[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-592895-105":59,"doc-detail-592895-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":123,"head_meta":125,"extra_data":127,"updated_unix":129},105,"en","the-relationship-between-school-administrator-and-teacher-ratings-of-classroom-practices-and-student-achievement-in-high-poverty-schools-assessment-for-effective-intervention","The Relationship Between School Administrator and Teacher Ratings of Classroom Practices and Student Achievement in High-Poverty Schools - Assessment for Effective Intervention","","This study examines how school administrators’ and teachers’ self-ratings of instructional and behavioral management practices relate to student growth on statewide tests using PARCC. Data include 78 teachers and 1,594 fourth- through eighth-grade students from nine high-poverty charter schools. Classroom Strategies Assessment System discrepancy scores were compared with PARCC growth, showing negative associations for both informants and links to PARCC mathematics but not ELA. Hierarchical regression indicates teachers’ CSAS total discrepancy scores explain additional mathematics variance.",{"@graph":69,"@context":122},[70,84,105],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":40,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/the-relationship-between-school-administrator-and-teacher-ratings-of-classroom-practices-and-student-achievement-in-high-poverty-schools-assessment-for-effective-intervention/592895/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/the-relationship-between-school-administrator-and-teacher-ratings-of-classroom-practices-and-student-achievement-in-high-poverty-schools-assessment-for-effective-intervention/592895.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"Marglet","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-11-03","2026-10-15",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":39},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",{"@type":106,"mainEntity":107},"FAQPage",[108,114,118],{"name":109,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":111},"What is the main focus of the study?","Question",{"text":112,"@type":113},"The study analyzes the relationship between school administrator and teacher self-ratings of classroom practices and students’ achievement growth on PARCC tests.","Answer",{"name":115,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":116},"What data sources and participants were used?",{"text":117,"@type":113},"The study includes 78 teachers and 1,594 students from fourth through eighth grades across nine high-poverty charter schools, using observation scores and teacher self-ratings on CSAS.",{"name":119,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":120},"What did the correlation and regression results show?",{"text":121,"@type":113},"Both informants’ CSAS discrepancy scores were negatively related to PARCC growth, and administrator and teacher CSAS total discrepancy scores related to PARCC mathematics but not ELA; teachers’ CSAS total explained additional mathematics variance.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":124,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":126,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":128,"site_id":62},592895,1792171832,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":131},{"doc_id":128,"user_id":132,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":39,"category_name":40,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":39,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":139,"language":140,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":141,"faqs":142,"seo_title":143,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":144,"read_time":41,"preview_page_count":4},2336477982702,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_9964176cb1d06d4a9deccf72a44ae3dc","The Relationship Between School Administrator and Teacher Ratings of Classroom Practices and Student Achievement in High-Poverty Schools  \nAssessment for Effective Intervention 2021, Vol. 46(2) 87–98  \n© Hammill Institute on Disabilities 2019 Article reuse guidelines: [sagepub.com/journals-permissions](sagepub.com/journals-permissions)[ ](sagepub.com/journals-permissions)[DOI: 10.1177/1534508419862863](DOI: 10.1177/1534508419862863)[ ](DOI: 10.1177/1534508419862863)[aei.sagepub.com](aei.sagepub.com)  \nLinda A. Reddy, PhD 1, Anh N. Hua, PhD 1, Christopher M. Dudek, MEd 1, Ryan Kettler, PhD 1, Ilona Arnold-Berkovits, PhD 1, Adam Lekwa, PhD 1, Kevin Crouse, MA 1, Alexander Kurz, PhD 1, and Jiefang Hu, PhD 1  \nAbstract  \nThis study examined the relationship of school administrator and teacher self-ratings of instructional and behavioral management practices to student growth on statewide achievement tests (Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Career [PARCC]) . The study included 78 teachers and 1,594 students from fourth through eighth grades in nine high-poverty charter schools. Observation scores completed by school administrator and teacher self-ratings were collected on the Classroom Strategies Assessment System (CSAS), an observational assessment that reports outcomes as discrepancy scores: differences between recommended frequency and observed frequency of specific instructional and behavior management strategies for teachers. Correlations revealed negative relations between both informants’ discrepancy scores and PARCC growth scores, demonstrating that teachers with lower discrepancy scores tended to have students with greater PARCC growth scores. Hierarchical multiple regression analyses revealed school administrator and teacher CSAS total discrepancy scores were related to student performance on PARCC mathematics, but not English Language Arts (ELA), and teachers’ CSAS Total discrepancy scores explained an additional 4.8% of variance in PARCC mathematics. Implications of findings for professional development and research are offered.  \nKeywords  \nprogress monitoring, achievement assessment, instruction  \nEducators’ ability to provide instruction and manage the classroom environment is one of the most influential factors for improving student achievement. How we support teachers’ acquisition and use of research-based classroom practices is essential for enhancing the quality of instruction, student learning, and school improvement (Reddy, Dudek, & Shernoff, 2016) . This is particularly important for teachers who serve students in high-poverty schools, as teacher attrition, burnout, and gaps in student achievement remain high in comparison with other school contexts (e.g., Borman & Dowling, 2008; Boyd et al., 2012) . High-poverty schools typically have more difficulties recruiting and retaining high-quality teachers (DarlingHammond & McLaughlin, 1995, 2003) . As a result, students in these settings are more likely to be exposed to less effective instructional practices and experience more negative interactions with students (e.g., Krei, 1998; Langford, Loeb, & Wyckoff, 2002; Nye, Konstantopoulos, & Hedges, 2004) . Thus, it is not surprising that students who  \nlive in high poverty are at significant risk of academic, behavior, and social failure (Belfiore, Auld, & Lee, 2005; Espinosa, 2005; Stormont, 2007) .  \nTeachers working in high-poverty schools can benefit from valid assessment-based feedback on their use of effective instructional and behavioral management practices as well as their relations to student achievement (Reddy, Dudek, & Lekwa, 2017). Indeed, reliable assessment scores that permit valid inferences about effective classroom practices are an important first step in addressing the needs of teachers and their students, especially those working with the most vulnerable student populations.  \n1 Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ, USA  \nCorresponding Author:  \nLinda A. Reddy, Graduate School of","cbCaid1NJYqlxgjA","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaid1NJYqlxgjA","pdf",453486,12,"English","# Abstract\n## Classroom Strategies Assessment System (CSAS)\n## Classroom practices and student achievement results\n## Implications for professional development and research","[{\"question\":\"What is the main focus of the study?\",\"answer\":\"The study analyzes the relationship between school administrator and teacher self-ratings of classroom practices and students’ achievement growth on PARCC tests.\"},{\"question\":\"What data sources and participants were used?\",\"answer\":\"The study includes 78 teachers and 1,594 students from fourth through eighth grades across nine high-poverty charter schools, using observation scores and teacher self-ratings on CSAS.\"},{\"question\":\"What did the correlation and regression results show?\",\"answer\":\"Both informants’ CSAS discrepancy scores were negatively related to PARCC growth, and administrator and teacher CSAS total discrepancy scores related to PARCC mathematics but not ELA; teachers’ CSAS total explained additional mathematics variance.\"}]","The Relationship Between School Administrator and Teacher Ratings of Classroom Practices and Student Achievement in High-Poverty Schools - Assessment for Effective Intervention | PDF",1792076142]