Top Down or Bottom Up in School Improvement

By: Bill Jackson

I've been making my way through a new book edited by John Simmons, an advisor to superintendents of large urban school districts. Breaking Through: Transforming Urban School Districts focuses on the Chicago experience over the past twenty five years, but includes insights from more than a dozen districts.

Simmons breaks down Chicago's elementary schools into two groups based on the progress they made in raising student achievement during the past 15 years. As a group, the 181 "high-gain schools" raised the percentage of their students scoring at or above average on a national reading test from 20 to 49 percent, a gain of 29 percentile points. In contrast, the 179 "low-gain schools" managed only a gain of 11 percentile points--from 19 to 30 percent .

What's the difference between these two groups, according to Simmons? The high-gain schools developed the capacity to improve themselves. The high gain schools selected and supported principals who recruited a strong teacher corps, involved parents, and improved instruction. Among his findings:

* The principals in the high-gain schools removed 50% or more of their teachers

* High-gain schools had Local School Councils (mandated in all Chicago Public Schools) that   effectively assessed and directed principals and budgets

* Training and professional development in high gain schools raised the quality of performance for teachers and principals.

(Interestingly, many of the new teachers at the high-gain schools had previously been the better teachers at the schools that would become low-gain schools. To some extent, it was a zero sum game.)

The Simmons thesis is basically this: American public schools need to learn from the experience of American business. Top-down command and control doesn't work. If you want a high-performing system, you've got to build the capacity of the people working at the front lines. Whether you're talking about a factory or a school, this means that small teams must have the authority, responsibility and skills they need to recognize and solve problems and to make their operation run better.

Former San Diego Superintendent (and current California State Secretary of Education) has some of the most interesting things to say in the opening chapters of this 250 page volume.

"The notion of what standards-based reform is, the place that it has in replacing the bell curve in American public education, is something that has not been gotten across, either to the opinion elite, or to the parents or voters, and so the entire effort suffers from lack of support.

"The communication link we need most is at the school site with information and points of view circulating back and forth among site leaders, parents, students, teachers and the local community on a whole variety of matters. This takes enormous effort, critical insight and local leadership to build effectively."

This strikes me as absolutely correct. Most of us haven't really gotten it into our heads that it is NOT OK that most students, especially the children of the disadvantaged, leave school without many of the skills they'll need to enjoy a full range of personal, civic and economic opportunities in our society.

The valuable perspective in this volume is that there are no top-down shortcuts in the path from here to there. If we really want to transform the nation's education system to the point where the large majority of kids are leaving school with a wide range of options, then we have enormous work to do to develop leaders at all levels--parent, teachers, principals, and district--who know how to build teams and improve instruction.

Skandera's Outside Consultants: A case for change

One has to wonder why the educational establishment, unions, large urban districts and superintendents would be concerned about Secretary of Education Hanna Skandera bringing in consultants from across the country to assist New Mexico in climbing out of the hole that has been dug for our kids?

Two complaints continue to emerge.  First, it has been asked, “is there nobody from New Mexico qualified to serve as an advisor to the new Secretary?”  Secondly, concerns over spending state money on “no bid” contracts have been questioned.  Let us evaluate each of these concerns individually.

“Is there nobody from New Mexico qualified to serve as an advisor to the new Secretary?”  Logically speaking, if there were anyone in New Mexico qualified to do this work it would have already been done.  Educators in New Mexico have a fiduciary responsibility to act in the student’s best interest and look out for their well being.  Failure to do so can lead to one’s loss of teaching credentials or even criminal prosecution in some cases.  Therefore, the answer to the question must be “no”.  To answer in any other way would be an admission that one did not perform the duties and obligations required by their license. 

One of the largest beneficiaries of outside help over the past few years has been the Albuquerque Public School district.  However, APS Superintendent Winston Brooks is quoted as saying in an Albuquerque Journal article on Monday, February 14, 2011 that, “I think it sends a bad message when you’re only an expert if you’re from outside the state”.  However, he failed to remind the board that he was hired from out of state.  Superintendent Brooks just recently received his second contract extension.  He is an example of the talent available outside of our state.  Regardless of his politics, statements to the Board, or his interpersonal communication style (bullying those who disagree), nobody would argue that he has become a stabilizing force within the APS district.  He has provided direction and stability to a perennial problem.  Unfortunately, APS and Superintendent Brooks have been some of the loudest critics of Hanna Skandera’s efforts to bring new ideas to the problems facing New Mexico’s schools.

The late, great college basketball coach John Wooden said, “it is amazing what can be accomplished when nobody cares who gets the credit”.  This is the attitude New Mexican’s must insist upon if we truly have our kids’ best interest at heart.  It is not about “who” has the ideas that improve education.  It is about learning those ideas and then working together to implement the ideas to improve education. 

“Concerns over spending state money on “no bid” contracts” have been thrown out by the American Federation of Teachers and others in recent days.  In short, this is a red herring for two reasons.  First, the State Procurement Code which governs governmental purchases specifically states that contracts for professional services are required to go to bid when they exceed $50,000.00.  The individual contracts issued in this instance do not meet this requirement.

Secondly, the contracts actually save the taxpayers money.  By way of example, the entire amount spent on the contracts in question amounts to approximately $152,000.  The AFT recommends a “quick hire” to fill the position instead - thus creating another permanent, full time position at the Department of Education.  In fact, the AFT recommends eight people be hired!  The cost for a full-time employee at the PED is the salary cost plus approximately 40% for benefits (health, dental, vision, life, educational retirement, FICA, etc.).  Therefore, a $70,000.00 employee actually costs taxpayers $98,000.00 per year.  For the same money spent, Secretary Skandera could have only hired 1.5 full time employees.  And, these people would have continued on the state payroll for life (if they qualified for retirement at some point in the future).  The overall cost to the state would have been extreme, and the ideas and talent New Mexican’s have access to would have been cut by 75%.  It is exactly this type of thinking that has put New Mexico in the educational predicament it currently finds itself.  It is also this type of “union math” that is a major contributor to the state’s current economic condition.

People are quick to point out when something is done poorly.  They are even quicker to point out when they disagree with an idea or concept.  Rarely, if ever, do leaders hear when they do things correctly.  They move through life often questioning their decisions.  The Southwest Learning Center wants to let Secretary Skandera’s office know that we support her decision and appreciate her standing up for what is right – both by New Mexico’s kids and by New Mexico taxpayers! 

Secretary Skandera is Right to Bring in Outside Help

We are acutely aware of the harsh criticism of our new Secretary of Education, Hanna Skandera.  The New Mexico Coalition of School Administrators and the New Mexico chapter of the American Federation of Teachers are upset over a decision by Public Education Secretary, Hanna Skandera to hire out-of-state consultants.  Once again, the educational establishment appears to have embraced the status quo as “good enough” even in the light of  Education Week magazine's annual report that revealed the drop in New Mexico's national ranking from 24th last year to 32^nd this year.  Furthermore, in the most important categories (student learning and chance of success) New Mexico received an F for achievement in kindergarten through the 12th grade, and D+ in "chance for success," a category looking at factors such as graduation rates and parental education. 

Presumably, if the “local experts” had the skill set and knowledge to “fix” the problems that continue to plague New Mexico’s schools, they would have done so already.  Clearly, New Mexico public education could benefit from an outside group examining current practice and policy.   As educators we must acknowledge the weaknesses in our systems and adjust and embrace new ideas in order to increase the number of students in New Mexico who have yet to experience success. 

New Mexicans need innovations in education that challenge the status quo.  How can any organization insulate itself from an opportunity to learn from a network of individuals with specific areas of expertise?  The growing complexity and interconnectedness of a global society has challenged the effectiveness of our traditional education systems and sadly too many of our children are not prepared for the future.  In order to look forward we need to be willing to examine every facet of what we do, what we think and how we can modify and change.  To thrive in the 21st century, however, we need to go beyond that — and teach people how to learn, engage, and create. As Albert Einstein said, “We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.” The new model is about the constant creation of knowledge and empowering individuals to participate, communicate, and innovate. The new consultants engaged by Secretary Skandera bring their experience and expertise to a public system that is need of fresh ideas.  As lifelong learners, our schools welcome a visit or any advice they will bring.

It will be a challenge for the small group of eight to shake up the bureaucratic inertia in our school systems that has given permission to educational leaders to happily stay in the same place - at the expense of our kids. The new Governor and Secretary deserve our help and support for the herculean effort that will be needed to reverse the mediocrity foisted upon our kids by the educational establishment that will stop at nothing to keep education on its’ current course.  Failing schools equal failing citizens; failing citizens equal fiscal crisis; and choice equals a chance.  And a chance is certainly worth more than the year-to-year decline in our national rankings.

In coming submissions, we will highlight the innovations begun at the Southwest Learning Center and trace the success the students have experienced.  We invite your feedback, ideas, and suggestions.  For without communication and dialogue, nothing will change.  And that will only serve to continue the disservice to our kids and our great State.

Three Approaches to School Improvement: Will Any Work?

This is the second in a series of articles focusing on nationwide school reform ideas.  Please reply with your thoughts and ideas on the articles and recommendations for improving education at the Southwest Learning Center.

By Rick DuFour

It seems to me that there are three competing approaches to school improvement in the United States today that are based on very different assumptions.

1. We’re okay; they are not okay.

     This approach operates from the assumption that educators are doing a superlative job and need not consider making any substantive changes either to their professional practice or the structure and culture of their schools. The problems lie elsewhere. Society must solve the cycle of poverty. State governments need to pass more enlightened educational policies and provide more funding. Parents need to become more involved in the education of their children. Students need to become more responsible.

     The logic behind this approach is that the traditional practices of schooling continue to suffice despite the fact that the purposes of schooling have changed dramatically. Schools in the United States were not created to ensure all students learn: they were specifically created to give students the opportunity to attend school where they are sorted and selected according to their perceived aptitude, ability, work ethic, and likely occupation. The fact that the majority of students dropped out of the K–12 system throughout most of the 20th century was not a concern because there were ample opportunities for employment at a decent wage in agriculture and manufacturing. Clearly this situation no longer exists. Yet, despite the fact that we have dropped from 1st in the world in high school graduation rates to 21st out of 27 advanced economies and from 1st to 14th in college graduation rates, some educators continue to insist that there is no need for them to change. This is a perfectly logical approach to school improvement only if one assumes that educators bear absolutely no responsibility for the current conditions of schooling and no obligation to improve those conditions.

2. Sticks and carrots

     The assumption driving this approach is that educators have known how to help students learn at higher levels, but have lacked the motivation to put forth the effort necessary to attain these higher levels of achievement. If this assumption is correct, the solution to the problems of education can be solved by creating sufficient penalties and incentives to elicit the required effort. Thus, No Child Left Behind offered vouchers and charter schools to apply more competitive pressure to public schools. The law also established 37 different ways for schools to fail and threatened increasingly punitive sanctions, including closing schools and revoking the jobs of teachers and principals in those schools. Although those threats have failed to raise student achievement, they continue but are now coupled with financial incentives. Race to the Top (or as I prefer, “Dash for the Cash”) funds are now available for schools and districts that create improvement plans that align with federal guidelines. Merit pay incentives are to be offered to individual teachers to spur them to greater effort. These are perfectly logical strategies if it is true that educators have always had the ability to improve their schools but have been too lethargic to do so.

3. School improvement means people improvement.

     The assumption behind this approach is that educators have lacked the collective capacity to promote learning for all students in the existing structures and cultures of the systems in which they work. This strategy recognizes that the quality of a school cannot exceed the quality of its personnel, and so it deliberately sets out to create the conditions that ensure the adults in the building are part of a job-embedded continuous improvement process that results in their ongoing learning. Educators are asked to work collaboratively so they can learn from one another and support one another. They are asked to check for student learning on a ongoing basis, use the evidence of that learning to inform and improve their professional practice, and create a plan of intervention that guarantees students who struggle will be provided additional time and support for learning in a way that is timely, directive, and systematic. Above all, they are asked to work interdependently and to take collective responsibility for the learning of each student.

      The first approach contends educators have no responsibility for either the current state of public education or the effort to improve it. The second approach views educators as the cause of the problems of educators and sets out to coerce and cajole them into better performance. The third approach assumes that educators are working hard and doing the best they can in the flawed systems in which they work; however, if that system is to be improved, educators themselves will play the major role in doing so.

      Which assumptions and approaches seem most likely to improve schools? Which are driving the improvement efforts in your school?