Improved Student Learning and Strengthened Communities - ebookschoice.com

The new Project on Education is a collaborative action research project to examine and make a case for the roles and results of community organizing in reforming schools, improving student achievement, and revitalizing communities. We used collaborative inquiry processes to bring parents, community members, educators and students together to examine and reflect on their efforts and has conducted both local and national studies on parent and community participation in school reform.

The audiences for the project include funders and educators, as well as community organizing groups themselves. The project asks what indicates success in education organizing and how is it measured. It also asks what support community organizations need to do the work well.

A set of beliefs shapes the direction of this research effort. The data that is collected is meant to make visible and credible the basis of those beliefs to the funding community and to educators. Overall, the project is grounded in the belief that parents and other community members' participation in school reform is critical to change schools and to sustain reform.

Another belief is that education organizing contributes to making communities stronger through its dual emphasis on strengthening public institutions and building public leadership. The engagement of parents and community members in school reform requires that the walls between schools and the world outside become more flexible and porous. An assumption is that permeable boundaries ultimately benefit both students and communities. Parents and educators become directly accountable to each other for children's success in school. When schools value what parents bring, teachers can better engage students in their work.

Community organizing challenges the traditional separation of school, family and community domains. Another benefit is that community organizing redresses social, economic and political inequities with the goal of supporting the educational achievement of all children.

It also serves as a catalyst for reform, reinforcing and sustaining school improvement through active connections between schools and the outside community. Through the processes of community organizing, parents and community members gain skills and power and build networks that strengthen their neighborhoods and their participation in schools. The depth of such reform should be measured, in part, by the extent teachers, administrators, and community leadership work together and sustain dialogue and effective reform activity.

In seeking to identify indicators of success of community organizing, this project documents the work of these groups and identifies evidence that their efforts are making a difference. In looking for indicators, we ask what measures of success are credible to what audiences? Two related questions are what kinds of financial, staffing and other resources are needed; and, what are the indicators of organizing capacity necessary to carry out this work?

This report is based on data from a telephone survey, the second phase of data collection in this project. Prior to selecting sites for the telephone interview, we carried out an inventory of groups doing community organizing around education issues and found over 162 groups doing such work. Out of those groups, we chose to interview by telephone a sample of nineteen, representing variation in terms of key characteristics. We chose five sites from among the telephone interview sample for intensive case studies, and analysis of data from the first round of visits will be presented in a forthcoming report.

The telephone interviews were conducted with executive directors and/or lead organizers of the sample groups. The interview data provide an opportunity to identify the range and breadth of the work going on in the field and a first step in developing indicators and measures of the difference the work of these groups make. Our understanding of the work and of indicators and measures will continue to develop through the five case studies.

The questions asked in the telephone interviews fell into five categories: 1) the issues the groups address and how the issues are determined; 2) the variety of strategies the groups employ for addressing the issues; 3) the support the groups need to carry out their work; 4) what the groups have accomplished and how they measure their success; and 5) the challenges and barriers the groups face. We conducted the interview questions with two groups, slightly revising the survey for the remainder of interviews.

In two sections of this report - the description of the groups and the presentation of indicators - we represent our data and analysis with introductory narrative. Part II describes the sample of telephone interview groups through a series of key variables. Part III presents an inductive analysis of indicators, strategies, data sources and measures derived from the telephone interview data. Part IV presents the major needs the groups. It lays out a beginning framework of indicators of success. Part V offers a brief summation of the major findings.

Part II: Description of Community Organizing Groups

As noted above, the nineteen groups selected for the telephone interview sample came from a database of community organizing groups working on school reform nationwide. The groups are active in urban and rural neighborhoods and areas with a concentration of low-income, often racially, ethnically and linguistically minority families; the schools these populations attend are frequently under-performing schools. The groups use social processes of relationship building among parents and community members in order to identify shared concerns about children's schooling and take collective action that challenges inequity. Their purpose is to develop a powerful membership base and develop local leadership that can leverage change to improve children's school experience. The relationship building promoted by community organizing, both within and across communities, schools and school districts is geared toward transformation at individual, community and institutional levels.

The database is not comprehensive of all groups that share these features and ways of working, but is a work in progress. We located the groups through lists provided by funders, organizing networks and personal referrals, Internet and website searches and references in journals and articles. The data on each group was crosschecked directly with the group. In making the selections, we aimed to create a sample that was well distributed regionally and included several rural groups. The target constituencies or membership of the sample groups were to represent racially, ethnically and linguistically diverse populations. The interview groups were also intended to represent the major community organizing traditions.

The groups are distributed across every major U.S. region and include groups in both urban and rural locales. The major community organizing networks are represented as well as independent groups. Two groups have significant university connections. Notably, the interview sample includes a significant number of "mature" groups: Forty-two per cent have been doing community organizing for more than 11 years. Members or constituents of the groups are residents of low-income neighborhoods or areas and include African American, Caribbean, Chicano, Latino, Asian American and white populations. Seventy-four per cent are multi-issue groups. The majority began organizing around other community issues, e.g. affordable housing, homelessness, drugs, and living wage, before engaging with education issues. They reported, however, that they turned to education issues at the insistence of their members, who were concerned about their children's lack of success in school. A common perception among the groups is that education is the most difficult arena in which to organize for change. Several respondents suggested that the difficulty stems from the mystique of educators' specialized knowledge. This mystique works to reduce the confidence of community members and parents in their own knowledge and their legitimacy to critique the institution.

With only slight exception, both staffing and funding levels of the groups are relatively small. All but two groups have less than nine on staff including executive directors, grant writers, office support staff and organizers; a typical community organizing group has 2-5 organizers. Forty-seven per cent operate on annual budgets of less than $250,000. Consideration of indicators of success needs to take into account both staffing and budget levels of these groups and what can realistically be accomplished by such small-scale efforts.

Part III: Indicators of the Contribution of Community Organizing to School Reform

The telephone survey data provide the foundation for a framework on "indicators" of the success of community organizing for school reform. It is in these indicator areas that community organizing groups make their particular contributions to school reform. We drew on a number of conversations and readings about developing and using indicators to help organize our information in the format presented here.

Work on indicators is evolving in a variety of domains, particularly in examining neighborhood and education quality and child wellbeing. The neighborhood indicators project specifies several "benchmark" areas of neighborhood quality, and then asks – what measures exist that would provide a way to judge progress in each benchmark area? Here we identify indicator areas associated with the end goals of community organizing for school reform - improved student learning and strengthened neighborhoods and communities. As several of the people we interviewed told us, these two goals are inextricably linked – good schools contribute to strong communities and strong communities support schools to succeed as institutions. Through our analysis, we identified eight indicator areas in which the work of community organizing groups falls - all areas, which have been associated with the improvement of children's learning and/or strengthened neighborhoods. Some of these areas are familiar language in school reform, but we did not pick them abstractly. These indicator areas best characterize the set of strategies and outcomes the groups in our sample use to judge their own progress towards meeting the goals of improving student outcomes and strengthening communities. The indicator areas are:

1) Equity
2) Accountability to parents and community
3) Positive school climate
4) High quality instruction and curriculum
5) Social capital
6) Tight-knit community school relations
7) Community power
8) High Capacity Organizations

Some of these indicator areas are directly associated in the research literature and in practice with improving student learning, such as high-quality instruction and positive school climate. Others are more directly associated with building strong neighborhoods and communities - such as building local leadership and power and developing high-capacity organizations. There are also some indicator areas that contribute to both student learning and strong neighborhoods and communities directly - equity, social capital, and tight-knit school-community relations, and accountability to parents and community.

Several of these indicator areas are not uniquely the domain of community organizing, but also are on the agendas of state and district level educators and other non-profit organizations. Even where there is overlap, however, community organizing adds a critical dimension. For example, state or district-initiated reform efforts may also aim for improved school climate and instruction, but community organizing efforts customize, support, and add momentum. States and districts may consider equity among their goals, but community organizing contributes persistence in pursuing equity, as well as political momentum. Other indicator areas are more uniquely the focus of community organizing, including social capital, leadership and power, and accountability to parents and community.

While the strategies themselves come from the interviews, the data sources and measures listed do not strictly come from the interview data. We draw on our own knowledge and logic to suggest both how to measure success within the indicator areas and where data might exist. In addition, we should note that groups are at different places developmentally as far as their education work and there is no absolute standard that we can draw or that we mean to imply. The measures have to be considered in light of the number of years a group has been in existence, the size of its staff, and the scale and scope of the group's work. Defining standards offers another opportunity for participation of the case study groups, as well as the advisory group.

Representing the indicators areas schematically runs the risk of oversimplification of social processes and dynamics. These areas are not discreet, linear, or sequential; in practice, they are overlapping and interactive.

Indicator Area 1: Equity

A common focus of community organizing is addressing the uneven distribution of resources, often a result of long-standing economic and racial segregation. Community organizing groups have documented disparities and seek parity for minority and low-income communities, in terms of funding, staffing, facilities, and program quality.

STRATEGIES

Gaining funding for:
- after school programs, i.e. recreational programs, homework clubs, academic learning centers
- adult education programs, i.e. GED classes, ESL classes
- community annexes and/or parent resource rooms
- renovations and/or new facilities, e.g. playscapes, clean bathrooms
- increased safety measures, i.e. new lighting, additional crossing guards, stop signs, rerouting traffic
- parent participation in classrooms, i.e. paid mentor program
- new schools, small schools, alternative schools, charter schools

Forming partnerships to bring services and expertise into schools:
- post-secondary education institutions that provide adult education classes
- legal aid groups that bring court action, e.g. to limit corporal punishment, to ensure bilingual education programs
- university programs designed to attract minority teachers for urban schools
- school reform groups to bring new ideas/pedagogy into schools, e.g. small schools, placed based curriculum

Invoking new policies to: - curtail the assignment to low-income schools of substitutes, uncredentialed teachers and teachers not teaching in their subject area/at their grade level - reduce class size - eliminate overcrowding - bring minority teachers into urban districts

DATA SOURCES
- school/district policies and budgets, e.g.,
- classroom assignments
- teaching assignments
- grant budgets
- interviews and/or survey of students, parents, administrators and teachers: numbers served, persistence in program, perceptions on effect on homework completion, on making school safe and secure; incidents of problems before and after school
- survey # and nature of school improvements and/or safety measures
- survey # of new schools
- survey # and nature of partnerships
- school district data on classroom size
- survey of distribution of credentialed teachers

MEASURES
- new funds flowing into schools
- #s of adults graduating from GED classes
- increase in parent and teacher perception of homework completion
- # and range of new and/or renovated facilities
- reduced # of traffic accidents, gang incidents, fights in school area
- increased perception of safety in the school area
- equity in distribution of credentialed teachers
- reduction and equity in class size
- reduction and equity in overcrowding
- equity in distribution of funds
- equity in suspensions/expulsions across schools in a district
- availability of courses, 8th grade algebra, languages
- equity efforts are sustained over time

Indicator Area 2: Accountability to Parents and Community

In the current era, accountability is enforced through top down means, from state and city officials through high stakes testing and school (and sometimes student) sanctions and rewards. Community organizing adds a critical dimension to accountability. By making schools responsive to students, parents, and community members - the public they serve, community organizing both broadens the measures and strengthens support for change.

STRATEGIES

Parent and community participating in decision making, e.g.,
- participation in hiring and firing of principals or regional superintendents
- oversight of school budgets Monitoring programs, policies and children's progress, e.g.,
- citizen review boards, community oversight committees
- parent notification programs, i.e. early warning notices
- "honesty" sessions with teachers, principals and parents around grades and standardized test scores

DATA SOURCES
- school/district policies
- observations of meetings
- interviews with parents, community members, school personnel
- minutes and attendance records of meetings

MEASURES
- institutionalized role of parents in key decision-making bodies in district
- expanded parent perception of roles in the school, i.e.,mentors, committee members
- parents included in professional development
- parents knowledgeable about student/school progress
- increased sense of ownership of local schools by parents and community
- teachers and administrators perceive parents as partners in children's education
- meetings focus on programs, policies, children's progress
- parent satisfaction with administrative staff and policies
- representation of community organizing group members on panels, oversight committees, etc.
- Parents see and act on school data
- Strong voter turnout for governing board elections

Indicator Area 3: Positive School Climate

Many of the issues community members identify as important are concrete features of the school environment that affect students' and parents' sense of order and safety. These school climate factors determine how comfortable people feel in the school, that is, whether the school is welcoming and open. Facing them often challenges the school to rethink its role in a community.

STRATEGIES
- Parents participating in
- school discipline policy
- classroom mentoring programs, etc.
- Improving safety in and around the school
- additional police and parent patrols
- improved lighting
- improved traffic routes, stop lights and stop signs
- order on buses
- Improving facilities
- Establishing dress code

DATA SOURCES
- survey: perceptions of increased safety measures
- interviews
- observation
- school district budget and policies
- neighborhood crime statistics
- school/district discipline records
- accident reports

MEASURES
- Increased parent, community, student pride in neighborhood schools
- Youth participating in peer mediation
- Reduced # of discipline problems
- Increased parent perception that they are respected and welcome in the school
- Decreased # of accidents
- Decreased # of incidents & violence
- Schools clean and orderly

Indicator Area 4: High quality instruction and curriculum

Instructional change is one of the most difficult areas for community organizing to influence because of the prevailing assumption that only educators understand what goes on inside classrooms. The interview groups targeted instruction in a variety of ways, from making curriculum relevant to urging districts to adopt particular teaching approaches. While improving test scores is an important measure of the impact of improved instruction, these groups also looked for other tangible measures of impact – children's engagement and greater appreciation of one's community and culture.

STRATEGIES
- Pushing schools to implement culturally relevant curriculum and teaching
- place based curriculum
- school to career
- bilingual education
- Bringing a focus on reading
- direct instruction
- community and school reading/literacy campaigns
- Facilitating the implementation of rigorous curriculum
- E.g. Young Scientist program
- Promoting teacher and administrator professional development
- teacher "incubators" as part of small schools campaign
- cross school collaboration among principals and teachers
- teacher ed. schools bring new minority teachers into urban district
- Promoting small intimate learning environments
- end consolidation of rural schools into large regional schools
- small schools

SOURCES OF DATA
- new curriculum
- surveys of students', parents', and teachers' perceptions of curriculum relevance and rigor; on improvement in reading; and on strong teacher-student connections.
- standardized tests
- records of teacher attendance and staff turnover
- school/district policies and programs

MEASURES
- increase in student perception that school is "relevant" and that their culture is respected
- improved test scores
- acceptance in magnet programs
- improved teacher attendance
- stability of professional staff (low turnover)
- increase in teacher self-perception as respected professionals; sense of efficacy
- schools use multiple measures to make high stakes decisions for students
- availability of challenging courses
- increased instructional resources, e.g., computers, textbooks, libraries, etc.
- implementation of small schools; class size reduction

Indicator Area 5: Social Capital

Social capital is based on citizens having experience and engaging in practices of democratic participation, building what is often referred to as a strong "civil society." A growing body of research suggests that strong communities support children's school achievement.

STRATEGIES
- Promoting personal growth
- parents gain new knowledge and perspectives
- parents become leaders in schools and communities
- Strengthening school and community networks
- development of visible, vocal, knowledgeable parent groups
- stories emerge of parent and community participation in school change
- Building reciprocal and complementary parent/educator relations
- parents and school staff join together for neighborhood walks, campaigns for health clinics in schools, increased safety measures
- joint professional development
- regular parent/teacher interaction around academic issues

DATA SOURCES
- interviews and perception surveys about parents' sense of efficacy, that trust is developing between parents and school staff, that home/school interactions are focused on academics and achievement
- observations
- stories that record school, parents and community working together

MEASURES
- increase in parent sense of efficacy in multiple domains: family, school, neighborhood
- # vying for Local School Council elections or other school organizational roles
- Attendance at and leadership in neighborhood organizations
- increase in perception of trust between professional educators and parents and community
- funds directed to joint professional development
- higher voter turnout, higher civic participation (e.g., running for local office, membership in associations, running for local boards)
- parents and community members informed about local issues

Indicator Area 6: Tight-knit community school relations

In places where there are tight-knit relations, the school is open to community use and the schools use the community as a resource in both political and educational realms. These efforts build both stronger communities and foundations for children to make the most of school opportunities.

STRATEGIES
- Creating multi-use school buildings
- school used for after-and beforeschool programs
- community health center in the school
- adult community learning centers in schools, i.e. ESL and GED classes
- Positioning the community as a resource
- Community groups work with schools to help gain resources, i.e. new facilities, needed renovations
- Community groups sponsor LSC candidates
- parents and community patrol to ensure safety of area surrounding the school
- Building collaborative relations
- principals, teachers and parents go on neighborhood walks together to identify parent concerns
- parents and teachers participate in professional development together

DATA SOURCES
- observations
- grant proposals
- interviews with parents, community members, and school staff about perceptions of the relationship between schools and community
- enrollment numbers
- survey of perception about the community/ school relationship

MEASURES
- variety and # of community oriented programs
- level of participation in programs
- shift in perception of schools as open to community and parents
- discourse among school professionals and within the community that reflects perception of relations as collaborative, mutual and trusting
- discourse reflects appreciation of community assets

Indicator Area 7: Leadership and Power

Community organizing groups saw the goal of "building power" as basic to their missions. In practice, that means that politicians and school district officials acknowledge the role of parents and communities, especially low-income people and community members of color in decisionmaking about schools and children. They influence how resources are allocated or what programs are adopted.

STRATEGIES
- Drawing political attention to under resourced schools in low-income communities
- Opening decision-making about resource allocation to parents and members of low-income communities
- Forming groups of parents and community representatives that monitor new initiatives
- Transforming school "culture" so that parents, teachers, and administrators are involved with each other in new ways
- Forming partnerships to increase the scale of impact

DATA SOURCES
- Interviews with politicians, district officials, foundations, business community
- Policy
- Participation records of decisionmaking groups and meetings
- Interviews with teachers, principals and other school staff
- Interviews with parents
- Observations of school change teams, school improvement teams, neighborhood walks, etc.

MEASURES
- Community group is acknowledged as a "power" player
- Resources are redirected to low-income schools
- Politicians are responsive to the issues and exert their influence
- School professionals perceive that they are accountable to parents and community
- Parents feel respected in the school

Indicator Area 8: High-Capacity Organizations

Usually working with limited budgets and small staffs, community organizing groups must use their resources well and work smart. They must also develop a solid reputation and track record. Strong community organizations are better able to hold public officials and institutions accountable and sustain initiatives.

STRATEGIES
- Developing and maintaining a staff or organizers treating them as professionals
- Identifying and developing talent in leaders
- Developing a strong membership base
- Forming partnerships with service providing organizations/etc. for legitimacy and expertise
- Cultivating media and political contacts
- Carrying out reflection and research
- Sustaining sufficient levels of funding to staff organizing efforts
- Gaining recognition and acknowledgement for the organization's work
- Generating enduring stories/histories that tell of the contribution the group/parents are making to changing schools

DATA SOURCES
- Community organizing group documents
- Budgets
- Minutes
- Attendance records
- Media coverage: press, radio, TV
- Interviews with politicians, journalists, school, community and political leaders
- Observations of meetings and events
- Stories

MEASURES
- Consulted or included in policy decision making
- Programs and accomplishments are sustained over time
- Media coverage gives credit to the community organizing group for accomplishments
- Perceptions that the group has strong capacity
- numbers of leaders
- Membership turnout
- Steady or growing funding levels

Part IV: Needs of Community Organizing Groups

The needs of the community organizing groups in our sample generally reflect the challenges of limited budgets and complicated policy contexts. Funding levels for the majority of groups range between $150,000 and $400,000, with a few groups having significantly larger budgets. Those with larger budgets usually were running programs, although in one instance the larger budget was connected to a systemic reform effort where the community organizing was included in the reform plan.

Most of the groups would use additional funding to hire more organizers as a way to work both at greater depth and at a larger scale. One group noted, the most precious resource that we have is organizing talent. A good organizer is going to develop hundreds of grassroots leaders who are going to participate in public life and in changing the systems such as school systems. Additional funding allows us to attract talent and it's a luxury to be able to go deeper into communities and give them the foundations so that they're much more long term and self-sufficient.

A group in the mid-west saw the need to hire more organizers in order to be more effective in building leadership and increase their capacity and effectiveness as an organization, Additional staff would enable us to do everything we're doing, but better. To get more involvement and sustain our leaders. Another organizer would enable us to train more leaders and increase our capacity to continue our work on these issues.

A few of the groups noted that they would like to hire organizers dedicated solely to education work. There is a huge unmet demand for more outreach at the schools. We want organizers dedicated to education in order to develop more parent leaders. We are reaching less than half of what is organizable if we could do more. Groups also talked about the need for staffing besides organizers. Among the roles mentioned was staff to assist in self-assessment, documenting and reflecting on the group's efforts, support staff, and fundraising staff. A few groups also emphasized organizers' need for supervision, support and training to be able to carry out their work effectively and maintain momentum.

Most of the groups were funded through a mix of internal and external sources, although a minority was primarily or solely externally funded. Those with mixed funding, however, recognize that internal sources (mostly in the form of dues from members or member institutions augmented by raffles, barbecues and other types of fundraising) would never be sufficient to support them. Reliant on foundation and other external funding as they are, the groups noted the mis-match between typical funding practices and the requirements of their work. For one thing, funding is usually targeted at starting up an initiative or for programs rather than for organizing. Respondents noted that while their groups could get funding to initiate a new campaign, it was difficult to get multi-year funding for the long-term, "follow-up work" that needs to be done. They believed foundations needed to have a greater appreciation of the necessary length of time to develop organizers and to the range of needs of organizing. One group, for example, explained their need for funds to help pay for the costs of transportation for its members.

While some groups were willing to obtain funding for and run programs, most were not. They saw their roles solely as pushing for new programs then holding educators accountable for their implementation, and they pointed to the challenge in framing their work for funders. The challenge is finding funders who will fund organizing in particular. Community organizing groups have to sell a process with outcomes that other institutions achieve.

A number of the groups talked about the need to expand their work in a variety of ways. For some, expansion meant being able to continue an initiative over several years despite the turnover of school administration.

Taking into consideration the time it takes to bring about change in schools and in student achievement, groups felt the need for multi-year funding that appreciates the need to build relationships and leadership over time among parents and community members. Other groups were concerned about how to "position" themselves and their work in the school districts to make a wide impact. While proud of the depth of their work in several district schools, two community organizing group representatives talked about the need to work at the district level or higher in order to have an impact beyond individual schools. One executive director was hopeful about his invitation to sit on a district wide committee, saying it was important to go beyond "modeling this work" if they are to bring about school change "on a meaningful level district wide." An organizer from another group said, "we are ready now for a concentrated effort. We have the relationships among the upper administrators and district and the depth of relations too, so this could really grow." Many of the groups saw the need to form partnerships with school officials or other groups in order to gain position, expertise, and/or legitimacy to expand their reach. Issues of staffing, funding, scale, and depth are interrelated for these groups. Several noted that the more organizers, the more leaders who could be identified and trained to take on larger issues.

Part V: Summary and Implications for indicators research

The community organizing groups included in the telephone interview sample represent considerable variation along a number of dimensions – geographical location, context, affiliation, and strategy. We were struck by the generally small staff size of the groups, especially the number of organizers, given the size of their territories and the scale of impact they aim for. All of the groups struggled with how to have wide impact, while achieving depth in their work with schools and parents, and they used different strategies to resolve this tension. The eight indicator areas represent areas in which community organizing groups measure the success of their efforts as they work towards improving schools, student learning and strengthening communities. The task before them is ambitious, especially if taken together and considered in light of the groups' limited resources and the significant challenges they face. The education context presents particularly daunting challenges to initiating and sustaining change, such as rapid staff turnover, a rigid bureaucratic culture, a volatile political context, and the precariousness of school-community connections. This analysis call attention to considering the level of resources of these groups in proportion to their goals and accomplishments as we refine how to measure their success in influencing school reform and the results for students and communities.

The framework presented here is an attempt to make sense of the stories of community organizing we collected in the telephone survey in light of the particular focus of the project. While the groups worked toward change in each of the eight indicator areas, the particulars of their school and community contexts led them to different emphases and approaches. We found that many of the areas in which these groups work supports school district efforts while adding important dimensions. We are beginning to tease out what are the unique contributions of community organizing to school reform. They make strategic decisions, work on many levels at once, and stimulate citizen education - both political and in terms of skills and experience. All of the groups organize around some or all of indicator areas, but only a few have penetrated to the level of classroom instruction. Our analysis of the first round of case study research will also help us to refine indicator areas, strategies, data sources, and measures.

This framework also will contribute to planning for the fall visits to case study sites. We look forward to further refining our sense of what measures best exemplify each of the indicator areas and the availability and comparability of data across sites. In order to connect these indicator areas more directly with the outcomes of improved student learning and strengthened communities, we will continue to identify research that makes the case for each indicator area, especially as the area is uniquely associated with community organizing.

 

 

Jeff C. Palmer is a teacher, success coach, trainer, Certified Master of Web Copywriting and founder of https://Ebookschoice.com. Jeff is a prolific writer, Senior Research Associate and Infopreneur having written many eBooks, articles and special reports.

 

 

Source: https://ebookschoice.com/improved-student-learning-and-strengthened-communities/

Creating Schools That Are Successful In Teaching And Learning - ebookschoice.com

Nationwide, low-performing schools are high on the agenda of urban school reform leaders. The current focus reverses the neglect that has plagued these schools for years. Many of them are situated in distressed communities that show the results of years of disinvestment, communities where a growing concentration of poverty and its consequences has taken a social and economic toll. These issues spill over into the schools. These schools, nevertheless, must teach all children to high standards of achievement and mastery, with no excuses.

 

Most urban schools are vulnerable to society's preconceptions or biases regarding race and ethnicity, income, and class. But problems affecting academic achievement are just as likely to begin in the schools. Teachers' low expectations for student performance, whether out of misplaced sympathy, burn-out or frustration, are self-fulfilling prophecies. Low expectations produce a correspondingly low level of curriculum that is taught in an unengaging manner, that results in low levels of student achievement.

We believe that reciprocal accountability is critical to creating schools that are successful in teaching and learning.

 

Urban schools, and public education in general, have been undergoing fundamental review. Broad and accelerating changes in society are demanding higher standards of performance than ever before from the nation's public schools. In response, national, state and local leaders are developing academic standards for what children should know and be able to do at specific stages in their education. Almost every state has adopted or is in the final stages of adopting standards, and many states are aligning teacher certification, testing and accountability provisions to the standards. Within this context, school districts across the country have decided to intervene and take an active role in addressing low school performance. The educational interventions are long overdue and welcome, if done well. The high visibility, take-charge leadership of some urban superintendents has a broadly beneficial result of increasing public confidence in urban public education. It is important, however, to explore these interventions to see if they result in serious improvement in teaching and learning in schools. It would be unfortunate if the only results were slightly improved standardized test scores that provided a positive "spin" for political leaders.

 

As school districts across the country began aggressive interventions in low-performing schools, we decided to examine these interventions and, at the other end of the spectrum, initiatives that recognize school success. This report describes, analyzes and draws lessons and recommendations from the current interventions, which are primarily district-led. Our examination also provides an entry point into an inquiry into reciprocal accountability—strategies and systems where responsibility is shared among schools, communities, school districts, and the state. We believe that reciprocal accountability is critical to creating schools that are successful in teaching and learning. Thus, we are interested in whether, and how, current interventions can lead in the long run to practices where each stakeholder in the school system has a strong role to play and carries out his or her functions interdependently. The information and analyses in this report have been drawn from dozens of interviews; reviews of district documents and the literature on interventions in low-performing schools; and meetings and discussions among a wide range of participants from central offices, schools, and communities.

 

This collaborative approach has helped to shape the writing of this document.

 

PRINCIPLES OF ACCOUNTABILITY

 

Educational policymakers discuss accountability by asking: "Who is or should be accountable to whom? For what? How should the "what" be measured and assessed? What happens as a result?" Our response to these questions is that genuine systems of educational accountability promote high levels of achievement for all students. We believe that real accountability is schoolbased and includes strong roles for parents and community. Accountability pertains to all aspects of school life—school autonomy, standards, curriculum, instruction, professional development, assessment, schools organized as learning communities, school budgeting and school size.

 

Over the past five years, educators and community leaders have worked to develop principles that undergird a good, reciprocal system of accountability. They are organized under three goals: equity, reciprocity, and comprehensiveness and coherence.

 

Equity: All children—regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, economic circumstance, disability, and English language proficiency— receive the education they require in order to achieve to high academic standards.

 

Reciprocity: Principals, teachers, parents, students, community members, central office administrators, and the state share roles and responsibilities for student achievement. Each institutional level has full authority to carry out its roles and responsibilities. Parents, students, and community members are recognized as essential partners and accorded full respect.

 

Comprehensiveness and Coherence: Students learn in different ways and bring different strengths and cultural assets to the school. Thus, the school community organizes many resources and strategies to support the variety of ways in which students learn.

 

An ideal system of accountability would result in the achievement of these goals.

 

Our study focused on three major areas:

 

- What indicators are used to judge school success or failure? Are data disaggregated to reveal gaps in student achievement? Are the measures onetime snapshots or do they represent school trends over time?

 

- What processes do school districts employ to engage the schools, parents and community in supporting improvement? Are the processes leading to stronger school-based authority and responsibility? To reciprocal accountability?

 

- What are the key characteristics of the interventions' implementation? Do successful schools share their experiences with less successful schools? Are the interventions isolated or part of a larger, systemwide reform initiative? What funds and assistance are provided?

 

Ultimately, we wanted to know whether the interventions are quick political fixes or serious commitments to education, whether the actions being taken are likely to result in sustained and sustainable school improvement and whether they advance the cause of reciprocal accountability so that continuous school improvement becomes the norm.

 

INTERVENTION ISSUES AND ANALYSIS

 

Our examination of district and state interventions surfaced issues that were common across cities. In light of these issues, we posed the question to ourselves: "What would an intervention in a low performing school look like if it were meeting a standard of excellence?" Thus, to undergird our assessment of the initiatives, we developed a set of intervention standards that address indicators, process, and implementation. We then assessed the interventions in light of these standards.

 

The standard: Multiple indicators from multiple sources, reviewed over time, measure the success of teaching and learning and allow schools to evaluate their own performance and compare their performance with peer schools, the district as a whole, and schools in similar districts.

 

Key issue: There is an over-reliance on standardized test scores for measuring school and student performance.

 

Standardized test scores are carrying inordinate weight.

 

Rather than using a broader set of indicators of school performance over time, central administrations use standardized testing almost exclusively to identify low-performing schools and to measure school improvement. Increasingly, "school success" is being equated with higher test scores.

 

The heavy emphasis by central administrations on increasing standardized test scores is working at cross-purposes with the systemwide goal of teaching all children to high standards.

 

High-stakes standardized testing is diverting attention away from the importance of good instructional practice. Schools that spend months concentrating on test preparation do not have time to implement high standards.

 

The focus on standardized testing is also taking precedence over monitoring and tracking individual student performance.

 

Although each of our cities has recently adopted and begun to implement content standards describing what students should know and be able to do, we found less emphasis on assessing the learning of individual students.

 

Disaggregated data are not being provided to schools to facilitate their responses to achievement gaps associated with race, ethnicity, gender, disability, English language proficiency, and socioeconomic level.

 

Data should drive decisions at the school level, but we found little evidence of data being used to tailor solutions aimed at improving instruction for particular students or groups of students.

 

The standard: The intervention process is fair, mutually respectful, and public. It engages all stakeholders—principals, teachers, parents, students, community members, unions, site councils, and central office and state administrators.

 

Key issue: A low priority is placed on shaping relationships among stakeholders and on building ownership to improve student achievement at the school level.

 

Central administrations are exercising energetic and determined leadership to intervene in low-performing schools but are alienating school-level personnel with their tactics.

 

Driven by a strong commitment to improve student achievement and by mounting public intolerance of failing schools, central office leaders are using high visibility tactics in high stakes interventions. Their bold, decisive actions, which heavily involve the media, successfully communicate a sense of urgency and, thus, gain a measure of public support. These same actions, however, also are breeding misunderstanding, fear, cynicism, and mistrust among the school constituencies who must be involved in the work to make significant student achievement improvements.

 

Central administrations are stifling school-initiated accountability.

 

On the one hand, school districts and state agencies must set clear policies, develop sufficient structure, provide appropriate resources and oversight, and implement real consequences for low-performing schools that do not improve within prescribed time frames. It is equally important, however, to recognize that to achieve genuine accountability, school districts and state agencies must increase or preserve autonomy and enhance flexibility at the school level (including both budgets and programs) so that schools can actively engage in their own achievement of districtwide standards.

 

The interventions have not only been "top down," they have been "inside."

 

Generally, parents, community members, and school site councils have been on the sidelines of school change. Unions have slowly begun to participate as calls for school-level accountability have increased. Clear intervention roles have not been defined, nor have the requisite resources been made available for meaningful engagement. New patterns of participation among all stakeholders, focused on school quality, must emerge if there is going to be positive and sustained school change.

 

The standard: The intervention is undertaken in a manner that builds capacity at the local school level to strengthen teaching and learning and results in significant improvement in achievement for all students.

 

Key issue: Major investment is needed to build local school capacity to improve teaching and learning.

 

Although additional sums are being allocated, the investment in professional development at the school level remains woefully inadequate.

 

In general, the interventions have brought three sources of support to schools: new central office structures, extra funds, and external help. The latter two elements, however, have varied tremendously. School districts and state agencies are reluctant to publicly address the scope and cost of the support that must be provided to help schools improve. Current actions follow years of fragmented activity or inattention to improving teachers' and principals' knowledge and skills.

 

We found little evidence that the interventions were organized around a research base of successful instructional practices or around connections to successful models of interventions in low-performing schools. Moreover, the interventions varied in terms of whether they were implemented as a strategy encompassed in a comprehensive systemwide effort or as an isolated, non-systemic initiative.

 

At the end of "round one" of school interventions, political considerations and timelines are taking precedence over educational requirements.

 

There is considerable distance between the stated goals of the interventions and the reality of the supports and measures in place to improve low performing schools.

 

IMPROVING DISTRICT-LED INTERVENTIONS

 

There are essential roles that school districts can and must play to ensure school-level success. Only top leadership in the school district can send a systemwide message on equity—that low performance will no longer be tolerated in any school or with any group of students. Only central office leaders can adopt districtwide standards and hold all schools accountable for meeting these standards. The district negotiates and agrees to contracts with all employees’ agreements that are critical for planning and implementing effective interventions and school improvement strategies. Only school districts can reconstitute a school, removing or replacing all staff—an action that is sometimes necessary to break a culture of failure at a school.

 

It is school districts and school boards that must ensure that all schools have the support and the authority they need to transform practice. Only the school board can review, revise, or eliminate district policies that contribute to poor school performance—policies governing principal, teacher, and student assignments; teacher hiring; budget authority; and data collection and dissemination. The district must make certain that every school has adequate funding and that resources are distributed equitably. The school district can most effectively send a consistent message to the public about the importance of all students achieving to high standards. And the superintendent can lead the effort to build a broad base of public support for the investment necessary to improve low-performing schools.

 

If, however, one was designing an ideal system of intervening in low-performing schools—a system that had as its goal significant improvement in teaching and learning—central office interventions would not be the starting point. They would be an important last resort, after careful investment in other approaches. School districts can catalyze action, but they cannot improve educational practice. That work must happen at the school, with active parent and community participation.

 

The very nature of a large organization works against the carefully tailored, school-based work that serious educational change requires. By and large, central administrations as primary actors have tended to use generalized and one-size-fits all reform programs or approaches rather than a particular approach that is designed for a specific school and that draws on its strengths. While schools may have had years of low performance, most interventions expect schools to make major gains in very short periods of time. We agree that the work is urgent—students' futures are at stake. But if serious educational change is desired, it will not occur in one school year. The initiatives have resulted in some test score gains, but that is not the same as improved schools.

 

When examined against standards for an effective intervention aimed at better teaching and learning, these initiatives fall far short. We offer the following recommendations for improving district-led interventions.

 

Develop multiple indicators of school performance and review them over time.

 

Any high stakes intervention should be based on a series of indicators of school and student performance, the trends of which are reviewed over time. These indicators should include—but not be limited to—scores on standardized tests that have been aligned to a district's standards; other methods of assessing student performance (direct teacher observation, teacher-designed tests, student portfolios, exhibits, and so on); student attendance; student suspension/expulsion rates; dropout and mobility rates; course offerings; numbers of students taking college preparation courses; success at the next level; graduation rates; teacher attendance; level of teacher education and percentage of teachers who are teaching in their areas of certification; and measures of parental engagement.

 

Disaggregate data for every school by race, ethnicity, gender, primary language, socioeconomic status, and disabilities.

 

In order to thoughtfully judge school and student performance, data needs to be differentiated so that the parts, as well as the whole, are visible. Various groups of students at a school may be performing very differently. In fact, increasing a school's average test scores may mask the failure rates among some students.

 

Use disaggregated data to close the performance gap among students.

 

Improving performance in low-performing schools must include all students, especially those scoring in the lowest quartiles on standardized tests and doing least well on other measures. Improving performance for all students will require close attention to disaggregated data. Tailor specific strategies for different students to ensure their progress.

 

Make the use of data the norm for school improvement planning and decision-making.

 

Parents, site councils, community leaders, teachers, and principals should be sophisticated data users. This will allow them to make wise judgments about school progress and share in planning and implementing strategies for improvement. Achieving this, however, will require that data be organized and user-friendly. Central administrators, principals and teachers, site council members, parents, and community leaders need to work together to identify which data are needed, how they will be prepared, and when they will be made available to schools. Data review and reflection should be built into the regular school schedule, and there also must be time allowed for public discussion of the data. Then, the information that is acquired through data can be incorporated into the school improvement plan.

 

Work with schools to develop multiple, alternative methods of assessing student progress; work to make those assessment methods educationally credible and publicly understood and accepted.

 

Standardized, norm-referenced test scores carry enormous political weight. Although they were designed for narrow purposes and do not measure student progress over time, they are, in fact, widely used for many purposes, including high stakes decision-making. At the same time, educators and community leaders are developing new educational methods of assessing student work that are not standardized. Student portfolios and public demonstrations of student mastery are only two of many examples. These approaches need to be fully developed and shared across sites. Once these measures have become sound and reliable, education and community leaders will need to create and implement careful strategies to enhance these assessments' political and educational acceptance.

 

Help schools develop a process for regular self-diagnosis.

 

In order to help schools take responsibility for their own improvement—before a district intervenes— schools, districts, and states should work together to develop and implement a regular process for school self-study and planning. When this kind of rigorous self-diagnosis exposes problems and issues, schools and the district should design and agree on the type of assistance and support that will be available.

 

Notify and interview schools identified for intervention before there is a public announcement.

 

In some cities, a punitive climate was created because school staff, students, and parents first learned about the impending intervention when they saw their school named in the newspaper. This is not a good way to begin the partnership that will be required if schools are to improve. Before schools are identified for intervention, they should be notified and given a chance to discuss the data on their performance. Before the public is notified, schools should have time to inform teachers and parents and begin to enlist them in an improvement process.

 

Engage principals and teachers.

 

In the relatively small number of reconstituted schools, teachers and principals are removed from their jobs and have to reapply if they wish to return to that school. In most low-performing schools involved in interventions, however, the same principal and teachers will remain at the school and will be the primary leaders of the improvement. School district administrators, therefore, must walk a line between directives and encouragement, between tough love and support, between no excuses and respect, and between central office dictates and local diagnosis and action.

 

Enlist school site councils, parents, and community members as major allies in the intervention and improvement process.

 

Most of the interventions to date have been "insider" operations, with little attention to, or support for, the critical role that parents, site councils, and other members of the school community can and should play. Parent and community participation occurs most effectively at the school level, but the central administration has an important role to fulfill in encouraging and promoting this participation. Make data publicly available, create improvement plans that involve strong roles for these leaders, and enlist the community resources to which they have access.

 

Adopt a timeline for improvement that communicates both urgency and the time needed to make substantial educational improvements.

 

Some of the interventions have signaled their superficiality by demanding major changes in a few months. But serious school change takes time. If interventions are comprehensive and use a coherent instructional improvement framework, they will, by necessity, require more than one year to implement. Improvements should be measurable every year, but a serious and sustainable turnaround of a low-performing school is a multiyear effort.

 

Make a major investment in supporting the professional growth of teachers and principals.

 

Teaching all children to high standards and expecting high levels of achievement for all students requires excellent teaching by all teachers. Although teaching transformation should be viewed as the single most important intervention in improving low-performing schools, it has not been a focus. The work required to transform teaching should be school-based and employ multiple strategies within and across schools. To be done well, transforming teaching practices requires both a significant infusion of new funds and a redeployment of current funds.

 

Provide high-quality external help that has a "track record" of improving low-performing schools.

 

Low-performing schools need help to change what is often a culture of failure. That help should be substantive, sustained, and of proven quality. It can be provided by an educational organization, colleges and universities, a successful school, or a community group—whoever the entities are, they should be able to demonstrate their successful results in other, similar circumstances. School communities should play a leading role in designing the help needed and in choosing among potential support providers.

 

Engage successful schools as mentors for their low-performing peers.

 

Schools that have succeeded in educating students well in urban communities are essential sources of help to their less successful peers. In most urban school districts, however, there is no culture of cross-school exchange and support. Such a culture is needed in order to tap the peer-to-peer mentoring that could provide one of the most productive sources of support.

 

Revise or eliminate school district policies that contribute to low performance.

 

Just as they demand improvements at the school level, school districts have important work to do to put their own houses in order. Working with principals, site councils, teachers, and parents, they must make a commitment to identify and then revise (or eliminate) their own policies and practices that stymie school improvement. Policies that might need change include, but are not limited to, teacher hiring and assignment, principal tenure, student assignment, resource allocation, and data preparation and reporting.

 

TOWARD RECIPROCAL ACCOUNTABILITY

 

We propose moving beyond the current interventions to a system of reciprocal accountability—a school-centered approach focused on success for all students. An equitable, comprehensive, and reciprocal system of accountability requires all participants to take active roles, in contrast to having a system imposed by the central office or the state. It strives for intrinsic accountability in which members of the school community— teachers, principals, site council members, parents, and students—are the primary designers, with strong support from the central office and the state. Reciprocal accountability means that everyone accepts responsibility for results.

 

Reciprocal accountability assumes high expectations, assessment, continuous improvement, and mutually supportive relationships among all those who play a role in education, both inside and outside the system. In a reciprocal system, all participants actively work to ensure that all students experience success in school. Authority and responsibility are clearly located at the school, with strong support provided by the school district and the state.

 

Implicit in both our critique and the approach we advocate are many unanswered questions— questions that represent discussions to be had and work to be done. A few of them follow.

 

1. What is needed at all levels to close the systemwide achievement gap?

 

2. In a system of reciprocal accountability, what steps are necessary to ensure that issues of equity do not get separated from issues of excellence?

 

3. To what extent should teachers and principals be held accountable for student performance? What supports and consequences are appropriate for teachers whose classes are consistently low-performing? What role can unions play in ensuring that teachers who should no longer be teaching find other jobs?

 

4. In what ways can we hold central office and state administrators accountable for student performance? Is it possible to raise the standards of achievement for students without financial investment in opportunities to learn to high standards? Should schools be held accountable if the state and district have failed to invest in implementing standards well?

 

5. Who initiates standards in a system of reciprocal accountability? The school? The district? The state? How do we ensure that parents and community members are active participants in discussions of standards and the resources needed to implement them?

 

6. Can we avoid the "blame syndrome" for parents and communities and move to solutions that include support, respectful partnerships, and fair accountability?

 

7. Are we willing to provide the needed time, resources, and rigor to make substantive improvement in schools and school districts? How long is long enough?

 

8. What constitutes meaningful progress? For parents? Schools? Districts? How can progress over time be demonstrated? What methods should be devised to compare progress across schools when alternative forms of assessment are used?

 

9. How should political pressures for prompt action be honored? How can a school district or a school honestly report low performance and limited progress in a politically charged environment?

 

10. If schools need autonomy and authority to be accountable, what steps should precede district-led interventions? Can interventions be designed to increase autonomy?

 

11. In a system of reciprocal accountability, how do we ensure rigor and high expectations at all levels of the educational system? What happens when schools and districts disagree? When parents and educators disagree?

 

12. Will reciprocal accountability improve public confidence in public schools? Will it increase the public will to provide adequate resources and support?

 

NEXT STEPS

 

The work on educational interventions is new in every city. Administrators charged with the responsibility of designing and implementing those interventions have already begun to seek ways to improve their current initiatives. Closing the gap in student performance across schools must be part of this improvement. The work required to close the gap among all students (with no exceptions) makes it essential to develop a broader policy of reciprocal accountability among schools, parents and community members, school districts, and state education departments.

 

There are, as yet, only a limited number of good models of strong support across system levels— ample state support for standards-based reform; district support for curriculum redesign; school based professional development and support for multiple, shared instructional strategies that give teachers many ways to teach; school time for reflection and data-based school improvement planning that places student work at its center; leadership development for parents and community members; and a strong investment in capacity building across the system levels.

 

Still, practices are in place that reflect some elements of the system we advocate. Building these practices into an equitable, comprehensive, and reciprocal system of accountability requires thoughtful leaders who can integrate the elements into a strong whole. When we hold urban schools accountable for teaching all students to high standards, it is not just an academic exercise; it is an educational and civic imperative. We believe that shared accountability at all levels holds the greatest promise for school and student success.

 

Jeff C. Palmer is a teacher, success coach, trainer, Certified Master of Web Copywriting and founder of https://Ebookschoice.com. Jeff is a prolific writer, Senior Research Associate and Infopreneur having written many eBooks, articles and special reports.

 

Source: https://ebookschoice.com/creating-schools-that-are-successful-in-teaching-and-learning/