efforts are a large number of successful schools and districts that have independently reported the specific strategic actions they have taken that have led to their successes and effectiveness with poor and minority children and youth. This growing body of evidence may well prove to be the most important information ever assembled regarding the effective instruction of the children of poverty.
It is important to note that the accumulation of such specific detail for improving the achievement of students of poverty has been driven by a number of policy changes, including the development of comprehensive state standards and accountability measures, advances in technology that have enabled educators to better understand and use data, state and federal policy changes requiring both comprehensive and disaggregated assessment, as well as required yearly goal-setting and progress reporting. These changes have prompted educators to intensify and accelerate their efforts and resolve to effectively teach the underachieving children of poverty. The framework of research on high-performing, high-poverty schools (figure 3.1, pages 38–39) documents the unprecedented work of many of our schools to better serve the underachieving students of poverty.
A Framework of Research on High-Performing, High-Poverty Research on Schools High-Performing,
“What surprises you about high-poverty, high-performing schools is the whole positive attitude, the can-do spirit…. They are human bulldozers. They literally roll over obstacles and they believe that no obstacle is too great. When you see this in person, the magnitude of how dramatically different this attitude is from that in high-poverty, low-performing schools really knocks your socks off.”
—Louisiana Staff Development Council Investigator (Richardson, 2005, p. 1)
The 18 studies, reports, and data analyses compiled in figure 3.1 document an emerging pattern of school improvement strategies and practices that are being implemented effectively by all types of schools in every area of the country. Analysis of these sources yields eight specific strategies and practices found in successful high-performing, high-poverty schools. According to the studies, these schools:
Ensure effective district and school leadership. Engage parents, communities, and schools to work as partners. Understand and hold high expectations for poor and culturally diverse students.
Target low-performing students and schools, particularly in reading. Align, monitor, and manage the curriculum. Create a culture of data and assessment literacy. Build and sustain instructional capacity. Reorganize time, space, and transitions.
The framework identifies these eight primary recommendations or conclusions of the studies as well as successful strategies and practices from the individual participating schools. These strategies and practices are marked with asterisks.
The findings from these 18 efforts (listed chronologically in the framework) provide a sufficient basis to conclude that this pattern can be successfully applied by other schools and districts attempting to improve their educational programs for underachieving students of poverty.
Figure 3.1: Framework of Research on High-Performing, High-Poverty Schools
Louisiana School Effectiveness Study (LSES): “Schools Make a Difference” (Teddlie & Stringfield, 1993)
One of the earliest studies occurred in Louisiana and attempted to understand why a number of high-poverty schools were so successful in achieving academic proficiency for their students. The Louisiana School Effectiveness Study (LSES), initiated in 1980, spanned a 10-year period during which its multiple phases explored and compared differences in student achievement that related to student socioeconomic status and school climate. The LSES further identified and studied effective and ineffective schools and sought to understand how students in some of the state’s poorest communities were achieving up to and beyond students in the schools in more affluent communities. The study found that effective low-socioeconomic-status schools often possessed:
Motivating principals and teachers
Increased instructional time in reading and math
High principal and teacher expectations for student achievement
Principals that frequently visited classrooms
The use of teacher aides
Younger and less experienced teachers
Principal autonomy in staff selection (Teddlie & Stringfield, p. 34, 1993)
Leadership was continuously referenced as an essential characteristic of success in this study. The ability to instill in students a belief that they can achieve was identified by the LSES as central to effective teaching of low-socioeconomic-status students. This study concluded that schools indeed do make a difference in student achievement regardless of the socioeconomic status of students. The study also acknowledged the importance of engaging parents, communities, and schools and of reorganizing time and space as characteristics of success in high-performing, high-poverty schools.
Education Trust: Dispelling the Myth, Revisited, and Over Time (Barth et al., 1999; Jerald, 2001; Education Trust, 2002)
Beginning in 1999, staff of the Education Trust, an independent nonprofit organization committed to a “single-minded attention of what is best for students—especially low-income students and students of color” (www2.edtrust. org), attempted to summarize the common characteristics of the high-performing schools they had been analyzing. The Education Trust was one of the first national organizations to study and bring attention to the existence of large numbers of K–12 schools with high-poverty, high-minority enrollments where students were dramatically outperforming schools of far greater economic advantage.
Their Dispelling the Myth reports reviewed the growing database of state test results that revealed thousands of high-poverty or high-minority schools that were outperforming over 75% of the schools in their respective states. The Education Trust identified the reasons for these gains:
Extensive use of state and local standards to design curriculum and instruction, assess student work, and evaluate teachers
Increased instruction time for reading and mathematics
Substantial investment in professional development for teachers that focused on instructional practices to help students meet academic standards
Comprehensive systems to monitor individual student performance and to provide help to struggling students before they fall behind
Parental involvement in efforts to get students to meet standards
State or district accountability systems with real consequences for adults in schools
Use of assessments to help guide instruction and resources and as a healthy part of everyday teaching and learning (Jerald, 2001, p. 3)
Kati Haycock, executive director of the Education Trust, further summarized the characteristics of schools successfully teaching poor and minority students. She indicates that in these schools:
Standards are the key.
All students
