|
Subgroup Performance and School Reform: The Importance of a Comprehensive Approach
Ask educators to explain where they are directing their school
improvement efforts these days and chances are they will answer, “at
subgroups – especially special education students and English language
learners.” It’s not difficult to understand why. Many schools and
districts cite the performance of students in these subgroups as the
reason they did not make adequate yearly progress (AYP) as required by
federal law.
Identifying subgroup performance is one of the most significant
accountability components of The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001
(NCLB). The law requires that state assessment scores of English
language learners and Special Education students, among others, be
disaggregated and publicly reported. Meeting this requirement has
exposed achievement gaps that are sometimes disguised when state scores
are reported in the aggregate, and highlighted student needs that have
not been met.
A narrow approach is not the answer
Unfortunately, some schools respond to these needs by equating “school
improvement” with “improving subgroup performance” and decide to focus
their improvement strategies solely on improving the test scores of
students in these special populations. This approach is problematic for
two reasons. First, it ignores the fact that student performance is an
outcome, not a cause, of school success or failure. Poor student
performance is symptomatic of school issues that need to be addressed,
just as high student achievement reflects a school’s health and
vitality.
Second, this decision does not acknowledge that schools are systems,
made up of many interrelated and interdependent parts. Although
strength in each part is important, even essential, no one part causes
a school to succeed, or fail. So even if it were possible to “fix” the
English language learner or Special Education “problem” (that is, raise
assessment scores in these areas), that approach would have only
limited, and likely short-term effectiveness in helping schools sustain
success.
This month’s newsletter highlights recent research that suggests a
different approach. It looks at three studies in which schools that
succeed – and all of them serve high percentages of at risk students –
take a more comprehensive approach to improvement.
Evidence that a comprehensive approach works
Gaining Traction, Gaining Ground: How Some High Schools Accelerate
Learning for Struggling Students published by The Education Trust.
(2005) identifies the common characteristics of “high impact” high
schools and highlights some that have met the goal of educating all of
their students at high levels. High impact schools are defined as those
that “produced unusually large growth among students who entered
significantly behind” (p. 4). These schools all serve students who are
primarily poor and non-white.
Each of the schools identified in this report approached reform
comprehensively, rather than taking a one-issue-at-a-time approach.
They chose to address multiple factors, such as school culture,
academic rigor, academic support, teacher preparedness and
time-on-learning. The results show that a higher percentage of students
in these schools achieved proficiency than the percentage of students
in comparison schools. Students in some of the schools, like Farmville
Central and Jack Britt High Schools in North Carolina, far outperformed
the state averages on standardized tests. Of particular note is the
fact that the accomplishments of these “high impact” schools came
without “pushing out” any groups of students by allowing them to drop
out or otherwise leave the school community. Each school in the study
had a graduation rate at or above their state’s average. These “high
impact” schools did not focus exclusively on special populations, but
neither did they succeed at the expense of a particular subgroup. All
groups were taught, all groups were tested, and all groups made AYP.
In another study, California researchers posed the question “why do
some schools serving largely low income students score as much as 250
points higher on the state’s academic performance index than other
schools with very similar students?” The answers reflected a
comprehensive approach to improvement that is summarized in a report
entitled Similar Students, Different Results: Why Do Some Schools Do
Better? (Williams et al., 2005). After surveying more than 250 schools
where the median school population was 40% English language learners,
researchers cite the “interrelated practices” that distinguish these
successful schools from similar, low performing schools. These
practices include prioritizing student achievement for all students;
implementing a coherent curriculum and instructional program; using
assessment data to improve student achievement and instruction;
ensuring availability of instructional resources; and principal
leadership. Focusing on student subgroups was not identified as a
successful strategy. The researchers conclude that “what schools do –
and what resources they have to do it with – can make a difference” (p.
2).
These findings echo those from earlier study entitled Inside the Black
Box of High-Performing High-Poverty Schools (Knappel and Clements,
2005). Researchers investigated how the practices of high-performing,
high-poverty schools differed from those of low-performing,
high-poverty schools. They identified seven common approaches, all of
which reflect a comprehensive approach to improvement. These include
high expectations for all students, an emphasis on academics and
instruction for all students, and systems for regularly assessing all
students. In addition, these schools focused on collaborative decision
making, developing and maintaining a strong work ethic and high morale,
and the purposeful recruitment, hiring, and assignment of teachers.
“The study schools did not talk about the kinds of kids they had. They
saw the problem . . . as how to help each student in the school,” says
researcher/author Patricia Kannapel.
What can be learned from successful schools
Schools that hope to improve by focusing on – or blaming – the
performance of students in certain subgroups for their failure to meet
achievement targets should think again. Schools are complex
organizations with many components, a fact that is clearly illustrated
in the schools cited above. Each of the components is relevant,
important, and contributes significantly to a school’s success. If any
one of them falters – poor quality professional development, inadequate
leadership, lack of alignment between the written and taught
curriculum, an insufficient number of highly qualified teachers – that
faltering will contribute to the school’s failure, but not be the sole
cause of that failure. Even a school reform novice would not suggest
that focusing only on professional development or teacher quality or
leadership will “fix” a school that is identified for improvement.
So why is it that some schools continue to say, “Everything would be
fine if we could just improve out Special Education scores” ? Why don’t
they say “our only problem is professional development” or “We didn’t
make AYP because we don’t have a strong principal”?
Low student achievement scores, whether in the aggregate or in
particular subgroups, are results, not causes. They can precipitate
successful school reform efforts or start the blame game. It’s up to
the adults. The schools highlighted in this newsletter have much to
offer those who are facing school improvement sanctions. They are
unwilling – indeed even uninterested – in making excuses. Instead,
their energy is directed toward creating schools that are tightly knit,
focused, resilient, and single-mindedly focused on the success of all
students.
There is no magic formula for improving schools. Improvement requires a
critical self-evaluation of current practices, in each area and in all
areas. It requires an understanding that all the parts need to work,
and they all need to work together. And, it requires a tireless
commitment to the success of all students.
References
Education Trust. (2005). Gaining traction, gaining ground: How some
high schools accelerate learning for struggling students. Washington,
DC: Author. Retrieved January 10, 2006, from
http://www2.edtrust.org/NR/rdonlyres/6226B581-83C3-4447-9CE7-31C5694B9EF6
/0/GainingTractionGainingGround.pdf
Kannapel, P. J., & Clements, S. K. (2005). Inside the black box of
high-performing high-poverty schools. Lexington, KY: Prichard Committee
for Academic Excellence.
Retrieved January 10, 2006, from http://www.prichardcommittee.org/Portals/1059/Inside%20the%20Black%20Box.pdf (URL no longer available: May 18,2009)
Williams, T., Perry, M., Studier, C., Brazil, N., Kirst, M., &
Haertel, E., et al. (2005). Similar students, different results: Why do
some schools do better? A large-scale survey of California elementary
schools serving low-income students. Mountain View, CA: EdSource.
Retrieved January 10, 2006, from http://www.edsource.org/pub_abs_simstu05.cfm
|
