What are the Five Essential Supports?
School leadership: This support refers to whether principals are strategic, focused
on instruction, and inclusive of others in their leadership work. Elementary schools
with strong school leadership were seven times more likely to improve in math and
nearly four times more likely to improve in reading than schools weak on this
measure.
Parent-community ties: This support refers to whether schools are a welcoming
place for parents and whether there are strong connections between the school and
local institutions. Elementary schools with strong parental involvement were ten times
more likely to improve in math and four times more likely to improve in reading than
schools weak on this measure.
Professional capacity: This support refers to the quality of the faculty and staff
recruited to the school, their base beliefs and values about change, the quality of
ongoing professional development, and the capacity of staff to work together.
Elementary schools where teachers were highly committed to the school and inclined
to embrace innovation were five times more likely to improve in reading and four
times more likely to improve in math than schools weak on this measure.
Student-centered learning climate: This support refers to whether schools have a
safe, welcoming, stimulating and nurturing environment focused on learning for all
students. Elementary schools with strong safety and order were two times more likely
to improve in reading than schools weak on this measure.
Instructional guidance: This support refers to the organization of the curriculum,
the nature of the academic demand or challenges it poses, and the tools teachers have
to advance learning (such as instructional materials). Elementary schools with strong
curriculum alignment were four times more likely to improve in math and reading
than schools weak on this measure.
To summarize, school organization drives improvement, and individual initiatives are
unlikely to work in isolation. This has strong implications for states and districts
focused on any number of reforms that have gained increasing political currency—for
example, improving teacher quality, turning around low performing schools, or
mandating a single curriculum.
Showing posts with label urban schools. Show all posts
Showing posts with label urban schools. Show all posts
Sunday, June 2, 2013
Truly Disadvantaged Schools
Clearly, the social context of schools matters. Indeed, the authors found that
community factors accounted for most of the difference in stagnation rates among
schools. For instance, schools in communities with weak religious participation were
twice as likely to stagnate as schools in communities with strong religious
participation. Schools in communities where people did not believe they had the
ability to make a positive change were twice as likely to stagnate as schools in
communities where people believed they could. This pattern held true for social
indicator after social indicator.
Still, despite tremendous obstacles, a handful of “truly disadvantaged” schools did
improve. Over the seven-year period, 15 percent of “truly disadvantaged schools”
showed significant academic improvement. While low, these improvement rates didn’t
differ significantly from those of schools in predominantly minority communities,
which had much lower rates of crime and child abuse and higher median family
incomes.
The small group of truly disadvantaged schools that “beat the odds” and improved
suggests that community context matters, but only so far as it affects the likelihood of
developing certain organizational structures that the authors found were vital for
improvement. Whether in advantaged or disadvantaged communities, very well
organized schools improved and very poorly organized schools stagnated, the authors
found.
In short, in communities where there are few viable institutions, where crime, drug
abuse and gang activity are prevalent, and where palpable human needs walk through
the school doors virtually every day, robust efforts are necessary to ensure schools are
organized for improvement. The hopeful news is that even truly disadvantaged
schools can be organized for improvement.
community factors accounted for most of the difference in stagnation rates among
schools. For instance, schools in communities with weak religious participation were
twice as likely to stagnate as schools in communities with strong religious
participation. Schools in communities where people did not believe they had the
ability to make a positive change were twice as likely to stagnate as schools in
communities where people believed they could. This pattern held true for social
indicator after social indicator.
Still, despite tremendous obstacles, a handful of “truly disadvantaged” schools did
improve. Over the seven-year period, 15 percent of “truly disadvantaged schools”
showed significant academic improvement. While low, these improvement rates didn’t
differ significantly from those of schools in predominantly minority communities,
which had much lower rates of crime and child abuse and higher median family
incomes.
The small group of truly disadvantaged schools that “beat the odds” and improved
suggests that community context matters, but only so far as it affects the likelihood of
developing certain organizational structures that the authors found were vital for
improvement. Whether in advantaged or disadvantaged communities, very well
organized schools improved and very poorly organized schools stagnated, the authors
found.
In short, in communities where there are few viable institutions, where crime, drug
abuse and gang activity are prevalent, and where palpable human needs walk through
the school doors virtually every day, robust efforts are necessary to ensure schools are
organized for improvement. The hopeful news is that even truly disadvantaged
schools can be organized for improvement.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)