[CLICK HERE to read this Blog on the
Project ACHIEVE Webpage]
Dear
Colleagues,
When High School
Students Have Significant Academic Skill Gaps
A few days ago—in a
regularly-scheduled Zoom Professional Learning (PLC) session for an
out-of-state District—the conversation shifted to a common (especially
post-pandemic) high school dilemma:
“How do you teach high school students who are two or more academic
years behind in their foundational literacy, math, and writing skills?”
Knowing that large
academic skill gaps are not easily remediated especially in junior and
senior-level courses, I responded to the dilemma with one of my instructional
principles:
When the gaps
between the core instruction and the academic skill readiness of students are
too large to remediate, you need to “Re-core the Core.”
Indeed, educational
research and practice have shown that when students lack basic, prerequisite
literacy, math, and writing skills at the secondary level, they do not
effectively learn new “grade-level” material—even with supplemental tutoring
focused on remediating the skill gaps.
In other words, “Core
Instruction plus Remediation” approaches do not work.
This is because (a)
there is not enough out-of-class remedial time to close the already-large academic
gaps; (b) the prerequisite skill gaps cannot be bridged during classroom lessons
using scaffolded acceleration methods; and (c) these gaps still undermine the
learning and mastery of the new, grade-level material.
Thus, the skill gaps
are never fully closed, and the student falls academically further and further
behind.
Parenthetically,
the presence of students with significant prerequisite skill gaps also often
presents an instructional “drag” for the students who have the
prerequisite skills and are ready to learn. Especially at the high school
level, this is disruptive to these students’ quality of their learning,
and they may not attain their highest potential levels of continued academic
proficiency.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
The Instructional Solution for Skill-Gapped High
School Students
You need to “Re-core
the Core.”
In other words, the
students with significant skill gaps need to be taken out of the core
curricular courses in question, and scheduled into intervention courses—providing
them the intensive remediation needed to close the prerequisite skill gaps as
quickly as possible.
[I can already feel
some of your “But’s.”]
I say this knowing
that these students may not receive graduation-earning credit for the
intervention courses, and—therefore—they may not graduate in the “traditional” four
years of high school.
But I also say this
knowing that:
· If
students are missing significant prerequisite skills and they take a Core
Curriculum course anyways, they are either likely to fail the course (thus, not
earning graduation credit anyways), or they will barely pass the course, missing
yet another critical set of skills that will be the prerequisite skills for
the next course in the sequence;
· If
they take the Intervention course(s) and close the prerequisite skill gaps,
they will not only pass and benefit from the next Core Curriculum
course, but they will eventually graduate from high school with the cumulative skills
needed to proceed successfully into the college, career & technical
education, or career option of their choice; and
· The
ultimate instructional goal of high school is not about GPAs and the
number of courses taken, but about student opportunities to learn, master,
and demonstrate their competence across targeted functional skills.
This last statement
emphasizes a competency-based approach to high school coursework, instruction,
and grading—something that every state in the country now allows.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Softening the Blow: Looking at Some Related
High School Facts
Let’s look at some
related facts. . . to hopefully soften the “shock” of my “Let’s Go Backwards to
Go Forward” high school intervention course recommendation.
First: Most
high schools already use a competency-based approach to graduation. . . with
their most-capable students (!).
That is, many skilled
high school students graduate after their junior year and go to college, or
they take dual-enrollment high school/college courses as seniors.
Conversely:
Some students—for example, students with disabilities—may (by law) receive high
school instruction and related services until they are 21-years-old.
In addition, other
non-disabled high school students take adult learning or career & technical
education courses when they are 19, 20, or 21 years old until they successfully
graduate from high school.
Next: Too
many high school students graduate from high school after four years only to
spend their first year of college taking remedial courses (national statistics
suggest that 25% or more of community college students require such courses).
In essence, despite
their high school diploma, the first year of college for these students
is functionally their fifth year of high school.
Finally: It
is professionally irresponsible to graduate students from high school with the
lowest GPA possible knowing that we have not fully prepared them for
post-graduation success.
_ _ _ _ _
So, once again. . .
high school instruction and graduation should not be about time; it should be about
proficiency.
But. . . one of the
high school principals attending my virtual PLC last week told me. . . it’s not
that simple.
With frustration in
his voice, he told me, “But if we don’t graduate enough students in four years,
then the State Department of Education 'dings’ us, and we lose our
accreditation or go into school improvement status.”
Hmmmmmmm.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
The Ghost of “No Child Left Behind”
While we know that
high school graduation requirements differ across many states, the U.S.
Department of Education—through the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
(ESEA/ESSER)— has now standardized the calculations so that the data can be
compared from state to state.
But ESEA/ESSER
still lets individual states determine their own accountability criteria when
identifying a “low performing high school” that requires “comprehensive support
and improvement” (CSI). This includes how different states determine that high
schools are not graduating high-enough percentages of students in a timely way.
It is here, critically,
where one “ghost” of No Child Left Behind (NCLB)—the previous
ESEA legislation that guided education between 2001 and 2015—still lurks.
This is because almost
30% of our states still use NCLB’s four-year graduation metric to evaluate
high schools relative to their need for systemic improvement.
And yet, when NCLB
became ESSA in 2015, some states did change the rigid four-year metric, establishing
more flexible “tiered” models that recognized that some students need more time
to graduation from high school. These states now evaluate districts on the
percent of high school students— graduating from their 9th-grade cohort—who
graduate, for example, in four years versus five years versus six years.
For example, in
2021, Alaska, Arkansas, and Ohio school districts receive points for students
graduating from high school in both four years and five years, respectfully.
Connecticut districts got points for students graduating in four years and six
years, respectfully. And, Delaware and New Mexico districts got points for
graduating students in four, five, or six years, respectfully.
[CLICK
HERE for a State-by-State ESEA State Accountability Spreadsheet]
_ _ _ _ _
Tying this Blog Together
Going back to the high
school principal on my Zoom call, and his fear that putting students with
significant skill gaps into intervention courses would extend their graduation
to a fifth (or more) year. . . resulting in his school being “rated down” by
the State Department of Education. . . here is the reality and the issue.
He is right.
As he is in a
four-year high school graduation state, his high school might be rated down for
too many fifth-year graduates. This might result, over time, in his high school
being cited by the State Department of Education as a “low performing” school. And,
the high school might then require “remediation.”
But why is he
and his staff of professional educators being put in a position of doing what
is right for his students, when it may turn out wrong for this school?
And the answer
is: He shouldn’t !
As someone who
worked for a State Department of Education for thirteen years during the No
Child Left Behind era, this situation is just one of many examples where
restrictive and inflexible state educational policies undermined effective
school- and student-centered practices.
And the solution
for THIS dilemma is ?
·
Every state in the country should move to
a tiered, multi-year, punishment-free approach to track and quantify how many
years it takes its students to graduate from high school; and
·
Every school district in every state
should have an opportunity to qualitatively and quantitatively explain
why it took some students longer than four years to graduate.
For example, if a
high school had 25% of its students graduating in five years, and showed that
their GPAs in the last two years of high school were in the top 50th
percentile of all graduating seniors, how could a State Department of Education
say that this high school was low performing?
Or, if a high
school had 25% of its students graduating in five years, and showed that half
of them went to college or community college and none of them needed to
take remedial courses, how could a State Department of Education say that this
high school was low performing?
And, if a high
school had 25% of its students graduating in five years, and showed that the
other half went immediately into full employment with salaries above the
poverty level—allowing them to live independently, how could a State Department
of Education say that this high school was low performing?
_ _ _ _ _
Bad education policies
too often result in bad educational practices.
And bad educational
practices most often hurt students who are at-risk, underachieving,
unsuccessful, and without the power to advocate for themselves.
But in order to
change bad educational policies, we also often need to understand the dynamics
of how they came about. . . and recalibrate these dynamics.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Too Much of Anything Often Results in Nothing (or
Worse)
The fact of the
matter is that many of the policies written into No Child Left Behind
were based on a belief that school staff were either incompetent or unmotivated,
and that punishment—or the threat of punishment—would change their behavior in
the classroom or across a school.
Said a different
way: When NCLB was passed in 2001, the U.S. Congress and even our President
(Bush) believed that educators were untrained, unsupervised, unmotivated,
unprofessional, and uncaring relative to students’ academic outcomes.
Indeed, according
to NCLB, if a district or school did not attain a progressively increasing
level of student academic proficiency, the principal could be fired, the school
could be reconstituted, and the staff could be “on the street” looking for new
jobs.
And the result?
NCLB did not markedly change students’
functional skill levels in literacy, math, and writing across the country.
While the percent
of students “passing” the State Proficiency Test appeared to go up annually in many
states, one reason was the use of a “floating proficiency cut score” that different
State Education Departments moved from year to year to show statistical increases
that did not reflect students’ actual skill improvement. These fluctuations allowed
some states to avoid NCLB federal sanctions.
In the end, our
schools were no better off because of NCLB. . . and, in fact, many of them were
worse off.
For example, at-risk,
underachieving, and unsuccessful students did not close their academic skill
gaps. Teacher and administrator motivation was strained. And school morale
plummeted.
Educational policy—driven
by NCLB—was pushed to the extremes. And we were all worse for it.
_ _ _ _ _
But educational
policy during that time was not completely punitive in nature. During this same
time, many states instituted bonus programs for their most successful teachers.
Here, it was believed
that these incentives would motivate large groups of teachers so that large
groups of students would become more academically proficient so that large
groups of schools would “move the needle” of continuous school improvement.
Once again, it did
not work.
This policy bred
within-school staff anxiety, jealousy, in-fighting, distrust, disengagement,
and disputes.
The teachers who
received bonuses often were snubbed by their peers the next year. The teachers
who “just missed” getting bonuses were frustrated or disheartened the next
year. And the teachers who believed that they “did not have a chance” to get
bonuses showed up, but simply rolled over in apathetic resignation.
And who incurred
the greatest losses? The at-risk, underachieving, and unsuccessful students.
Teachers did not
want to teach them because they would not show the academic proficiency
improvements that would earn them a bonus.
And so, these
students often got the new, inexperienced, and/or least proficient teachers.
_ _ _ _ _
All of these
outcomes were predictable if policymakers had considered the individual,
social, and group psychology of motivation and human performance.
At this point, this
same psychology needs to be discussed and applied so that NCLB’s legacy of bad
policies can be rescinded, to be replaced by newer, scientifically “smarter”
policies that will bring us the educational outcomes that we all want.
Ultimately, these
policies should lead to practices that:
Ensure that
teachers consistently teach (a) academic and (b) individual and group social,
emotional, and behavioral information, content, and skills to students in
effective, differentiated ways such that, in a developmentally-sensitive way,
they learn, master, and are able to independently apply these (a) to real-world
problems or situations, and eventually (b) to successful employment and
community functioning.
Critically, this is
the same goal that we advocated in our four-part Blog Series—earlier this year—that
focused on the “Four Pillars of Teacher Preparation and Proficiency.” The four
pillars discussed were:
·
Teacher Hiring and Orientation
·
Teacher Induction and Tenure
·
Continuing Teacher Appointments and Coaching, and
·
Teacher Leadership and Advancement
[CLICK HERE to LINK to Part
IV of this Series]:
“Ensuring that Post-Tenure Teachers Remain Actively Engaged
as Collaborative Contributors in their Schools: Aligning the Seven Areas of
Continuous School Improvement to Teacher Leadership and Advancement” (Part IV)
_ _ _ _ _
The point here is that the actions and
activities within these pillars help to create a climate and culture of
professionalism in a school and district that minimizes the need for artificial
incentives, consequences, and punishments.
This professionalism eliminates the need for
policies that undermine effective, common sense practice.
And this will relieve administrators of having
to choose—literally and figuratively—between (a) providing critical
intervention opportunities to high school students with significant
prerequisite skills gaps in literacy, math, and/or writing; and (b) potentially
sacrificing their high school’s status as a truly effective school because of
an archaic, poorly-conceived policy.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Summary
This Blog began by analyzing
and then describing solutions for a common high school instructional dilemma
that has only been made worse by the pandemic:
“How do you teach high school students who are two or more academic
years behind in their foundational literacy, math, and writing skills?”
Knowing that large
academic skill gaps are not easily remediated—especially in junior and
senior-level courses, we responded an essential instructional principle:
When the gaps
between the core instruction and the academic skill readiness of students are
too large to remediate, you need to “Re-core the Core.”
Indeed, educational
research and practice have shown that when students lack basic, prerequisite
literacy, math, and writing skills at the secondary level, they do not
effectively learn new “grade-level” material—even with supplemental tutoring
focused on remediating the skill gaps.
If we keep these
students in their “core” classes, we create a double-jeopardy outcome: They not
only fail these classes, but they also never close the academic gaps that
contribute to the failure.
But if we hold
these students out of these core courses and provide them the intervention
courses that will close their skill gaps and help them pass the core courses in
the future, a new dilemma results.
This is the dilemma
that, because it may take these students more than four years to graduate from
high school, the high school make get lower school effectiveness ratings from its
State Department of Education, and run the risk of being identified as a “low
performing high school in need of comprehensive support and improvement.”
The rest of the
Blog discussed the fact that almost 30% of our states still use the four-year
graduation metric that they established during the (1991 to 2015) No
Child Left Behind years to evaluate high schools’ need for systemic improvement.
We share the educational benefits for the states that now include five- and
six-year high school graduation rates in their high school evaluation processes.
And we discussed why and how these school policies came about, and what happens
when bad school policies undermine effective student-centered practices.
In the end, we
recommend (a) reviewing and rescinding the archaic, ineffective NCLB policies
that still exist; (b) nurturing schools’ climate and culture of professionalism
through effective hiring, coaching, and tenuring practices; and (c) taking high
school administrators out of situations
where doing right by students turns out wrong for their schools.
_ _ _ _ _
As always, I
appreciate everyone who reads this bi-monthly Blog and thinks about the issues
or recommendations that we share. . . especially in the middle of your summer
break.
As we soon begin to
re-engage to begin the new school year, know that there are many Project
ACHIEVE resources to help you (see our Website Store: www.projectachieve.info/store), and
that I am always available for a free one-hour consultation conference call
to help you and your colleagues move “to the next level of excellence” relative
to your students, school, or organization.
Please feel free to
reach out if you would like to begin this process with me.
Best,
Howie
[CLICK HERE to read this Blog on the Project ACHIEVE Webpage]
