With hoopla about grants for Race To the Top, in an effort to turn around high schools in dire need of help; gung-ho proposals about grants for elementary schools; and constant brouhaha over teacher’s union opposition to change, it’s just plain great to see an article about a school that has actually succeeded.
Not only succeeded, it’s in a low-income pocket of my neighborhood on the San Francisco peninsula, known for high-flying salaries and mega-homes and students who expect to go to Stanford, UC Berkeley, or an Ivy League university. Leroy Anderson Elementary reached the goal of every elementary school with “at risk” students-an Academic Performance Index (API) 800+.
Reading the article “Learning to Teach to Bridge the Achievement Gap” by Phil Yost, New York Times, November 20, 2009, the qualities of a successful school filled the page. The article covered highly-qualified teachers willing to pursue the achievement goal, dedicated administrators, curriculum changes shown to improve the capabilities of low-performing students, known successful teaching techniques, regular consistent assessment and analysis, and parent inclusion.
Why can’t all elementary schools with low test scores do what Anderson Elementary did, even in California, the land of no money for schools?
Certain requirements are only inferred in Yost’s article which must be present or developed in the effort to close the achievement gap in a school.
First and foremost, a cadre of teachers, who know the goal and stand by it, must agree to stay at the school. They understand the difficulties to overcome and will not back away or obstruct. The teachers are expected to be leaders, listened to by the administrators and asked to research and help organize the curriculum changes that will be needed.
Second, the school needs administrators who are determined to see the change through. They must be partners with the teaching staff in developing and/or preparing for the reading/language arts and math models. They must not give up when students don’t improve right away. They must hold off district personnel who want to try the next big thing. They must be relentless in the consistency of the program, but watch constantly to improve what isn’t effective.
Third, in spite of what one reads about improvement possible even when the funding picture is bleak, it helps to have a district office on the side of the school. To turn around a school, it’s good to be a small school in a small district, easier for district personnel to keep in mind the issues the school faces. (Moreland School District has 5 elementary schools and 1 middle school with about 4000 students total.)
When parents at the school need a program, as at Anderson, to learn English and parenting skills to support their children, the district must have helped find the money. When teachers say they will tutor students after school, the district will find the money. When the school principal wants professional development time set aside to analyze test data that drives the curriculum, the district doesn’t put her off, but finds the money.
Finally, when Charles Weis, Santa Clara County Superintendent of Schools (where Anderson Elementary is found), makes general statements about knowing which schools need help and how to help them, it’s not good enough. If he’s on the side of school reform in low-performing, “at risk” schools, is he working with the district superintendents, the teacher’s unions, and school boards to set a time table for change and not back down?
Jonathan Alter in “Teddy’s Rightful Heir” Newsweek, November 9, 2009, suggests that is happening at the federal Department of Education. “He (President Obama) and Arne Duncan are showing some Chicago muscle….”
Do what it takes.