Developing a coherent, standards-aligned instructional system is challenging even in the best of times; it may be especially difficult to achieve as the COVID-19 pandemic continues. The authors focus on teachers' perceptions of the guidance received on English language arts instruction and instructional system coherence in the first full year of COVID-19 (2020–2021) and how teachers' perceptions compared with the 2019–2020 school year.

English Language Arts Instructional Systems in the First Full Year of COVID-19

Elaine Lin Wang, Daniel Silver, Morgan Polikoff, Ashley Woo, Julia H. Kaufman, Allyson D. Gittens, Isabel Clay

ResearchPublished Jan 31, 2022

Since March 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic has placed unprecedented stresses on the public education system in the United States. Many of these challenges have been operational in nature. Existing research on COVID-19 and teaching has largely focused on teachers' practices and experiences. What has not been examined in the same depth is the guidance that teachers received about instruction during the pandemic and the ways guidance changed from before the pandemic. This work is important, especially as the pandemic continues to affect the provision of in-person learning in the 2021–2022 school year. It is also important to understand how state and district efforts to improve instruction have fared during this unprecedented educational disruption.

Developing a coherent, standards-aligned instructional system is challenging for education leaders and teachers in the best of times, and it may be especially difficult to achieve as the pandemic continues to affect public schooling. This report examines issues of instructional system coherence during the 2020–2021 school year, and how teachers' perceptions compared with the 2019–2020 school year. The authors investigate teachers' perceptions of the (1) guidance they received about English language arts (ELA) instruction, (2) guidance around addressing the needs of traditionally underserved students, (3) coherence of their school's ELA instructional system, and (4) presence of contextual conditions identified through literature as supporting coherence. The authors also explore variation in these findings across grade spans, instructional modes (in-person, remote, hybrid), and focal states (Louisiana, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Tennessee).

Key Findings

  • During the 2020–2021 school year, K–12 public school teachers across the country reported receiving more guidance on what ELA content to emphasize than how to address diversity and equity in ELA.
  • The instructional system components from which teachers reported receiving guidance narrowed during the pandemic. In general, guidance was provided through curriculum—not from teacher evaluation criteria or summative assessments.
  • Small proportions of teachers reported that the guidance from instructional system components provided "a lot of support" to help them address the needs of traditionally underserved students.
  • Most teachers indicated that instructional system components provided similar, but not reinforcing, messages. Moreover, most teachers reported that overall instructional system coherence had decreased from the previous school year.
  • High school teachers and those providing remote or simultaneous hybrid instruction reported less guidance on multiple aspects of their systems and less coherence.
  • Reported instructional system coherence correlates positively with hypothesized conditions that support development of coherence.

Recommendations

  • It will be a continuing challenge for our education systems and structures to support local educators to emerge from the pandemic stronger and better prepared to support students.
  • State departments of education can use this opportunity, and the substantial funds that have been allocated under recent federal spending bills, to draw on the lessons of the past several decades of standards implementation efforts to better support standards-aligned policy systems moving forward.
  • States should consider focusing on curriculum and professional learning as supports.
  • Results suggest that teachers providing remote instruction experienced more guidance on considerations of equity, inclusion, and diversity than did teachers of other modes, perhaps because differential access to technology and educational resources was particularly acute for these teachers.

Topics

Document Details

Citation

RAND Style Manual
Wang, Elaine Lin, Daniel Silver, Morgan Polikoff, Ashley Woo, Julia H. Kaufman, Allyson D. Gittens, and Isabel Clay, English Language Arts Instructional Systems in the First Full Year of COVID-19, RAND Corporation, RR-A279-2, 2022. As of September 12, 2024: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA279-2.html
Chicago Manual of Style
Wang, Elaine Lin, Daniel Silver, Morgan Polikoff, Ashley Woo, Julia H. Kaufman, Allyson D. Gittens, and Isabel Clay, English Language Arts Instructional Systems in the First Full Year of COVID-19. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2022. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA279-2.html.
BibTeX RIS

Research conducted by

The research described in this report was conducted by RAND Education and Labor and supported by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. For this document, different permissions for re-use apply. Please refer to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation section on our permissions page.

This publication is part of the RAND research report series. Research reports present research findings and objective analysis that address the challenges facing the public and private sectors. All RAND research reports undergo rigorous peer review to ensure high standards for research quality and objectivity.

This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited; linking directly to this product page is encouraged. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial purposes. For information on reprint and reuse permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.

RAND is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.