Connecting Policy to Practice: How State and Local Policy Environments Relate to Teachers’ Instruction

Abstract

Background/Context:

Instructional policy aims to shift the nature of teaching and learning. Decades of policy studies have highlighted the challenges inherent in these aims and the conditions necessary to support such change, including a robust infrastructure to support teacher learning. Further, teachers themselves must perceive and experience their policy environment to be supportive of calls to shift instruction.

Purpose/Objective/Research Question/Focus of Study:

In this study, we examine the connection between teachers’ perceptions of their policy environments and their instructional practices over time, in the context of college-and-career-readiness (CCR) standards implementation. While conducted in the context of standards implementation, our findings apply to supporting instructional change through policy more broadly.

Setting:

We examine implementation of CCR standards in two unique state contexts: Texas and Ohio. These states represent important differences in demographics and in their approaches to CCR standards implementation over time.

Research Design:

We use a convergent mixed-methods design that draws on state-representative teacher survey data at two points in time (allowing for a trend analysis to understand how teachers’ perceptions and experiences evolve), longitudinal interview data with state education leaders, and interview data with educators in one case study district in each state.

Data Collection and Analysis:

Surveys measured teachers’ perceptions of their policy environments, as well as their self-reported instructional practices. Interviews focused on understanding state- and district-level policies, guidance, and resources, and educators’ enactment of standards. Survey analysis included descriptive analysis of patterns over time and hierarchical linear modeling. To unpack broad-based survey patterns, we coded qualitative data and developed assertions based on emergent patterns.

Findings/Results:

We found that Texas teachers agreed more strongly than Ohio teachers that their policy environment had aligned, specific, and stable resources, as well as accountability mechanisms in place. Specificity of guidance and resources for standards implementation predicted teachers’ use of standards-emphasized instruction in 2019. These patterns reflected each state’s approach to policy implementation: a robust state-level infrastructure for guidance and support in Texas, compared with fewer state-developed resources in Ohio in favor of local control. Still, aspects of teachers’ local context—in particular, lack of infrastructure for ongoing, embedded professional learning—limited teachers’ ability to engage in state-developed guidance.

Conclusions/Recommendations:

Our study offers enduring lessons about how to establish the policy conditions necessary to support teachers to change instruction. Findings suggest a need for states to develop resources that clarify instructional shifts for teachers, and districts must balance these top-down resources with ongoing opportunities for educators to adapt resources to suit their students’ needs.