—SALT (School Accountability for Learning and

Teaching)Information Works! Data from tests, demographic, financial

data, combined with bi-annual survey of parents, teachers, and students inform – Self study– School Improvement Plan– School Report night– SALT visit—every five years – Compact for Learning—agreement with the district and the

Department of Education specifying what the district and the department will do to support the school. 

– Progressive Support & Intervention

Rhode Island Information Works! State Supported Local OTL

• School climate indicator – school safety – expectations that students have for themselves and

that teachers have for students– respectful relationships between teachers and

students – whether student behavior is disruptive– whether teachers are invested in the success of their

students– whether students know that they can approach

someone in their school to discuss both academic and personal problems

Rhode Island Information Works! State Supported Local OTL

• Parental involvement indicator– whether families are comfortable in school environments – Whether families are fully engaged in supporting their

child’s learning (helping with homework, attending conferences, participating in school-improvement activities, and communicating with teachers)

– whether schools provide ongoing opportunities to communicate with parents

– whether schools are creative in helping reluctant families feel comfortable working with teachers

Rhode Island Information Works! State Supported Local OTL Indicators

• Instruction indicator – whether standards-based and research-based

instruction takes place in the school– whether teachers are well prepared to implement

standards- and research-based instruction– barriers that teachers face or the support that they

receive as they implement good instructional practices.

Two-tiered OTL

• Foundational OTL (basic tools) – State standards derived by examining content

standards & adequacy models– Indictors part of state accountability system– Trigger state intervention/support at the right level

• Practice OTL (informing the transformation of basic tools into successful teaching and learning interactions) – State supported through data collection and feedback

to schools– Used locally and diagnostically– Triggers local dialogue/learning informed by research,

professional knowledge + context