Aim First for Successful School Improvement.

Education Editors & Writers

ATLANTA--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Nov. 19, 2001

The following is an opinion editorial provided by Scott Warren, director of the Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration Project at the Southern Regional Education Board:

Too often, schools use student achievement data to determine concerns. While this approach may sound good, it doesn't go far enough. Leaders must use the data to determine not only concerns but also appropriate actions. Instead, the responses usually follow a "ready, fire, aim" approach: A school uses data to identify a concern, then tries a new program with the hope that it will meet the needs. In "aiming" at strategies that will improve student achievement, a school needs to use not only its own data but also data for similar schools that have higher achievement.

The Southern Regional Education Board has used data from the 2000 High Schools That Work Assessment to compare high- and low-performing schools that have similar student populations. SREB compared 70 low-performing urban, suburban, rural and technical schools with schools where similar student populations were achieving at very high levels. While the student populations were similar, their schools were very different. The differences between the experiences of students at these schools provide targets to improve low-performing schools.

The access target: Students in high-performing schools have greater access to more challenging courses. They are far more likely to take higher-level English, mathematics and science courses. Low-performing schools continue to allow students to evade rigorous content by enrolling in low-level courses.

Low-performing schools should ensure that all students have access to the "advantaged curriculum." These schools need to eliminate low-level courses and to teach all students what they now teach only the best students.

The instruction target: Data show that students in high-performing schools are more likely to have teachers who know the course content and actively engage students in the classroom. These students are more likely to complete short writing assignments daily, use technology and read assigned books outside of class. They are almost twice as likely to have assigned research projects and are more likely to work in cooperative groups to solve difficult problems.

Low-performing schools should aim at improving instruction by supporting staff development to engage students in active learning. They need to train teachers to use new teaching strategies, and they need to create a process to ensure that teachers are doing so.

The extra-help target: Students in high-performing schools also have much greater access to extra help in meeting high expectations, and teachers in their schools are more willing to provide assistance. More importantly, the students in these schools who needed help the most were more likely than their counterparts in low-performing schools to seek and receive extra help. Almost 80 percent of the students scoring below basic in reading at high-performing schools received extra help; at low-performing schools, less than two-thirds of the students in this category got the extra help they needed.

Extra help is also important for students whose middle grades education has left them without the basic skills they need to begin high school work. At low-performing schools, such students are less likely to have opportunities to catch up.

Low-performing schools should develop an extra-help plan with double doses of English and mathematics for incoming students who are not ready for college-prep work. The extra help also should include high-quality summer school, after-school tutoring and Saturday programs. All aspects of the plan should strive to ensure that students who need help the most get it.

The support target: Students at high-performing schools get more guidance in setting goals and developing plans for high school and beyond. Almost 40 percent of the students in low-performing schools said they did not formulate plans for their future or that no one helped them develop such plans.

Schools should support students' planning for success by eliminating "smorgasbord scheduling," in which students choose classes based on peer pressure and favorite teachers. Each student and a parent need to meet with a school representative to select courses for each year. Parents and school personnel need to guide students in choosing classes that will further their career aspirations and goals. School personnel review student progress with parents and make recommendations for next year. This ritual becomes the foundation for a schoolwide guidance program that focuses on students' setting goals and developing plans to meet goals.

When asked why another school is high-performing, leaders and teachers at low-performing schools typically attribute the other school's success to "better students." The data indicate the answer should be "better experiences." Even within low-performing schools, students achieve at high levels when they have access to college-preparatory courses, have teachers who expect a lot from them, get quality instruction and receive the support needed for success. These students outperform their peers and meet established goals for success. Better experiences result in better students.

Leaders and teachers at low-performing schools must move beyond the idea that their students can't achieve at high levels. These leaders need to study how things are done at high-performing schools and to emulate some of the successful strategies as they plan improvement at their schools. If there are differences between the educational experiences of students at the high-performing schools and students at the low-performing schools, these differences must be targeted for change. By taking aim at differences in educational experiences, low-performing schools will be more likely to hit the target and improve student achievement.

Scott Warren is director of the Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration Project at the Southern Regional Education Board. SREB strives to improve education at all levels in its 16 member states: Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and West Virginia.