Elements of Improved Schools
Serving At-Risk Students and
How State Education Agencies Can Support
More Local School Improvement
Executive Summary of the
Council of Chief State School Officers
March 1990
The Council is deeply grateful to the Exxon Education Foundation and the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation for supporting this initiative for students at risk of school failure. The views expressed, however, are not necessarily those of these foundations.
The Challenge
American public school students must learn more to prepare for the 21st century. National studies and international comparisons have documented this observation repeatedly.
Many broad scale efforts have been undertaken at the state and local levels to raise achievement of all students beyond basic literacy and numeracy to improved levels of student comprehension, reasoning, and expression. The states have initiated many of these activities in concert with local districts and schools.
The Council of Chief State School Officers places special emphasis on the urgency of meeting the challenges of those young people placed at risk of not graduating from high school. We are deeply troubled that children benefit inequitably from our current educational system. As the National Assessment of Educational Progress has concluded.
It is clear that in America, children from some groups are less likely to become literate than are children from others. Black children, Hispanic children, children living in disadvantaged urban communities, and those whose parents have low levels of education are at particular risk for future educational failure. Further, once these children begin their schooling at a disadvantage, they are unlikely to catch up.*
The Council is also deeply concerned about that group of youngsters who are seriously underachieving even though they graduate from high school. These students are disproportionately minority and living in poverty.
*Applebee, Arthur N. Langer, Judith A. and Mullis, Ina V. S. "Learning To Be Literate in America: Reading, Writing and Reasoning." The National Assessment of Educational Progress, Educational Testing Service; March 1987: Page 28
The CCSSO Project And Goals For Students At Risk
In the spring of 1988, the CCSSO Resource Center on Educational Equity initiated a project to examine successful school practices for children and youth at risk of school failure. The objectives of the examination were to learn about successful methods of educating all children and to determine ways state education agencies can encourage and support local school improvement efforts in elementary and middle schools.
There were several components of the Voices from Successful Schools Project. The centerpiece was a set of visits to 19 elementary and middle schools deemed successful by either researchers or state education agency staff. Other components included a review of research on effective school practices for children at risk and a series of workshop sessions between Council staff and experts on school improvement.
This project is part of a larger, long-term effort by the Council to improve the educational achievement of children considered at risk of school failure. In November 1987, the nation's chief state school officers unanimously adopted a policy statement, "Assuring School Success for Students At Risk," which called for high school graduation for virtually all students by the year 2000. Since the release of these documents, the Council has initiated a series of effort to implement its recommended educational guarantees for students at risk.
Successful schools for children at risk have:
-
dramatically improved and sustained student achievement with students demonstrating capacity to think, reason, and apply the knowledge they have gained; and
-
a distribution of high performance among all subgroups-minority, nonminority, those of children from low-income families, and those of children from families whose home language is other than English.
Too few schools demonstrate these characteristics. It is imperative to examine with care and specificity schools that are weir down the road to success in reaching them and to convey the findings to others who will find guidance in them.
The Schools
Council staff visited schools located primarily in urban areas in nine states. Each school had a high percentage of students eligible for free or reduced price lunch, a measure of low income or poverty; in most cases, this was true for the vast majority of students in the school. All but two of the schools visited had a majority minority student body. Most schools enrolled primarily black students; two were mostly Hispanic. Many of the schools had a high rate of student mobility, which negatively affected student achievement. The schools varied in size from approximately 200 to more than 600 students.
Schools where student performance had been increasing were visited. Many of the schools were the best in their districts. Very few schools, perhaps only one, however, had students who were achieving at the full range of levels-including the degree of excellence generally found only in suburban schools. In many of the schools with improved student achievement the lowest performing students had made remarkable progress. The very best students, however, remained far behind high performing students in other school districts.
Definitions of "success" varied among schools and related agendas. In many cases, the schools had only recently begun to implement changes and show signs of improvement.
Initiation Of School Improvement
There was no single type of person or organization acting as primary agent of change in the majority of schools we visited. In virtually every instance, the successful implementation of change required participation by many persons, including those both within and outside the school. Although a combination of school-based and extra-school resources was usually necessary to make change, there was no "magic mix" required to achieve success.
In some cases, the impetus for improvement came from within the school, often through a new principal. In other instances, the invitation to participate in an improvement program was offered to the school by the superintendent of schools, the state education agency, or a community-based organization. Although the impetus for change in these cases came from outside the school, the outside agent was never primarily responsible for change. The key to success was the ability and willingness of school administration and faculty to use additional resources provided from outside the school to initiate and support fundamental changes in the school.
The issue of how schools got started on the road to improvement is tied closely to questions about how school staff realized performance was inadequate and in what specific areas improvement was needed. We found that school principals, teachers, state education agency representatives, and district superintendents across the country referred to the same basic criteria in describing the poor performance of their schools prior to implementing improvements: low student test scores, poor attendance, high suspension rates, and a negative school atmosphere experienced by students, teachers, and parents.
To evaluate their schools, staff examined these and other factors of school performance. School management teams played a key role in this area. Some schools performed very formal and comprehensive evaluations, eliciting comment from parents and students as well as the faculty and administration. More complex evaluations were done with the assistance of an outside group, usually the state education agency. Evaluation techniques used included meetings, questionnaires, interviews, and review of student achievement data.
Arenas And Strategies For School Improvement
In our visits to schools, we studied a range of issues including program initiation, school management instruction, early intervention, categorical programs, parent involvement staff training, student assessment community and business roles in school improvement efforts, and state intervention in schools.
Management
Most of the schools we visited had implemented some form of school-based management. Among the 14 schools with a school wide reform effort, 10 schools had instituted management teams or committees within the school. Each team included both teachers and administrators; two teams also included parents. Some teams made decisions based on consensus, while others brought issues to a vote.
There was some variation in the issues addressed by the teams, but many of them dealt first with issues related to school climate, management and teacher expectations. The teams tended to delve more slowly into specific issues of instruction. Few teams had any major financial responsibilities.
A significant task of the teams was to define priority areas for improvement based on an assess-ment of the school's strengths and weaknesses. Some schools focused on very specific goals such as raising test scores by a certain percentage. Others chose broader objectives.
We also visited excellent schools that had implemented no school-based management system and in which the Principal retained most decision-making authority. However, in these cases, the principal had successfully given teachers a voice, especially in decisions regarding instruction.
In some schools visited, a major factor in management was that the Principal reported directly to a central administrator rather than negotiating with many departments at the central office or dealing with lower level central office managers about issues at the school. This direct line to top authority in the district office was valued highly by principals and seemed to offer opportunity for faster and productive change.
Instruction
In a number of schools, improvement revolved around issues of management and climate rather than instruction. In some cases, the underlying assumption of this focus was that better management would foster improved instruction. Thus, although we generally found evidence of improvement in student performance, there had frequently been few significant changes made in teaching practices.
Frequently, school-based management teams had implemented a discrete learning program rather than a broad overhaul in their early steps toward improvement.
In general, the schools visited minimized the use of student grouping and retention. Most schools had heterogeneous classes. A few used alternative grade structures combining students from two grades in one class. Schools which retained students confined those retentions to the very early grades, believing this would have less of an adverse affect upon students.
Teachers in a number of states told us that state-mandated instruction requirements restricted their ability to make significant improvement in instruction. Both school and district-level staff discussed the possibility of state waivers of rules and regulations that limit the manner in which services can be provided. Several schools are experimenting with such waivers; the reaction has been very positive.
Early Intervention
Early intervention was dealt with through different strategies in the schools we visited. Teachers of the early grades told us that children who attended an early childhood program were significantly better prepared for school than those who did not. In virtually every case, schools were able to provide early childhood programs because of resources received from the state education agency.
In a related area, we found that teachers held differing opinions about the relative merits of full-day kindergarten and pre-first grade. We found examples of both. Decisions did not seem to be based on research which established that one or the other was more beneficial for children. However, where there were pre-first grades, funding was lacking for full-day kindergarten for all children whose families wanted them enrolled.
Categorical Programs
There are numerous federal and state categorical assistance programs targeted for students with extra educational needs (e.g., compensatory education, including the federal Chapter 1 program; special education; and bilingual education). Schools we visited were dealing with these programs in widely divergent ways. Some integrated the programs into their school improvement efforts and organized the provisions of categorical services accordingly. Others had barely begun to address problems of separate categorical programs.
Chapter I services presented two types of problems to schools. In some cases, strong performance on standardized tests by students in successful schools made these children ineligible for Chapter I services and, therefore, reduced funding received by the school. In other instances, schools felt bound to continue using pull-out Chapter I services even where large percentages of the students were eligible for service.
In the area of special education, the schools were making efforts to reduce the number of students assigned to special education classes and to increase the amount of support available in the regular classroom to students with special needs. We visited two schools with excellent and innovative models of addressing problems in special education. One school had been able to work around regulations governing the use of special education resources, but the other had found these regulations troublesome.
Council staff visited two schools that had implemented significant improvements in bilingual education. The two schools' programs were very different in content and method. They illustrate how to initiate and implement bilingual education programs in the face of such issues as a shortage of qualified teachers, problems with student grouping, student assessment and others.
Parental Involvement
The schools we visited all made clear efforts to involve families in the education of their children. Some efforts were based on the belief that parents should be given a degree of control over critical issues in the school such as management and curriculum. At the other end of the spectrum, attempts to increase parent involvement focused simply on enticing more parents to attend PTA meetings and Open School Nights. Most schools were making sincere and substantial efforts to foster some type of improvement in the family-school relationship but often, their successes were limited. Although some schools had successfully increased the degree of parent involvement, we found no exemplary model of a parent education program.
Staff Training
Virtually every school we visited had undertaken some new teacher in-service training as part of its efforts to provide better service to children. The highest performing schools had made substantial commitments to such training.
The best of these programs matched training to the specific needs of a school, as identified by the faculty or by a detailed evaluation of the school. Management training was sometimes provided for a limited number of faculties in intensive summer sessions. Training directed at improving student instruction generally included the full staff and was provided throughout the year.
We were told by a number of teachers and principals that the most crucial in-service training had been in the area of teacher expectations and attitudes. Teacher belief that children from low-income or minority backgrounds could not achieve in school at the same level as other students was frequently disclosed. Schools reported success in addressing this problem through in-service training.
Student Assessment
Minimum competency tests were used by virtually a schools we visited. Most often these were the test scores provided by school Principals to show the success level of their students. We found this emphasis upon minimum competencies may prompt increased efforts to raise the performance of students at the lowest levels, without an accompanying effort to improve student achievement at the highest levels. Although students achieved very high scores on minimum competency tests, their scores on other standardized tests were less impressive.
Opinions on the best forms and uses of student testing varied greatly among school and state education agency staff. In many schools, teachers and administrators were making increasingly better use of student test data. Other school staff found the tests limited their ability to make improvements in instruction.
Community and Business Roles in School Improvement Efforts
Community groups, businesses, and other outside organizations participated actively in many of the schools we visited to a varying degree and in different ways. one school was implementing a state program to make the school the locus for the provision of many services to students and their families. Other schools had instituted partnerships with community businesses.
State Intervention
There were very different patterns of state intervention with schools, both across and within states. Most of schools had received minimal direct support or intervention from the state. The state education agency often was the source of funds for in-service training, compensatory education, and other services. However, these funds were administered by the district, and the schools served never were involved directly with the state.
We visited three schools in which the state education agency had played a direct and major role in school improvement efforts. In these cases, the schools had invited the participation of the state education agency and agency staff provided technical assistance in many areas.
Recommendations
The Council of Chief State School Officers is especially interested in strengthening the role of state education agencies in promoting school improvement. We know from our school visits and related work that state education agencies are engaged in an increasing number of initiatives to restructure schools to improve educational services for all students and particularly those at risk. We saw first-hand examples of effective, direct state intervention and we have discussed with local practitioners their views on what more states can do.
Based on these views and the leadership already shown by many state educators we offer the following recommendations to enhance state efforts to improve schooling for disadvantaged youngsters. State education agendas should consider these forms of assistance and support of local school improvement efforts:
1. Provide a variety of technical assistance to schools, including assessing school performance, helping schools to apply current research related to the education of at-risk students, and serving as an advocate for schools with other agencies.
2. Disseminate information about successful schools enrolling large proportions of at-risk students in their state.
3. Establish teacher training programs for teachers in schools serving many disadvantaged students.
4. Make early childhood education a priority and commit funding for schools to be able to provide these programs.
5. Foster innovation in instruction by providing information to schools about research in this area, and experiment with waiving state mandates regarding instruction for schools attempting to implement a promising program.
6. Encourage the effective use of minimum competency tests and challenge schools to go beyond the instruction of basic skills.
7. Stimulate improvement in the implementation of federal and state categorical programs, with special attention to integration with the regular school program, through dissemination of accurate information to the school level about regulatory requirements, provision of incentives for change, technical assistance, and teacher training.
8. Contribute information, resources, and leadership to efforts to develop successful programs for building family involvement education, and support.
9. Provide support and resource for pilot programs.
10. Undertake policy research to explore possible solutions to troubling issues such as high student mobility rates, integration of categorical programs with whole school efforts, large school enrollments, and methods of meeting the extra educational needs of at-risk children both in and outside of school.
CCSSO staff visited schools in which low-income and otherwise disadvantaged students were achieving at levels equivalent to children from the more prosperous neighborhoods of our nation. Although such outstanding schools are too few and far between, these few stand as a challenge to provide high quality education for all children.
State education agendas have provided crucial assistance in a variety of areas to better enable schools to move along this path toward success. The success of these agendas provide leadership in determining the most appropriate and helpful roles for state education agendas in facilitating local school improvement efforts.
The Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) is a nationwide, nonprofit organization composed of the public officials who head departments of public education in the states, the District of Columbia, the Department of Defense Education Activity, and five extra-state jurisdictions. CCSSO seeks its members' consensus on major educational issues and expresses their view to civic and professional organizations, federal agencies, Congress, and the public. Through its structure of standing and special committees, the Council responds to a broad range of concerns about education and provides leadership on major education issues.
Because the Council represents the chief education administrators, it has access to the educational and governmental establishment in each state and to the national influence that accompanies this unique position. CCSSO forms coalitions with many other education organizations and is able to provide leadership for a variety of policy concerns that affect elementary and secondary education. Thus, CCSSO members are able to act cooperatively on matters vital to the education of America's young people.
The CCSSO Resource Center on Educational Equity provides services designed to achieve equity and high quality education for minorities; for women and girls; and for disabled, limited-English-proficient, and low-income students. The Center is responsible for managing and staffing a variety of CCSSO leadership initiatives to assure education success for all children and youth, especially those placed at risk of school failure.
Council of Chief State School Officers 1990
William B. Keene (Delaware), President
Herbert J. Grover (Wisconsin) President-elect
Gordon M. Ambach, Executive Director
Cynthia G. Brown, Director, Resource Center on Educational Equity
