Archive for the ‘successful schools’ Category

« Older Entries

How They Do It

Wednesday, May 12th, 2010

Argument after argument is tossed back and forth at conferences, in the newspapers and magazines about low-income, high ethnic population public schools that aren’t making it.

Then, lo and behold, three more great public schools and school districts pop up in the news.  In April 2010 at the National Association of School Boards convention in Chicago, Illinois, a presentation was made by Matteson School District (SD 162) near Chicago with 7 Pre-K to 8 schools. Three-fourths or more African-American students, second language, reduced price or free lunch, are all part of the list that indicates poor performance.

But, no, the district has won awards for meeting and exceeding proficiency on the state exams that are the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) benchmarks of success.

Not only Matteson public school district, but Marshall Elementary in budget deficit San Francisco, California, and Public School 172 in Sunset Park, Brooklyn, have overcome the odds.  Comparable schools-low-income neighborhoods, high number of minority students, second language issues.  How does it happen?

When reading the articles, it makes sense.  The factors that education studies have said make good schools were gripped by each school and the school district.  And it was done before the state superintendent or government came down with hands on hips, insisting on change.

Although specific programs may differ, four main traits identify the success of these schools.

* The school board, district superintendent, and principal have high expectations to do all possible to help students learn.  They have developed a long-range plan and stuck to it.  The faculty and staff are informed collaborators in the decisions to reach the achievement goals for the district and school.  The school community celebrates success.

* All members of the school community focus on providing the strategies to improve student achievement.  Teachers employ continuous assessment using multiple data sources which are analyzed and evaluated to improve instruction.  Teachers are given time outside of teaching for analysis and talk about how to improve instruction.  In addition, even with tight, tight budgets, resources are found to include speech therapists, nurses, tutors, social workers, and most important aggressive staff development.

*Parents are included in the school community.  For instance, at Marshall Elementary, the principal has hired a parent liaison who works on attendance, nutrition, transience-whatever impedes student success.  At PS 172 money was found for a dental hygienist who has dealt with the poor health issues that impede speech and energy to learn. At all schools, Matteson School district has trained parents to use the website in order to be knowledgeable about the programs going on at the schools.  Parent-school participation is encouraged at all schools.

* These good public schools report that art and music instruction has not been abandoned in order to improve test scores. Instead, the day is structured to use support staff during class time to reach the students with special needs. More than one teacher may be working with a group in the classroom. You can imagine that students are intent on learning, not “zoning out.” Money for after-school and Saturday instruction has been authorized.

Here’s the follow-up question. How was money found for the extra resources? So far we know only that principals scrounged for the funds and didn’t give up.

To ask about the report on Matteson School District (SD 162) in Illinois contact Dr. Blondean Y. Davis, Superintendent.  The article on PS 172 (aka Beacon School of Excellence) is found in The New York Times, April 26, 2010, “Poor Families, Rich Test Scores: A School Defies Odds” by Sharon Otterman.  Marshal  Elementary School’s story is found in the San Francisco Chronicle, April 20, 2010, “U.S. tapping school’s recipe for success” by Jill Tucker.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Posted in NCLB, No Child Left Behind Act, public schools, school community, successful schools |
Be the first to leave a comment »

Toil and Trouble

Wednesday, March 24th, 2010

March 19, 2010, a California education conference in Santa Clara with 400 attendees highlighted the financial troubles bubbling in California, but also described good news for troubled middle schools, a large number of which were nominated by the California State Department of Education for turn-around.  A surprise for anxious participants!

The huge school budget trouble was first on the agenda at the conference organized by Edsource, a foundation situated in the Bay Area that focuses on where the dollars are not and where they should be.

So, the big picture from the state administration’s plan to stabilize the budget is to cut K-12 funding by $1.9 million, child care and development by $300 million, but increase community college dollars (decimated in previous budgets) by a paltry, but still welcome, $200 million.  UC and CSU systems whose students were the most vocal in recent demonstrations get a combined $800 million.

The presenter, Mac Taylor, legislative analyst for the state, offered different options for the legislature to consider as it writes bills for its education budget.  As this blog has outlined before, legislators should be accounting for different populations, needs in different geographic areas, program quality, and public benefits to regions that need the most help.

The reader can see details of both the K-12 and Higher Education recommendations in reports from the legislative analyst’s office.  One can guess, double trouble is exacerbated by unintended consequences of California’s Proposition 13 and Proposition 98.

Community colleges are the higher education group most diminished in the past few years, but now during the recession community colleges are most desired by the young and the older student returning to upgrade their knowledge.  Philosophical Jack Scott, chancellor of the state community colleges, asked how do we define quality in higher education?  Is it by the quantity and quality of people excluded from that distinction or by the quantity and quality that the system produces?  In the global economy of the 21st century the answer is obvious.  What’s left is the toil necessary to provide opportunities.

Which led to the talk by Hal Plotkin, former community college board member and currently at the U. S. Department of Education.  He advocated for the student direct loan legislation attached to the reconciliation measure which passed in the House of Representatives Sunday, March 21, and is waiting for Senate approval.  It will allow students to complete their course work and raise the number who graduate, an education goal of the current administration.

Not all trouble is doubling.  Edsource has completed a study about middle schools, the well of adolescent angst, and found that many children in some schools are high achievers.  And it doesn’t depend on the school grade configuration (K-8, 6-8 and so on) or on instruction and teaching organization (eg. by subject or interdisciplinary).

To the writer of this post, of the many recommendations, 3 stood out.  Superintendents and school boards should give priority to academic improvement in the middle grades.

When principals and teachers are hired, those with interests, skills, and competencies outlined in the findings for high-performing schools should be the main considerations.

Make sure the curriculum is aligned with California academic standards and teachers, principals, superintendents are in part evaluated by how well students grow from assessment to assessment.

Last, the study did not find that salary adjustments, better known as merit pay, helped achieve higher student outcomes.  Another welcome result.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in California budget crisis, Edsource, community colleges, public schools, school accountability, successful schools |
1 Comment »

More Pay for More Performance?

Wednesday, December 16th, 2009

School districts are looking for new ways to compensate teachers.  The most common system of steps and levels rewards teachers for longevity and additional education.  This method does not distinguish excellence or discourage mediocrity, which troubles some educators and many taxpayers.

I see two challenges in changing the system:  inertia and educators uneasy with compensation based on student learning, annual goals, and management observation.

Traditional teacher compensation systems

Most school districts have compensation contracts with teacher’s unions based on time on the job and amount of education credits.  This method is straightforward and objective.  It does not rely on observation of teaching skill or on results of student learning.  Management doesn’t have to haggle over whether a teacher is effective - if the teacher has ten years and a master’s degree, it’s easy to check on a grid to see how much the teacher will be paid.

New assessment tools available

This 90 year old system has simplicity and universal coverage in its favor, which was a plus before we had testing tools to measure student learning and annual growth.  Colorado now administers the CSAP, a statewide, annual student learning assessment.  The state test measures student proficiency in reading, writing, math, and science, and can compare students of “like” learning levels from one year to the next to determine “annual growth.”  This tool enables schools to identify which students have grown more or less than their peers in learning.  Schools with high growth are seen as “good schools”; schools with low growth are supposed to improve.

Some caveats

These tools make objective assessment of teacher effectiveness possible.  But where’s the money to use this assessment as a compensation mechanism?  And what about those teachers whose children are not given a statewide test - music, art, physical education, vocational teachers?

How would districts support additional teacher education?

If “levels” or additional education is taken out of the compensation formula, then there’s room for shifting pay toward effectiveness.  But then there’s no money to reward for additional education.  Would teachers pursue more graduate level training if the reward is not inevitable?  Will districts agree to tuition assistance plans to pay up front for additional education to replace levels?  Will a district that removes levels be able to compete for staff with districts that keep levels?

If school districts replace “levels” with effectiveness measures, will those measures only include student learning progress and growth?  Should other elements, such as teacher leadership, special projects, coaching and mentoring, parent relations, etc. also play a part?

How will teachers be evaluated?

A merit pay or pay for performance or pay for effectiveness system requires teacher performance evaluation.  My experience is that principals are concerned about doing annual appraisals, surely a must for merit pay.  Annual appraisal requires principals to be in classrooms observing teachers and children many times during the year.  Do principals have time for that level of oversight?  An alternative method involves “peer” evaluation, in which teachers evaluate teachers.  Will the public see that as an accurate assessment or as a means for teachers to take care of each other’s compensation?

Who will set evaluating metrics?

In the business community, companies set up performance evaluation criteria and metrics which managers use to assess their employees. Typically this system also involves setting goals each year that will merit additional compensation.  When companies have enough money for bonuses, this method enables extra pay.

Will principals sit down with each teacher at the beginning of each year to establish goals?  Will principals work with teacher teams to establish goals?  Will principals and staff establish school goals?  Will districts work with principals to evaluate the merit of school goals?  If teachers do not meet goals, will their compensation be confined to “steps,” or time on the job, and cost of living increases?

Pay for performance is not easy

A merit pay or pay for performance system is possible, but it will be more complicated.  The biggest question is whether it will produce better results for kids.  If it creates more “effectiveness” conversations between principals and teachers, if goals focus on genuine needs, and teachers work better up and down the grade level structure, then a merit system may do its job.  And it may give taxpayers more confidence when compensating teachers.  But it won’t be easy.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Posted in program improvement, public schools, successful schools, teacher preparation |
Be the first to leave a comment »

What It Takes

Wednesday, November 25th, 2009

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.

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Posted in Academic Performance Index, Arne Duncan, Race to Top, highly qualified teachers, low-performing schools, program improvement, public schools, school reform, successful schools |
Be the first to leave a comment »

Pay for Performance?

Wednesday, October 7th, 2009

How did the business model term, “pay for performance,” morph into the preferred way to assess teachers–by the number of student’s proficient on a test?

The issue has risen in an effort to turn around low-performing schools.

In 1992 the California state legislature set rules to allow charter schools, financed with the same money that would otherwise go to a traditional public school, often perceived as playing on the monetary issue.

Over time, according to statistics from state exams that public-financed charter school students must take, elementary charter school performance is “neither better nor worse” than traditional public schools.

Pay, however,  is often an issue.  See “As More Charter Schools Unionize, Educators Debate the Effect,” by Sam Dillon, The New York Times, July 27, 2009.

So, what next?

Advocated by the Department of Education’s Race to the Top plan to close the achievement gap in low-performing schools, one strongly advised mechanism to improve student achievement is “performance pay.”

Somehow, based on their students’ scores on one test and parent feedback, teachers will find the offer of better pay an incentive to work harder.  While the model may provide an incentive to complete tasks in the office or factory in an efficient manner, thus improving production, that is not how a school is organized.

A successful school is one where children are supported by teachers who know the curriculum and the best strategies to teach.  The parents, staff, and administration animate students to learn and the buildings are safe.  Exams are one tool used to analyze where students are doing well and where they need another technique or tool to master the subject.  Such a school needs adequate funds, but “performance pay” is not the incentive.

In California for a few years before the state budget went haywire, “school-based pay” bonuses were the rage.  Successful schools, measured by the state’s Academic Performance Index (API), received a substantial amount of money to use at the school site.  Rumbles of discontent began to surface over which schools received awards and why, but the plan was dropped when funds dried up.

Some schools in some districts, Los Angeles Unified for one, have tried various plans, often called “merit pay.”  Teachers vote to waive tenure and the salary schedule negotiated by the local union for the possibility of making a larger salary if classroom instruction improves and their students do well on state exams.  Some plans have been dropped; none have become institutionalized yet.

Another plan is negotiated around “knowledge and skill-based” pay.  A district like Douglas County Schools in Colorado, set in a well-to-do area, has few problems with meeting benchmarks on state exams.  The plan addresses pay for extra duty, for professional development, for meeting goals on an evaluation plan.  The incentive pay relies on foundation support and grants.

On the other hand, the school where I worked in San Jose Unified School District with the goal of school improvement on the API, budgeted monies for time spent on professional development and leadership meetings after school hours, and set aside monies for substitutes to allow teachers to analyze test data and plan strategies to improve student learning.  Over time, student performance improved.

Here was a kind of “knowledge and skill-based” pay about which Robert Weil of American Federation of Teachers has remarked, “The best performance plans are standard operating procedure.”  See “Pay for Performance: What Are the Issues?” by Ellen R. Dalisio, Education World, 2006.

None of these models address this question:  how does performance pay help schools turn around when the sole burden on the teacher’s back is how well students do on a single test?

Here and Now in the Education World will look at those issues in the next post.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Academic Performance Index, American Federation of Teachers, Race to Top, low-performing schools, public schools, successful schools |
Be the first to leave a comment »

« Older Entries