Compliance hearing exhibits: ''Elementary Schools''

ELEMENTRY SCHOOLSzom5 mm z CZ) o -n Elementary Schools 1. Memorandum from Bonnie Lesley in June 2, 1999, Learning Links with attached copy of new publication. Portraits of Six Benchmark Schools: Diverse Approaches to Improving Student Achievement. 2. Memorandum from Bonnie Lesley in Dec. 1, 1999, Learning Links with attached information on The Basic School model for school improvement created by Ernest Boyer. 3. Memorandum from Bonnie Lesley in Jan. 12, 2000, Learning Links with attached study of nine urban elementary schools with high achievement. 4. Memorandum from Patricia Price to elementary principals in Feb. 7, 2001, Learning Links with information about a new publication, Building Strong Foundations for Early Learning: The U.S. Department of Educations Guide to High-Quality Early Childhood Education Programs. 1 L.L b/^/qcj LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 (501) 324-2131 June 1,1999 TO: Principals FROM
Dr. Bonnie Lesley? Associate Superintendent for Instruction SUBJECT: School Improvement We are sending to you under separate cover a copy of a school improvement planning resource, Portraits of Six Benchmark Schools: Diverse Approaches to Improving Student Achievement by Gordon Cawelti. We think you will find it useful. In fact, we suggest that you read it before the Principals Institute in late July. BAL/rcm LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 (501)324-2131 April 20, 1999 TO: All Principals Curriculum Staff FROM: A? Dr. Bonnie Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction SUBJECT: Training in Teaching Writing I can think of no other single thing you could do with more potential for improving student achievement than in preparing ajl teachers to teach writing across the curriculum. The new Arkansas benchmark examinations are going to be, for the most part, writing tests. The National Writing Project is the most successful professional development program in this country! UALR is awarding 25 scholarships for teacher participation. We need all 25 of those slots! See the article below for how to sign up one or more oyour teachers. Call Gene Parker or me if we can help. Curriculum staff is also encouraged to participate in this training. BAL/rcm 25 teachers get writing fellowships The National Writing Project and the University of Arkansas at Little Rock will award up to 25 fellowships to Arkansas schoolteachers. _ The awards, valued at $900 each, enable teachers to enroll for SIX hours of graduate credit in the U.ALR department of rhetoric and wTiting. They will participate in The Summer Institute, a five-week program from June 28July 2S. Monday through Thursday, from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. Applicants may be teachers in any subject. The application deadline is May 7. More information is available at 569-8063 or 835-3390. 3RD QUARTER CRT READING RESULTS 1998-99 DISTRICT TOTALS I 2ND GRADE BENCHMARK 1 RD1 BENCHMARK 3 RD3 BENCHMARK 9 RD9 BENCHMARK 10 RD10 TOTAL SCORE AVERAGE 4.4 2.9 3.8 3.6 14.6 3RD GRADE BENCHMARK 1 RD1 BENCHMARK 2 RD2 BENCHMARKS RD3 BENCHMARK 4 RD4 BENCHMARKS RDS BENCHMARKS RD6 BENCHMARK 7 RD7 BENCHMARKS RD8 BENCH- BENCH-MARK 9 RD9 MARK 10 RD10 TOTAL SCORE AVERAGE 3.5 3.2 3.1 2.8 3 2.9 3.1 3 2.3 2.2 29.1 4TH GRADE BENCHMARK 1 RD1 BENCHMARK 2 RD2 BENCHMARK 3 RD3 BENCHMARK 4 RD4 BENCHMARKS RD5 BENCHMARKS RDS BENCHMARK 7 RD7 BENCHMARKS RD8 BENCHMARK 9 RD9 BENCHMARK 10 RD10 TOTAL SCORE AVERAGE 3 1.8 3.2 2.8 2.7 3 2.6 2.7 2.5 2.7 26.9 5TH GRADE BENCHMARK 1 RD1 BENCHMARK 2 RD2 BENCHMARKS RDS BENCHMARK 4 RD4 BENCHMARKS RDS BENCHMARKS RDS BENCHMARK 7 RD7 BENCHMARKS RD8 BENCH-MARKO RD9 BENCHMARK 10 RD10 TOTAL SCORE AVERAGE 2.8 3.2 3.2 2.6 2.7 3.3 3.3 2.8 2.8 3.2 30 I I 6TH GRADE BENCHMARK 1 RD1 BENCHMARK 2 RD2 BENCHMARKS RDS BENCHMARK 4 RD4 BENCHMARKS RDS BENCHMARKS RD6 BENCHMARK 7 RD7 BENCHMARKS RD8 BENCH-MARKO RD9 BENCHMARK 10 RD10 TOTAL SCORE AVERAGE 3.5 3.4 2.8 3.1 3 2.5 3 2.7 3.3 3.3 30.7 1 3RD QUARTER CRT MATH RESULTS 1998-99 DISTRICT TOTALS 2ND GRADE 3RD QTR BENCHMARK 1 M3-1 3RD QTR BENCHMARK 2 M3-2 3RD QTR BENCHMARK 4 M3-4 3RD QTR BENCHMARKS M3-5 3RD QTR BENCHMARKS M3-6 TOTAL SCORE AVERAGE 3.5 3.3 3.1 3.4 3.4 16.8 3RD GRADE 3RD QTR BENCHMARK! M3-1 3RD QTR BENCHMARK 2 M3-2 2ND QTR BENCHMARKS M2-5 2ND QTR BENCHMARKS M2-3 3RD QTR BENCHMARK 4 M3-4 3RD QTR BENCHMARKS M3-3 1ST QTR BENCHMARK 4 MI-4 2ND QTR BENCHMARK 1 M2-1 1ST QTR BENCHMARKS MI-3 2ND QTR BENCHMARK 2 M2-2 TOTAL SCORE AVERAGE 2.9 2.8 3.1 2.7 3 2.3 2.8 2.4 2.5 3.1 27.5 4TH GRADE 3RD QTR BENCHMARK 2 M3-2 3RD QTR BENCHMARKS M3-5 3RD QTR BENCHMARK 4 M3-4 3RD QTR BENCHMARKS M3-3 3RD QTR BENCHMARKS M3-8 3RD QTR BENCHMARK 1 M3-1 3RD QTR BENCHMARK 7 M3-7 1ST QTR BENCHMARKS MI-5 2ND QTR BENCHMARKS M2-3 2ND QTR BENCHMARK 1 M2-1 TOTAL SCORE AVERAGE 3.3 2.8 1.9 2.1 2.8 2.3 2.6 2.6 2.7 3.3 26.3 STH GRADE 3RD QTR BENCHMARK 1 M3-1 3RD QTR BENCHMARK 2 MS-? 3RD QTR BENCHMARKS M3-3 3RD QTR BENCHMARK 4 M3-4 3RD QTR BENCHMARKS M3-5 2ND QTR BENCHMARKS M2-6 2ND QTR BENC-MARK7 M2-7 2ND QTR BENCHMARKS M2-3 2ND QTR BENCHMARK 2 M2-2 2ND QTR BENCHMARK 4 M2-4 TOTAL SCORE I I AVERAGE 3.2 2.4 2 1.8 2.7 2.4 1.6 2.4 2.5 1.9 22.8 6TH GRADE 3RD QTR BENCHMARK 2 M3-2 3RD QTR BENCHMARK 1 M3-1 3RD QTR BENCHMARKS M3-3 3RD QTR BENCHMARK 4 M3-4 3RD QTR BENCHMARKS M3-5 3RD QTR BENCHMARK 7 M3-7 2ND QTR BENCHMARK 1 M2-1 2ND QTR BENCHMARKS M2-5 2ND QTR BENCHMARKS M2-6 2ND QTR BENCHMARK 4 M2-4 TOTAL SCORE AVERAGE 21 1.6 2.1 1.4 1.6 1.9 2.7 2.6 2.3 21 21.6 2 Memo To: From: Re: Elementary School Principals and Teachers Dr. Ed Williams, Planning Research, & Evaluation District Wide 3''^<3uarter CRT Results Attached are the District average scores for the 3"* quarter reading and math benchmarks. The reading scores are on page 1 and the math results are on page 2. For the 2^^ grade there were 20 questions for each subject. Reading had four benchmarks, with five questions for each benchmark. Mastery of a benchmark would be four out of five correct. A total score of 16 or above indicates mastery of the reading section. Math had five benchmarks, with four questions for each benchmark. Mastery of a benchmark would be three out'of four correct. A total score of 15 or above indicates mastery of the math section. For grades 3 through 6, there were 40 questions for each subject, with ten benchmarks and four questions per benchmark. Mastery would be three out of four correct. A total score of 30 or above in a section indicates mastery of that section. Testing for the 4* quarter will be on May 19*^ and 20, except for grade. Due to a conflict with 6' Grade Challenge, we ask that you test your test 6' grade students on May 18. Return scoring sheets to PRE by 5 p.m. on May 21^ The student ID number & name, type of test, and school will be pre-slugged. Teachers will only need to pencil in their ID number. Any school that cannot adhere to the above testing dates please call 2125. 1Memo To: Elementary School Principals and Teachers From: Dr. Ed Williams, PRE Re: Comparison of Z"** and 3" Quarter CRT Results District average test scores in reading 2"** Quarter 3"^ Quarter % + /- 3"* grade 25.58 29.07 +13.6% grade 26.72 26.91 +.07% 5* grade 26.73 30.01 +12.27% 6* grade 29.78 30.67 +2.99% District average test scores in math Z"** Quarter 3^ Quarter % +1- 3"* grade 27.69 27.51 -.06% 4* grade 20.71 26.32 +27.08% 5 grade 20.71 22.79 +10.04% 6 grade 24.01 21.56 -10.20% Interpreting scores. Some benchmarks were assessed in both quarters (e.g., 3rd grade math M2-1, 2-2, 2-3, & 2-5). Refer to Learning Links, February 3,1999, for average scores, on individual benchmarks, for the 2'* quarter.-Benchmarks are based on the concept of vertical linkage or chaining (i.e., what you learn in a previous quarter is built upon and linked or chained to learning in the current quarter). The question, to some extent, that could be answered by these results is that Yes, student achievement is improving." Congratulations! Please share this information with your building teachers. 22 LL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 (501) 324-2131 November 15, 1999 TO: Elementary Principals FROM
Dr. Bonnie Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction SUBJECT: The Basic School - Model for Change I promised at a recent meeting to send to all of you some information on Ernest Boyer's The Basic School, a change model that I really like. I have lots of information, but I am sending this much to see if you are interested. An address and phone number are included - if you want to order your own book and videotape. They also have a web page
www.baesp.org/sci.htm. You Can e-mail the national director. Dr. Mary Ellen Bafumo, at bafumome@imu.edu. Attachment BAL/rcm The Basic School Page 1 of 2 M J M ?
ijdcj?= I J?JLJiJ = National Association of Elementary School Prindpals The Basic School The Basic School Network began as a partnership of The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, the National Association of Elementary School Principals, the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, and James Madison University Copyright 1996 "As I listen to teachers, parents, university faculty, colleagues, even children respond to the ideas of the Basic School, I realize how deeply resonant they are. I believe that the Basic School truly has the potential for changing the face of elementary education in America. These changes will not take place through inspirational talks alone. Teachers will learn from each other
putting ideas into practice." Mary Beth Van Cleave, Principal, Clinton Kelly Elementary School, Portland, Oregon Learn more about The Basic School and the Network from: The Basic School Network Highlights The Carnegie Foundation's Basic School Blueprint Dr. Ernest Boyer's speech at the 1995 NAESP Annual Convention - Part I and Part II Principal Magazine Principal Magazine Character" Principal Magazine article "The Basic School: Focusing on the Childfl article "Character in the Basic School - Making a Commitment to article "The Basic School: Building a Framework for Curriculum Communicator article "Basic School Update -13 Schools Try Out Reforms" Teaching PreK-8 article "Norfolk's 'Model' School" Instructor article "My Colleagues Never Drive Me Crazyft List of Other Publications on the Basic School and the Basic School Network Other Up-To-Date Information on The Basic School Network: o Direct link to The Basic School Network at James Madison University o The latest Basic School News ~ o The Basic School Network Events For Further Information: The Basic School: A Community for Learning, by Ernest L. Boyer, is available for $15 (Bulk rate available) plus shipping from: Jossey-Bass, Inc., 350 Sansome Street, Fifth Floor, San Francisco, CA 94104, Telephone 888-378- http
//www.naesp.org/bshili.htm 11/12/99 2537, Fax 800-605-2665 Or for more information about the network contact: Mary Ellen Bafumo, The Basic School Network, James Madison University, 101 Roop Hall, Harrisonburg, VA 22807, phone (540) 568-7098, fax (540)-568-3803, or E-mail: bafumomef^imu.edu PRINCIPAL ONLINE is sponsored by: The National Association of Elementary School Principals 1615 Duke Street Alexandria, VA 22314 For Additional Information about NAESP contact us at: 1-800-38-NAESP (voice), 1-800-39-NAESP (fax) or E-Mail: naesp(^naesp.ors ^Honw ^Publications ^Membership & Products ^SpecialProjects ^Programs ^Research Forum ^Students * Government * Index Copyright 1996-1999 National Association of Elementary School Principals. All rights reserved. s j / M J > HtbCIkMUM ktQVIiX HLVltlM /CUbUKC PMICV S' i' -c a- ' i-iC-Vr ! ?! ivacv- I Partnership f -B -SFh 5^ J V 11 i t J I. W f 9 http://www.naesp.org/bshili.htm 11/12/99National Assodation of Elementary School Prindpals The Basic School A Community for Learning Introduction to The Basic School-A New Beginning For years, America has been working hard to improve the nation's schools. Reform has been high on the public agenda. As a result, academic standards have been raised, teacher certification requirements have been tightened, and educational innovations have been introduced from coast to coast. Without question, progress has been made. Today, America's best schools are among the most outstanding in the world. Others are succeeding, often under difficult conditions. But it's also true that far too many schools are only marginal at best, and that some, often those in our me st troubled neighborhoods, should hardly be called schools. The world has changed and schools must change, too. The lives of children who enroll in school today will span a new century. If, in the days ahead, educators cannot help students to become literate and well informed, if the coming generation cannot be helped to see beyond the confines of their own lives, the nation's prospects for the future will be dangerously diminished. Clearly, the push for school renewal rieeds a new beginning. This time the focus must be on the early years, on elementary education. Every level of learning is important. No sector should be neglected. But school failure starts very early and if all children do not have a good beginning, if they do not receive the support and encouragement they need during the first years of life, it will be difficult, if not impossible, to compensate fully for the failure later on. Responding to this challenge, The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching has proposed a new, comprehensive plan for elementary schooling called the Basic School, presented in a report entitled The Basic School: A Community for Learning. Following is an introduction to the priorities of the Basic School and answers to most frequently asked questions. What is a Basic School? The Basic School is not just another "pilot program" or novel innovation. Rather, it's a comprehensive plan to strengthen elementary education by bringing together, in a single school, the key components of an effective education. The shared vision of the Basic School is excellence for aH. The school affirms, as its central mission, that every child has a right to a quality education, that high academic standards must be set, and that every child can and will succeed in ways that reflect his or her own aptitudes and interests. This vision defines the purpose of the Basic School and becomes, both for teachers and students, the source of daily inspiration. Why is it Called "Basic? ft The school is "basic" for several reasons. First, because it takes the push for school renewal back to http
//www.naesp.org/scl.htm 11/12/99 me casic dcaoui the beginning - to the neighborhood school and to the first years of formal le^ing. Second, it's called "basic" because it gives priority to language and to a core of essential knowledge. Finally, the , , . . zK-t really work and seeks to make them available to school IS basic because it identifies practices that reauj every child. What are the Educational Priorities of The Basic School. To achieve excellence for all, the Basic School has four priorities that are considered the essential building blocks ofthe school. Fitted within these priorities are the components of an effective education. The First Priority: The School As Community A Shared Vision: The Basic School is a place where everyone comes together to promote learning. In the Basic School, the separate classrooms are connected by a clear and vital mission. Teachers as Leaders: In the Basic School, teachers are the leaders, with the principal as lead teacher. Parents as Partners: In the Basic School, the circle of co^unity extends to embrace parents. who are viewed as the child's first and most important teachers. The Second Priority: A Curriculum With Coherence no Centrality of Language: In the Basic School literacy is the first and most essential goal All children are expected to become proficient in the written and spoken wort, as well as in mathematics and the arts. The Core ComngtnaUtiett: In the Basic School, all students become well mfomed. They study the various fields ofknowledge - history, science, hterature civics, health, fcr example which are organized thematically within a framework called "The Core Commonalities. This is not so much i a new curriculum as it is a new way to think about the curriculum. Measuring Sesults: The Basic School is accountable to parents, to swdents, and to the coi^umty at large. High academic standards are established in both taguage achievement and general knowledge Student progress is periodically evaluated, with assessment always in the service of learning. The Third Priority: A Climate for Learning r- n T n c u ,.1 studcnt is encouraged to become a disciplined. Patterns to Fit Purpose: In the Basic School, every . J , , , 4 1 rii e-mail, the teaching schedule IS flexible, and student creative, self-motivated learner. Class size is kept sro<iib & > grouping anangements are varied to promote learning- r, n L 'Tu a o u 1 available to all students nch resources for leaming- Resources to Enrich: The Basic School makes avan^^i , . . , , , -ij- ui 1 i. u A J i<:n gives students access to the new electronic tools from building blocks to books. And the school also irUill uiuvivo uiiv ovwvv . that connect each classroom to vast networks of knowle o Support Serrtcafor Children: The Basic School is commined to serving the whole child. Beyond http://www.naesp.org/scl.htm 11/12/991 : i.- The Basic bcnooi - rage j Oio a solid academic program, the school provides basic health and counseling services and afternoon and summer enrichment programs for students. The Fourth Priority: A Commitment to Character TAe Core Virtues: The Basic School is concerned with the ethical and moral dimensions of a child's life. Seven core virtues-honesty, respect, responsibility, compassion, self-discipline, perseverance, and giving-are emphasized to guide the Basic School as it promotes excellence in living, as well as in learning. Living with Purpose: The core virtues of the Basic School are taught both by word and deed. Through curriculum, school climate, and service, smdents are encouraged to apply the lessons of the classroom to the world around them. Does The Basic School have Specific Educational Goals for All Students? Yes, in addition to the larger objective of excellence for all, the Basic School defines five sharply focused educational goals: First, to communicate effectively. Language, defined broadly to include not just words, but also mathematics and the arts, is not just another subject
it is the means by which all other subjects are pursued. Second, to acquire a core of knowledge. Students become well informed by learning a core of knowledge, while making connections across the disciplines and relating what they learn to life. Third, to be a motivated learner. Students remain curious and develop both the desire and skills to study on their own. They learn how to gather information and become problem solvers. Fourth, to feel a sense of well-being. Through school support, students become physically healthy, socially competent, and emotionally secure. Fifth, to live responsibly. Students learn by word and deed the core virtues that promote good conduct and citizenship. How is The Basic School Different? First, the school seeks to bring together all the key components of an effective school. Second, the Basic School seeks to build a community in which teachers work together and parents are actively involved. Third, the Basic School gives high priority to a commitment to character and defines core virtues to be taught. Fourth, the most distinctive feature of the Basic School is its curriculum. Most elementary schools have a confusing, fragmented course of study, with teachers often developing lesson plans in isolation and with each grade level disconnected from the others. In the Basic School, the curriculum is organized around eight integrative themes-core commonalities-that spiral upward from kindergarten to the upper grades. By core commonalities we mean those universal experiences shared by all people. These include: the Lf http://www.naesp.org/scl.htm bi. 11/12/99 The Basic School Page 4 of 5 Life Cycle, the Use of Symbols, Membership in Groups, a Sense of Time and Space, Response to the Aesthetic, Connections to Nature, Producing and Consuming, and Living with Purpose. Within these eight themes, every traditional subject or academic discipline can find a home. Finally, the Basic School places great importance on fostering children's love of learning. This means that Basic School students are taught in a way that sparks their interest in learning and makes their school a lively, exciting place. Does The Basic School Require More Money? No, not necessarily. Creative schools have found ways to implement almost all of the recommendations of the Basic School within their existing budget. Such critical issues as clarifyin
goals and building community have to do with ideas and attitudes, not money, and that applies to g parent participation and creative teaching, too. Adding technology to the school will require money, of course, but this can be implemented over time. The most important budget issues perhaps relate to providing teacher time and achieving small classes, especially, in the lower grades. Will Basic School Students Meet District and State Standards? Again, assessment is a critically important part of the Basic School. Language skills will be continuously monitored, since proficiency in language is a key objective of the Basic School. In teaching the curriculum, evaluation is embedded in instruction, so students, teachers, and parents can follow the progress being made. Further, any required state or district tests are administered at the Basic School with the confidence that all students will succeed. Students will have learned a core of essential knowledge in context. Can Every School Become a Basic School? Yes, but it's an ongoing process. Sortie ideas can be implemented quickly, while others take more time. What's required is a commitment on the part of everyone- the school board, the principal, teachers, and parents-to support the priorities and proposed practices of the Basic School, to evaluate the current program of the school, and to develop together a plan to implement the recorrimendations. In the end, becoming a Basic School is not a top-down decision, it must be continuously affirmed and sustained at the school level. Ultimately, the aim of the Basic School is not just to build a better school, but, above all, to build a . better world for children. It is our deepest hope that not a single child, let alone a whole generation of children, should pass through the schoolhouse door unprepared for the world that lies before them. There is an urgency to this effort. For Further Information Contact: Mary Ellen Bafumo, The Basic School Network, James Madison University, 101 Roop Hall, Harrisonburg, VA 22807, phone (540) 568-7098, fax (540)-568-3803, or E-mail: bafumome&jmu.edu http://www.naesp.org/scl.htm 11/12/99 me oabic oenooi Page 5 of 5 r PRINCIPAL ONLINE is sponsored by: The National Association of Elementary School Principals T6I5T)uke Slreef ~ .......... Alexandria, VA 22314 3 4 For Additional Information about NAESP contact us at: 1-800-38-NAESP (voice), 1-800-39-NAESP (fax) or E-Mail: naesp(^naesp.ors 4 1 ^Home ^Publications ^Membership & Products ^SpecialProjects Programs Research Forum Students Government Index 4 Copyright 1996-1998 National Association of Elementary School Principals. All rights reserved. lowered fcrr HlDtlhMbUl MblVKSl HeMtM mTUUMCFJCY Care About Online Privacy? p ri /-3cy Partnership http://www.naesp.org/scl.htm 11/12/99i 1 J 4 1! T H BASIC . SCHOOL A Community for Learning ERNEST L. BOYER The Cam^e Foundation for the Advancement of Teachingi ! i i } 5 5 i 5 ? I t Prologue: A NEW BEGINNING An Excerpt from: The Basic School: A Community Jbr Learning Ernest L. Boyer The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement Df Teaching ii I i CopjTight 1995 9 The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching 5 hy Lane, Princeton, New Jersey 08540 Confidential, Not for distribution, publication, or citation. j The draft of this report is part of the effort by The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching to explore significant issues in education. The views expressed should not necessarily be ascribed to individual members of the Board of Trustees of The Carnegie Foundation. r a 5 I s I All rights reserved. No part of this draft may be reproduced in any form without permission from The Carnegie Foundation. ISBN: 0-931050-51-0 Available from: California Princeton Fulfillment SerAdces 1445 Lower Feny Road Ewing, New Jersey 08618 1300) 777-4726 or (609) 883-1759 - I i I s Prologue: A New Beginning o o I ! I i i We propose, in this-report. a new place of learning called The Basic School. The Basic School is not so much an iiistiiiition as it is an idea based on best practice, a comprehensive plan for educational renewal that is, we believe, appropriate for every elementary school. Our goal is to improve the prospects for learning for every child. I I I We call this school basic, first of all, because it takes the push for school reform back to the beginning, to the first years of formal education. It is basic because it gives priority to language and sugsests a core of knowledge with coherence. Finally, the school we propose is basic" because it identifies key components of an effective school and brings them all together in a single institutionthe Basic School. ) i1 I I I The purpose of the Basic School is to provide quality education for the more than three million kindergarten children' who enrolled last fall in over fifty thousand public and private elementary schools from Bangor, Maine, to the islands of Hawaii.- Most of these young students arrived at school anxious, but also eager. Some were cheerful, others troubled. Some skipped and ran, others could not walk. This new generation of students came from countless neighborhoods, from a great diversity of cultures, speaking more languages than most of us could name. The urgent challenge the nation's schools confront is to ensure that every child will, with care and guidance, become a confident, resourceful learner. I f Children are, of course, always learning. They learn as they touch the earth, feel the grass, dig into the sand. Children, endlessly responding to the world around them, learn as they chase pigeons in the park, study drifting clouds, I I1 and watch ants scurrying acros.s city sidewalks. "The child is." as Ashley Montagu observed, "the most avid learner of all living things on this earth.' Yet this maivelous gift of continuous discovery can be diminished or enhanced. and the purpose of the Basic School is to keep the urge to learn alive in everv child. I V I I i For more than a decade. America has been working hard to improve all the nation's schools, and enrich learning for all children. As a result, academic Standards have been raised, teacher cenification requirements have been tightened. and educational innovations have been introduced from coast to coast. Without a doubt, progress has been madewith a decline in school dropouts in some districts as well as modest increase.s in basic skills performance, especially among minority students. n 'i } i Today, America's best schools are among the most outstanding in the world. Others are succeeding, often under difficult conditions, wdth teachers assuming responsibilities that families and communitie,s have not been able to accomplish. But it's also true that far too many of the nation's schools are marginal at best, and that some schools, those in our most troubled neighborhoods. can hardly be called schools, a.s U.S. Secretary of Education Richard Riley put it.-' In one suburban elementary school in Ohio, a fourth-- grade teacher told us: "We seem to be working harder, with fewer gains." 4 J When we asked elementary school teachers in a national survey how the quality of American education today compares to five years ago, about 40 percent said about the same." Thirty-two percent said it's gotten worse. Only 26 percent said it's better.' Parents, we discovered, were even more pessimistic about the progres.s being made. Twenty percent feel the quality of education is better. Forty percent say it'.s worse, compared to five years 5 ago" (table 1). School success, ultimately, must be measured by .student performance, not opinion polls. Still, no one can be fully satisfied with where we are todaw T/ic Basic Sclinnl 4 I Table 1 I i How Does the Quality of Education in the Nation Today Compare With Five Years Ago I Teachers Parents Better About The Same Worse 26 42 20 40 40 Source: i The Carnegie Foundaiion for the Advancement of Teaching and the Georae H. Gallup International In.siitute. The International Schooling Project. 1994: survey of teachers and survey of parents. We reach one incontrovenible conclusion. The world has changed and schools must change, too. The lives of children who enroll in school today will span a new century. Those who graduate will enter what Peter F. Drucker calls the knowledge society, a society that requires higher literacy, more technical competence, and lifelong learning. Knowledge has, without question. I I a become_our most precious resource. And if, in the days ahead, educators u n 12 & id 3 cannot help students become literate and well informed, if the comins seneration cannot be helped to see well beyond the confines of their own lives, the nation's prospects for the future will be dangerously diminished. I Clearly, the push for school renewal needs a new besinnins. This time the focus must be on the early years, on clctnsntorv education. Every level of learning is important. No sector should be neglected. But school failure starts very early, and if all children do not have a good besinnins, if they do not receive the support and encouragement needed durins the first years of life, it will be difficult, if not impossible, to compensate fully for the failure later on^ Pmlngiie: <4 ,\ew Beginning - 5W I A third-grade teacher in Wyoming put the challenge this way: With all the talk about school renewal, there is a tendency to overlook elementary schools. The first years must be recognized as the most essential. Until the elementary school becomes a priority for renewal, education in this country will not make much improvement. And responding to this challenge. The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching launched, several years ago, a study of the elementary school. We searched the literature, consulted scholars, conducted national and'international surveys, and sent researchers into schools all across the country. y J cl During school visits, we were struck, time and time again, by the commitment of principals, the eagerness of students, the concern of parents, and most especially by the dedication of teachers, who are, we concluded, the unsung heroes of the nation. Above all, we were struck by the way so many of the nations elementary schools have adjusted dramatically to new demands. We concluded that the elementary school is, as former U.S. Secretary of Education William Bennett put it, a place of hope."* Still, this is not the time to be complacent. 5 5 While inspired by dedicated efforts, we also were troubled by the way most teachers work alone and by the weakened partnership between the home and school, a fragmented relationship described by one principal as a lack of community at our school." We were troubled, too. by the confusion over what schools should teach and how students should be assessed, issues that go to the very heart of quality education. We also became concerned, while visiting schools, that a rigid daily schedule and poor resources often restrict learning, especially for the least advantaged. Finally, at the very time the nation's children need ethical and moral guidance, we found most schools greatly perplexed about what virtues they should, in fact, be teaching. We are convinced that a new vision of elementary education is urgently required, one that presents a comprehensive, practical plan of action based The Basic ScIhidI f) I '5^' on best practices, one that would be appropriate for every school. We agree with James Rodenmayer, the principal at Etna Road Elementary School in Whitehall, Ohio, who said to us: There is a growing urgency all over the country about the direction of education and a sense that, nationwide, we must do better, for the sake of our children. How, then, should we proceed? I I 1 J The plan we present in this report is not just another pilot project. It is not yet one more novel experiment." Rather, what we have done is to identify practices that really work and put them all together in what we call the Basic School. The piecemeal approach to school reform has been tried. During the past decade, we have had literally hundreds of isolated innovations. Whats needed now is a comprehensive approach to school renewal, one that pulls together the essential elements of an effectix e school and makes them available to every child. 1 3 After completing our research we concluded that the most essential ingredient of an effective schoolthe one idea that holds it all togetheris best described bv the simple word connections. An effective school connects people, to create community. An effective school connects the curriculum, to achieve coherence. An effective school connects cla.ssroom.s and resources to enrich the climate. And an effective school connects learning to life, to build character. a L These four prioritiescommunity, coherence, climate, and characterare the basic building blocks for the Basic School. Fitted within each of these priorities are specific proposalsprograms that, we discovered, really work. The 2oal. then, of the Basic School is to present an overall strategy for renewal, one that seems to fit all institutions, while, at the same time, encour- asina every public and private school to develop, within thislaverarching framework, its own distinctive program. t I I i i Prohiiue: A New Beginning - 7> First: The School AS Co.M.ML'NiTY Building Community. The Basic School has, as the first requirement, a clear and vital mission. The school is a place where every'- one comes together to promote learning. Each classroom is, itself, a community. But in the Basic School, the separate classrooms are connected by a sense of purpose, m a climate that is just, disciplined, and caring, with occasions for celebration. Teachers as Leaders. In the Basic School, teachers are empowered. Working together as teams, they serve as mentors to their students, and have the time and resources needed to be professionally renewed. The principal in the Basic School is lead teacher, the one who guides the school, more by inspiration than directive. Parents as Partners. In the Basic School, the circle of community extends outward to embrace parents, who are viewed as the child's first and most important teachers. A vital pannership is created between the home and school, one that begins during preschool years, is strengthened when the child formally enrolls, and continues from kindergarten to grade five. i I i The Basie School - 8 I ( i i i 1 < Second: A Cl'rricli*um with Coherence The Basic Tools. In the Basic School, literacy is the first and most essential goal. All children are expected to become proficient in the written and spoken word. But in the Basic School, language is defined broadly to include words, numbers, and the arts, the essential tools of learning which, taken together, help create a curriculum with coherence. The Core Commonalities. In the Basic School, all students become well informed. They study, with diligence, the various fields of knowledge, which are organized, thematically, within a framework called the Core Commonalities. These eight commonalities, based on shared human experiences, integrate the traditional subjects, helping students see connections across the disciplines and relate what they learn to life. X Measuring Results. Assessment in the Basic School is, always, in the service of learning. Academic standards are established both in language and the Core Commonalities, with benchmarks to monitor student achievement. The personal qualities of student development also are evaluated carefully by teachers. The Basic School is, in the end, accountable to students, to parents, and to the larger community. Prolugue: New Beginning 9 'fl* Third: A Climate for Learning Patterns to Fit Purpose. In the Basic School, every student is encouraged to become a disciplined, creative, well-motivated learner. Class size is restricted to promote learning, and the teaching schedule and student grouping are flexibly arranged. Connections are made across the generations, to enrich students lives. Resources to Enrich. The Basic School makes available to all students rich resources for learning, from building blocks to books. Libraries, zoos, museums, and parks in the surrounding community become resources, too. And on the threshold of a new century, the Basic School gives all students access to the new electronic tools that connect each classroom to vast networks of knowledge. Services for Children. The Basic School is committed to serve the whole child, acknowledging that a students physical, social, and emotional well-being also relate to learning. Beyond a solid aca- - demic prosram. the school provides basic health and counseling services for students, referrals for families, and a new calendar and clock, with after-school and summer enrichment programs for learning and creative play. The Basic School - 10 I I iI I 1 I I I I I I Fourth: A Commitment to Character The Core Virtues. The Basic School is concerned with the ethical dimensions of a childs life. The goal is to assure that all students who leave school will have developed a keen sense of personal and civic responsibility. Seven core virtues, such as respect, compassion, and perseverance, are emphasized to guide the Basic School as it promotes excellence in learning, as well as living. Living with Purpose. The core virtues of the Basic School are taught by both word and deed. Through the curriculum, through school climate, and through service, students are encouraged to apply the lessons of the classroom to the world around them. Prologue: A New Beginning -11These, then, are the four priorities of the Basic School. The first priority, community, focuses on how people relate to one another. The second priority, coherence, considers what all students should learn. The third priority, climate, deals with effective teaching and learning. The fourth priority, character, considers how the school experience shapes the ethical and moral lives of children. Many proposals presented in this report are already being practiced, to one degree or another, in schools from coast to coast. What we propose to do, however, is bring them all together in the Basic School, while encouraging every elementary school to implement the proposed plan in its own distinctive way. And it is our hope that this reportthis vision we call the Basic Schoolwill be helpful to principals and teachers, in all schools, who are working so diligently to educate the nations children. What we envision, in short, is a continuing commitment to renewal. In the end. the goal of the Basic School is not just, to build a better school, but, above all. to build a better world for children. It is our deepest hope that not a single child, let alone a whole generation of children, should pass through the schoolhouse door unprepared for the world that lies before them. .And there is. we believe, an urgency to this effort. Chilean poet Gabriela Mistral wrote: "Many things we need can wait. The child cannot. Now is the time his bones are being formed, his blood is being made, his mind is being developed. To him we cannot say tomorrow, his name is today.'' The Basic School 12 a t i 1. National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education, 6 March 1995. I 2, Market Data Retrieval, 7 March 1995. r i i 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Ashley Montagu, Growing Young, 2nd ed. (New York
Begin and Garvey Publishers, 1989), 121. Richard W. Riley, State of American Education," remarks at Georgetown University, Washington, DC, 15 February 1994, 2. The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, National Survey of Kindergarten Teachers, 1991. All quotations from kinderganen teachers are taken also from this survey. The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, National Survey of Kindergarten Teachers, 1991. All quotations from kindergarten teachers are taken also from this survey. Peter F. Drucker, The Age of Social Transformation," Atlantic Monthly, November 1994, 53-80, William J. Bennett, First Lessons: A Report on Elementary Education in America (Washington. DC
U.S. Department of Educa- tion, 1986), 1, Cited in a speech by Pat Henry, former president of the National Congress of Parents and Teachers Association, at the Children First Conference for Media, Washington, DC, 15 September 1992
reprinted in Leading the Way
Children First," PTA Today, December 1992-January 1993,4-5. Pmlo^iie: A /Vcu- Be^^innirt! - 13 I I I i I i I I I I BASic ScHocn Materials The Basic School: A Community for Learning (report) Introductory Price $10.--ISBN 0-931050-48-0 Lite Basic School: PrologueAN ezo Beginning (excerpt from report) ComplimentaryISBN 0-931050-51-0 Tl-ie Basic School: One Hand Taking Another (video) Introductory Price $45.ISBN 0-931050-49-9 The Basic School: A Conversation with Ernest Boyer (audio) Introductory Price $10.ISBN 0-931050-50-2 The Basic School Package (all above in shelf case) Introductory Price $50.ISBN 0-931050-52-9 Available From: Please Add Shippiug. Bulk Order Discounts Available. Call for Rates. California Princeton Fulfillment Services 1445 Lower Ferry Road Ewing, NJ 08618 (800) 777-4726 or (609) 883-1759 THE CARNEGIE FOUNDATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF TEACHING - 5 ivy Lane, Princeton, NJ 08540LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 (501)324-2131 ) January 10, 2000 TO: Elementary Principals and Brokers FROM: .^/s Dr. Bonnie Lesley
Associate Superintendent for Instruction SUBJECT: Study on Urban Elementary Schools I alerted you earlier by e-mail about the just released study of nine urban elementary schools with high achievement. You will find it very interesting and I urge you to read the whole report. Attached for your convenience is an executive ofthe section on Improvement Strategies. summary of the study, plus a copy Please share this information with your CLT. Attachment BAL/rcmBRIGGS, MONA From: Sent: To: Subject: Winters, Kirk [Kirk_Winters@ed.gov] Tuesday, January 04, 2000 4:14 PM Information from & about the U.S. Department of Education publications & more . Hope for Urban Education: A Study of High-Performing, High-Poverty Elementary Schools NINE URBAN ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS that have served children of color in poor communities & achieved impressive academic results are the focus of a report Secretary Riley released last month at the Department's third regional Improving America's Schools conference in Chicago. "What stands out among these schools," the Secretary said, "is a clear & unrelenting focus on high standards, a commitment to serving children & ensuring their academic success, & a collective sense of responsibility & persistence among school staff." Below is the executive summary & a list of the schools. Most of the the 150-page report (126 pages) is devoted to indepth case studies* of these 9 schools. The full report is at: http://www.ed.gov/pubs/urbanhope/ This study & report were produced for the Department's Planning & Evaluation Service by the Charles A. Dana Center at the University of Texas at Austin. The 9 schools are... Harriet A. Baldwin School in Boston, Baskin Elementary in San Antonio, Burgess Elementary in Atlanta, Centerville Elementary in East St. Louis, IL, Goodale Elementary in Detroit, Hawley Environmental Elementary in Milwaukee, Lora B' Peck Elementary in Houston, Gladys Noon Spellman Elementary in Cheverly, MD, & James Ward Elementary, Chicago. (All are Title l-funded schools that pool resources through "schoolwide projects" to serve all students and improve achievement.) Executive Summary of "Hope for Urban Education: A Study of Nine High-Performing, High-Poverty, Urban Elementary Schools" (December 1999) This report is about nine urban elementary schools that served children of color in poor communities & achieved impressive academic results. These schools have attained higher levels of achievement than mos^choois In their states or most schools in th^n'atioh~They'have achieved results in reading & mathematics beyond that achieved in some suburban schools. This report tells the stories of these schools & attempts to explain how these schools changed themselves into high-achieving schools. All nine of the schools used federal Title I dollars to create Title I schoolwide programs. 'I hes~e schools are a powerful affirmatTon of the power of Title I to support comprehensive school improvement efforts. In these schools, many important change efforts were enhanced through the use of federal education resources. On the other hand, although Title I supported the change efforts, Tjtl^was not the catalyst of the change effort. The true catalyst was'the strong desire of e'ducafdrslo ensure the v acad^lFsuccess bftTie~cRirdren they served. Each of the nine public elementary schools selected had the following characteristics: 1 * The majority of their students met low-income criteria (i.e., they qualified for free or reduced-price lunch). In seven of the schools, at least 80 percent of the students met low-income criteria. ' * The school was located in an ur^n area & did not have selective admission policies. * Student achievement in mathematics & reading was higher than the average of all schools in the state (or higher than the 50fo percentile if ajiation^ly-normed assessment was'used). 'Af least three years of assessment d'afa*were available to gauge the school's progress. * There was not evidence that the school exempted large percentages of students from participation in the assessment program because of language proficiency or disabilities. * The school & district leaders consented to participation in the study in a timely manner. The high-performing, urban schools selected were Harriet A. Baldwin School, Boston, Mass.
Baskin Elementary School, San Antonio, Texas
Burgess Elementary School, Atlanta, Ga.
Centerville Elementaiy School, East St. Louis, 111.
Goodale Elementary School, Detroit, Mich.
Hawley Environmental Elementary School, Milwaukee, Wis.
Lora B. Peck Elementary School, Houston, Texas
Gladys Noon Spellman Elementary School, Cheverly, Md. On metropolitan Washington, D.C.)
& James Ward Elementary School, Chicago, 111. Teams of researchers conducted two-day visits to all nine schools. During the visits, the researchers interviewed campus & district administrators, teachers, parents, & other school personnel. They observed classrooms, hallways, playgrounds, & various meetings. Also, they reviewed various school documents & achievement data. >From these data, case studies were written for each of the nine schools. The nine schools were different in important ways. These differences suggest that many urban elementary schools serving poor communities can achieve high levels of student achievement. Also, the differences suggest that schools may be able to achieve academic successes through different means. Some of the differences observed included the following: * Among the nine schools, there were schools with small & larg.e enrollments. Enrollments ranged from 283 studenfs^TBaldwin 'Elerhenfary to 1,171 students at Goodale Elementary. * Although all of the schools served elementary grades, they had different grade teyel configurations, starting as early as pre-kindefgarten at'Hawley.'Peck, & Ward & ending as late as grade eight at Ward. * Student_demoqraphics varied. At six of the nine schools, most students were African American. At one school, most students were Hispanic, & at another most were Asian American. * Only ^o of the_schoo[s used natioriaHy^known comprehensive school reform .rnoJel.sl.ZDne_usecrthe Accelerated School Program & andlh'er used Success for Ail. * Even though none of the schools would have been considered high-performing based on achievement data from five years ago, some of the schoojs_made dramatic lmRpyerng.nt over a three or four-year period, whereas others took five years or longer' Before experiencing dramatic gains in student achievement. * In a few cases, the district office played a major role in the school's improvement efforts. In contrast, there were other cases where the district played a modest role in the 2 improvement process. * A few of the schools managed to make dramatic improvements without great turnover in teaching personnel. In contrast, some schools experienced substantial teacher turnover during the reform process. Beyond these differences, there wereimportant similari^s in the strategies used to improve academic achievefherit. The following strategies were used by many of the nine schools: * School leaders identified & pursued an important, visible, yet attainable first goal. They focused on the attainm^t of this first goal, achieved success, & then used their success to move toward more ambitious goals. * School leaders redirected time & energy that was being spent on conflicts between adults in the school towa^rd service to cKHdren. 'Leaders 'appealed"to'feachers,' support staff, & parents to put aside their own interests & focus on serving children well. * Educators fostered in students a sense of responsibjlity-.for appropriate behavior & they created an envirbnmeritJo.which students were fikely to behave well. Discipline problems became^f^re as the schools implemented multi-faceted approaches for helping students learn responsibility fortheir own behavior. * School leaders created a collective sense of responsibility "V" for school irnprovement. The'shared sense of responsibility was nurtured 5y loirit planning processes & reinforced by efforts to involve everyone in key components of the school's 'work. ' ' ........ . * The quantity & guality of time spent on instructional leadership activities increased. Principals spent more time helpEng tea'cRers attend to instructional issues & decreased the time teachers spent on distractions that diverted attention away from teaching & learning. Also, principals put other educators in positions that allowed them to provide instructional leadership. School leaders constantly cH^lenged'teachers & students to higher levels of academic attainment. They used data to identify, acknowledge, & celebrate strengths & to focus attention & resources on areas ofneed. * Educators aligned instruction to the standards & assessments requiredTyme state orthe school ^strict. T eachers'S " administrators worked together to understand precisely what students were expected to know & be able to do. Then, they planned instruction to ensure that students would have an excellent chance to learn what was expected of them. * School leaders got the resources & training that teachers perceivedlFie^eeded' to get their students to achieve at high leT/el^Iri'particular, school leaders made sure that teachers feiriiRe they had adequate materials, equipment, & professional development. * School leaders created opportunities for teachers to work, plil^'i leaiTTl^^hefarpunff in^guctio^ was 'structured' to ensure that coITaboratioKafdund instructional issues became an important part of the school day & the school week. * Educators made efforts to win the confidence & respect of parents' primarily by improving the achievement o'f students. Then educators built strong partnerships with parents in support of student achievement. 3 * School leaders created additional time for instruction. In some cases, efforts focused on creating addition^'time for attention to critical instructional issues during the school day. in other cases, efforts focused on creating additional time beyond the regular school day. / * Educators persisted through difficulties, setbacks, & failures~rh^'ite~of challenges & frustrations, school leaders did not stop trying to improve their schools. These findings suggest the following recommendations: * Build the capacity of principals to provide instructional leadership. Federal, state & local education agencies should promote efforts to build the capacity of principals to provide the quality of instructional leadership demonstrated by the principals in the nine schools studied. ways that provide additional p to schools. hSeral, state, & local * Channel resources in ihjtructlQ'narieadefsFfip education agencies'should consider other ways to increase the quantity of instructional leadership available to schools, such as the development of instructional facilitator or specialist positions within schools. * Create clear, measurable, & r^rous school accountability ^vTsron's.' Thefederal governrri^t'should continue to encourage states & districts to frame rigorous school accountability requirements. However, a focus on adequate yearly progress is insufficient. Many educators will be motivated to higher levels of performance if state & district policies define exemplary academic achievement. * Ensure that accounta^lity provisions are accompanied by adequa^te strgfegie^s to build capacity & provide support? In considering' requirements foradequate yearly progress, states & districts should set ambitious requirements but also provide high levels of support. One of the most important supports is time for school personnel to engage in processes that align instruction to standards & assessments. * Along with accountability, provide schools adequate flexibility & support to use that flexibility well. Federal, state, & local education agencies should ensure that accountability provisions are coupled with adequate resources for schools & reasonable flexibility in the use of those resources. Principals & school decision-making committees need high quality training that helps them use data to focus resources on critical areas of instructional need. * Infuse the tenets of comprehensive school reform into other federal education programs. Th^federargovernment's focus on cornprehefTs'ivesChodl reform should be expanded & infused into other federal education programs. However, emphasis does not need to be placed on the adoption of models of reform as much as upon the principles of reform, as defined in the Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration Program legislation. * Use legislation, policy, & technical assistance to help educators create regular opportunities for true professional development Professional developmentneedsfddecompletely rethoughfin a way that results in more effective teaching & improved student achievement. State & federal resources should support the costs associated with the provision of high-quality, school-based professional development that increases the amount of time educators spend working with & learning from each other. * Provide resources for increasing the quantity of time made avallaBre'ldr in^ruclion'.' State & federal resources' should suppoft effdtfslo'increase the quantity of time made 4 available for instruction. After-school programs, "Saturday Schools," & extended-year programs are important vehicles for ensuring that students meet challenging standards. * Strengthen legislation & provide technical assistance to encourage schools to builTthe capacity orteacRersTS parents for increasing parentarTnvolverrient aUschool. Paper cofn^fance with existin^federal parentarinvolvement requirements is inadequate to improve schools. The capacity of educators to work with parents must be broadened. Also, educators must work to build the capacity of parents to support the education of their children. * Research i^needed to better understand how school districts carTbeftehsupport the improvement of teaching ^'learning in RI^-poveTfyschools. DTsfricts can play important roles in st^portihg-schbol change efforts. Unfortunately, there has been little research directed to understanding the role of districts in supporting high-performing, high-poverty schools. To subscribe to (or unsubscribe from) EDlnfo, address an mail message to: listproc@inet.ed.gov Then write either SUBSCRIBE EDINFO YOURFIRSTNAME YOURLASTNAME in the message, or write UNSUBSCRIBE EDINFO (if you have a signature block, please turn it off) Then send it! Past EDlnfo messages: http://www.ed.gov/MailingLists/EDInfQ/ Search: http://www.ed.gov/MailingLists/EDInfo/search.html Past ED Initiatives: http://www.ed.gov/pubs/EDInitiatives/ Daphne Hardcastle, Peter Kickbush, & Kirk Winters U.S. Department of Education kirk_winters@ed.gov 5 Hope for Urban Education
Improvement Strategies http
//www.ed.gov/pubs/urbanhope/improvement.html Hope for Urban Education - December 1999 Improvement Strategies The primary purpose of this research effort was to generate a deeper understanding of how these nine urban elementary schools changed in a way that resulted in high levels of academic achievement for their students. There were several important change strategies that were used by multiple schools. In this section of the report, these change strategies are described with examples from a few of the schools. Targeting an Important, Visible, Attainable First Goal In several of the schools, new principals walked into difficult environments with problems ranging from student discipline, to teacher morale, to parent dissatisfaction, to academic lethargy. In response to what must have felt like overwhelming chaos, principals identified one issue or goal upon which they could focus immediate attention and give an unambiguous message that the school was changing. They sought to identify an issue where they could make progress quickly. The focus varied in response to the issues that were perceived as important at each school. At Baldwin and Hawley, the first efforts were to improve student discipline and create a safe and orderly environment. At Spellman, efforts were made to reduce the disruptions to teaching and increase the schools focus on academic instruction. At Peck, the principal disbanded the schools two, ethnically separate parent-teacher organizations and instituted a unified Parent-Teacher Association. At several of the schools, principals tried to make the physical environment more attractive for children and more conducive to learning. 1 of9 By targeting a visible, attainable goal, principals were able to give students, parents, and teachers clear indicators of change in just a few weeks or months. These early accomplishrnents helped reduce or eliminate excuses and created a readiness for additional (often more difficult) changes. By focusing on one issue, principals were able to direct their energies in a way that would have a high likelihood of success. This first success became the cornerstone of future successes. Refocusing Energies on Service to Children In prior years, teachers, principals, and parents in many of the schools spent considerable time on conflicts among the adults at school. Often these conflicts siphoned away valuable energy that should have been devoted to the improvement of teaching and learning. Principals in most of the nine schools were skillful in redirecting the energy expended on such conflicts. School leaders challenged teachers, paraprofessionals, union leaders, and parents to elevate their focus beyond self-interest to a concern for the well-being of the students. This was not done as a one-time event or an occasional sermon. Instead, principals were constantly reminding the adults about the effect of decisions on students. The principals appealed to teachers, staff, and parents to put aside small differences and unite in service to students. At Burgess, principal Carter challenged the staff to move from a teacher-focused school to a child-focused school. Often in discussions about important school decisions, the principal would ask the faculty to consider what was in the best interest of students. At Peck, principal Goodwin asked the faculty to put children first, regardless of disagreements. The staff learned, in part, from the manner in which the principal articulated child-focused rationale for her decisions. Goodwin encouraged teachers to talk about their reasons for entering the teaching profession. She tried to learn about their goals and what she called "the desires of their hearts." Then she appealed to those desires to serve children well as she called upon every staff member to refocus their efforts on the improvement of the school. In several cases, school leaders helped teachers refocus energies during planning processes. By engaging in such processes and discussing "what we, together, can do for children," principals were able to refocus energies in ways that coincided with improvement plans. Once plans were developed, the 1/5/00 10:29 Ah Hope for Urban Education: Improvement Strategies http
//www.ed.gov/pubs/urbanhope/improvement.Utm refocus energies in ways that coincided with improvement plans. Once plans were developed, the message was reinforced often, particularly in times of conflict. As an example, at Baldwin, some teachers resisted changes in curriculum and instruction. One teacher said, "You have to have a willingness to let them go through their resistance. Then you focus them on the fact that this is for the good of the kids." At Baskin, when performance data were reviewed, it was done in ways that were not intended to be critical of teachers. In contrast, the review was focused on the academic needs of children. At Goodale, the principal did not allow much energy to be expended on projects, efforts, or discussions that had minimal influence on the personal or academic growth of students. In staff meetings, grade level meetings, or in other gatherings, the principal frequently refocused the staffs energy toward issues that had a substantial influence on the personal or academic success of students. The result of the refocusing process was not only a decrease in tensions but also an increase in the extent to which students were likely to feel respected, valued, and appreciated. Visitors to these schools quickly sense that teachers and other staff members genuinely love and care for the students. Building Students Sense of Responsibility for Appropriate Behavior and Creating an Environment in Which Students Are Likely to Behave Well In all nine schools, often in dramatic contrast with their environments in past years, discipline problems were rare. The schools used many approaches to improve student behavior, focusing on helping students assume responsibility for their behavior and on creating school environments that made it easy for students to behave appropriately. At several of the schools, time was set aside to establish clear rules and high expectations for student behavior. Teachers, administrators, parents, and often students worked together to establish simple rules that would help create a much more pleasant environment for teaching and learning. Often, rules were established that would help prevent behavior problems before they started. For instance, at Peck students walked in the hallways with their arms folded. This pattern of behavior helped reduce the possibility of conflicts as students walked throughout the school. In all of the schools, many efforts were made to acknowledge and even celebrate positive behavior. For instance, the Buddy Reading Program at Ward and the SPARK program (Spellman Acts of Random Kindness) at Spellman helped encourage students to interact with their peers in a supportive manner. At Peck, students earned opportunities to seek positions of responsibility in the classroom. At Spellman, a banner was flown when the school achieved a fight-free day. At Hawley, students earned the chance to participate in intramural sports. Clear and consistent rules, consequences, and rewards helped students learn to assume responsibility for their own behavior. When consequences were regular and predictable, it was easier for students to behave appropriately. The predictability of these results seemed to be positively associated with the visibility of the principal and other school leaders. The visibility of principals on playgrounds, in hallways, and in classrooms helped underscore that the rules were important and they would be enforced. At times, rules were eliminated or modified when they were not necessary. For instance, at Peck there were many students (and some teachers) who were frequently late arriving at school in the momings._ Instead of investing a substantial amount of energy into disciplining people for being tardy, the principal instituted "Peck time." The beginning and ending times for the school day were moved back 15 minutes. In other words, children began school fifteen minutes later and ended their school day fifteen minutes later. Parents, teachers, and students saw the change as an effort to help them succeed at being on time. Tardiness was dramatically reduced. Training for teachers was an important component of efforts to implement discipline plans. At Peck, teachers received training in the districts Consistency Management Discipline Plan. At Goodale, teachers participated in efficacy training that focused on building a sense of efficacy and responsibility in students. At many of the schools, the regular collaboration among teachers included attention to 2 of 9 1/5/00 10:29 AHope for Urban Education: Improvement Strategies http://www.ed.goy/pubs/urbanhope/improvement.html in students. At many of the schools, the regular collaboration among teachers included attention to strategies for helping students maintain exemplary behavior. Student responsibility for their own behavior was also nurtured by the development of student leadership activities. For instance, at Goodale and Hawley, peer mediation programs gave students important opportunities to support each other in working out problems in a constructive manner. As well, extensive uses of cooperative learning strategies at schools such as Peck provided many opportunities for student leadership. The improvements in student behavior were also influenced by the changes in tlie extent to which children came to understand that they were valued and respected. At Baldwin, as in all of the nine schools, principal Lee knew all of the students by name and knew many of their families. The personal relationships among students and school staff created a powerful context for good behavior. At Burgess, teachers gave students time to talk about important emotional stresses in their lives. At several of the schools, counselors or social workers helped students know that they had a safe place to talk about personal concerns. Nonetheless, teachers, counselors, social workers, principals, and other support providers emphasized high expectations for student behavior, regardless of the circumstances in childrens lives. They listened and provided support that helped students continue to meet behavioral expectations, as well as academic expectations, even when students faced troubling situations. When behavioral problems emerged, they were dealt with in a prompt, objective manner that demonstrated respect for students and helped them learn responsibility. For instance, at Goodale, students were rarely suspended. Principal Batchelor believed that removing a student from school did nothing to increase the students sense of responsibility for his or her behavior nor to increase the schools sense of responsibility for educating the student. At many ofthe schools, the involvement of parents was a key component of their disciplinary efforts. Parents reported that they were supportive because they perceived that school leaders were fair disciplinarians who had the best interest of their children at heart. Ultimately, student behavior was also improved by the improvement of academic instruction in classrooms. Students were more likely to be actively engaged in learning. They were more likely to be excited about the level of challenge and rigor in their curriculum. They were more likely to be positive about their chances to succeed academically. Thus, there was less of a need for students to seek attention through negative behavior. Improved instruction led to improved discipline, which led to even better instruction. Creating a Collective Sense of Responsibility for Improvement An important improvement strategy at each of the nine schools centered on creating an environment in which all educators shared a sense of responsibility for school improvement and the attainment of the schools goals. At several ofthe schools, this joint sense of responsibility was modeled by the principal, nurtured by joint planning processes, and reinforced by efforts to involve everyone in key components of the schools work. Principals at these schools emphasized the importance of each individuals contribution to the work of the school. Principals modeled their commitment to collective responsibility by including the input of various staff members in decisions. Often teachers were given the responsibility of making important decisions. In other cases, principals made key decisions but they gave teachers and other staff substantial opportunities to contribute their thoughts and ideas. Planning processes provided avenues for the involvement of many staff and faculty. For instance, the Accelerated Schools Program provided opportunities for many Centerville staff members to get involved in identifying school needs and establishing a vision for the schools future. At Hawley, staff members participated on committees established in response to critical issue areas identified by the staff. These structured opportunities for involvement helped emphasize that staff members shared responsibility for school improvement. The principal refused to allow teachers to think that he would fix all of the schools problems. The staff learned that they all shared responsibility for getting all children to achieve at high levels. 3 of 9 1/5/00 10:29 ANHope for Urban Education
Improvement Strategies http
//www.ed.gov/pubs/urbanhope/improvement.html at high levels. Collective responsibility became a part of the common language of the school. At Centerville, Peck, and Ward everyone talked about teamwork and the extent to which they were working as a team. At Goodale and Burgess educators talked about themselves as part of a "family" of adults responsible for the well-being of "their" children. At Baskin, principal Payne said, "No one can do it alone." At Ward, principal Wilcher emphasized the importance of getting the staff to feel that they were working wilh her and not for her. The sense of collective responsibility resulted in staff members taking on new and different roles. At Spellman, the institution of the Canady block-scheduling approach resulted in almost all of the schools ancillary personnel participating in the teaching of reading. Similarly, at Peck many staff members helped support the Success for All reading program. At Hawley, the school social worker sponsored the after-school math club. At many of the schools, teachers voluntarily exceeded expectations. The involvement of staff members in a variety of activities central to the success of the school helped create a deeper sense of professional responsibility among them. As professionals, teachers and other staff were expected to contribute to an understanding of the schools problems, the analysis of possible solutions, and the implementation of commonly agreed-upon approaches to improvement. Increasing Instructional Leadership At all nine schools, the amount and quality of time spent on instructional leadership activities was substantially increased. First, principals spent a substantial amount of time engaged in instructional leadership activities. Second, other school faculty were positioned in ways that allowed them to provide instructional leadership at the school. Principals tended to spend a large percentage of their time in classrooms. For instance, at Burgess, Carter reported that she spent 40 percent of her time in classrooms, observing teaching and helping improve instruction. At Centerville, principal Butler was described as a teacher of teachers. As one teacher explained, "She n gets in there with you and shows you. She teaches and shows you to make sure that you understand. Similarly, teachers at Peck and Goodale reported that their principals were frequently in classrooms- watching, reacting to and reinforcing good teaching techniques and providing helpful suggestions. In addition to the leadership provided by principals, almost all of the schools asked other educators to provide instructional leadership to the school staff. For instance, Warren, the former principal at Baskin, created an instructional guide position from another administrative position. This person, Payne, coached teachers on instructional strategies and later became the school principal. At Burgess and Spellman, there were instructional specialists who provided instructional assistance and support to teachers. At Goodale, Title I resource teachers assumed instructional leadership functions as they helped teachers address instructional improvement issues. At Peck, a master teacher was hired to help teachers with writing instruction while the Success for All Coordinator supported teachers in improving reading instruction. At Ward, an assistant principal was responsible for helping the principal improve instruction in classrooms and head teachers provided addition^ assistance to their peers in improving daily classroom instruction. By encouraging and training multiple instructional leaders, former principal Breen at Ward helped prepare his successor, Wilcher, and other leaders who have become administrators in other Chicago schools. As another example of instructional leadership among the nine schools, principals kept teachers and other school personnel focused on improving instruction. At Goodale, when school planning efforts veered to a discussion of improving the parking lot, principal Batchelor, helped refocus the group on improving instruction. At Hawley, Principal Helminiak supported the School Beautification Committee, but made it clear that the priority had to be on improving student achievement. Often, principals kept the faculty focused on instruction by removing distractions. At Spellman, Liebes insisted that the 90-minute reading block was "sacred" and would not be interrupted. Even on days shortened because- of snow. 4 of 9 1/5/00 10:29 Ah/Hope for Urban Education: Improvement Strategies http://www,ed.gov/pubs/urbanhope/improvement.html reading block was "sacred"_and would not be interrupted. Even on days shortened because of snow, everyone would have 90 minutes for reading and language arts. One way principals and other school leaders demonstrated instructional leadership was by getting teachers to use achievement data to improve instruction. For example, at Baldwin, Lee helped teachers use data on student literacy levels to improve reading instruction. Additionally, the princip^ helped teachers use disaggregated Stanford 9 test scores to identify students in need of additional academic support. At Goodale, Batchelor helped ensure that the school s professional development plans, as well as other important plans were based, at least in part, on student results from the Michigan Educational Assessment Program (MEAP). At Hawley, principal Helminiak helped teachers use student assessment data to identify areas of strength and weakness and use such data in planning improvement strategies. At Baskin, the instructional guide helped teachers use data to understand specific objectives in mathematics that needed extra attention. At Centerville, the principal used the Accelerated Schools Program to help teachers understand and use data to improve teaching. Principals constantly challenged the school staff to higher levels of achievement. They highlighted and celebrated the successes of students and teachers in a way that reinforced exemplary efforts and gave a message of hope. The walls of classrooms and hallways were visual celebrations of the achievement of students. Regularly, school leaders took the time to acknowledge the successes and special efforts of students, parents, teachers, and other staff members. As goals were achieved, school leaders generously praised the efforts of all contributors, and then artfully redirected the entire school toward even higher goals for the achievement of their students. Aligning Instruction to Standards and Assessments At the nine schools, students performed well on assessments because they were taught what the district or the state expected them to learn. Principals and teachers did not leave student performance to chance. They meticulously ensiled that children were being taught the knowledge, concepts, and skills articulated in state or district standards and measured in annual assessments. At Burgess and Centerville, curriculum alignment processes helped teachers understand the relationship between what they taught and how students performed on standardized tests. The curriculum alignment processes were unportant opportumties for teachers to talk about expectations, teaching, and student work. Furthermore, the alignment processes gave teachers a chance to understand precisely what students were expected to know and the extent to which students would be expected to demonstrate mastery. At Spellman, instructional specialists and teachers worked together to create perfomiance-based practice assessments. Teachers used the data from those assessments to improve instruction. For many of the teachers, the process gave them a much deeper understanding of what instruction was needed for students to perform well on the assessment. Alignment processes also helped ensure that teachers would be able to teach all of the knowledge and skills expected to be learned during the school year. For instance, at Baskin, the principal and the instructional guide led teachers in curriculum alignment projects in science and mathematics that gave teachers a road map for student improvement." Teachers no longer had to guess if they were covering all the content tested by the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills. They worked together to develop plan that would ensure adequate coverage of all important content by-testing time each spring. a Getting Teachers the Resources and Training Perceived Necessary to Teach At several of the schools, substantial energy was devoted to making sure that teachers felt like they had all of the resources they considered necessary in order to get students to reach the schools academic goals. In particular, principals and other school leaders made sure that teachers felt like they had adequate materials, equipment, and professional development. At Baldwin, teachers reported that the principal "went to the n* degree" to get needed instructional materials. At Goodale, teachers who had transferred from other Detroit schools were astonished at the manner in which the principal and the Title I resource teachers were able to get teachers the materials they requested in a timely manner. At Ward, teachers reported, "If teachers need it, Wilcher [the 5 of 9 1/5/00 10:29 AMHope for Urban Education: Improvement Strategies http
//www.ed.gov/pubs/urbanhope/improvement.html they requested in a timely manner. At Ward, teachers reported, "If teachers need it, Wilcher [the principal] gets it." When assessment data, principal observations, or analyses of student work suggested that students were not learning an important concept or skill, the principal or school planning teams made sure that resources were allocated to help teachers learn better strategies for teaching the skill. Teachers, principals, and instructional specialists from within the school often provided this training
however, there were times when training from outside sources was needed. In such cases, principals either arranged for experts to come to the school and provide training to the staff or arranged opportunities for staff persons to attend workshops, seminars, or conferences where they could access the appropriate training. When necessary, the school provided substitute teachers so that faculty could attend training sessions. Often such training was attended by groups of teachers and administrators. Therefore, when the group returned to school, they could support each other in carrying out the practices learned. Also, they could assist other staff in learning the new strategies, concepts, or techniques. For instance during one semester, at Ward, a group of teachers participated in weekly math and science classes held at the Illinois Institute of Technology. Teachers attended classes during the school day and substitute teachers were provided. Then, experts from the institute visited the teachers in their classrooms and provided coaching. Teachers learned new skills that they were able to apply in their classrooms and practice with the support of their school administrators and fellow teachers. Often, teachers perceived that the support provided through access to materials, equipment, and training was critical to their success. They tended to see the schools investment as a tangible indicator of support. As a result, teachers responded with a greater willingness to support school initiatives. Perhaps, teachers felt more effective as a result of this support and were more willing to exert maximum effort. Perhaps, when teachers perceived that they had been given what they deemed necessary to teach well, there were fewer excuses for poor performance. Whatever the reason, this support was extremely important to teachers and was an important part of the success at several of the schools. Often the schools used Title I funds to provide materials, instructional equipment, and professional development. These schools used the flexibility provided by the Title I schoolwide program option to improve services to all students. In some cases, (e.g., at Goodale) Title I teachers still saw some students on a pull-out basis, yet the majority of the Title I funds were used to support the improvement of the entire school. When Title I funds ran short, some of the schools (e.g., Centerville, Baldwin, and Goodale) acquired resources from other grants to help meet these needs or combined Title I dollars with other resources. At Baskin, money from an unused professional position was diverted to purchase additional instructional materials. At Hawley, Title I and technology resources were combined to get computers into classrooms and provide associated professional development for teachers. Creating Opportunities for Teachers to Work, Plan, and Learn Together At all nine schools, leaders created regular opportunities for teachers to work, plan, and learn together around instructional issues. Without time for collaboration on instruction, many improvements would have never been conceived or implemented. Many of the schools created blocks of time during which teachers met and planned together. At Baldwin, a primary team (kindergarten through second-grade teachers) and an elementary team (third through fifth-grade teachers) each met twice a month. At Baskin, a 90-minute block of uninterrupted' planning time was created for each grade level twice a week. At Hawley, the principal ananged the schedule in a way that used "banked" time (additional minutes at the beginning or end of each day) to carve out time for professional development. At Peck, the principal rearranged the schedule to provide common planning times for the staff to engage in horizontal (same grade level) and vertical (different grade levels) planning. Twice a week the entire staff came together to share experiences and strategies that achieved positive results. Often planning times focused on important instructional issues. For instance, at Baldwin, teachers 6 of 9 1/5/00 10:29 AN'Hope for Urban Education
Improvement Strategies http
//www.ed.gov/pubs/urbanhope/improvement.html Often planning times focused on important instructional issues. For instance, at Baldwin, teachers carefully reviewed student work in comparison with academic standards and discussed opportunities for improving instruction. At Spellman, this time was used to create practice performance assessments, score the assessments, and identify common areas of academic strength and need. Often these planning times became opportunities for teachers to share and learn from each other. For instance, at Burgess teachers gave reports on what objectives were being taught and how they were getting students to leam the objectives. Time was set aside for classroom visits and sharing. At Hawley, many of the professional development activities were organized and presented by teachers to their colleagues, based on the school improvement plan. In other cases, collaboration times were sometimes used as opportunities for teachers to study and research options for instructional improvement. For instance, at Baldwin teachers researched options for literacy programs before choosing one that felt appropriate for their students. Although these collaborations generally had an academic focus, they did not always start as such. For instance, at Baskin collaboration was established when teachers started going out to lunch together once a week. At Burgess, collaborations began with staff dinners, social gatherings, and team-building sessions. Building a comfort level was sometimes an important precursor to getting teachers to discuss their teaching practices openly. In some cases, school leaders set aside space for teachers to plan and work together. The new kind of II. 'teacher workroom" helped teachers collaborate. At Baskin a special workroom was established that allowed teachers the space to meet, work together, and leam from each other. Similarly, Peck Elementary is in the process of developing such a space. Mentoring programs provided another vehicle for teachers to work and plan together. Specifically, Centerville and Ward had established mentor programs that were particularly designed to support new teachers. Team teaching at Spellman (as part of the Canady model) required teachers to work with one of the schools specialists during a 90-minute block. At Goodale, shared professional development experiences often became a starting point for collaborations among teachers. Teachers would return from such events and work together toward implementation of strategies learned. Teachers at these nine schools were constantly learning about academic content and academic instruction. Often, they learned as much from each other as they learned from any other source. Their planning efforts were central to the improvements in instruction at the schools. Winning the Confidence and Respect of Parents and Building Partnerships with Them At all nine schools, educators engaged in a wide variety of efforts to win the confidence and respect of parents. Educators did not simply seek to involve parents in token activities. Instead, educators sought a meaningful partnership with parents. Successful partnerships would never have been established if parents did not see tangible evidence of the schools concern for their children. As the school made efforts to adapt to the needs of children, parents were willing to exert greater effort to support the school. The teachers and principals of the nine schools helped parents believe that the school could provide great opportunities for their children. Parents responded positively to those efforts with an outpouring of support in various forms. Parents talked about what teachers had done for their children and the kind of place the school had become. They articulated a confidence that the school staff had their childrens best interests at heart. The conventional wisdom suggests that parental involvement leads to improved achievement
however, in these schools, there was also evidence that the reverse was trueimproved school achievement led to increased parental involvement. Parents were more willing to be supportive because they saw evidence that educators cared about their children and worked hard to improve achievement. Of course, this increased parental involvement then became an important tool for generating further improvements in academic learning. 7 of 9 1/5/00 10:29 .AVHope for Urban Education: Improvement Strategies http.//WWW.ed.gov/pubs/urbanhope/improvement.html An important step in building partnerships with parents was making them feel like they were welcome as equals at school. Educators at Baldwin, Centerville, Spellman, and Ward described "open-door policies" that encouraged parents to visit the school and visit their childs classroom. At Baskin, teachers and administrators stood outside the school in the morning as parents dropped off their children. They invited parents to come in and have coffee and doughnuts and chat about their childs progress. Similarly, at Goodale, parents were invited to attend "Snack and Chat" sessions with teachers during lunch. At Centerville and Peck, parent centers were established that gave parents a place to meet, organize activities, and participate in enrichment classes. At Peck, the principal showed the school office staff how to greet and work with parents in a way that made them feel welcome. Often educators made small but significant extra steps that helped parents feel welcome. For instance, at Baskin, child care was provided during parent-teacher conferences. At Spellman, the schools automated phone service was used to remind every parent about PTA meetings. At Peck, the principal made personal phone calls to parents to encourage them to attend planning meetings. School personnel helped build partnerships by giving parents important ways to contribute and by acknowledging the important ways in winch parents already contributed to the schools success. At Baskin, many parents were involved in planning activities. Furthermore, those parents were encouraged to express their opinions and share their ideas. At Hawley, parents were invited to attend family nights with food and fun, but also, at these events, parents were asked to share their opinions, ideas, and desires for their children. At Peck, parents were asked, "What do you think we need to do to help make Peck a better school?" At these schools, parents were treated as if they were highly valued consultants with important ideas and insights. Parents were also given important ways to contribute to their own childs academic success. At Baskin, videotapes were used to inform parents about activities in their childs classroom and to help parents understand what children were learning and how they could help at home. At Burgess, parents participated in the Saturday school program. Parental participation was encouraged and structured so parents could learn strategies they could use with their children at home. Similarly, Burgess parents got training in how to help their children prepare for the science and social science fair. At Centerville, parents participated in family science nights and family math nights that provided many ideas that could be replicated easily at home. PTA meetings at Centerville were used to teach parents strategies for assisting their children with schoolwork. Of course, parents were also given important opportunities to volunteer at school. However, the schools made important efforts to make sure that parents felt their time was well spent. At Burgess, teachers participated in workshops designed to help them learn how to plan for the use of volunteers in their classrooms. At Centerville, the school developed volunteer job descriptions based upon needs identified by staff. Parents were given the opportunity to fill those jobs that best matched their talents and available time. Parents became important contributors to the success of these schools. Parents contributed ideas, time, and assistance that helped make the schools more responsive to the needs and strengths of children. By helping at home, helping at school, or helping in the community, parents helped the schools improve the academic success as well as the personal success of students. Creating Additional Time for Instruction Each ofthe nine schools created additional time for academic instruction. In some cases, efforts focused on creating additional time for attention to critical instructional issues during the school day. In other cases, efforts focused on creating additional time beyond the regular school day. At Baskin, Baldwin, Peck, and Spellman, school leaders created additional time during the school day for attention to reading. In each school, there was a 90-minute period devoted to literacy. Furthermore, at each school, almost all staff were involved in teaching reading during this period, thereby reducing adult-to-child ratios. At Baskin, teachers used assessment data to change instructional groupings that 8 of 9 1/5/00 10:29 AhHope for Urban Education: Improvement Strategies http://www.ed:gov/pubs/urbanhope/improvement.html 9 of 9 provided more intensive instructional time (three-to-one groupings twice a week) for students in need of additional assistance. At Burgess, Baldwin, Hawley, Peck, and Ward there were after-school programs intended to create additional opportunities for students to learn important content and skills. At Centerville, teachers provided valuable tutoring for students during lunch periods. Educators at the schools assumed that they could get their students to reach high academic standards
however, they recognized that additional time was often necessary to ensure student success. Persisting through Difficulties, Setbacks, and Failures None of the principals and none of the teachers interviewed reported that the transformation of their school was easy. In fact, there were many reports of difficulties, challenges, and frustrations. Perhaps, a key difference between these schools and other less successful schools is that educators in these schools persisted. They refused to give up the dream of academic success. Initially, at Spellman, some of the staff did not like the idea of having instructional specialists and rebelled against using them. At Baldwin, some teachers perceived that the mandate to improve learning was an affront to them. At Peck, parents circulated a petition and demanded that the school board remove the new principal. In Wilchers second year as principal at Ward, teachers had to deal with a district reorganization and a slow building rehabilitation project that hampered preparation for the beginning of the school year. These difficulties and others might have been sufficient to derail improvement efforts
however, the school leaders persisted. At Peck, the principal kept asking herself if her actions were in the best interest of children. When she answered affirmatively, she knew she should continue. Also, at Peck, as was the case at Burgess, the support of district office administrators was sometimes crucial in helping the principals hold the course. On the other hand, there were times when principals felt the need to fend off district office directives that threatened their reform efforts. Some principals described efforts to resist district pressure and avoid hiring teachers who had been removed from positions in other schools. Some principals told how they preserved the teachers time for collaboration and resisted district efforts to involve their staff in district-wide professional development activities that did not address the needs of their students or teachers. Some principals described other district policies that could have diffused their schools focus on academic improvement. Often those principals either negotiated compromises or found ways to comply that were minimally disruptive to the schools improvement efforts. Perhaps, the persistence of school leaders was influenced primarily by their deep commitment to the students and families they served. They perceived their work, less as a job, more as a mission. They persisted because they believed in themselves, they believed in their school staffs, and they believed in the ability of the children to succeed. -###- PBEV TDinerences .Among the Nine Schoolsl ur NEXT [Recommendations I 1/5/00 10:29 AJv4 i EARLY CHILDHOOD/ELEMENTARY LITERACY INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 SOUTH PULASKI LITTLEROCK, AR 72206 PHONE (501) 324-0517 FAX (501) 324-0504 TO: Elementary Principals FROM: .^^^Price, Director of Early Childhood/Elementary Literacy DATE: February 6, 2001 SUBJECT: Early Childhood Publication from U.S. Department of Education I would like to recommend that you request this recent publication from the U.S. Department of Education: Building Strong Foundations for Early Learning: The U.S. Department of Educations Guide to High-Quality Early Childhood Education Programs It is an excellent source and guide of information on the hallmarks of high-quality early childhood programs. It offers quality standards to be used during planning for preschool programs. The quality indicators and outcomes will be useful as you work with your Campus Leadership Teams to develop your school improvement plans. I tried to obtain copies for all of you, but to no avail! They will not send multiple copies to one address. You must request your own (free) personal copy by calling: Toll Free - 1-877-433-7827 at the U.S. Department of Education. This is truly a valuable resource!
This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.