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?

School Improvement: A counter-narrative

This is the first in a series of blogs looking at ideas for school improvement. We invite readers to compare the ideas presented with the practices utilized at the Southwest Learning Center.

By: Derek Wenmoth

I spent last week on the West Coast with my two youngest children, introducing them to the joys of the outdoors and a bit of tramping in a part of the world that I once lived and taught. On the way in to Karamea we stopped off at the last school at which I was principal – Granity School, located right on the beach front about 30km north of Westport.

When I took on the principal role at this school it was in serious need of attention. Due to a combination of unfortunate circumstances that included a significant change in the social infrastructure of the district and having had four principals in the year before I took over, the school was in poor shape. In addition to the evidence of student under-achievement, the buildings were also in a grave state of disrepair. It was quite a challenge, but together with the staff I had in the school and the support of the community, we did manage to make a significant difference for the youngsters attending that school. We did this through a range of strategies, including raising the level of community participation, strengthening channels of communication with parents, investing in property development to create a more inspiring learning environment, and by committing to a school-wide process of professional development to address specific areas of need.

My reason for reflecting on this is that I read this morning about new book based on 15 years of data on public elementary schools in Chicago. While many of the current approaches to school improvement focus on things like ‘quality outcomes’, ‘standards’ and ‘effectiveness’, the researchers in this report identify five tried-and-true ingredients that work, in combination with one another, to spur success in urban schools. Based on a series of studies drawn from the database that the consortium has built up over the years, the five ingredients they identified are:

• Strong leadership, in the sense that principals are “strategic, focused on instruction, and inclusive of others in their work”;
• A welcoming attitude toward parents, and formation of connections with the community;
• Development of professional capacity, which refers to the quality of the teaching staff, teachers’ belief that schools can change, and participation in good professional development and collaborative work;
• A learning climate that is safe, welcoming, stimulating, and nurturing to all students; and
• Strong instructional guidance and materials.

It’s worth reading the review of the book, as it identifies the context within which these schools were studied as having similarities with what we’ve experienced in NZ over the past 20 years where move decision-making power was moved to schools. The key point the authors appear to be making is that success comes through attending to the combination of factors listed above – and that the inter-connectedness of these things at a system level means that improvement cannot be achieved through a single issue focus.

For me it’s a very useful list, and one that we’d do well to read and reflect on, and seek to incorporate its messages into policy development for the next 20 years of schooling in NZ! Perhaps in that way we can take a more holistic look at what our schools are about, working from the bottom up where appropriate, intervening with some ‘top-down’ support where required, and promoting greater, purposeful and strategically organized, collaboration among and between schools.

Report examines promises, pitfalls of charter school autonomy

By the Center for Reinventing Education:

Seattle, WA, February 10, 2011 - A new report finds that charter schools use the freedoms they have from traditional school district mandates to define and operate schools in innovative new ways. However, expectations about what a school “should look like,” the stress of tight and unstable budgets, and overwhelming administrative demands are powerful forces pulling charter schools back to traditional practice.

This report offers great reason for optimism that charter schools are well positioned to answer President Obama’s call for public schools to innovate. But it also cautions that traditional regulatory structures and weaknesses in capacity must be addressed if they are to fully meet the challenge of innovation.

Based on a four-year study of the teachers, leaders, and academic programs in charter schools in six states, Inside Charter Schools: Unlocking Doors to Student Success observes that “autonomy only creates the opportunity for high-quality schools, it by no means guarantees it.”

Author Betheny Gross, a researcher at the Center on Reinventing Public Education (CRPE) at the University of Washington, argues that autonomy makes it possible for charter schools to: 

• Organize themselves around mission, not a collection of individual teacher or parent preferences.
• Develop programs that serve diverse student interests and needs (e.g., those of immigrant children, returning dropout students, or ethnic minority students in impoverished neighborhoods).
• Increase disadvantaged students’ access to college prep programs.
• Give principals real power to lead, with more control over staffing, budgets, curriculum, and programs.
• Enter into new teacher compacts that emphasize professional development linked to the school’s mission and give teachers substantial influence in the classroom and the school.
• Turn on a dime. The combination of a focused mission, strong leaders, a committed team, and an informal structure allows charter schools to assess how they are doing and quickly change direction when they feel they are off course.

However, increased autonomy brings new challenges. The study found that school leaders take on sweeping responsibilities that many are ill prepared to handle. Too often, their governing boards receive minimal training and offer little help. And retaining a stable staff can be difficult in urban charter schools with high-needs students. Operating with informal structures, charter schools become highly dependent on maintaining trusting relationships between teachers and leaders.

The report also identifies missed opportunities. Many charter schools look quite similar to district-run schools in their design, curriculum, and classroom practice. Charter schools also mimic their traditional counterparts in administrative structure and planning, as well as compensation.

To help charter schools put their autonomy to best use, the report includes recommendations for policymakers. Specifically:

• Expand charter-specific training programs to help more school leaders and governing boards overcome inevitable challenges.
• Encourage the creation of more charter school support organizations that unburden leaders of administrative functions such as payroll, accounting, or facilities leasing.
• Make state charter school funding allocations more predictable in order to minimize the uncertainty that keeps schools from trying bold new approaches to compensation, budgeting, and staffing.
• Offer flexibility in teacher certification rules and ensure that charter schools can operate outside district collective bargaining agreements in order to explore new staffing models.
• Encourage all charter school staff agreements to include basic protections for teachers.

Inside Charter Schools: Unlocking Doors to Student Success is the final report in a series of studies produced by the Inside Charter Schools initiative, part of the National Charter School Research Project. The studies are available at www.crpe.org.  

What can we learn from standardized testing?

Albert Einstein once said, “Not everything that counts can be measured, and not everything that can be measured counts.” This statement is very true when it comes to measuring success in public education. There is almost no greater catalyst in debates over education than the role of standardized testing. In the United States, success on standardized testing is used to determine school achievement, is linked to high school graduation and college acceptance, and in some communities can even determine property value. Some lawmakers have proposed that teacher pay should be linked to test results as well.

Although standardized testing does have limitations, using standard tests as a tool to determine whether or not students are getting the basic building blocks of a good education makes sense. While some would argue that a generic test is no substitute for looking at the overall academic accomplishments of a student, standardized tests give educators and leaders a picture of whether students are learning fundamental skills they will need to succeed as future members of the workforce and society.

There are two main types of standardized tests. Norm-referenced tests compare students to one another. The most well-known norm-referenced test is the Scholastic Aptitude Test, or the SAT. Criterion-referenced tests measure how well students perform relative to set standards. Criterion-referenced tests are most commonly used across the United States to determine success in K-12 education. The standardized tests developed individually by states in accordance with the “No Child Left Behind Act” are examples of criterion-referenced testing.

Standardized testing has been relied on across the world for centuries. Standardized testing was first seen in ancient China where tests were given to anyone seeking employment in government. By World War I, the United States was using standardized tests to assign jobs to Army servicemen. Standardized tests don’t tell educators everything about the kind of education students are receiving, but they do give insight on how schools are doing with the basics.

Each year in New Mexico, students are given the New Mexico Standards Based Assessment (SBA). This assessment tests students on material that makes the basic framework of what they should learn in their grade-level. As announced yesterday, Southwest Secondary Learning Center seventh graders and Southwest Primary Learning Center 4th and 5th graders received recognition for their extremely high test scores and year-over-year gains on the SBA. Although the Southwest Learning Centers recognize that the SBA can’t measure a student’s attributes like creativity, sense of humor, social skills, emotional maturity, or positive attitude, we hold that the SBAs give valuable information on student progress in core subject areas.

The information gathered from the New Mexico SBA results for the 2009-2010 school year shows that the Southwest Learning Centers’ innovative methods are successful. The Southwest Learning Centers clearly provide a superior education to students without the achievement gap seen at most other schools. While the Standards Based Assessment does not measure everything that counts in education, the recent results show the Southwest Learning Centers to be a continued model for success.

Furthermore, when policymakers, community leaders, and parents use these results to make decisions regarding their child’s education – the tests are important. And, if this is the standard that we have chosen to measure schools by, then it is also the standard by which schools that achieve this standard should be celebrated! Congratulations to the students and teachers at the Southwest Learning Center – you have achieved what very few have, and you deserve all the accolades that accompany this accomplishment!

SLC Students Honored by the State of New Mexico

On Monday, the Math and Science Bureau at the New Mexico Public Education Department released their annual awards for the top achieving schools and teachers in New Mexico.  For the 5th consecutive year, the Southwest Learning Center captured many top honors.

In Southwest Secondary, last year's 7th grade students (current 8th graders) had the highest year-over-year gains in the state.  Congratulations to teacher Mike Weber and all of the SSLC 8th grade students for this accomplishment.

In Southwest Primary, last year's 5th graders (current 6th graders) had the highest percentage of students performing at "proficient" or "advanced" in mathematics in the state.  Congratulations to teacher Coreen Carrillo and all of the current 6th graders!

Also in Southwest Primary, last year's 4th graders (current 5th graders) had the highest percentage of students performing at "proficient" or "advanced" in both mathematics and science in the state.  Congratulations to teacher Debbie Doxtator and all of this year's 5th grade students.  We want to issue a special congratulations to teacher Debbie Doxtator.  2011 marks the 5th consecutive year that her students have earned the top spot in math and science for the state of New Mexico!

Congratulations to all of the students and all of the teachers!  The state legislature plans a one-hour ceremony  in honor of SLC students and teachers on Friday, March 11, 2011 at 12:00 noon in the State Capitol Building Rotunda.  Students and teachers will meet their legislators, the school's representatives and have an opportunity to talk about what makes SLC special.  Please plan to attend and support the students and SLC teachers as they are honored for their accomplishments!

More Money for Classrooms

This is the last in a four part series analyzing Governor Martinez's plan to reform New Mexico's educational system - from the perspective of practitioners. 

Governor Susana Martinez has this to say about sending more money to New Mexico classrooms: “We can no longer afford to fund programs that leave our kids unprepared for the rigors of college and the workforce. We must get a better return on our investment in education.” According to the budget officers group, the United States spent a grand total of $337.4 billion on education for fiscal year 2010. On average, one in three dollars in state government goes to fund primary and secondary education. For fiscal year 2010, New Mexico spent over $2 billion dollars on education.  With all of the tax dollars that go toward education in New Mexico, taxpayers have every right to demand better returns for their investment.

Currently, New Mexico ranks at the bottom of the list as far as educational achievement. Governor Martinez says, “New Mexico is 49^th in the nation in education because there is more of a focus on throwing money into the system instead of simply improving student education.” Currently, only 61 cents of every education dollar spent in New Mexico makes it to the classroom. Nearly a third of education spending goes to what Governor Martinez refers to as “the bureaucracy”: people who are not in the classroom teaching every day. As part of her “Kids First, New Mexico Wins” reform plan, Governor Martinez wants to put less of the education budget into the bureaucracy and put more money toward students and meeting their needs.

Governor Martinez has asked school districts in New Mexico to cut 1.5 percent of unnecessary administrative costs, increasing the percentage of funding available for classroom spending. While some districts have argued that there is no wasteful spending and nowhere to cut in administration, Governor Martinez pointed this out: “APS principals are making three to four times more money than teachers and its schools are still failing.” She added that bloated administration and bureaucracy could be found at every one of its schools.

At Southwest Learning Centers, ensuring funds get to the classroom is a top priority. According to the schools’ business manager, nearly 80 cents of every dollar goes straight to the classroom. The focus at Southwest Learning Center is providing students with a solid education and other opportunities that will help them succeed in the future.  By pushing such a high percentage of funds directly toward student education, Southwest Learning Center is able to provide innovative programs such as the student flight program. Because students and learning are the priorities at Southwest, students are much more successful than in nearly any other public school in New Mexico.

New Mexico’s students deserve more from the public education system than wasteful bureaucracies and imprudent spending. Taxpayers need spending priorities to be put in place to guarantee a better return on education investments. Governor Martinez’s plan will ensure positive results in education by securing access to quality schools and teachers for every New Mexico student.

Merit Pay: A great idea but an implementation dilema

This is the third of four blogs evaluating Governor Martinez's educational reform plan from a practicioner's point of view.

The third component in Governor Martinez’s educational reform plan “Kids First, New Mexico Wins,” calls for rewarding teachers based on their performance.  This yet to be specified component of the Governor’s plan, like other merit pay proposals, will be extremely difficult for educators, politicians and stakeholders to reach a consensus on.  Close examination of the merit pay debate often leaves more questions than answers.  Implementation of Governor Martinez’s plan must be examined holistically and implementation will be difficult without a firm moral and monetary commitment from all New Mexico citizens.

The desire to monetarily reward top flight educators and schools and to motivate those deemed to be performing subpar has proven to be difficult to implement.  Aside from the commitment of more public revenue in these difficult economic times, a complex problem lies in determining which teachers and institutions are really best serving their constituents.  Some would contend that paying exemplary teachers more really amounts to paying more for student outcomes, which in practice means paying for standardized-test-score gains.  This standard of success will often reward communities with a desirable zip code and higher social economic level.  Solely basing teachers’ pay on standardized test scores minimizes the teaching craft and is ineffectual in any short term evaluation.  Other problems are inherent with this narrow scope evaluation: how do we reward teachers of grade levels where standardized tests are not given; what about educators of elective classes, music, drama and physical education.  With these considerations it becomes clear that evaluations of teachers and schools must be multifaceted and based on an extended period of time instead of a single year’s standardized test score.  Educators and institutions should be graded and rewarded on their body of work for multi-year gains in student learning.

The devil is in details as with all controversial paradigm shifts.  New Mexico educators will be the first to admit that student success is paramount and will join all stakeholders in a commitment to continue to improve our schools.  No one enters the teaching profession with the illusion of getting rich and not being held accountable for their efforts in the classroom.  Educators will support a compensation system that fairly rewards their efforts and does not punish them for factors impeding student success beyond their control.  Educators are not opposed to competition and understand the temptation of non-educators to compare schools to businesses.  Educators could in fact benefit from embracing the reality that our constituents really are our customers.  The stakes in this business venture require examination beyond the bottom line.  A commitment from all concerned will require a carefully crafted system that will reward education excellence and level the playing field for educational entrepreneurs.  Finally, it is imperative that we invite the best and brightest to enter the field and not force them from the profession before they master their craft. 

The Southwest Learning Centers’ highly dedicated and professional staff support Governor Martinez’s commitment to reward education excellence and embrace the opportunity to provide an innovative approach to education that empowers students and allows them to become self-motivated, resourceful, life-long learners as well as highly productive members of the workforce.