Identifying practices and policies that enhance student learning serves the interests of parents, educators, and policymakers, and can be used to improve schools’ capacity for fostering student achievement by guiding local program and assessment development, and monitoring program implementation and evaluation of outcomes. Toward this end, the present study reports the findings of a survey of researchers’ and educators’ ratings of practices and policies that influence student learning and the degree of assessability of those learning influences. The survey’s design was based on the findings of previous research syntheses that examined multiple aptitudinal, instructional, and environmental factors that influence student learning. Results from these syntheses provided evidence that student characteristics, the quality and quantity of instruction, and home and community influences significantly impact student learning. Such results provide an important foundation for research-based reform, and can be used by educators in designing effective classroom, school, and district practices.

Highlights of Findings

The survey used in the present study gathered expert judgments from school administrators, policymakers, and educational researchers concerning the influence and assessability of a variety of educational practices and policies. A total of 146 policies and practices were broken down into the following four categories: (a) Classroom Practices and Policies; (b) Curriculum Design and Delivery; (c) Schoolwide Practices and Policies; and (d) Federal, State, and District Policies.

Classroom Practices and Policies:

Classroom practices and policies with high-to-moderate influence on student learning focused on: the teacher as the agent of action; a rich, cognitively challenging classroom environment; and teacher-student interactions concerning the learning task. The items with the lowest influence on learning centered on specific methods of instruction, such as academic tracking, cross-age tutoring, and instructional teaming. Other low-influence items focused on classroom climate variables, such as democracy (involving all students in classroom activities) and formality (expecting students to follow explicitly stated rules).

The items rated most assessable by survey recipients are tangible features of the classroom (i.e., particular instructional practices, resources, and grouping practices), such as size of the instructional groups, well-organized lessons, frequent feedback, use of goal direction, computer-assisted instruction, frequent measurement of basic skills, and student collaboration.

Curriculum Design and Delivery:

Items in this category with high-to-moderate influence on student learning include: alignment of curriculum content, instruction, and assessment; tailoring content to students’ cognitive capabilities and prior knowledge; and availability of materials, instructional activities, assessments, and equipment. Those items rated as having less influence on student learning include: the role of student interests and cultural diversity; availability of classroom aides and efficient use of classroom space; teacher encouragement of self-regulated learning strategies; and use of written records to monitor student progress.

The items rated as assessable focused on tangible features of the instructional environment, such as: use of objectives; inclusion of assessments; explicit classroom rules and procedures; alignment among goals, instruction, and evaluation; the difficulty level of the materials; availability of materials and activities for instructional groups of different sizes; and availability of classroom aides. Those items rated as less assessable focused on: students’ past experiences, interests, and cultural backgrounds; well-configured classroom space; and teacher development of self-regulated learning strategies.

Schoolwide Practices and Policies:

Schoolwide practices and policies rated as moderately to highly influential on student learning include: a safe, orderly, and positive school climate; site-based management practices; parent involvement programs; guarding of student instructional time; shared curriculum decision making among staff and administrators; low staff turnover; and small school size. Schoolwide practices and policies identified as less influential include: policies that influence students’ out-of-school behaviors; schoolwide activities that influence student self-esteem, attitudes, and social conduct (e.g., discouraging delinquent an d criminal behavior, encouraging friendships over clique formation, and increasing student occupational aspirations); and policies on schoolwide attendance, grading, academic progress, and suspension and expulsion.

Schoolwide practice and policy items rated as moderately or highly assessable were: a safe, orderly school climate; school district decentralization; small school size; and low staff absenteeism. Items rated as less assessable were those that were less observable in the school setting, such as: positive attitudes; student use of out-of-school time; schoolwide activities that promote positive, nondisruptive behaviors; a positive attitude toward school, teacher, and subject matter; and self-esteem and self-confidence.

Federal, State, and Local Policies: Only four items in this category were rated as having moderate-to-high influence on student learning: central office support; board of education support; academic course and unit requirements; and higher per-pupil expenditures. The more influential policies were identified as those which impinged most directly on students’ lives—i.e., academic requirements and funds for instruction. Items rated as less influential include: levels of categorical funding; assessment requirements; provision of student social services; length of school day and year; teacher licensure requirements; contractual limits on class size, classroom aides’ activities, and teachers’ after-school meetings; efficient transportation system; and school district size and decentralization.

Only two items were rated as difficult to assess: limited school bureaucratization, and central office assistance and support. Nearly all policy items were judged at least moderately assessable because the presence or absence of stated federal, state, or district policy can be readily detected.

Implications and Conclusions

• The results of this survey indicate that there is a shared view held by the educational research and practitioner communities about which practices and policies are most likely to influence student learning. The order of item categories when ranked from most to least influential is: classroom practices; schoolwide practices and policies; curriculum design and delivery; and federal, state, and district policies. However, while there is a high degree of agreement about which practices and policies affect student learning, there is less agreement about their assessability. Ranked from most to least assessable, the item categories are: federal, state, and district policies; curriculum design and delivery; classroom practices; and schoolwide practices and policies.
• Assessability of the practices and policies is a criterion that must be considered as schools, districts, and states develop and implement strategies to improve student and teacher performance. In cases where an influential practice or policy is judged as having a low rate of assessability, resources need to be allocated to develop valid and reliable assessment tools. Assessment development combined with programs that are designed at the local level ensures that site-specific reform efforts can be tailored to the needs of particular communities.
• A framework emerged from survey data that can be used to gu ide reform efforts, including: the development of site-specific programs; monitoring of program implementation; evaluation of program outcomes; and teacher education and professional development. Item influence and assessability ratings can be used by practitioners to inform local program development and to identify the need for assessment development. In each case, the features of the local education context determine which survey items are most useful to a given reform effort. Local practitioners mu st judge which of the practices and policies are most viable given the economic, political, philosophical, and cultural climate of their communities.
• Multidimensional educational reform involves many components of change, including goal alignment, new curricula, instructional strategies, assessments, methods of school governance, and professional development. Such reform efforts must be tailored by local education agencies to meet the needs of their students, faculties, and communities. In order for schools, districts, and states to implement complex reform, they must have access to new knowledge about effective practice and policy. Further, practitioners cannot upscale their local programs until there is information available on the established success of educational practices and policies; results from this survey and other research syntheses provide a rich source for such information.

This research brief draws heavily from a presentation given by the authors at the 1995 meeting of the American Educational Research Association.