Low-performing Schools Research Articles

A Performance Test for Districts and States

BEEN THERE. Done that. This popular rejoinder is a message to the new President from the editor of the award-winning, iconoclastic monthly publication Catalyst, which has been following school reforms in Chicago for more than a decade. Editor Linda Lenz points out that the core reforms proposed by President Bush were in Chicago's Petri dish a long time ago. The Windy City has tried annual testing from kindergarten through eighth grade. It has mandated improvement plans, and it has placed penalties on low-performing schools that failed to improve. Practically speaking, Lenz says, parents can transfer their children to any school in the system that will accept them. Chicago's schools no longer merit the verbal abuse dumped on them by former Secretary of Education William Bennett, who labeled them the worst schools in the country. Yet they certainly haven't improved very much, despite the considerable spin from the district's top officials. Given the number of years Chicago has been working on its problems and the amount of punishment inflicted on its failing students, the results have been quite minimal. Data from standardized tests might identify schools that need help, but they don't say much about the level of learning that takes place in them. True to what researchers have been trying to point out to anyone who would listen, the longer students take the same tests, the better they do. Texas, California, Florida, and other states may certainly claim that the test scores show that their students are learning more. However, introduce a new test in any of those states, and Sisyphus' rock crashes back to the bottom of the hill. And the climb must start all over again. That's one reason why teachers, administrators, and parents can't depend on test results to tell them if all students are getting an equal chance to learn. So far, though, tests and penalties represent the paths of least resistance for policy makers. When the current standards and assessment movement first began to get organized, there was a third component to the effort - opportunity-to-learn standards. However, state policy makers feared both the cost of implementing such standards and the potential litigation if they promised to provide appropriate opportunities for all students to learn and then didn't deliver. If policy makers at all levels are serious about improving student learning, then it's time for them to acknowledge that students must have full opportunities to learn. Research in Chicago and elsewhere, for example, makes it explicit that teachers' instructional behaviors have more to do with student achievement than any other factor. The Consortium on Chicago School Research, in a series of reports for the local Annenberg Challenge, found that children do better on basic skills tests when their instruction and curricula really challenge them to think. Moreover, it turns out that the teachers who can teach this way have been the beneficiaries of good, intensive professional development. The revelation that poor, minority children thrive with the kinds of teaching usually reserved for gifted children should come as no surprise to anyone who has been paying attention. A 10-year-old study for the U.S. Department of Education came to the same conclusions. Need more? Lauren Resnick, in research on the public schools in Pittsburgh, found that well-informed practice can overcome the achievement gap between white students and minorities. In schools that did a good job with comprehensive reforms - aligning curriculum, instruction, assessments, and professional development to high-quality content - minority students outperformed white students who were in schools with poorly implemented reforms. Like their students, teachers also need opportunities for high-quality learning. And they rarely get it. Unlike the business community, schools are rightly reluctant to pull teachers away from their work in order to get professional development during the school day. …

Critique of "An Evaluation of the Florida A-Plus Accountability Program"

In 1999, Florida adopted the "A-Plus" accountability system, which included a provision that allowed students in certain low-performing schools to receive school vouchers. In a recently released report, An Evaluation of the Florida A-Plus Accountability and School Choice Program (Greene, 2001a), the author argued that early evidence from this program strongly implies that the program has led to significant improvement on test scores in schools threatened with vouchers. However, a careful analysis of Greene's findings and the Florida data suggests that these strong effects may be largely due to sample selection, regression to the mean, and problems related to the aggregation of test score results.

Responding Wisely to the Bush Plan

IN A TRUE twist of irony, the Bush Administration has managed to do something the Democrats could never do - turn the federal government into a big stick aimed at states and schools. Even President Clinton's national testing plan was to have been voluntary. Not so the accountability measures being fleshed out under President Bush's education plan. If some of these measures seem terribly intrusive all the way down to the classroom level, the culprit is not the overreaching of the national politicians, but the almost amazing lack of smarts on the part of many state and local officials and educators. They just didn't take seriously enough the demand for schools to do better, nor did they react with the kind of informed policy making that was needed. The 1994 revisions to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act changed expectations and accountability substantially. They were part of an evolution of reforms, however, that had been in progress for two decades, accompanied by a body of research that provides the best resources on teaching and learning that have ever been available. Yet the response of the education sector - including high-performing and low-performing schools - has been so weak and lacking in skill and urgency that the whole enterprise could be brought to its knees by onerous testing programs. Four years after the expectations were spelled out in the 1994 federal legislation, four-fifths of the principals of Title I schools surveyed in one U.S. Department of Education (ED) study said that they could implement the reforms without extensive changes. This was true even among principals of schools that had been identified as low performing for two consecutive years. The story is even more incredible at the classroom level. Twenty-eight percent of the schools were still not using standards for instruction. While the number of schools providing extended learning time increased substantially (to almost half of the schools), only 12% of the students in Title I schools participated in such programs. Despite repeated criticism of the use of paraprofessionals for instruction, two-thirds of the schools used them, and 85% of their time was taken up with teaching. Another study outlined classroom practices in reading and math that had been shown to work better with students in the bottom quarter of their classes. These practices focused on high-quality teaching - for example, providing students with richer content, opportunities to discuss the material, and problem solving. Yet in the two years this study covered, the changes in teachers' practice tended to be away from such strategies and toward drill-and-skill activities that did not improve student achievement. Undoubtedly, such responses to standards-based reforms are at least as much the result of panic over state assessments as they are of bad teaching habits. The states had five years to construct acceptable assessment systems under the Title I requirements (for efficiency purposes, the assessment systems apply to all schools and students). And, with a gumption it had not shown earlier, the departing Clinton Administration gave most of the states a low, or at least incomplete, grade on their assessment efforts. Of the 34 reviews conducted by the end of December, only 11 states had earned full approval, 20 states were given more time to submit reports, and three states were judged to be out of compliance and required to submit redesigns. Overall, state officials stumbled most frequently over the inclusion of students with limited proficiency in English and of students with disabilities and the requirement to disaggregate the reporting of assessment data. The Title I study also found a lack of communication and action from the state level down. Thirteen percent of the Title I school principals didn't know if their schools had been identified as needing improvement; less than half of the low-performing schools had received additional professional development or technical assistance. …

A Case Study of Democratic Accountability and School Improvement

This case study examines ways to improve schools through “democratic accountability.” The study investigated strategies that were used by a principal to increase staff and student expectations in a low-performing middle school. Information was collected through interviews and surveys with school stakeholders at all levels of involvement. The article concludes by raising issues for leaders regarding building the capacity of schools to sustain improvement.

A Reform for Troubled Times: Takeovers of Urban Schools

Increasing pressure to improve low-performing schools—particularly those in central cities serving disadvantaged and minority students—has led to a host of reform efforts. This article focuses on a strategy that involves takeovers of troubled schools or entire systems by mayors, state legislatures, or control boards. Following the takeover of the Jersey City, New Jersey, schools in 1989, at least partial control of schools has been taken from elected boards in Chicago, Baltimore, Cleveland, Washington, D.C., and Detroit. Discussed in this article are some of the major issues involved with takeovers, including arguments for and against the practice, the policy questions it raises, and the all-important role race has played in the debate. The authors close with thoughts for evaluating the effectiveness of this increasingly popular, yet unproven, attempt at reforming low-achieving schools.

Appendix A: Federal Programs to Increase Children's Access to Educational Technology

In society today, technology, education, and economic growth go hand in hand. Technological literacy is important not only to children's own future economic well-being, but also to the economic well-being of our nation. Technology can help expand opportunities for learners to improve their skills, maximize their potential, and ready them for the twenty-first century. Over the past seven years, the Clinton administration has focused on four goals for educational technology: (1) training teachers to use technology effectively in instruction, (2) ensuring that all teachers and students have modem computers in their classrooms, (3) connecting every classroom to the Internet, and (4) integrating high-quality software and online learning resources into every school's curriculum. [1] New federal programs inspired by these goals--along with changes in telecommunications policy, investments at the state and local level, and support of the high-tech industry--have resulted in great progress. For example, between 1993 and 1999, the percentage of classrooms with Internet access grew from 3% to 65%, and by the end of 2000, 100% of schools will likely be connected to the Internet. [2] Virtually all full-time regular public school teachers report they now have access to computers or the Internet in their schools, and about two-thirds say they are using the new technology for classroom instruction. [3] And yet, despite this progress, more needs to be done. Among classrooms in the poorest schools, for example, only 39% were connected to the Internet. And two-thirds of the same teachers who have access to technology also say they are not well prepared for the task. At the federal level, several programs have been introduced to help meet this challenge (see Table 1). A key program helping to reduce t he digital divide is the Education-rate (or E-rate) program. Under a provision in the 1996 Telecommunications Act, the Federal Communications Commission is empowered to use the universal service mechanism to provide E-rate subsidies for telecommunications services and Internet connections for schools and libraries. Subsidies provided through this program have benefitted more than 80,000 schools and thousands of libraries, with the greatest assistance going to those with the greatest need. In addition, the U.S. Department of Education's Community Technology Center program hopes to improve access to technology for both children and their families in underserved communities by supporting the development of 1,000 centers across the country. As of 2000, funding has been provided to develop 450 such community technology centers, and more are planned for the future. To support better use of technology in the classroom, several programs place a central focus on teachers. The new Preparing Tomorrow's Teachers to Use Technology program that supports partnerships among colleges, school districts, state educational agencies, and high-tech companies will reach almost one-third of prospective teachers, enhancing their technological literacy and enabling them to integrate technology in their teaching. The Department of Education has also urged states to devote at least 30% of their grants from the Technology Literacy Challenge Fund to train teachers on how to use technology effectively in instruction, especially teachers in high-poverty, low-performing schools. In fiscal year 2000, funding for educational technology through the E-rate and U.S. Department of Education technology programs reached an all-time high of $3 billion. Despite this significant amount of funding for technology, federal investment in education is small compared to the overall investment at the state and local levels. Thus, each of the Department's technology programs attempts to encourage a cooperative approach by supporting the involvement and investment of state and local school districts and the private sector with the knowledge and resources held at the national level. …

Can Integrated Governance Reconstruct Teaching? Lessons Learned from Two Low-Performing Chicago High Schools

In 1995, the Illinois state legislature declared that an "educational crisis" existed in Chicago and passed the Chicago School Reform Amendatory Act, which integrated school governance by placing authority for the public schools under the control of the mayor reducing the number of policy actors who compete for decision-making authority, and expanding the financial and management powers of the district administration. Although the new district administration effectively used the integrated governance structure to improve operations management and to strengthen the system's political base, reconstructing teaching to improve student achievement presents a much more difficult challenge. In this article, the authors examine how the district's probation policy affected curricular and instructional practices in two low-performing Chicago high schools. Their review of policy implementation processes reveals how "street-level bureaucrats" strongly mediated the effects on classroom teaching.

Accountability, school reform, and equity: The troubling case of Sylvan school district

Most educational accountability systems draw upon relatively simplified indicators of student learning. Despite sufficient criticism and evidence of their misuse, test scores continue to be emphasized—even though they have a deadening effect on the very school district these accountability systems intend to primarily influence. This paper focuses on one of these low-performing school districts. The case study of Sylvan One reveals that the influence of state policy is especially circumscribed in a district like Sylvan's that is beset by such prevailing conditions as the politics of race, the culture of poverty, vacuums in communication and leadership, and the uncritical mass of human resources. Each of these conditions limits change and reform dramatically. Account-ability and reform must focus on a rigorous curriculum and well-understood standards—but only in the context of this community, replete with its problems ofrelationships, resources, andracism. These are the “three Rs” that are tantamount to creating and sustaining reform. And this approach is more about political development than anything else. Recommendations for moving beyond the traditional policymaking tools of mandates and inducements are suggested, recognizing that policy may at best promote equality, but not necessarily excellence and equity.

Factors influencing retention of directors of nursing at rural long-term care facilities

More than one out of every five principals leaves their school each year. In some cases, these career changes are driven by the choices of district leadership. In other cases, principals initiate the move, often demonstrating preferences to work in schools with higher achieving students from more advantaged socioeconomic backgrounds. Principals often use schools with many poor or low-achieving students as stepping stones to what they view as more desirable assignments. We use longitudinal data from one large urban school district to study the relationship between principal turnover and school outcomes. We find that principal turnover is, on average, detrimental to school performance. Frequent turnover of school leadership results in lower teacher retention and lower student achievement gains. Leadership changes are particularly harmful for high poverty schools, low-achieving schools, and schools with many inexperienced teachers. These schools not only suffer from high rates of principal turnover but are also unable to attract experienced successors. The negative effect of leadership changes can be mitigated when vacancies are filled by individuals with prior experience leading other schools. However, the majority of new principals in high poverty and low-performing schools lack prior leadership experience and leave when more attractive positions become available in other schools.

Chapter 1 Program Improvement: Cause for Cautious Optimism and a Call for Much More Research

The program improvement provisions of the Hawkins-Stafford Amendments to Chapter 1 rest on the optimistic premise that school-level accountability pressures directed at Chapter 1 will lead to higher academic achievement for educationally disadvantaged students. Although the legislation may be unrealistic in assuming that improvement is primarily an act of will, it correctly focuses on the school as the appropriate unit for change. Principals of over 200 schools identified for program improvement in three states were surveyed to determine local responses to the new provisions. Over two-thirds of responding schools had begun to implement programmatic changes. Fully 84% supported the legislative provisions. Research is called for to study the effects of the legislation and to provide additional options to low-performing schools.

Toward assessing test score‐related actions of principals

This article is related to recent phenomena which followed the intensification in public demand for accountability in education. A focus has developed not only on the need to improve levels of student achievement, but on the school principal to assume responsibility in the attempts to meet this need. From an intellectual perspective, this article is grounded in the expanding line of research on the relationship between attributes of the school principal and levels of student achievement in the principal's school. To suggest that the principal might play a pivotal role in the enhancement of student achievement is not to ignore the central role which students and teachers have in how well students perform. In fact, because of the centrality of students and teachers, research results about the impact of the principal are mixed. In the 1970s there was evidence already about the existence of the principal's influence (e.g., Deal & Celotti, 1980; Edmonds, 1981). But it was also found (e.g., Phi Delta Kappa, 1980; State of New York, 1974) that principals in highand lowscoring schools have similar qualities. Some later conclusions (e.g., Glasman, 1986; Heck, Larsen, & Marcoulides, 1990) pointed to an extremely complex relationship between attributes of principals and levels of student achievement. It was also suggested that the relationship is indirect and probably two-directional. Various researchers found principals in high-performing schools to have different attributes than those in low-performing schools. For example, Huff, Lake, and Schaalman (1982) found them to have stronger affective traits and cognitive analytical skills. They also found them to be more involved with change in a more focused way. Bossert, Dwyer,