A New Federal Report Confirms that State Departments of Education are Trying, but Not Succeeding. . .
Twelve Essential School Improvement Questions Needed to Jump-Start the Process
Dear Colleague,
OK. . . full
disclosure.
I consult all over the
country helping districts and schools to successfully implement school
improvement, multi-tiered services, positive behavioral support and school
discipline systems, and interventions for academically struggling and
behaviorally challenging students.
But I was also asked- -
over 12 years ago- - to bring my evidence-based school improvement program and
my years of experience to work at a state department of education level to help
scale these approaches across a diverse state.
And so, while employed at
the department of education level for a dozen years, I was simultaneously
consulting in scores of other states at the preschool through high school
(including alternative high school and residential treatment center) levels.
In contrasting the
success of the school improvement initiatives that I partnered on- - at the
department of education level versus at the consultation level- - I find, to a
large degree, that I failed at the department of education level. . . while
having very good success in my schools out-of-state.
Moreover, at the department
of education level, I own my failures on behalf of the students, staff, schools,
and districts where I worked. For
example:
* I failed to keep up with the politics that put
a revolving door at the top administrative echelons of the department of
education.
* I failed to maintain positive and ongoing
relationships with colleagues even though they were driven more by power,
ambition, misplaced trust, insecurity, gaps in technical skill, or their own personal
or professional agendas than by serving our students and schools.
* I failed because I believed that the science
and practice of successful schools, and the reality that change occurs
progressively over time would capture colleagues’ hearts, minds, commitments,
and actions.
* I failed because “straight talk” is not
always valued from an employee- - even though it is expected from an outside
consultant.
* And, I failed to overcome the powerful influence
of the federal government and its funded agendas that drove the state’s agenda
and its practices.
But, even in the midst of
these failures, it is interesting that many of my shortcomings at the
department of education level were less apparent in the other states where I
work. . . and this has allowed us to be successful there.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
A New Federal Brief: “It Takes more than Money and Effort to
Improve Under-performing Schools”
Earlier this month, the
U.S. Department of Education’s Institute of Education Sciences (IES) published
an Evaluation Brief titled, State Capacity to Support School Turnaround
(CLICK HERE for report).
The Brief’s purpose was to evaluate the
impact of the $97.4 billion devoted to education (school improvement- -
including the School Improvement Grant program- - was one of six funded areas)
through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), and the $5.1
billion in additional Race-to-the-Top funds between 2009 and 2011, including
$4.4 billion through ARRA.
The Brief investigated states’ capacity to support
school turnaround as of Spring 2012 and Spring 2013 by looking at their
expertise in supporting school turnaround processes in contrast to their
commitments in this area. Based on
interviews with administrators from 49 states and the District of Columbia, the
Brief cited the following Key Findings:
1.
More than 80% of states made turning around low-performing schools a
high priority, but at least 50% found it very difficult to turn around
low-performing schools.
2. 38
states (76%) reported significant gaps in expertise for supporting school
turnaround in 2012, and that number increased to 40 (80%) in 2013.
3.
More than 85% of states reported using strategies to enhance their
capacity to support school turnaround, with the use of outside resources
decreasing over time and the use of internal organizational or administrative
structures increasing over time.
_ _ _ _ _
Relative to the Brief’s
second Key Finding above, the figure below shows the areas of expertise
that the study investigated.
The Problem here
is that in all of the areas evaluated, the Brief’s authors (a) did
not assess what specifically was being implemented, and thus (b) it is
impossible to determine what, causally, impacted specific student
outcomes.
For example, what
teacher evaluation and professional development models were evaluated? What instructional model,
differentiated instruction approaches, and student outcome data were
evaluated? And what teacher
recruitment and retention criteria were used?
And, for each of these, what were the functional components and
activities implemented that directly affected student outcomes?
To again be honest: While it may appear that our state
departments of education do not have a clue, the reality is that many states have
made some progress in the areas covered by the Brief. For example, effective classroom instruction
has been better defined and evaluated through systems like Danielson’s
Framework for Teaching. And, new sets of
academic standards (like the Common Core or other state-specific approaches)
are refocusing teachers on how to design deeper modules and lessons, supported
by more effective differentiated instruction.
BUT. . . there also are
many areas where departments of education are conducting social experiments on
students, staff, and schools. And, the
reality is that when you go into the typical classroom in America (at any
grade level), you rarely see the “bottom-up” evidence of our departments’
“top-down” efforts.
And then there is the
“emperor’s clothes” effect. Who in their
right mind thinks that a district superintendent is going demonstrate the
“success” of a state initiative by bringing their state commissioner of
education into a classroom to show him or her their unmotivated students and
ineffective teachers? [Maybe our
commissioners need to spend a week as “undercover bosses”?]
_ _ _ _ _
The Brief’s third Key
Finding above was based on the states’ reports of their work with
federally-supported centers or labs, universities, distinguished educators,
other external organizations, and regional or country agencies. Here, between 2012 and 2013, the states reported
using these outside resources less while increasing their internal capacity
more. In fact, 46 states reported having
some type of state-level structure in place for the 2012-2013 school year in
contrast with just 25 states reporting such structures in 2007-2008.
The Problem here,
however, is that most of structures created by the states related to establishing
monitoring and reporting requirements, having contracts with external
consultants, and creating state-level turn-around offices.
It is telling that the
Report calls these “structures” because without the specific curricular,
teacher/instructional, and student services, supports, programs, and
interventions that directly relate to students’ academic and social,
emotional, and behavioral success, these structures are just bureaucratic
monoliths.
This is like constructing
the outside structure of an office building without completing the inside
rooms, wiring in electricity and other utilities, and moving in furniture and
other amenities.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
The Twelve
Essential School Improvement Questions
So. . . what are the
questions that all schools and districts need to ask (and answer now and over
time) so that their structures are focused on supporting student learning,
mastery, and “real-world” utility? We
suggest the following for every school in a district:
The Student Learning
and Mastery Questions
1. Does every
instructional staff person know the current functional skill level (mastery) of
every student in the areas of literacy, math, oral expression, and written
expression?
2. Does every lesson, unit, class, and course
identify the expected knowledge and understanding outcomes, and skill and
application competence expected of students?
3. Do all teachers and students know what the
outcomes and competencies in #2 above look like, and how they will be
accurately evaluated relative to formative learning and summative mastery?
4. Does each lesson, unit, class, and course
identify the prerequisite knowledge/content and skill/application competencies
needed to effectively teach (and have students learn) its expected outcomes?
_ _ _ _ _
The Curriculum and
Instruction Questions
5. Do teachers have the curricular materials
(direct and supplemental, course syllabi, class lessons) to effectively teach
and differentiate?
6. Are teachers working in cross/trans-curricular
ways and teams so that they are consistently teaching and reinforcing common
literacy, math, oral expression, and written expression skills?
7. Can teachers differentiate instruction given
the number of different skill levels of students in their classrooms?
8. Do teachers understand and demonstrate the
components of effective, differentiated instruction and universal designs for
learning, and can they provide (or guide) classroom-based remediation,
assistive supports, accommodations, and modifications when needed.
_ _ _ _ _
The Student-Staff
Interaction Questions
9. Do students take responsibility for their academic
and social interactions and progress and that of their peers?
10. Are students and staff taught and reinforced
for their skill in the areas of organization, time and stress management, and
ways to prioritize their learning and social, emotional, and behavioral actions
and activities?
11. Are students and staff taught and reinforced
for interpersonal, social problem solving, conflict prevention/resolution, and
emotional coping skills?
12. Are students and staff receiving the
services, supports, strategies, and programs they need to be academically and
interpersonally successful?
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
How do you
Answer the Twelve Essential Questions ?
It would be nice to think
that schools and districts have the data management systems, the ongoing
evaluation processes, and the summer planning time to access and organize all
of the data and information that can reliably and validly answer these
questions. But, it is likely- - given
the global nature of the top-down national and state guidance received over the
past decade of “school reform”- - that these questions are new and (perhaps)
intimidating.
And so, from a district
perspective, here are some recommendations on how to start tackling these
questions:
Recommendation 1. Identify the questions where you do
have the data and information. Then,
answer those questions, and organize your answers into an Action Plan that
focuses- - during this coming school year- - on maintaining and strengthening
your assets and successes, while addressing and eliminating your weaknesses and
limitations. This Action Plan could
become part of your district’s Strategic or annual Improvement Plan.
Critically, you should
follow this suggestion even if you only have the data and information for
specific grade levels, specific academic areas (e.g., literacy, math, science),
and/or specific schools. If this is the
case, then your Action Plan should identify the steps needed so that every
school and all staff in your district will have the data to answer all
of these questions in a timely way.
_ _ _ _ _
Recommendation 2. Identify the questions where data is missing
or nonexistent. Then, decide which
questions are the most important to answer during the coming school year. To do this, you will need to identify (a) for
which questions is the relevant data and information easiest to collect and
analyze, or (b) which questions are the biggest priorities relative to student
outcomes.
For the Student
Learning and Mastery Questions, understand that Question #1 is separate
from Questions #2, 3, and 4- - which probably need to be answered together.
For the Curriculum and
Instruction Questions, understand that Question #5 is a resource question;
Question #6 is a planning and execution question; Question #7 is a data-based
status question; and Question #7 is a teacher evaluation/professional
development question.
Finally, for the Student-Staff
Interaction Questions, understand that the district will need to prioritize
and determine which question(s) here is(are) the most important to answer in
the coming school year.
Significantly, from a
strategic planning perspective, each district will need to decide how many
questions to tackle in the coming year.
This number will depend on the size and resources in the district, as
well as the number of questions where data are missing. Regardless of the number of questions chosen,
the goals, activities, timelines, and people involved in collecting the necessary
data to answer the questions should be reflected, once again, in the district’s
Strategic or annual Improvement Plan.
_ _ _ _ _
Recommendation 3. For all twelve of these questions- -
regardless of the presence or absence of data- - the district may want to
conduct one or more audits to more comprehensively assess its current status,
needs, and directions. Among the
possible audits are the following:
— A Strategic Planning, District
Leadership, Organizational Stability, and Systems-level Data Management Audit
— A Recruitment,
Retention, Professional Development, Coaching, Supervision, and Staff
Evaluation Audit
—
An
Academic Curriculum, Curricular Alignment, Effective Instruction, Progress
Monitoring, Formative and Summative Assessment, and Classroom-based Academic Intervention
and Support Audit
— A Social, Emotional,
and Behavioral/Health, Mental Health, and Wellness Instruction, Progress
Monitoring, Formative and Summative Assessment, and Classroom-based
Intervention Audit
— A Multi-tiered Problem
Solving, Consultation, and Instructional/Intervention Services, Supports,
Strategies, and Programs Audit
— A High Stakes Proficiency
and College and Career Readiness Audit
Once again, it is
unlikely that a district can accomplish all of these audits in one school
year. Given this, districts will need to
prioritize these audits, and create action plans so that they can be
systematically, effectively, and collaboratively achieved. By embedding the Twelve Essential Questions
into these audits, districts should be well on their way toward sustained
school improvements that result in meaningful and functional student
outcomes. Moreover, with good planning,
these outcomes should more than satisfy any outcomes required at the state or
federal level.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Summary
This most-recent IES Brief
is consistent with and reinforces a plethora of federal studies and reports
over the past two to three years that have concluded that the top-down school
improvement approaches mandated or advocated by the federal, and many state,
departments of education have not succeeded.
Moreover, these reports suggest that the process is complex, money is
not the sole solution, and a “one-size-fits-all” perspective does not work.
These reports also suggest that we are wasting time, effort,
resources, and attention on global school improvement approaches, that have
not been adequately field-tested, and that do not have the
implementation specificity needed for success.
And because of this, we continue to lose students,
staff, schools, and communities who are "turned off" to some the
approaches that actually could work.
I believe that school improvement approaches must
move to a more molecular level. We have
got to ask the right questions, collect analyze the right data, and plan and
execute in strategic and sustained ways.
To do this, we need to look at the essential interdependent elements of
school success- - the students, the curriculum, and the instruction. Moreover, we have got to work together- - effectively
and efficiently- - to establish and institutionalize effective system,
school, staff, and student approaches- -even if they involve sophisticated
strategies and multiple layers.
Finally, we cannot be swayed by messages- - or
messengers - - who want to oversimplify "school improvement" to the
degree that success can never be attained.
Critically, this will require more honesty, transparency, and candor
from everyone. Indeed, we should not
find out that 76% to 80% of our state departments of education
report significant gaps in their school improvement expertise three years
and more than $100 billion after the fact !!!
I hope that some of the ideas above resonate with
you. Please accept my best wishes as many of you wind down your school
years. If I can help your school(s) or district
in any of the school improvement areas noted above, please do not hesitate to
contact me. I appreciate the services
and supports that you provide to all of your students.
Best,
Howie
