is of the gravest concern, particularly for successful charter schools. While lotteries generally ensure that these schools have comparable percentages of special education students to traditional public school, the challenge of cherry-picked parents is real and legitimate, as even the staunchest defenders of charter schools acknowledge (Pondiscio, 2019). But there are three essential responses to this challenge that teachers and leaders in any school, regardless of label or governance structure, must consider. First, the evidence on successful high-poverty schools is certainly not limited to charter schools or others that are otherwise selective. The more than a dozen sources cited in the introduction (page 1) and chapter 1 (page 9) provide many examples of success far beyond charter schools. Second, and more to the point, so what if successful schools engage parents more directly and benefit from discipline and academic policies that parents wholeheartedly endorse? That is not an argument that these schools are failing or that their policies are inadequate, but rather that all schools—traditional public, charter, and private—can learn from the teaching and leadership practices of their counterparts. Third, and most importantly, the most successful charter schools, such as New York’s Success Academy, can be compared to schools that actually do cherry-pick students—that is, the designated gifted and talented schools. Under this sort of comparison, the students selected by lottery in the Success Academy Charter Schools significantly outperform the highly selected—cherry-picked, if you will—gifted and talented schools (Pondiscio, 2019).
Summary
This chapter considered seven criticisms of research about success in high-poverty schools. To be clear, I do not challenge the motives of critics, as I fundamentally believe that almost everyone who enters into the national and global discussion about how to improve education has the best interests of students at heart. Nevertheless, this book has a clear point of view, and I want to respectfully acknowledge and respond to the most common criticisms of the research on successful high poverty schools. Critics frequently contend that successful high-poverty schools are different—whether due to their funding, students, or exceptional teachers—and therefore, their results cannot be generalized to conditions in unsuccessful schools. Many of the articles, books, and films about successful high-poverty schools are no more than anecdotes consisting of a sample size of one, and not generalizable. Some research, particularly regarding commercial programs, curricula, and technology, may be commercially tainted if the organization sells and administers those programs. Some successful high-poverty schools are based on criteria that are too low; we ought to expect more from all students. The funding for some successful high-poverty schools may be higher than the funding for unsuccessful schools. Finally, successful high-poverty schools, particularly magnet and charter schools, may cherry-pick their students, either by excluding high-needs students or by relying on parents who take an active interest in their children’s education, factors that are not always the case in the unsuccessful high-poverty schools.
The best response to these criticisms is to acknowledge and respect them, be aware of them when conducting research and presenting findings, and do the best job possible to take these potential criticisms into account when conducting future research. Most important, good researchers acknowledge the limitations of their work, as I have sought to do in this chapter. That said, acknowledgment of potential limitations does not invalidate the research findings. This book describes not a single student or case, but rather the preponderance of evidence from a variety of scholars. This is the apex of research quality readers can rely on when making decisions about which teaching practices to implement in their own schools.
Prepared with an excellent understanding of educational research and when it can (or cannot) be trusted, you are ready to delve into the fruits of research on successful high-poverty schools—the teaching practices that high-performing, high-poverty schools use differently. The following section will discuss seven teaching practices of equity and excellence schools you can use and implement in your own schools and classrooms starting right now.
| PART II |
Understanding What Equity and Excellence Schools Do Differently
After visiting all the equity and excellence schools, my colleagues and I noticed profound differences between the assessment and instructional practices of these schools and those of low-achieving schools (Reeves, 2004). This section presents seven different teaching practices equity and excellence schools incorporate to improve student achievement. This is not a recipe for success, or a cookie-cutter set of programs. Rather, the following chapters describe the specific practices that distinguish successful high-poverty schools from their well-intentioned but less successful counterparts.
These findings have been surprisingly robust over time, clearly separating transient fads and programs from practices that have enduring value. Of the seven practices described in these chapters, only the focus on professional learning communities is new. While the original research considered the value of collaboration, the latest and best evidence on learning communities suggests the value of a more intentional structure for effective collaboration (see a wide variety of specific examples of the impact of the Professional Learning Communities at Work® process at the noncommercial website, AllThingsPLC.info). It is no accident that the number of these suggestions is small. In contrast to school improvement plans I have seen with scores of priorities—I’ve reviewed school plans with more than seventy priorities and district plans with more than two hundred priorities and programs—these seven key ideas correspond to the value of focus that my large-scale quantitative study suggested (Reeves, 2011a). Moreover, this emphasis on focus is consistent with recent global observations from author, speaker, and educational consultant Michael Fullan (2016).
Chapters 3 through 9 each discuss one of the following recommended practices.
1. Organize their school or district as a professional learning community.
2. Display a laser-like focus on student achievement.
3. Conduct collaborative scoring.
4. Emphasize nonfiction writing.
5. Utilize frequent formative assessment with multiple opportunities for success.
6. Perform constructive data analysis.
7. Engage in cross-disciplinary units of instruction.
Each chapter includes specific observations useful for readers seeking to translate theory into practice.
CHAPTER 3
Organize Their School or District as a Professional Learning Community
When I first observed equity and excellence schools, I noticed they were built around collaborative teams of teachers, coaches, and administrators. In the intervening years, thanks to the work of Richard DuFour, Robert Eaker, Rebecca DuFour, Tom Many, Mike Mattos, and others who have followed in their footsteps, we have a vocabulary for this sort of collaboration—professional learning communities (PLC; DuFour, DuFour, Eaker, Many, & Mattos, 2016). This is the central organizing principle of successful schools, whatever their demographics. Thus, in this first chapter on what equity and excellence schools do differently, we will discuss the key principles involved in organizing a school as a PLC.
In this chapter, we will establish the essential components of a PLC and identify how schools can become a PLC in both name and actions. We will conclude by discussing how
