Kids Left Behind, The - William H. Parrett

Скачать книгу

schools” (Just for the Kids, 2006).

      In 1997, the organization began analyzing state test data in search of successful schools and the practices they employed. This work grew into the Just for the Kids School Reports designed to provide educators with a clear and comprehensive picture of a school’s academic performance by subject and grade coupled with comparisons of schools with similar demographics that have achieved high levels of academic performance. The comparative aspect of the school reports was assembled through case studies of high-performing schools and the practices they used to acquire their high-performing status. The study resulted in the Best-Practice Framework.

      The framework was based on a 4-year analysis of more than 100 high-performing schools through data, observations, and interviews. The framework identified effective district, school, and classroom practices around five organizing themes. It also takes into account four critical areas common to these schools:

      1. Mobility

      2. Percent of low-income students

      3. Percent of limited-English-proficiency students

      4. School, grade, and classroom size

      Using JFTK data tools, a school can perform a self-audit that adjusts for the four critical areas, compares achievement data from recent tests and current classroom practices in the school, and then applies the framework to locate comparable schools with higher achievement, opening a path for educators to consider in targeting improvements.

      The National Center for Educational Accountability (NCEA) was created in 2001 as a partnership between JFTK, the Education Commission of the States, and the University of Texas at Austin to “promote higher student achievement by improving state data collection and identifying practices that distinguish consistently high-performing schools from others and disseminating these findings” (Olsen, 2005, p. 24).

      The NCEA, funded through a variety of individual, corporate, government, and private foundation sources, works closely with affiliates in almost half the states to implement NCEA-guided studies of high-performing schools. The Broad Foundation, through a $1.2 million grant, supported this work through 2006 in more than 450 schools located in 17 states. Schools qualifying as study candidates must have demonstrated three consecutive years of high performance on state tests and must make annual yearly progress by No Child Left Behind standards (Olsen, 2005).

      To determine key features of high performance, NCEA adapted the Texas Best Practice Framework into its own framework, which focuses on determining evidence of student learning. The framework, presented as a matrix of themes, practices, state and district standards, core beliefs, resources, and local influences, identifies precisely what high-performing schools do to accomplish their success (figure 3.2, page 44). Jean Rutherford, center director, describes the underlying value of this common framework as having “clear and specific goals for students, rooted in state content standards” that have “clearly emerged as the bedrock foundation, … which provides a penetrating, deep understanding of what it is children are to know and be able to do and how to connect it across grades” (Olsen, 2005, p. 24).

      In 1999, Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning (McREL, formerly the Mid-continent Regional Educational Laboratory) commissioned seven papers from national experts on diversity issues. The goal was to identify causes of the low performance on achievement tests of “marginalized students” (poor and minority), and then to identify research-based strategies for ensuring that these students meet state educational standards. These papers synthesized more than 300 research reports and related documents and focused their recommendations on school district and state policy makers. The summary identified seven research-based conclusions for improving the academic performance of poor and minority students:

image

      Figure 3.2: Best Practice Framework—Fundamental Principles of Strong Learning Systems (Used with permission of the National Center for Educational Accountability and Just for the Kids.)

      1. Provide all students with rigorous curriculum.

      2. Help teachers improve instruction.

      3. Provide support to students.

      4. Create smaller classes.

      5. Increase parent involvement.

      6. Identify the five ways low performance is manufactured.

      7. Establish strong, yet fair, accountability. (Goodwin, 2000, p. 1)

      The study also acknowledged the importance of understanding and holding high expectations for poor and minority children and the need for sustained support and assistance from instructional leaders.

      The North Central Regional Educational Laboratory (NCREL) studied high-performing, high-poverty schools in Wisconsin. The study identified 17 features within five prominent characteristics of effective schools.

      1. Effective implementation of theory or philosophy

       Shared leadership

       Data-based decision-making

       Student-centered practice

       High expectations with safety nets

      2. Effective professional development opportunities

       Staff-initiated in-service topics

       Peer coaching and mentoring

       Opportunities for collaboration

      3. Parent and community involvement

       Multiple means of communicating with parents

       Parent advisory committees

       The school as a community center

      4. Effective classroom instruction

       Emphasis on assessment

       Project-based instruction

      5. Effective classroom structure and organization

       Small class size

       Alternative within-school programs

       Integrated curriculum

       Curriculum alignment with state standards

       School-wide discipline system (Manset et al., 2000, pp. iii-iv)

      Research has also focused on the effective strategies of school districts in achieving success with low-performing students. The Consortium for Policy Research in Education (CPRE) is composed of scholars from five of the nation’s premier research universities: Harvard, Stanford, and the Universities of Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin-Madison. Diane Massell led a research team from CPRE that identified four essential capacity-building strategies that were observed in 22 successful school districts in seven reform-active states over a 2-year period. These strategies included:

      1. Interpreting and using data

      2. Building teacher knowledge and skills

      3. Aligning curriculum and instruction

      4. Targeting interventions on low-performing students and schools (Massell, 2001, p. 1)

      While the study did not specifically identify leadership as an essential capacity-building strategy, the critical importance of effective leadership in successfully implementing these four capacity-building strategies and others found in high-performing, high-poverty schools was implied. Participants

Скачать книгу