As I thoughtfully prepare for my next blog, I read many newspaper and some research articles that relate to my current thinking. Whenever I read, I try to connect what I read to my ongoing belief about what is necessary for improving academic achievement. Those who have read my previous blog entries know my mantra by now. I feel strongly that schools can only improve academic achievement if we look at schools as systems and if we try to correct the barriers that exist to student achievement by reviewing our current system.
Having been working very closely with several urban schools as a consultant since early February, I am able to better see where the needs for change are in most of our schools. I remember clearly telling one of our recent past superintendents, and his instructional superintendent that I would support anything that they chose to place in the school to improve academic achievement, but I also know that if we don’t make other changes in our school, this new great idea will not make a difference. I still feel the same way.
Interestingly, this morning while reading Smart Briefs by ASCD, two articles were summarized from two big city newspapers. They were timely and seemed worth commenting on at this time as we all try to figure out how to raise graduation rates, lower drop out rates, increase the number of students prepared and interested in post-secondary educational opportunities, and provide our nation and economy with students ready to enter the world of work successfully.
Miami-Dade County instituted a program several years ago with the hope of raising the achievement level of students in their lowest performing schools. The Miami Herald reported the following: “A $100 million investment in Miami-Dade County's lowest performing public schools failed to boost student achievement, according to the school district's final report on the program.
The School Improvement Zone was a three-year push at 39 elementary, middle and senior high schools throughout the county. Students participated in a specialized reading program and had a longer school day than students at other schools. They also had a longer school year.” As thoughtful educators, this research provides us with a wealth of conversational possibilities. Why might such a major effort, targeted at specific schools with lots of financial resources provided, not lead to better outcomes for the students in this School Improvement Zone?
A second article from the Baltimore Sun was included in the same ASCD Smart Brief today. It describes the fact that Maryland school districts are lowering the number of students who will not graduate in this the first year where a high school exit exam must be passed prior to students qualifying for graduation. Students not passing the exit exam twice after receiving required intervention support have the opportunity of completing bridging projects in lieu of passing the test. Some Maryland teachers are reporting that students who have completed the projects are actually scoring well enough afterward to pass the exit exam. A sample of one algebra bridging project can be viewed on the Maryland Department of Education web site.
By comparing the two articles, it appears that we have two different ways of helping students to raise their academic achievement levels. In Maryland they are finding early success, while in Miami the long term effort seems to not have been so successful. What can we learn from the two models?
The first thing that jumps out in my mind is that resources by themselves do not make a difference. There must be other systemic changes in a school for students to make marked improvement. Longer hours and expensive programs by themselves are not the answer. So, what might be the answer? Can Maryland’s experience teach us anything about the teaching and learning process? What can we conclude from the Miami experience as described?
Before answering these questions, I am going to stop my blog here for people to think about and perhaps share their thoughts together. My next blog will get into more of my in depth thoughts about the teaching and learning process. I would highly recommend that if you haven’t read, or read it a long time ago, the February 2008 Educational Leadership magazine on Teaching Students to Think, that you review it for your own learning. It is very interesting and provides us with a lot to discuss.
I hope to have my next blog on this topic completed and posted by the end of next week.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
As always you raise some important questions and give me a lot to think about. I agree that we have to look at schools as systems just as we have to look at the student as a whole child. Malcolm Gladwell wrote an interesting chapter on the Kipp Schools in his book "Outliers." Kipp schools have a longer day and the summer is crucial to their success. (But it's not about intervention.) This gives the kids extra time which allows for a more relaxed atmoshphere. They do things at a slower pace and as a result they get through to the kids a lot more. More retention and better understanding of material. They seem to have had some success. I am wondering what you think of the Kipp philosophy?
Thank you Lynn for bringing up the KIPP experiences for success. I did visit one KIPP site in Los Angeles and found it interesting. Surprising to me was the fact that the teaching was not structured very differently from our typical public school classrooms. They had strong school cultural norms in place that were followed closely by almost every student. I was shocked not see greater student interaction with other students.
Post a Comment