We Need to Stop Thinking This Way

We have a terrible habit when discussing our current K-12 system to recognize it’s dismal results overall, but then try to leave the readers with a glimmer of hope by focusing on schools and school districts that are anomalies to that failing outlook.

Witness an opinion piece appearing in The Hechinger Report last month, written by two policy experts from Education Reform Now:

“A much anticipated and highly hoped-for recovery from pandemic learning loss is, disappointingly, not materializing. Instead, grim findings from a recent analysis by three testing companies noted that stagnation is a general trend – with a few isolated exceptions.”

“Those few bright spots hold powerful lessons for schools that are struggling, particularly those serving high percentages of low-income students. The high-performing, high-poverty schools we recently studied show us that demography need not be destiny.”

“In fact, the results at those schools refute the assertion by some that poverty is inextricably tied to lower achievement. Most important, the leaders of these schools identify a short list of approaches that, if used widely, could drastically change our current national trajectory of endless mediocrity and stagnation.”

“Three recent reports from our organization, Education Reform Now, highlight transformative strategies that high-poverty schools across three states – Texas, Massachusetts and Colorado – are using to drive stronger student outcomes. The reports focus on elementary and middle schools with high proficiency rates or significant growth in math or reading.”

“Here are our top four takeaways from these three states:

1. Demography Does Not Equal Destiny – We found high correlations between low school poverty rates and better student achievement overall, but there was still wide variability among high-poverty schools. In the schools we studied, all of which are in the top quartile of student poverty in their respective states, proficiency rates ranged from 0 percent to well above 90 percent. By figuring out what schools on the high end of the proficiency scale are doing, we can change the educational and life trajectories of an unprecedented number of students from historically disadvantaged groups.
2. School-level factors seem to be driving the most change – We did not, by and large, see high-performing, high-poverty schools concentrated in certain school districts. While district policies can provide opportunities for improving student achievement, our results suggest that this impact varies widely and requires strong school-level leadership and effort.
3. No school governance model is predominant – While it’s often assumed that the flexibility given to charter or nondistrict schools is necessary for innovation, we saw successful traditional public schools innovate as well, suggesting that there’s at least some degree of leeway for adept school leaders to break out of the status quo and pursue policies that dramatically boost student achievement.
4. In surveys and interviews with leaders of successful high-poverty schools, we found astonishing consensus on what’s driving higher student achievement –

First, high-performing schools use data as a common thread to drive, monitor and adjust every aspect of their operations – including core instruction, small-group instruction, attendance interventions, social-emotional learning and professional development. Principals across all three states resoundingly reported that data helped guide them to solutions. Once all students have access to strong core instruction, educators can customize instruction for those with specific needs.

A second common thread is supporting teachers through professional development and coaching and with high-quality instructional materials. In many cases, coaches are in the classrooms repeatedly providing quick, targeted feedback to improve teachers’ practices in real time and ensure that takeaways from professional development are implemented in practice.

Third, schools across all three states have implemented family engagement programs to create strong partnerships between school and home – an especially critical practice to reduce chronic absenteeism.

Finally, it is clear that finding, training and supporting effective school leaders is key. This appears to be more important than geographic location, school district programs and policies or the type of school.”

“All these findings are consistent with a wide body of literature on what works. We need a concerted approach to help schools that are not using these proven practices to adopt them.”

“One fear we have is that too many education stakeholders have given up on school improvement because they don’t believe it’s possible. Our case studies show that now only is improvement possible but also that these common strategies can help even those schools with the most challenging circumstances to succeed.”

“It’s also clear that the laws governing school improvement must be revisited and strengthened. For example, requirements in the federal Every Student Succeeds Act (2015) that school improvement efforts be ‘evidence-based’ are not quite panning out as intended, in part because they are not designed well and in part because school leaders have inadequate knowledge of what works. In fact, a recent report from the Government Accountability Office found that many administrators they interviewed cited the ‘evidence-based’ requirements of the law as the most difficult to interpret and implement. Such principles are needed, but they must be understood. Moreover, the GAO recommended better monitoring and oversight by the U.S. Department of Education.”

“Given the state of student achievement and the findings of the GAO, we clearly need a nationwide, all-hands-on-deck approach to improving student outcomes through a clear, understandable approach to identifying, defining and disseminating evidence-based principles. Such an effort could begin within the first 100 days of the next administration, with a federal effort to spotlight success. That work could include convening state and local leaders to pinpoint what’s standing in the way of all schools adopting evidence-based school improvement policies and then strategizing to remove those obstacles.”

“The success stories we’ve highlighted in our series illustrate common practices that lead to better outcomes. Significant improvements are possible even in the face of adversity. By adopting core principles and tailoring them to their unique context, schools across the nation have the potential to change learning trajectories and foster academic success for hundreds of thousands of students.”

This opinion piece could have been written in 1984. Or 2004. Or 2014.

The problem with Education Reform Now’s premise is that our traditional system isn’t built to sustain the success plan – take high-performing, low-income school practices and bring them to scale – that ERN suggests.

We’ve tried that for 40 years without large-scale success.

Why?

The traditional system has not been able to keep strong leaders in schools that need them most.

The traditional system has not been able to identify the right number of talented classroom teachers to keep low-performing schools that have changed into high-performing schools alive and well.

The traditional system insists on using a top-down approach when it comes to curriculum content, instructional practices, and assessment strategies.

The traditional system refuses to begin with what a learner “wants to learn,” and then build a learning plan from that point forward.

Finally, the traditional system refuses to invite parents and families as their partners as they attempt to make everyone of their young learner’s smarter and stronger.

And all these shortcomings are magnified when we begin to think about making schools better for black, brown, and poor learners.

I’m sorry but these types of articles don’t help us improve learning for the ones that need it most. Groups like ERN probably need to stop writing about improving schools that will never improve in the long-term. And you and I probably need to start ignoring this type of messaging and focus on creating models that will work for all kids, but especially black, brown, and poor ones, over the long-term.