style="font-size:15px;"> Students need extra help.
Teachers matter a lot. (Haycock, 2001)
Four additional elements have emerged as the Education Trust has continued to investigate high-performing, high-poverty schools:
1. They make no excuses. Everybody takes responsibility for student learning.
2. They do not leave anything about teaching and learning to chance. High-performing districts:
Have clear and specific goals for what students should learn in every grade, including the order in which they should learn it.
Provide teachers with common curriculum assignments.
Assess students every 4 to 8 weeks to measure progress.
Act immediately on the results of these assessments.
3. They insist on rigor in every respect. Leading districts and states:
Align high school exit standards with the skills and knowledge necessary for further education and work.
Make college prep the default curriculum for all students.
4. They know that good teachers matter more than anything else.
Just for the Kids: Studies of High-Performing School Systems (1999–2006)
To promote a better understanding of the role of academic standards and data in increasing student achievement, civic leader and public education advocate Tom Luce launched Just for the Kids (JFTK) in 1995. A Texas-based nonprofit organization, JFTK “motivates educators and the public to take action to improve schools by giving them a clear picture of a school’s academic condition and identifying the effective practices found in high-performing schools” (Just for the Kids, 2006).
In 1997, the organization began analyzing state test data in search of successful schools and the practices they employed. This work grew into the Just for the Kids School Reports designed to provide educators with a clear and comprehensive picture of a school’s academic performance by subject and grade coupled with comparisons of schools with similar demographics that have achieved high levels of academic performance. The comparative aspect of the school reports was assembled through case studies of high-performing schools and the practices they used to acquire their high-performing status. The study resulted in the Best-Practice Framework.
The framework was based on a 4-year analysis of more than 100 high-performing schools through data, observations, and interviews. The framework identified effective district, school, and classroom practices around five organizing themes. It also takes into account four critical areas common to these schools:
1. Mobility
2. Percent of low-income students
3. Percent of limited-English-proficiency students
4. School, grade, and classroom size
Using JFTK data tools, a school can perform a self-audit that adjusts for the four critical areas, compares achievement data from recent tests and current classroom practices in the school, and then applies the framework to locate comparable schools with higher achievement, opening a path for educators to consider in targeting improvements.
The National Center for Educational Accountability (NCEA) was created in 2001 as a partnership between JFTK, the Education Commission of the States, and the University of Texas at Austin to “promote higher student achievement by improving state data collection and identifying practices that distinguish consistently high-performing schools from others and disseminating these findings” (Olsen, 2005, p. 24).
The NCEA, funded through a variety of individual, corporate, government, and private foundation sources, works closely with affiliates in almost half the states to implement NCEA-guided studies of high-performing schools. The Broad Foundation, through a $1.2 million grant, supported this work through 2006 in more than 450 schools located in 17 states. Schools qualifying as study candidates must have demonstrated three consecutive years of high performance on state tests and must make annual yearly progress by No Child Left Behind standards (Olsen, 2005).
To determine key features of high performance, NCEA adapted the Texas Best Practice Framework into its own framework, which focuses on determining evidence of student learning. The framework, presented as a matrix of themes, practices, state and district standards, core beliefs, resources, and local influences, identifies precisely what high-performing schools do to accomplish their success (figure 3.2, page 44). Jean Rutherford, center director, describes the underlying value of this common framework as having “clear and specific goals for students, rooted in state content standards” that have “clearly emerged as the bedrock foundation, … which provides a penetrating, deep understanding of what it is children are to know and be able to do and how to connect it across grades” (Olsen, 2005, p. 24).
Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning (McREL): “Raising the Achievement of Low-Performing Students” (Goodwin, 2000)
In 1999, Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning (McREL, formerly the Mid-continent Regional Educational Laboratory) commissioned seven papers from national experts on diversity issues. The goal was to identify causes of the low performance on achievement tests of “marginalized students” (poor and minority), and then to identify research-based strategies for ensuring that these students meet state educational standards. These papers synthesized more than 300 research reports and related documents and focused their recommendations on school district and state policy makers. The summary identified seven research-based conclusions for improving the academic performance of poor and minority students:
Figure 3.2: Best Practice Framework—Fundamental Principles of Strong Learning Systems (Used with permission of the National Center for Educational Accountability and Just for the Kids.)
1. Provide all students with rigorous curriculum.
2. Help teachers improve instruction.
3. Provide support to students.
4. Create smaller classes.
5. Increase parent involvement.
6. Identify the five ways low performance is manufactured.
7. Establish strong, yet fair, accountability. (Goodwin, 2000, p. 1)
The study also acknowledged the importance of understanding and holding high expectations for poor and minority children and the need for sustained support and assistance from instructional leaders.
North Central Regional Educational Laboratory (NCREL): “Wisconsin’s High-Performing/High-Poverty Schools” (Manset et al., 2000)
The North Central Regional Educational Laboratory (NCREL) studied high-performing, high-poverty schools in Wisconsin. The study identified 17 features within five prominent characteristics of effective schools.
1. Effective implementation of theory or philosophy
Shared leadership
Data-based decision-making
Student-centered
