[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
RESEARCH AND BEST PRACTICES ON SUCCESSFUL SCHOOL TURNAROUND
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
EDUCATION AND LABOR
U.S. House of Representatives
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, MAY 19, 2010
__________
Serial No. 111-63
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and Labor
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available on the Internet:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/house/education/index.html
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
56-353 PDF WASHINGTON : 2010
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR
GEORGE MILLER, California, Chairman
Dale E. Kildee, Michigan, Vice John Kline, Minnesota,
Chairman Senior Republican Member
Donald M. Payne, New Jersey Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin
Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott, Virginia California
Lynn C. Woolsey, California Peter Hoekstra, Michigan
Ruben Hinojosa, Texas Michael N. Castle, Delaware
Carolyn McCarthy, New York Mark E. Souder, Indiana
John F. Tierney, Massachusetts Vernon J. Ehlers, Michigan
Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio Judy Biggert, Illinois
David Wu, Oregon Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania
Rush D. Holt, New Jersey Joe Wilson, South Carolina
Susan A. Davis, California Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington
Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona Tom Price, Georgia
Timothy H. Bishop, New York Rob Bishop, Utah
Joe Sestak, Pennsylvania Brett Guthrie, Kentucky
David Loebsack, Iowa Bill Cassidy, Louisiana
Mazie Hirono, Hawaii Tom McClintock, California
Jason Altmire, Pennsylvania Duncan Hunter, California
Phil Hare, Illinois David P. Roe, Tennessee
Yvette D. Clarke, New York Glenn Thompson, Pennsylvania
Joe Courtney, Connecticut
Carol Shea-Porter, New Hampshire
Marcia L. Fudge, Ohio
Jared Polis, Colorado
Paul Tonko, New York
Pedro R. Pierluisi, Puerto Rico
Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Northern Mariana Islands
Dina Titus, Nevada
Judy Chu, California
Mark Zuckerman, Staff Director
Barrett Karr, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on May 19, 2010..................................... 1
Statement of Members:
Miller, Hon. George, Chairman, Committee on Education and
Labor...................................................... 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Thompson, Hon. Glenn, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Pennsylvania...................................... 4
Prepared statement of.................................... 5
Titus, Hon. Dina, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Nevada, questions submitted for the record.............. 71
Statement of Witnesses:
Bridges, Susan E., principal, A.G. Richardson Elementary
School, Culpeper, VA....................................... 36
Prepared statement of.................................... 39
Responses to questions submitted......................... 71
Butler, Dr. Thomas, superintendent of schools, Ridgway Area
School District, Ridgway, PA............................... 29
Prepared statement of.................................... 31
Responses to questions submitted......................... 72
Johnson, Jessica, chief program officer, Learning Point
Associates................................................. 21
Prepared statement of.................................... 24
Responses to questions submitted......................... 72
King, Daniel, superintendent, Pharr-San Juan-Alamo
Independent School District, TX............................ 18
Prepared statement of.................................... 20
Responses to questions submitted......................... 77
Silver, David, principal, Think College Now.................. 10
Prepared statement of.................................... 13
Responses to questions submitted......................... 77
Simmons, John, Strategic Learning Initiatives................ 7
Prepared statement of.................................... 9
Responses to questions submitted......................... 78
RESEARCH AND BEST PRACTICES ON SUCCESSFUL SCHOOL TURNAROUND
----------
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Education and Labor
Washington, DC
----------
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:02 a.m., in room
2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. George Miller
[chairman of the committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Miller, Kildee, Payne, Scott,
Woolsey, Hinojosa, McCarthy, Kucinich, Wu, Holt, Davis,
Grijalva, Hirono, Altmire, Hare, Clarke, Polis, Tonko, Titus,
Chu, Petri, Castle, Guthrie, Cassidy, and Thompson.
Staff present: Andra Belknap, Press Assistant; Calla Brown,
Staff Assistant, Education; Jody Calemine, General Counsel;
Jamie Fasteau, Senior Education Policy Advisor; Denise Forte,
Director of Education Policy; David Hartzler, Systems
Administrator; Sadie Marshall, Chief Clerk; Charmaine Mercer,
Senior Education Policy Advisor; Alex Nock, Deputy Staff
Director; Lillian Pace, Policy Advisor, Subcommittee on Early
Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education; Helen Pajcic,
Education Policy Associate; Alexandria Ruiz, Administrative
Assistant to Director of Education Policy; Melissa Salmanowitz,
Press Secretary; Michele Varnhagen, Labor Policy Director; Mark
Zuckerman, Staff Director; James Bergeron, Minority Deputy
Director of Education and Human Services Policy; Kirk Boyle,
Minority General Counsel; Angela Jones, Minority Executive
Assistant; Alexa Marrero, Minority Communications Director;
Susan Ross, Minority Director of Education and Human Services
Policy; Mandy Schaumburg, Minority Education Policy Counsel;
and Linda Stevens, Minority Chief Clerk/Assistant to the
General Counsel.
Chairman Miller. A quorum being present, the committee will
come to order for the purpose of conducting a hearing on the
best practices in successful school turnarounds, and we will
look at this critical issue of how turnarounds can be
accomplished in our nation's failing schools. This hearing
continues a series on the reauthorization of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act.
We have held eight hearings this year looking at a range of
issues, from charter schools to effective teachers and beyond,
and through these hearings we have learned that to compete in
the global marketplace our students must have a world-class
education system with clear, high, rigorous standards that are
internationally benchmarked.
These hearings have also brought to light how vulnerable--
excuse me--how valuable data is in learning and teaching. We
need to drive the use of data at all levels of education.
We have also learned that successful schools support its
teachers and ensure that all students have access to an
effective teacher. But in order to do this we can't simply fix
the law by making a few small tweaks; there is much more at
stake.
Our global competitiveness is relying on the actions we are
taking today, and we don't get to do a redo tomorrow what we
have done wrong today. It is time to take our education system
into the future.
One of our biggest problems in the education system is the
dropout crisis and our lowest-performing schools. Turning
around our lowest-performing schools is critical to our
economy, to our communities, and to our students, and a recent
report shows that cutting the dropout rate in half would yield
$45 billion annually to new federal tax revenues or cost
savings.
There are 5,000 chronically low-performing schools in this
country doing a disservice to hundreds of thousands of
students. Two thousand high schools produce 70 percent of our
nation's dropouts. These are schools where the dropout rates
are staggeringly high and where students are not even close to
proficient, and where teachers and leaders do not often know
what else they can do.
No Child Left Behind dictated interventions to help these
schools, but what we have learned since the law was enacted is
that they are too prescriptive and very often they are
unrelated to the real needs of the schools. Different systems
work in different schools. What most of these schools need is a
fresh start.
A fresh start doesn't mean shutting down--necessarily mean
shutting down the school; shutting down a school should be the
last option after all other improvements have failed and when
it is clear that some schools are impervious to change.
A fresh start doesn't mean firing all teachers and only
hiring back an arbitrary number. You can find some of the best
teachers in the worst-performing schools, but they are stuck in
a system that isn't supporting them. And if you fire all
teachers and you end up getting rid of the ones that are--you
also get rid of the ones that are making a difference.
A fresh start means a buy-in from school leaders, teachers,
parents, and the community. It means a team effort to put
together the tools that makes schools great.
Thankfully, we are not working in the dark. There is
extensive research and real-world examples that can show us the
elements that lead to school success.
First, turning around schools is about teaching and
learning. It is about giving teachers the resources they need,
like data systems to track student progress and a culture of
continuous improvement.
Second, it is about using time to the advantage of the
school, which can mean an extended learning day which includes
successful afterschool programs. It is about making schools
have more time they need to catch up and use targeted academic
supports as well as enrichment activities like arts, music, to
keep students engaged, and time for teachers to collaboratively
plan their teaching activities and their daily activities.
Lastly, turning around schools is not about what a
community can do to support--it is about what a community can
do to support the school's efforts and what the school must do
to meet the community needs. This means that providing wrap-
around services to meet individual needs of the students.
When you put all the right systems in place you can turn
around even the worst-performing schools. I look forward to
hearing from our witnesses today about what works, what does
help to turn around our lowest-performing schools and learn
from their experience, their expertise.
Thank you so much for being with us.
And now I would like to recognize the senior Republican
this morning, Mr. Thompson.
[The statement of Mr. Miller follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. George Miller, Chairman,
Committee on Education and Labor
Good morning.
Today's hearing will look at the critical issue of how to
turnaround our nation's failing schools.
This hearing continues our series on the reauthorization of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
We've held eight hearings this year looking at a range of issues
from charter schools to effective teachers and beyond.
And through these hearings we have learned that to compete in the
global marketplace, our students must have a world-class education
system with clear, high and rigorous standards that are internationally
benchmarked.
These hearings have also brought to light how valuable data is to
learning and teaching. We need to drive the use of data at all levels
of education.
We have also learned that a successful school supports its teachers
and ensures all students have access to an effective teacher. But in
order to do this we can't simply fix the law by making a few small
tweaks.
There is too much at stake.
Our global competitiveness is relying on the actions we're taking
today. And we don't get to redo tomorrow what we've done wrong today.
It is time to take our education system into the future.
One of the biggest problems in our education system is the dropout
crisis and our lowest performing schools. Turning around our lowest
performing schools is critical for our economy, for our communities and
for our students.
A recent report shows that cutting the dropout rate in half would
yield $45 billion annually in new federal tax revenues or cost savings.
There are 5,000 chronically low-performing schools in this country
doing a disservice to hundreds of thousands of students. Two thousand
high schools produce 70 percent of our nation's dropouts.
These are schools where the dropout rates are staggeringly high,
where students are not even close to proficient and where teachers and
leaders often do not know what else they can do. No Child Left Behind
dictated interventions to help these schools but what we've learned
since the law was enacted is they were too prescriptive and unrelated
to the real needs of the schools.
Different systems work for different schools. What most of these
schools need is a fresh start. A fresh start doesn't have to mean
shutting down a school. Shutting down a school should be the last
option after other systems of improvement have failed and when it's
clear that some schools are impervious to change. A fresh start doesn't
mean firing all the teachers and only hiring back an arbitrary number.
You can find some of the best teachers in the worst performing schools,
but they are stuck in a system that isn't supporting them.
And, if you fire all the teachers, you end up getting rid of the
ones that are making a difference. A fresh start means buy in from
school leaders, teachers, parents and the community. It means a team
effort to put together the tools to make that school great. Thankfully,
we're not working in the dark. There is extensive research and real
world examples that can show us the elements that lead to school
success. First, turning around schools is about teaching and learning.
It's about giving teachers the resources they need like data systems to
track student progress and a culture of continuous improvement.
Second, it's about using time to the advantage of the school, which
could mean an extending learning day which include successful after
school programs. It's about making sure schools have the time they need
to catch up and use targeted academic supports as well as enrichment
activates, like arts and music that keep students engaged.
Lastly, turning around schools is about what the community can do
to support the school's efforts and what the school must do to meet
community needs. This means providing wraparound services to meet the
individual needs of students.
When you put all the right systems in place, you can turn around
even the worst performing school.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today about what works
and what does to help turn around our lowest performing schools.
______
Mr. Thompson. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And welcome to our witnesses.
Mr. Kline regrets that he and several other members of the
committee are unable to join us today because they are in the
midst of debating the National Defense Authorization Act.
Today's hearing addresses an issue critically important to
the academic success of our nation's students. In 2001 Congress
passed the No Child Left Behind Act, which requires states and
each school district to ensure students are proficient in
reading and math by the end of the 2013-2014 school year.
For schools that are unable to make what their state has
defined as ``adequate yearly progress'' towards achieving that
goal, the law establishes a process to improve these struggling
schools and protect the best interests of the students.
Turning around low-performing schools is essential to
ensuring lower-income students receive a high-quality
education, but to do so effectively takes time. That is why
parental choice and supplemental education services, such as
free tutoring, were written into the law. These common sense
measures offer students an immediate educational lifeline while
the schools improve.
Now, I believe we must do everything that we can to help
ensure students advance academically even when their schools
take the tough but necessary steps towards improvement. Despite
the best efforts of Congress and this committee, it is clear
too many states are still struggling to improve the standing of
their lowest-performing schools.
I look forward to discussing in more detail the challenges
schools continue to face, including in some cases a lack of
will on the part of administrators to take the dramatic action
that may be necessary to improve the schools.
I also want to thank Dr. Thomas Butler, superintendent of
the Ridgway Area School District, located in my congressional
district, for being here today to share his expertise on
strategies that rural school districts put in place to turn
around their schools.
As policymakers at the federal level, we must remember each
school is different and there is no one-size-fits-all solution.
The Obama administration has introduced and even promoted
several changes to the school improvement system that requires
school districts to implement one of only four school
turnaround models. There are a number of concerns shared by
members in both political parties with the administration's
approach, which represents a more intrusive federal role in
education policy that is better left to parents and state and
local leaders.
Of equal concern, these changes to the existing school
improvement grant program have been imposed on the state and
school leaders outside of the reauthorization process and
without proper congressional oversight.
I am also concerned the administration's blueprint
eliminates options for parents of students trapped in
chronically underperforming schools. School turnaround is
important, but we must ensure that parents and students are at
the center of federal efforts to reform education.
We will hear from our witnesses today about their own
personal experiences trying to ensure students in
underperforming schools get the top-notch education they
deserve. Their experience will no doubt inform our work as we
look to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing, and I
welcome the witnesses and look forward to their testimony.
[The statement of Mr. Thompson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Glenn Thompson, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Pennsylvania
Thank you Mr. Chairman and welcome to our witnesses. Mr. Kline
regrets that he--and several other members of the committee--are unable
to join us today because they are in the midst of debating the National
Defense Authorization Act.
Today's hearing addresses an issue critically important to the
academic success of our nation's students. In 2001, Congress passed the
No Child Left Behind Act, which requires states and each school
district to ensure students are proficient in reading and math by the
end of the 2013-2014 school year. For schools that are unable to make
what their state has defined as ``adequate yearly progress'' toward
achieving that goal, the law establishes a process to improve these
struggling schools and protect the best interests of the students.
Turning around low-performing schools is essential to ensuring low-
income students receive a high-quality education, but to do so
effectively takes time. That is why parental choice and Supplemental
Educational Services, such as free tutoring, were written into the law.
These commonsense measures offer students an immediate educational
lifeline while their schools improve. I believe we must do everything
we can to help ensure students advance academically even when their
schools take the tough but necessary steps toward improvement.
Despite the best efforts of Congress and this committee, it's clear
too many states are still struggling to improve the standing of their
lowest performing schools. I look forward to discussing in more detail
the challenges schools continue to face, including, in some cases, a
lack of will on the part of administrators to take the dramatic action
that may be necessary to improve their schools. I also want to thank
Dr. Thomas Butler, Superintendent of the Ridgway Area School District
located in my Congressional District, for being here today to share his
expertise on the strategies that rural school districts put in place to
turn around their schools.
As policymakers at the federal level, we must remember each school
is different and there is no one-size-fits-all solution. The Obama
administration has introduced--and even promoted--several changes to
the school improvement system that require school districts to
implement one of only four school turnaround models.
There are a number of concerns, shared by members in both political
parties, with the administration's approach, which represents a more
intrusive federal role in education policy that is better left to
parents and state and local leaders. Of equal concern, these changes to
the existing School Improvement Grant program have been imposed on
state and school leaders outside of the reauthorization process and
without proper congressional oversight.
I am also concerned the administration's blueprint eliminates
options for parents of students trapped in chronically underperforming
schools. School turnaround is important, but we must ensure parents and
students are at the center of federal efforts to reform education.
We will hear from our witnesses today about their own personal
experiences trying to ensure students in under-performing schools get
the top-notch education they deserve. Their experiences will no doubt
inform our work as we look to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing. I welcome the
witnesses and look forward to their testimony.
______
Chairman Miller. Thank you very much. And thank you for
inviting Mr. Butler to participate on our panel.
All members will have 14 days in which to submit an opening
statement on this hearing.
I would like now to introduce our panel of witnesses. I
will begin with Mr. John Simmons, who is the president of
Strategic Learning Initiatives, a nonprofit serving public
schools and consulting on student learning strategies. Mr.
Simmons has over 35 years of experience within the field of
education in the United States and abroad.
He is also a prolific publisher, having written and edited
six books and more than 75 articles on education, and
management, and economic development.
Mr. David Silver is the principal of Think College Now
Elementary, a position he has held since 2003. His school has
focused on closing the achievement gap and moving closer to
achieving its vision of equity through free access to
afterschool programs, stronger family and community
involvement, and aggressive recruitment and professional
development of teachers and staff. In 2008 Think College Now
was honored as California Distinguished School Award and the
Title I Achievement Award.
Dr. Daniel King is the superintendent of the Pharr-San
Juan-Alamo Independent School District in Texas. At the school
district Dr. King helped establish innovative new programs like
College and Career Technology Academy and the T-STEM Early
College High School.
As a result, the school district reduced its dropout rate
by 75 percent in 2 years. Through an intensive intervention
initiative it saw the number of graduates increase by 60
percent. He has over 33 years of working within the education
field, including over 20 years as an administrator.
Ms. Jessica Johnson is the chief program officer for the
district and school improvement services at Learning Point
Associates, which provides evaluation, policy, professional
services, and research to help schools boost student learning
and improve teaching. Ms. Johnson oversees the work in
curriculum audits, improvements planning, curriculum--you are
doing a lot down there--curriculum alignment and development,
literacy, and data use.
Voice. We should have just had one witness. [Laughter.]
Chairman Miller. Thank you for being here.
And she has 10 years of project management experience.
And Mr. Thompson is going to introduce our next witness.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
It really is a privilege to introduce Dr. Thomas Butler,
superintendent of Ridgway Area School District, located in Elk
County, Pennsylvania. Dr. Butler holds a Ph.D. in educational
leadership from Penn State University, where his dissertation
focused on how globalization influences collaboration between
rural schools and communities.
Dr. Butler's dissertation received an award from the
American Education Research Association rural special interest
group in 2010. Dr. Butler is currently facilitator for the
leadership and teaching course, which is a collaboration
between the Pennsylvania Department of Education and the
Pennsylvania Association of School Administrators.
Recently, Ridgway Area School District received an
honorable mention by the Pennsylvania Association of Rural and
Small Schools and the Center for Rural Schools and Communities
for the Building Community through Rural Education Award. This
accolade recognizes a school--that schools, as key institutions
in rural areas, have crucially important roles to play not only
in community economic development, but also in strengthening
the social bonds that holds rural communities together.
Dr. Butler is also a member of the Forum for Western
Pennsylvania Superintendents. He lives in Ridgway, Pennsylvania
with his wife and three children. And I am pleased that Dr.
Butler and his family were able to make the trip from Ridgway
to Washington and welcome them to the committee. And I look
forward to his testimony today.
Chairman Miller. Thank you.
Susan Bridges is the principal of A.G. Richardson
Elementary School in Culpeper, Virginia. In 2004, Bridges
successfully led--Ms. Bridges, I should say; excuse me--
successfully led her staff through the accrediting process of
the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools in which the
strengths and the weaknesses of the school were analyzed and a
school improvement plan established. She is the 2006 National
Distinguished Principal, as awarded by the National Association
of Elementary School Principals and the U.S. Department of
Education.
Welcome to our committee.
Welcome, to all of you. When you begin your testimony--we
are going to start with Mr. Simmons--a green light is going to
go on, and eventually, after 4 or 5 minutes, a yellow light
will go on, at which time you ought to think about summarizing
and finishing up your--bring your testimony to a close, but we
want you to finish in a coherent fashion and make sure that you
have made the points that you want to make when the red light
is on. And then we will go to questioning by the members of the
committee when you have all finished testifying.
Welcome to the committee.
STATEMENT OF JOHN SIMMONS, PRESIDENT,
STRATEGIC LEARNING INITIATIVES
Mr. Simmons. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Thompson, and members of the
committee, my name is John Simmons. I am the president of
Strategic Learning Initiatives, a Chicago-based nonprofit
organization that has enjoyed remarkable success in turning
around low-income public elementary schools in Chicago.
We have created a new model for turning around schools. In
3 years, eight schools in which our model was applied turned
around their reading test scores and school culture; the
taxpayers saved $24 million compared to other turnaround
models.
The leadership teams of the schools accomplished this
without removing a principal or teacher at the beginning,
without changing the curriculum or the textbooks, and without
converting to a charter or a contract school. The reason for
our success is simple: We apply what research has known will
work in schools. We avoid untested ideas as surely as any one
of you would avoid a medicine that had not been given safe--
proven safe and effective.
Our message today: Apply the basic and the best systemic
research. Monitor and celebrate its application. Breakthrough
results will happen.
I would like to focus on two themes. First, that
reauthorization of ESEA should allow for a strategy like ours,
that emphasizes the importance of comprehensive school reform
strategies that are grounded in rigorous research and shown to
work using existing staff. ESEA should add a fifth intervention
model to the four in the Department of Education's blueprint.
This would accelerate the rate of change among the lowest-
performing schools and save money.
The second theme is that there must be federal investment
to demonstrate how to scale up successful schools. We cannot
continue to create schools that remain only islands of
excellence in a sea of mediocrity.
Again, the research on high-performing organizations shows
us how to rapidly diffuse innovation. Specific actions include
decentralization of decision-making and expanding the work done
in teams.
By applying the systemic research done over the past 20
years in Chicago, we have demonstrated that failing schools can
jumpstart their turnaround and transformation in 2 years.
Let me tell you about a specific project we carried out in
eight public elementary schools in very low-income and minority
neighborhoods in Chicago. When we began, these schools had
shown virtually no improvement for the previous 10 years.
Here are the results: Over 3 years, the eight improved four
times faster than their annual progress over the 10 years
before starting what we call the focused instruction process.
In the first year three schools turned around, and all eight
turned around by the end of the third year. Two of the eight
were the most improved public schools in Chicago in 2007 and
2008 in a city where there are 473 elementary schools.
We define turnaround as improving at least three times
faster than the school's rate of improvement before they
started the focused instruction process and having a major
change is school culture--teachers, parents, and principal
working together in an atmosphere of trust. Two charts on the
next two pages in the written testimony provide the charts for
the results.
How were these remarkable results achieved? Strategic
Learning took the results of the research on high-performance
organizations in the private sector and combined it with the
research done in education over the past 20 years. Together,
these research results clearly show what a school needs in
order for it to succeed--not just public schools, any school.
From the research, the school leadership teams then focus
on providing what we call the five essential supports. They
include developing shared leadership; offering high-quality
professional development for the teachers and the
administrators; ensuring instruction is rigorous and focused;
engaging parents in learning the Illinois standards so that
they can better help their children with their homework;
creating a culture of trust and collaboration among the
teachers, administrators, parents, and students.
Systematically ensuring that these five essential supports
were in place and an effective partnership with the Chicago
public school leadership led to the rapidly improving gains in
student learning. An independent analysis of the data by the
American Institutes of Research reports that this model works,
should be supported by the federal government and scaled up.
Applying the research unlocked the success that had eluded
these schools for so many years. The heart of my message is
this: For too many years the debate about school reform has
focused on the type of school--charter school versus
traditional public school.
I believe, and Strategic Learning's experience proves, that
there is a better and less costly way. The research shows that
providing these five essential supports will open the pathway
to successful reform on a scale that matters.
Mr. Chairman, thank you.
[The statement of Mr. Simmons follows:]
Prepared Statement of John Simmons, Strategic Learning Initiatives
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Kline, and members of the Committee: My name is
John Simmons. I am President of Strategic Learning Initiatives (SLI); a
Chicago based nonprofit organization that has enjoyed remarkable
success in turning around low-performing public elementary schools in
Chicago.
We have created a new model for turning around schools. In three
years, eight schools in which our model was applied turned around their
reading test scores and school culture. The taxpayers saved $24 million
compared to other turnaround models.
The leadership teams of the schools accomplished this without
removing a principal, or a teacher at the beginning, without changing
the curriculum or the textbooks, and without converting to a charter or
contract school.
The reason for our success is simple. We apply what research has
shown will work in schools. We avoid untested ideas as surely as any
one of you would avoid a medicine that had not been proven safe and
effective.
Our message today? Apply the best systemic research. Monitor and
celebrate its application. Breakthrough results will happen.
I would like to focus on two themes. First, that reauthorization of
ESEA should allow for a strategy like ours that emphasizes the
importance of comprehensive school reform strategies that are grounded
in rigorous research and shown to work, using existing staff. ESEA
should add a fifth ``intervention model'' to the four in the Department
of Education's ``Blueprint'' (p 12). This would accelerate the rate of
change among the lowest performing schools and save money.
The second theme is that there must be federal investment to
demonstrate how to scale up successful models. We cannot continue to
create schools that remain only islands of excellence in a sea of
mediocrity. Again, the research on high performing organizations shows
us how to rapidly diffuse innovation (Rogers, 1995). Specific actions
include the decentralization of decision-making and expanding the work
done in teams.
By applying the systemic research done over the past 20 years in
Chicago, SLI has demonstrated that failing schools can jump start their
turnaround and transformation in two years.
Let me tell you about a specific project we carried out in eight
public elementary schools in very low income and minority neighborhoods
in Chicago. When we began, these schools had shown virtually no
improvement for the previous ten years. Here are the results. Over
three years:
The eight improved four times faster than their annual
progress over the ten years before starting what we call the Focused
Instruction Process (FIP).
In the first year three schools turned around and all
eight turned around by the end of the third year,
Two of the eight were the most improved public schools in
Chicago in 2007 and another was most improved in 2008. This in a city
with 473 public elementary schools.
We define turnaround as improving at least three times faster than
their rate of improvement before the Focused Instruction Process and
having a major change in school culture--teachers, parents, and
principal working together in an atmosphere of trust.
The two charts on the next two pages provide the turnaround
results.
How were these remarkable results achieved? Strategic Learning took
the results of research on high performance organizations in the
private sector and combined it with education research done over the
past 20 years in Chicago. Together, those research results clearly show
what a school needs in order for it to succeed--not just public
schools, any school.
From the research, the School Leadership teams then focused on
providing what we call the Five Essential Supports (Sebring, 2006).
They include:
developing shared leadership,
offering high quality professional development for the
teachers and administrators,
ensuring instruction is rigorous and focused,
engaging parents in learning the Illinois Standards so
they can better help their children with their homework, and
creating a cullture of trust and collaboration among the
teachers, administrators, parents and students.
Systematically ensuring that these Five Essential Supports were in
place and an effective partnership with the CPS leadership led to the
rapidly improving gains in student learning.
An independent analysis of our data by the American Institutes of
Research reports that this model works, should be supported by the
federal government, and scaled up.
Applying the research unlocked the success that had eluded these
schools for so many years.
The heart of my message is this. For too many years the debate
about school reform has focused on the type of school--charter versus
traditional public. I believe, and SLI's experience proves, that there
is a better, and less costly, way.
The research shows that providing these Five Essential Supports
will open the pathway to successful reform on a scale that matters.
Mr. Chairman, thank you.
______
Chairman Miller. Thank you.
Mr. Silver?
STATEMENT OF DAVID SILVER, PRINCIPAL,
THINK COLLEGE NOW
Mr. Silver. My name is David Silver, principal and founder
of Think College Now, a public school in a low-income area of
Oakland, California.
Why Think College Now? It was founded to reverse a harsh
reality: Less than one out of 20 kids in Oakland, many of whom
live in poverty, attend a University of California school. When
a group of families, educators, and I heard this we knew we had
to take action.
Through this small, autonomous school's movement we came
together to form Think College Now, TCN, a college prep public
elementary school in a low-income within the Oakland Unified
School District. Ninety-five percent of our students receive
free and reduced lunch; two-thirds are English language
learners; and more than 90 percent are Latino, African-
American, or multiracial.
Our mission is clear: Close the achievement gap and ensure
all our students can go to college and pursue their dreams.
If you refer to slide two, the slide on the screen, what
have we achieved? When we opened our doors 8 percent of our
students were achieving at or above grade level in English
language arts, and 23 percent in math, as measured by the
California Standards Test.
Five years later, 66 percent of our students are at or
above grade level in reading and 81 percent in math, a gain of
over 800 percent in reading and 300 percent in math. What is
more, these gains are across every subgroup--African-American,
Latino, English language learner, and students receiving free
and reduced lunch, as documented in your written testimony. We
have also gained 263 points to surpass both district and state
averages on the API to have an API of 848.
Because of these gains, as the chairman mentioned, Think
College Now was named one of only 50 schools in California to
receive both the California Distinguished School and the Title
I Academic Achievement Award in 2008.
How did we do it? If you refer to page three and four of
your testimony, our focus is equity in action, a vision of
student achievement and college opportunity for all students.
We have five key levers.
Number one: Unite the entire community on our big goal--
college. Elementary students in high-income neighborhoods know
they are expected to go to college. Our students and families
do, too.
If you ask any student, family, teacher, or staff at Think
College Now, ``Why are you here?'' the answer is the same: We
are going to college. We begin thinking college in
kindergarten.
Number two: High expectations. We expect more so we can get
different results. There is a level of trust where teachers are
expected to get their students to achieve and administration is
expected to support them to get there.
When our students were not achieving in year two we went
and observed high-achieving schools in similar demographics to
observe and learn best practices. We are creating a culture
where failure is not an option and achievement is the norm.
Number three: Also in year three, we implemented standards,
assessment, and data systems to drive instruction and monitor
progress. Grade-level teams create a standards-based pacing
calendar and lessons to deliver high-quality instruction.
Through our 6-week cycles, teachers assess student mastery
using assessments and data to group students for re-teaching
and intervention.
Number four: Family and community partnership, the heart of
Think College Now. We know we cannot reach our goals alone. We
partner with organizations and families for support.
More than half our kindergarten families on a daily basis
are in the classroom reading with their kids, and overall, all
of our students attend parent-teacher conferences. At TCN, we
are not just a school, we are a community.
And finally, perhaps the most important, the backbone of
our success, our outstanding teachers and staff. We work
relentlessly to recruit, select, support, and retain our
teachers.
Honestly, they are amazing. I would put our teachers up
against any, not only in California but across the country.
And my recommendations: What can we do? Page five and six
of your testimony.
In the fight for educational equity we all must do more. To
replicate and expand not only our success but the countless
other schools that are doing amazing things to close
achievement gaps we must create conditions to support student
achievement for all students.
I have five recommendations. Number one, provide schools
autonomy for hiring, budget, curriculum, and assessment. First
and foremost, ensure sites can hire their own teachers and
staff. Selecting a staff invests everyone in the vision; it is
the most important lever to increase student achievement at a
school.
Number two, maximize budget flexibility. Through results-
based budgeting in Oakland Unified we can put resources where
they are needed--into academic intervention, coaching, and time
for collaboration. Sites need to be held accountable for
results, but not without full control of their budgets and how
to spend their resources.
Number three, connect everything to academic growth. At TCN
we have created a culture based on student growth and outcomes.
There is public accountability of data at the school,
classroom, and student level. I support any policy that begins
to differentiate schools, principals, and teachers not just on
seniority, but on their ability to increase student learning.
Number four, ensure all sites have standards assessments.
Curricular and assessment autonomy helped us to focus on
standards mastery instead of fidelity to a commercial
curriculum. We piloted standards-based assessments three to
four times a year and they are now adopted by our entire
district.
And finally, perhaps the most important, increase federal
dollars to all Title I schools. It is not fair to demand annual
achievement growth while decreasing resources.
While more affluent parents can fundraise for their schools
to alleviate budget cuts, low-income families cannot. Sites
that have high poverty populations need more financial
resources to meet their needs, period.
In conclusion, we must remember this is not about an I, it
is about a we. We will close this meeting--this session that I
will say right now--like we close every meeting at Think
College Now, with an appreciation and a reality: On behalf of
all the students, families, and educators working relentlessly
in Title I schools, thank you for listening. Thank you for
considering recommendations to create conditions for all
students, rich or poor, to truly have a shot at the American
dream.
And finally, as we say at TCN, the reality is this is the
civil rights issue of our time. I, as a principal, cannot
address it alone. Parents, teachers, and students cannot do it
alone. You, as congressmen, cannot do it alone, as well. But
together, we can make a difference. Our students deserve
nothing less.
Together, yes we can. Juntos, si se puede.
Thank you.
[The statement of Mr. Silver follows:]
------
Chairman Miller. Thank you.
Dr. King?
STATEMENT OF DANIEL P. KING, SUPERINTENDENT,
PHARR-SAN JUAN-ALAMO SCHOOL DISTRICT
Mr. King. Yes. My name is Daniel King. I am superintendent
of the Pharr-San Juan-Alamo Independent School District located
on the Texas-Mexico border in the Rio Grande Valley of Texas.
I have been fortunate to be involved in two highly
successful school district turnarounds. The first case was the
Hidalgo Independent School District, a district with about
3,000 students. There, I worked as part of a team--
superintendent in my final 8 years in that district--that
transformed a historically low-performing school district once
ranked among the worst, rated in the bottom 5 percent in Texas,
into a high-performing school district that has developed a
reputation for excellence at the state and national levels.
The most unique component of this transformation was the
conversion of the district's high school into an Early College
High School for all students, not for some, and the entire
school district into an Early College School District--a
systemic transformation. Hidalgo High School has consistently
ranked among the best high schools in Texas over the last
decade; it was ranked number 11 in the nation by U.S. New &
World Reports in 2007.
Hidalgo ISD is considered one of the best in Texas. This
district is comprised almost entirely of Hispanic students from
low-income households where Spanish is the primary language.
The transformation from bottom 5 percent to a decade of
receiving accolades for excellence has been empowering for the
entire community.
The second case is very informative due to the pace and
scale of change. The Pharr-San Juan-Alamo Independent School
District, or PSJA, as it is known, is a 31,000-student school
district with similar demographics to Hidalgo, down on the
border in the southern tip of Texas, and has made dramatic
strides in less than 3 years.
In just 2 years the PSJA team has taken a district where
every high school was labeled a dropout factory and every high
school was failing to meet AYP and reduced the real number and
rate of dropouts by 75 percent in 2 years while increasing the
real number of graduates by more than 60 percent, from less
than 1,000 graduates in 2006-2007 to almost 1,600 in 2008-2009,
and a projected 1,800 graduates this school year.
The dropout rate has plummeted from almost double the state
average to less than half the state average. For the first time
ever all campuses in the district have met AYP.
Innovations, including a dual credit for high school and
college credit dropout recovery high school--this high school
College Career and Technology Academy has graduated 517
dropouts and non-graduates from ages 18 to 26 years old in only
2.5 years with most earning some college hours before high
school graduation and many continuing on in community college
or 4-year college after graduation.
In addition, PSJ has used a grant from the Texas High
School Project and the Gates Foundation to open a T-STEM Early
College High School where students can earn up to 60 college
hours, or an associate's degree, while still in high school.
This unique high school was designed to be a laboratory in PSJA
to develop and incubate the concept while preparing for
systemic scale-up--not an island of excellence, but intended to
transform the entire system to impact all PSJA high schools and
the almost 8,000 high school students and spark district
transformation.
Just last week the governor of Texas, Rick Perry, and Texas
Commissioner of Education Robert Scott came to PSJA to declare
the district a state model for district turnarounds and award
PSJA a unique $2 million grand to scale up our bold initiative
All Students College Ready, College Connected.
Through these two experiences I have learned the following
about school turnaround: High expectations are imperative. It
helps to set bold goals. Quality leadership at both the
district and campus level is critical.
Systemic transformation is the most effective way to impact
low-performing schools, working with--at all levels--
elementary, middle, and high school, and connecting students on
to college, moving away from islands of excellence to systemic
excellence and intentionally scaling up best practices.
A high school diploma is not the goal in either Hidalgo or
PSJA; connecting every student to a quality future is. I have
found success through connecting students to college while they
are still in high school.
Twenty-first century high schools should be flexibly and
seamlessly connected to high education with students moving to
college level work in each and any course of study as soon as
they are ready. This includes Career and Technology courses.
Rigor, relevance, and relationships--and relationships I
call caring about students--are all important. College/
Connected Career Pathways add rigor and relevance, allowing and
motivating students to move to higher levels of learning.
Career and Technology--what we used to call Vocational or
the Carl Perkins-funded--courses are important for creating
viable career pathways for all students. These courses should
be industry standard and college-connected. I would like them
to be dual credit--for college credit and leading towards
certification, leading towards high-wage, high-skill potential
jobs, leading towards certification, associate degrees and
bachelor degrees.
Partnerships are important and can accelerate
transformation. Partnering with colleges, community colleges,
workforce agencies, private foundations, philanthropists,
economic development agencies, the community at large, social
service agencies, and so forth, helps to accelerate
transformation and helps with accountability.
One size does not fit all. Each community is unique. Each
community has unique strengths. We can identify those strengths
and build on those strengths.
Thank you.
[The statement of Mr. King follows:]
Prepared Statement of Daniel King, Superintendent,
Pharr-San Juan-Alamo Independent School District, Texas
I have been fortunate to be involved in two highly successful
school district turnarounds.
The first case was the Hidalgo Independent School District, with
3,000 (plus) students. There I worked as part of a team (Superintendent
my final 8 years in that district) that transformed a historically low-
performing school district, once ranked among the worst (bottom 5%) in
Texas into a high performing school district that has developed a
reputation for excellence at the state and national levels. The most
unique component of this transformation was the conversion of the
district's high school, into an Early College High School for all
students, and the entire school district into an Early College School
District. Hidalgo High School has consistently ranked among the best
high schools in Texas over the last decade and was ranked #11 in the
nation by US News & World Report in 2007. Hidalgo ISD is widely
considered one of the best in Texas. This district is comprised almost
entirely of Hispanic students from low-income households where Spanish
is the primary language. The transformation from ``bottom 5%'' to a
decade of receiving accolades for excellence has been empowering for
the entire community.
The second case is very informative due to the pace and scale of
change. Pharr-San Juan-Alamo, or PSJA, a 31,000 student school
district, with similar demographics to Hidalgo, has made dramatic
strides in less than three years. In only two years, the PSJA team has
taken a district where every high school was labeled a ``drop-out
factory'' (and failing to meet AYP) reduced the real number and the
rate of dropouts by 75%, while increasing the real number of graduates
by more than 60%. The drop out rate has plummeted from almost double
the state average to less than half the state average. For the first
time ever, all campuses and the district have met AYP. Innovations
including a dual credit (high school and college) dropout recovery high
school that has graduated 517 dropouts and non-graduates (18-26 years
old) in 2.5 years, with most earning some college hours before
graduation and many continuing on in community college after
graduation. In addition, PSJA has used a grant from the Texas High
School Project and the Gates Foundation to open a T-STEM Early College
High School where students can earn up to 60 college hours (or an
Associates Degree) while still in high school. This unique high school
was designed to be a laboratory to develop and incubate the concept,
while preparing to scale it up to impact all PSJA high schools and
spark district transformation. Just last week, Texas Governor Rick
Perry and Texas Commissioner of Education Robert Scott came to PSJA to
declare the district a state model for district turnarounds and award
PSJA a unique $2,000,000 grant to scale up our bold initiative All
Students College Ready, College Connected.
Through these two experiences, I have learned the following about
school turn-around:
High Expectations are imperative. It helps to set bold,
goals.
Quality leadership at both the district and campus levels
is critical.
Systemic transformation is the most effective way to
impact low performing schools.
A high school diploma is not the end-goal. Connecting
every student to a quality future is. I have found success through
connecting students to college while they are still in high school.
21st century high schools should be flexibly and seamlessly connected
to higher education, with students moving to college level work in each
course of study as soon as they are ready. This includes CATE courses.
Rigor, Relevance, and Relationships (caring about
students) are all important. College/Connected Career Pathways add
rigor and relevance, allowing and motivating students to move to higher
levels of learning.
Career and Technology (Vocational, Carl Perkins) courses
are important for creating viable career pathways for all students.
These courses should be industry standard and college connected (dual
credit) leading towards certification and/or Associate and Bachelor
Degrees.
Partnerships can accelerate transformation. (ie, Colleges,
Community Colleges, Workforce agencies, Foundations, Philanthropists,
Economic Development agencies).
AYP Challenges:
The 100% standard.
Many limited English students need more than one year to
perform successfully at grade level in English.
More support is needed to accelerate success with special
education students.
Only using a four-year graduation rate fails to give
credit for those students who go on to graduate in subsequent years,
and may have a negative impact on the number of eventual graduates. A
sliding scale of graduation rates to include four- year and five-year
rates would be better.
______
Chairman Miller. Thank you.
Ms. Johnson?
STATEMENT OF JESSICA JOHNSON, CHIEF PROGRAM OFFICER, DISTRICT
AND SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT SERVICES, LEARNING POINT ASSOCIATES
Ms. Johnson. Good morning. Chairman Miller, Congressman
Thompson, members of the committee. Thank you for having me
here today to speak with you about the research and best
practices in school turnaround.
My name is Jessica Johnson. I am the chief program officer
for district and school improvement at Learning Point
Associates. We are a nonprofit education research and
consulting organization with over 25 years of experience
working with states, districts, and schools.
I come to you today with a little bit different perspective
than some of my colleagues, and that is primarily because we
work with both states and districts to turn around schools and
systems.
In the past 5 years my team has worked with over 40
districts across several states in implementing corrective
action plans and restructuring under No Child Left Behind, and
from that, I would like to share with you my perspective in
terms of what we have learned from the research as well as what
we have learned from practice.
I think it is fair to say across the board that the
research on turnaround is sparse, and in my written testimony I
addressed for you some of the specifics regarding each of the
models. But if you look across the board, my colleagues here
have already mentioned, there are absolutely key themes that
matter, right?
Strong leadership--absolutely critical. We all know you
have to have it. A focus on instruction in the classroom,
particularly literacy instruction. Whether you are at the
elementary or the high school level, it is absolutely critical.
Solid learning environment for kids--a belief that all kids
can learn and high expectations for all kids is critical for
school turnaround and transformation. A supportive culture that
engages families and that supports the nonacademic needs of
students. This is critical, and if you look at the research you
will find that these nonacademic factors in a student's life
matter as much as the teacher and the leader in that school in
terms of their overall performance.
And lastly, something that my colleagues also touched on,
is the need for staff commitment to change, and that is
something that is really hard to get through policy.
So a couple things to think about with regard to this
research. One is, we don't know to what effect or to what
extent each of these different factors matters in different
circumstances. So we know a leader is really important, but we
don't know when a leader matters more, or when an instructional
model matters more, or how these factor together.
The other thing is, these are all really hard to implement,
right? It is one thing to say, ``We have got to have strong
leaders that know how to use data,'' as you mentioned, Chairman
Miller, ``that know how to manage budgets, that can operate
flexibly with autonomy.'' It is another thing to say, ``We have
enough of these strong leaders so that they can go out to rural
Illinois and lead a high school turnaround in that setting.''
So this implementation piece, which permeates throughout
all of these sort of research and best practices, is really,
really critical when we think about policy. And that gets to my
next point, which is, the policies that we create have to have
the flexibility to allow for schools to gain this commitment,
to allow for creativity in meeting the needs where we need
them, while still honoring the core elements of what we know
works in the research.
So, for example, several weeks ago my staff were reviewing
the School Improvement Grant applications for one state, and
many of these schools were implementing the transformation
model, and many of them indicated they would implement and
afterschool program, because as we know, extended learning is
one of the requirements of the transformation model. However,
what we didn't see in the application was the focus on a
coherent extended learning program that tied to the traditional
day, that tied to the overall objectives of a school
turnaround.
And it is unfortunate, but what we have seen is when
schools and districts are focused on compliance, when they
know, ``Hey, we have been sanctioned, and we have been
sanctioned before, and we are being sanctioned again,'' the
reaction is to come to compliance, right? Do what I need to do
to fill out the plan to get somebody off my back.
So how do we move from that to the real commitment to
change that Mr. Silver talked about, right? He clearly said all
of our kids and our community--everybody here is engaged and
committed. How do you get that?
I think it is about, in some degree, the flexibility, so
focusing on the outcomes. While requiring an afterschool
program is a good thing, we really need to require that they
have coherence and alignment in their programs across the
board, and that is something we can think about.
Now, what that also means is with that flexibility we have
got to offer support. So there has been a big focus, I think,
on support in terms of implementation of turnaround and school
improvement grants; there has been less of a focus in support
up front in the needs assessment and planning process.
Well, the reality is this is where the schools really need
the help. As I said, many of these schools were asked to create
restructuring plans under NCLB, and now, in some respects, we
are asking them to do the same thing, only with a different
name. So now create a plan for school turnaround, and if you
get it approved then we will go ahead and bring in supports for
you. Really, the supports need to be there earlier on to make
sure that the right models are being put in place, that the
needs are being assessed properly.
And that leads to my last point, which is, the entire
system matters in this process. If we really want to make
school turnaround a national movement--and I think that is
really what this is about; that is where the momentum is
going--it has got to be about not just the school as an island.
In small, urban districts, in rural districts, the district
is the primary support for those schools. If a principal
leaves, that district is the one that has got to come in and
backfill and know what to do.
States and regional support systems also provide support
and tools for schools and districts, and we have got to be able
to tool these folks up in the larger system. External service
providers, early childhood providers, community organizations,
youth organizations--we have to look at this alignment and
coherence across the board in terms of the support that we put
in place.
And so lastly, I want to leave you with one thought, which
is, I started off by saying the research on turnaround is
sparse, and that is true. What we need to do is be very
diligent about how we collect data and how we evaluate what is
happening real-time in the system.
We need networks of organizations working together to
establish what national benchmarks look like, to share best
practices, and we need a aligned data collection system so that
we are looking at what is working real-time. We are not doing a
5-year study where we don't know the results until 5 years from
now, but we are really collecting data now and making choices
about what works by using the data so that we can replicate
quickly.
I believe we have a moral obligation to serve our kids.
Thank you.
[The statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jessica Johnson, Chief Program Officer,
Learning Point Associates
Good morning, Chairman Miller, Congressman Kline, and Members of
the Committee.
Thank you for inviting me here today to discuss the important work
of turning around our nation's lowest performing schools. The school
districts and states we work with would be pleased that your committee
is engaging in a deliberative conversation about how we can build upon
the existing turnaround efforts to make this initiative even more
effective.
My name is Jessica Johnson and I am the chief program officer for
district and school improvement at Learning Point Associates, a
nonprofit education research and consulting organization with 25 years
experience researching and developing tools for educators that improve
teaching and learning. We were on the front line of support for states,
districts, and schools charged with implementing comprehensive school
reform and the No Child Left Behind Act. Between 2004 and 2009, we
operated The Center for Comprehensive School Reform and Improvement for
the U.S. Department of Education, providing technical assistance and
resources to improve schools and districts.
Since 2005, we have worked with more than 40 districts that failed
to meet adequate yearly progress under NCLB. As you know, the law
prescribed actions that state education agencies had to take to improve
failing schools and districts. The sanctions were punitive, with the
state generally dictating the plan and providing little direct formal
assistance to the districts. We saw these efforts yield mixed results.
We have worked with Minnesota, Ohio, West Virginia, Michigan,
Indiana, and other states to identify structures and supports needed
for struggling schools. As I speak today, my staff are working with
schools in Missouri and Illinois to complete grant applications for
funding for school turnaround efforts. Learning Point Associates likely
will serve as lead turnaround partner for some of these schools and
possibly for others in various states across the United States.
I will provide three main points for your consideration today:
The research literature on turnaround is not strong, but
when combined with related research, it does suggest there are some
elements of this work that seem to have positive impact. But the
challenge still lies in implementation.
Models and supports for school turnaround in ESEA
reauthorization need to balance knowledge of the core elements above
with the flexibility to create meaning and commitment, remove barriers,
and foster innovation.
The focus must extend beyond the school. The whole system
matters.
POINT 1. The research literature on turnaround is not strong, but
when combined with related research, it does suggest there are some
elements of this work that seem to have positive impact. But the
challenge still lies in implementation.
During the last decade, the issue of turning around schools
surfaced as a natural extension of state and national efforts to
identify schools that consistently underperform, as measured by state
assessments. Early scholarship on turnaround is limited. Policymakers
and researchers first established parameters around what it means to be
a school in need of turnaround. Then they turned to the task of
identifying the types of interventions needed to address the multiple
challenges in persistently underperforming schools and districts.
Currently, the ``turnaround'' arena is comprised of four possible
options: turnaround, transformation, closure, and restart. These
interventions have some components in common, while also incorporating
some unique requirements. For example, a turnaround model requires the
removal of an underperforming principle and at least 50 percent of the
staff; closure requires that the entire school is closed and the
students are transferred to schools with better academic success.
The amount of research literature specifically on the four options
within turnaround is small. The majority of it addresses reforms that
most closely match the transformation option. It is limited mainly to
theoretical work (e.g., Murphy & Meyers, 2007), case study (e.g.,
Borman et al., 2000; Duke et al., 2005), and literature reviews of
related research (Brady, 2003). The research of high-performing, high-
poverty schools (such as Goldstein, Keleman, & Kolski, 1998; Picucci,
Brownson, Kahlert, & Sobel, 2002a; 2002b) is frequently included in
discussions of turnaround. Currently there does appear to be
potentially fruitful turnaround research being conducted, but even the
IES Practice Guide Turning Around Chronically-Low Performing Schools
(Herman et al., 2008) states that all recommendations made within it
are based on ``low levels of evidence, as defined by the Institute of
Education Sciences Practice Guide standards'' (p. 1).
The research most closely tied to the turnaround and restart
options is that of school reconstitution. Under school reconstitution,
the administrator and often some or all of the staff are replaced. Some
of the highest quality studies of reconstitution--including Goldstein,
Keleman, and Koski (1998) in San Francisco; Hess (2003) in Chicago; and
Malen and her team (Malen, Croninger, Muncey, & Redmond-Jones, 2002;
Rice & Malen, 2003) in Baltimore--still yield only equivocal results.
Finally, research on the option of school closure is most sparse.
This option is generally reserved for only the largest urban districts
in the country, because small to mid-size districts do not have
alternate facilities to send students to, and would have to restart the
school in some capacity. Both Chicago and New York engaged in
deliberate school closure, but students were not always placed in
significantly higher achieving schools. In Chicago, students placed
into higher achieving schools did see higher gains than those placed in
comparable schools (Torre & Gwynne, 2009). In New York, new schools
were opened to provide better options for the students (Hill et al,
2009).
Although the specific turnaround research literature is not strong,
when it is combined with related research, it is suggestive.
Theoretical, anecdotal, and qualitative work agree on the components of
turnaround, including strong leadership and knowledgeable and committed
teachers among many others. These components of school turnaround
appear to link strongly with the federal definition of transformation.
However, it cannot be overstated that the significance of each
transformative component is not yet known. If we focus solely on these
factors, we risk giving too much credence to some while potentially
precluding the relevancy of others.
Much more research is required. Connecting rigorous evaluative
processes to the implementation of these models within diverse settings
is critical to building an informed knowledge base that lends support
to scaling up evidence-based programs.
Some of the most promising components are outlined below:
Strong building leadership is essential for success of a
school turnaround, and there must be enough capacity to meet the
current demand. Currently, schools in turnaround and transformation
must replace their principal. With 5,000 chronically underperforming
schools nationwide (Duncan, 2009), that means there will be as many as
5,000 openings for principals across the county in the next three to
five years. To succeed, school leaders must be adept at using data,
garnering teacher support, maintaining a focus on instruction, managing
resources, fostering innovation, and engaging parents and community
organizations in their turnaround efforts. They must be able to engage
the school community in a dramatic shift in school culture and
expectations early on. They must be given the trust, support, and
flexibility to make dynamic changes. They also need to be accountable
for performance. I cannot stress strongly enough: The challenge lies in
the implementation.
Currently, there are not enough school leaders equipped with the
knowledge and expertise to succeed at this gargantuan task--
particularly in rural areas, where as many as one third of these
schools exist (Duncan 2009). A recent analysis of the Managing Educator
Talent practices from Midwestern states (Bhatt & Behrstock, 2010) found
that programs geared toward recruiting, developing, and supporting
school leaders do not exist to the same extent as programs for
teachers, if at all.
Higher education institutions need to be motivated to work with
local schools and districts to develop job-embedded training programs,
such as the Academy for Urban School Leadership and the Green Dot
residency program, to build a cadre of strong leaders. Preparation and
professional support are key to building and retaining strong leaders.
There is a need to develop better and more accessible programs, provide
additional resources to scale up those that are effective, and demand
that our institutions of higher education respond to meet this need
more efficiently and effectively.
Teachers must have an unwavering focus on instruction.
Structural barriers and school culture that often prevent this goal
must be removed. Teachers need to know what to teach--understanding the
alignment of curriculum with standards and assessments. They also must
know how to teach--using differentiated strategies proven effective for
all children. Teachers need to be supported with tools, expertise, and
structured collaboration time. Research and best practice suggest that
teachers are more successful when they use frequent formative
assessment to drive instructional practices and have access to job-
embedded professional development and coaching through professional
learning communities, inquiry teams, and other teacher-led work teams.
Furthermore, nearly all turnaround schools suffer from low reading
achievement, so comprehensive literacy instruction, in particular, is
critical (Salmonowicz, 2009)
Training on instruction of English language learners and special
education students by general education teachers is sorely lacking
across the board. Union contracts must allow for restructured and often
longer workdays for teachers to build in collaboration time. Data
systems and assessment tools that allow for ready access to formative
data have to be available to these schools. Master teachers in
literacy, mathematics, English language learning, and special education
need to be provided incentives to work as coaches in these schools.
Teachers must learn to accept peer review and begin to watch each other
teach and provide feedback. Principals must be given flexibility and
provided measurement tools to evaluate teachers fairly and
consistently, allowing them to keep staff that can be coached and
remove those who can't.
Teachers need, and state time and time again, that they desperately
want the supports to do well. The Retaining Teacher Talent study from
Learning Point Associates and Public Agenda found that 38 percent of
teachers surveyed who stated they intended to leave the profession
would definitely change their minds if they worked with a principal who
helped teachers improve their effectiveness (Public Agenda, 2009).
Schools need a learning focused culture and climate with a
disciplined approach to implementing school policies and practices, and
a commitment to work beyond the walls of the school. In many cases,
this goal will involve creating safe passage ways to schools,
implementing early warning systems to keep students from falling
through the cracks, and developing outreach systems that attract and
motivate students to come to school. Teachers must become culturally
proficient and understand the needs of their diverse students. Finally,
teachers must believe that all students can learn, and there is no
single strategy to get there.
Both academic and nonacademic supports for students and
families are needed at intense levels. Decades of research show that
school-based factors, such as principal and teacher quality, can have
an enormous impact on student learning. However, the academic,
economic, and social resources that students bring with them from home
have, on average, a more profound effect. For example, research shows
that parents' use of academic language, teaching of reading, and
provision of school-related general knowledge are strongly correlated
with socioeconomic status, particularly maternal education. In
addition, struggling schools often are located in communities with a
high rate of poverty and a lack of resources and supports for parents
and families. Turning around the school alone in these communities will
not be enough. Educators will need to reach beyond their traditional
role and devise innovative strategies that involve social services,
community-based organizations, and youth development programs to
improve the future prospects of their students and their parents.
The staff and community must be committed to change. From
our experience and experience of others, this situation can be the
single most critical factor to whether or not a school turns around. A
strong leader cannot turn around a school without inspiring staff to
change the way they think about their students and engage with them on
a daily basis. The best instructional programs often fail when teachers
close their doors and do not implement programs with fidelity. A school
culture and climate will not change if teachers don't hold students
accountable for their actions and set high expectations.
POINT 2. Models and supports for school turnaround in ESEA
reauthorization need to balance knowledge of the core elements above
with the flexibility to create meaning and commitment, remove barriers,
and foster innovation.
When a school or district is identified as underperforming, the
first and not necessarily correct response of its leadership is to
``come into compliance.'' From our experience, compliance-driven
efforts to improve performance result in compliance plans and not
sustained increases in performance. For example, in a review of current
School Improvement Grant applications for one state, we noted that most
schools indicated they would add an afterschool program to comply with
the requirements of the transformation model, but almost none of them
indicated that the criteria for extending learning would be to
incorporate specific interventions that would strengthen and align with
existing programs and needs. This theme of coherence and alignment
across curriculum, instruction, and assessment is often missing from
plans that are compliance focused.
NCLB granted too much flexibility with funds, and that situation
often leads schools to shy away from implementing the dramatic reforms
that are needed. A report from the Center on Education Policy (Scott,
2009) found that in six states and 48 schools facing restructuring
under NCLB, more than 80 percent chose the option ``other,'' which
allowed schools to implement single reform strategies--in one area--
without making significant changes in the school, and often resulting
in little to no gains.
Some steps to consider:
Focus on the desired outcomes for each core element of
turnaround. Focus on coherence and alignment of efforts. For example,
regarding teachers, consider requiring all turnaround models to
demonstrate that the staff they plan to retain and/or hire are
committed to the change process and are willing to be accountable for
student performance results. There must be funding to develop tools for
schools to use to make the effort more efficient, such as interview
guides and scoring rubrics to assist principals in a strong recruitment
effort. For each element of turnaround, a school starting
implementation should be required to demonstrate coherence--from how it
engages kids to how it engages staff, parents, and the community. For
example, for the schools mentioned above that indicated they would
implement afterschool programs, require them to demonstrate alignment
between traditional school-day activities and those beyond the school
day (whether those activities are school based or community based).
There is case study evidence to suggest that successful schools have
multiple, coordinated efforts around school transformation (Smith,
2009).
Turnaround requires an intensity of change that schools
and districts must understand. They must have adequate time and support
to assess their needs, select models, and write turnaround
applications. In our experience, struggling schools often don't have
the capacity to turn around on their own. It is difficult for them to
develop the vision and embrace the magnitude of change needed, even if
they have seen the research, requirements, and case studies. Under The
Center for Comprehensive School Reform and Improvement, we developed
School Restructuring: What Works When as a tool to guide school leaders
through selecting appropriate interventions, and we are updating this
guide to align with the four turnaround options. That said, many of the
schools in the bottom 5 percent today are there because they failed at
restructuring under NCLB. Policy and funding streams should be
structured to allow these schools to engage with support partners early
on, to ensure they are able to develop and implement plans suited to
the context of individual schools--plans that not only meet
requirements but also address specific challenges in a given school and
district. Building the capacity up front with schools and districts to
self-assess will give them the tools and skills they need to engage in
a process of continuous improvement, adapting to the needs of the
changing student populations over time.
POINT 3. The focus must extend beyond the school. The whole system
matters.
Schools don't operate in isolation. Districts and charter
authorizers provide important supports for schools in hiring, policies,
and curricular and instructional supports--to name a few. Especially in
rural and smaller urban settings, the district is the primary source of
direction and support for the school. In these cases, district staff
capacity needs to be built to do this work because they will be
responsible to sustain improvement when the principal leaves the
school. Districts need help understanding their role in fostering the
environment for successful turnaround and in offering the right
supports for success.
States and their regional systems of support provide
varying levels of assistance. Attention needs to be paid to the state-
level policy mechanisms that support and hinder school turnaround.
These mechanisms include teacher and leader credentialing, seat time
requirements, funding formulas, performance sanctions, and others.
States and intermediate education agencies also play a role in
providing direct technical assistance to districts and schools. The
Ohio statewide system of support, for example, provides tools and teams
to facilitate needs-assessment processes in schools. For rural schools,
the statewide system of support is often the only option for intensive
technical assistance for the schools. State education agencies across
the country have been downsizing over the last few years due to
enormous budget constraints. They are struggling to find the balance
between meeting the compliance requirements that come with federal
funding and the need to deliver the right kinds of technical support to
districts and schools. There must be new and innovative mechanisms to
engage state education agencies in the process of support or
intentionally define their role and provide the necessary funding and
accountability structures to make it happen.
Social services, community-based organizations, and youth
development organizations also can play a critical role in providing
supports to students and families in alignment with the larger goal of
improved student achievement. In communities where these struggling
schools exist, funding opportunities for these groups should be in
alignment with the larger objective.
External service providers--for profit and not-for-
profit--provide significant supports to schools. Today, there are not
enough providers with a track record of success in school turnaround.
But many, with some support, will be able to retool to meet the
turnaround demands. Focused networks of schools and providers at the
regional, state, and national levels will be critical mechanisms for
sharing learning, establishing national benchmarks, and replicating
turnaround success at an accelerated pace across the nation.
Summary
There are elements in the research and our experience that tell us
that efforts to improve poor performance work best when we work
intensively with school leaders and teachers from a sense of shared
accountability rather than demanding accountability on a narrow range
of behaviors. We also know that meaningful change is more often
sustained when a more comprehensive approach is taken and community and
parents as well as educators are involved in the solution. The
flexibility to orchestrate these variables is critical to success.
Finally, resources need to extend beyond individual schools and into
the larger system of support for long-term sustainability and
replication of success. We must build capacity in a system from the
state to the classroom in order to provide every student access to and
opportunity for a world-class education. Our children deserve this, the
complexities of society demand it, and we have a moral responsibility
to make sure it happens.
references
Bhatt, M. P., & Behrstock, E. (2010). Managing educator talent:
Promising practices and lessons from Midwestern States.
Naperville, IL: Learning Point Associates.
Borman, G. D., Rachuba, L., Datnow, A., Alberg, M., MacIver, M.,
Stringfield, S., et. al. (2000). Four models of school
improvement: Successes and challenges in reforming low-
performing, high-poverty Title I schools (Report No. 48).
Baltimore: Center for Research on the Education of Students
Placed At Risk.
Brady, R. C. (2003). Can failing schools be fixed? Washington, DC:
Thomas B. Fordham Foundation.
The Center for Comprehensive School Reform and Improvement. (2009).
School restructuring: What works when? A guide for education
leaders. Washington, DC: Learning Point Associates. Retrieved
May 14, 2010, from http://www.learningpt.org/pdfs/School--
Restructuring--Guide.pdf
Duke, D. L., Tucker, P. D., Belcher, M., Crews, D., Harrison-Coleman,
J., Higgins, J., et al. (2005). Lift-off: Launching the school
turnaround process in 10 Virginia schools. Unpublished
manuscript. Charlottesville, VA: Darden/Curry Partnership for
Leaders in Education.
Duncan, A. (2009, June 22). Turning around the bottom five percent
[Secretary Arne Duncan's Remarks at the National Alliance for
Public Charter Schools Conference]. Retrieved May 14, 2010,
from http://www2.ed.gov/news/speeches/2009/06/06222009.html
Goldstein, J., Kelemen, M., & Koski, W. (1998, April). Reconstitution
in theory and practice: The experiences of San Francisco. Paper
Presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, San Diego, CA.
Herman, R., Dawson, P., Dee, T., Greene, J., Maynard, R., Redding, S.,
& Darwin, M. (2008). Turning around chronically low-performing
schools: A practice guide (NCEE #2008 4020). Washington, DC:
National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional
Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of
Education. Retrieved May 14, 2010, from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/
wwc/pdf/practiceguides/Turnaround--pg--04181.pdf
Hess, G.A. (2003). Reconstitution--Three years later: Monitoring the
effect of sanctions on Chicago high schools. Education and
Urban Society, 35(3), 300--327.
Hill, P., Campbell, C, Menefee-Libey, D., Dusseault, B., DeArmond, M.,
& Gross, B. (2009). Portfolio school districts for big cities:
An interim report. Seattle, WA: Center on Reinventing Public
Education.
Malen, B., Croninger, R., Muncey, D., & Redmond-Jones, D. (2002).
Reconstituting schools: ``Testing'' the ``theory of action.''
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(2), 113--132.
Murphy, J., & Meyers, C.V. (2007). Turning around failing schools:
Lessons from the organizational sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin Press.
Picucci, A. C., Brownson, A., Kahlert, R., & Sobel, A. (2002a). Driven
to succeed: High- performing, high-poverty, turnaround middle
schools. Volume I: Cross-Case Analysis of High-Performing,
High-Poverty, Turnaround Middle Schools. Austin, TX: The
Charles A. Dana Center.
Picucci, A. C., Brownson, A., Kahlert, R., & Sobel, A. (2002b). Driven
to succeed: High- performing, high-poverty, turnaround middle
schools. Volume II: Case Studies of High- Performing, High-
Poverty, Turnaround Middle Schools. Austin, TX: The Charles A.
Dana Center.
Public Agenda. (2010). Retaining Teacher Talent survey of teachers:
Full survey data. New York: Author. Retrieved May 14, 2010,
from http://www.learningpt.org/expertise/educatorquality/genY/
FullSurveyData.pdf
Rice, J. K., & Malen, B. (2003). The human costs of education reform:
The case of school reconstitution. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 39(5), 635--666.
Salmonowicz, M. (2009). Meeting the challenge of school turnaround:
Lessons from the intersection of research and practice. Phi
Delta Kappan, 91(3), 19--24. Retrieved May 14, 2010, from
http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/k--v91/docs/k0911sal.pdf
Scott, C. (2009). Improving low-performing schools: Lessons from five
years of studying school restructuring under No Child Left
Behind. Washington, DC: Center on Education Policy.
Torre, M. de la, & Gwynne, J. (2009). When schools close: Effects on
displaced students in Chicago Public Schools. Chicago:
Consortium on Chicago School Research. Retrieved May 14, 2010,
from http://ccsr.uchicago.edu/publications/CCSRSchoolClosings-
Final.pdf
______
Chairman Miller. Thank you.
Dr. Butler?
STATEMENT OF THOMAS BUTLER, SUPERINTENDENT,
RIDGWAY AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT
Mr. Butler. Good morning, Chairman Miller, Congressman
Thompson, members of the committee.
Thank you, Mr. Thompson, for that kind introduction. I will
try to live up to it here in the next few minutes.
Just to orient yourself to where Ridgway, Pennsylvania is,
we are at the midpoint between Pittsburgh and Buffalo. We are
near the Allegheny National Forest.
We are a very small, rural school. We serve 1,000 students
in grades K-12, but that puts us just below the median district
population for schools in the United States--that median
population is 1,300.
Today I will discuss with you how we, at Ridgway, have
attempted a turnaround in a small, rural school system, and I
will also discuss with you some of the challenges that we have
found as we have attempted this turnaround.
The foundation for our turnaround at Ridgway has been
collaboration and a focus on the children. I think sometimes
that we forget that the reason we are here in this room, or
here in the school district boardroom, or here in the
classroom, is because of the students. The students are the
most important.
Years ago in our school district there was an unofficial
motto of ``What is best for the children.'' Our decisions are
based on what is best for the children. That is the framework.
A great example of how we have focused on collaboration as
well as the focus on students and student achievement is our
teacher evaluation system, and I will take a few moments to
talk about that. Our teacher evaluation system encourages
professional learning by the teachers. In our system, the
administrators and the teachers sit down and discuss what the
teacher needs to help them improve student achievement.
Teachers know what needs to be done in their classroom. It
is the district's obligation, I believe, to provide those
resources to allow that to occur. Some of the ways that our
district encourages these meaningful professional learning
goals is we send teachers to other districts that have
exemplary programs; we send teachers to research-based, high-
quality seminars and conferences; and we also encourage our
teachers to go for advanced degrees.
Those are what we hope for. Some of the challenges that we
face because we are in a small, rural school district: When we
find--and we can find--exemplary programs in our area, but we
often have to put teachers on the road for up to 3 hours to go
see those exemplary programs in other school districts. That,
of course, is a problem both for finding our substitute
teachers as well as putting teachers on the road for that
amount of time.
Our second challenge is finding high-quality, research-
based conferences and seminars that we can send our teachers to
and not spend too much time away from the school district.
Again, we attempt to do that but that is a challenge.
Finally, we are located in an area where we don't have a
lot of opportunities for post-secondary education for our
teachers. I believe that earning your master's degree--and
research will back my opinion up--will improve student
achievement. Because of where we are located, we do have
problems finding those kind of opportunities for our teachers.
Now, I have discussed the challenges but I also want to
offer what I believe are solutions to this problem for small,
rural school districts. May I suggest that this committee can
help rural, small school districts by providing quality
broadband Internet access to our communities?
While I was driving down here yesterday to testify here I
had some teachers and administrators being trained on a program
that the school district is going to implement next year. This
training, of high quality, was done in a virtual environment
through a webinar.
Now, it is more than just having this broadband access. We
must also have the school districts have the capacity to use
that broadband access in the classrooms. This can be done
through training, of course, to make sure the teachers are
utilizing the technology properly and integrating it into the
curriculum.
Finally, the last challenge that I experience as a
superintendent of a small, rural school district is a statewide
and national educational bureaucracy that is increasingly more
top-down, leaving very little room for local control and
flexibility so that we, on the ground in the local communities,
can address the problems that we know we can fix. I am
concerned that local superintendents will become mere middle-
managers instituting educational reforms decided at the state
or national levels.
In closing, the problems confronting rural school
improvement are not a result of lack of effort or caring among
rural educators. It is time for us to start a transformation in
education, and the best place to start is in the rural school
systems. This can be accomplished through collaboration and
professional learning with a boost from virtual learning
formats.
I believe with all of my heart that public education in
rural areas will lead to an era of rural community
revitalization, and more importantly, sustainability. However,
I also strongly believe that solutions to problems in rural
areas must come from the local areas.
Thank you for your time today, and I will be happy to
answer any questions.
[The statement of Mr. Butler follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Thomas Butler, Superintendent of Schools,
Ridgway Area School District, Ridgway, PA
Good Morning Chairman Miller, Congressman Castle, Congressman
Thompson and members of the committee. Thank you for allowing me the
opportunity to testify on the reauthorization of ESEA as it relates to
turnaround schools. My name is Tom Butler and I am the Superintendent
of Ridgway Area School District in Ridgway, Pennsylvania. I am honored
to come before you today to share some thoughts on rural school
turnaround. In Pennsylvania, 243 of the 501 school districts are
considered rural (according to the definition of rural provided by The
Center for Rural Pennsylvania). Rural schools in Pennsylvania educate
503,900 students, while in the United States, rural schools educate
9,063,790 students. Today, I will discuss the strategies for school
improvement that worked well in our rural school district as well as
some thoughts on how a reauthorized ESEA can support successful school
turnaround in rural areas.
Ridgway Area School District
Ridgway Area School District is located in northwest Pennsylvania
at the midway point between Pittsburgh and Buffalo. The district
encompasses 181 square miles with half of that area witin the Alleghany
National Forest and other State Game Land. Ridgway enrolls 997 children
ranging in age from 5-19. The district is located in Elk County,
comprises all or parts of three townships: Ridgway, Horton, Spring
Creek and the Borough of Ridgway The resident population is 7,225 with
the borough of Ridgway compromising a population of 4,096.
Forty five percent of the children qualify for a free/reduced
lunch; an increase of 10% in 2008. Fourteen percent of the children
qualify for special education services. We have adopted a K-8 school
wide Title I program.
The school district employs 150 people (both full and part time)
with 87 of the employees being teachers. The school district's
administrative staff consists of the superintendent, finance manager,
director of student services, and three building principals.
Achievement gains
The middle school in our school district went through the stages of
school warning and school improvement. This resulted from three
consecutive years with our IEP subgroup not achieving AYP. Last year
was the first year in the last three in which the school did not get
negatively labeled in some way. Although the overall achievement scores
in the middle school are the best in the district, the school has had
to concentrate on the IEP subgroup. The district also has experienced
achievement difficulties in 4th, 5th, and 11th grade mathematics and
reading. The school district has increased the number of IEP students
scoring advanced and proficient in reading from 0% in 2007 to 40% in
2009. In that time the district has also realized a 10% increase in the
number of IEP students scoring advanced in math. Overall in the middle
school, during that same time period, the school district has seen the
number of students scoring advanced on the state test increase by 22%
in reading and 18% in math.
The school district has undertaken numerous efforts to improve
these achievement scores. The staff and administration are hopeful that
the achievement scores will improve dramatically again this year. Based
on scores from formative assessments aligned to the state tests, we are
hopeful for up to a 20-30% increase in the number of students scoring
proficient or advanced in the state achievement tests this year. The
school district will be notified of the scores within the next four
weeks. Meanwhile, the staff, students and parents must anxiously await
the results to discover whether they are as good as we predict.
Turnaround at Ridgway
``Dr. Butler, I have been ``hurting'' kids for 15 years by
not teaching math in the correct way. I can't believe that I
have had such a wrong opinion about how I should teach math to
my elementary school children. I can remember students crying
because they could not memorize the times tables. I just told
them to work harder. I just did not know any better. My
differentiated supervision goal this year was to research math
standards. I found out that I am not only teaching some content
that is incorrect, but I am teaching it in the incorrect way. I
am so upset with myself for not knowing this for the past few
years, but happy that I know it now.''
Teacher to Dr. Butler, 2010
The conversation that this vignette was based on a conversation
that I had two weeks ago while I walked through our elementary school
office. One of our teachers had just finished her ``year-end''
conversation with the principal to fulfill the requirements for the
school district's differentiated supervision plan. The teacher was on
the verge of tears because she was so upset that she did not realize
how much research had changed concerning how to teach math since she
had gone to school. I believe this story is a great example of the
power of collaboration and professional learning and it serves as a
foundation of the Ridgway turnaround.
Teacher Evaluation and Collaboration
The foundation for Ridgway's turnaround is our teacher supervision
plan. In 2008, Ridgway Area School District instituted a new teacher
evaluation tool that encouraged reflection on the teacher's part and
collaboration between the teacher and administrators (Appendix A). The
tool is based on the research of Charlotte Danielson. There are three
different levels in each model and a teacher is placed on the different
level depending on their level of expertise and time served. Newer
teachers and ``at risk'' teachers receive more attention and resources,
while more accomplished teachers have more latitude to chose goals to
work toward. In the ``top'' level are teachers who are accomplished.
These teachers sit down with the principal at the start of the year and
choose two goals to accomplish for the school year. Usually the
principal will have input into one goal, while the teacher is free to
choose the second goal. In the above story, the teacher chose to
research math standards. The next level is a ``general'' level and this
level is a place where a teacher cycles through every 5 years. This is
a more traditional model of evaluation, but is still centered on goals
for the year. While creating this model with the administrators,
teachers and the teachers' association, all sides felt that cycling
everyone through the ``general'' evaluation section every five years
would create a sense of transparency for both teachers and
administrators. The last level in this model is ``structured''. The
structured model is the most intensive model for teachers and
administrators. There are very strict guidelines for what occurs in
this level of supervision. In this level you will find beginning
teachers and teachers that are deemed ``at risk''. Although this level
is stricter than the others, it is still based on a foundation of
collaboration and reflection. Ridgway Area School District does not
grade all teachers as ``perfect'' or ``distinguished''. Teachers grade
themselves, principals grade the teachers, then a professional dialogue
between the teacher and principal occurs to determine the final
``grading'' in each section.
The school district supports teachers as they work through their
goals in the evaluation model by providing funds for travel and
training so the teachers can create their plan for learning about their
goal. We believe in the power of a professional, reflective, teaching
staff. I strongly believe that if the school district would have
``forced'' the same type of training on the teacher in the above
vignette, the results would not have been the same. The teacher had to
come to the realization about changing math instructional practices on
her own. The power of collaboration between the administration and
teachers is that the teachers are responsible for their own learning.
This creates a significant shift in what we should call teacher
training. Traditionally we call teacher training ``professional
development''. This insinuates something done ``to'' teachers and not
something done ``with'' teachers (as articulated in previous testimony
in front of this committee). Rather, we should call teacher training
``professional learning''. This term implies a collaborative sense into
how teachers learn.
The school district had a willing and helpful partner all through
the process of developing this supervision model. That partner was the
local teachers association. Our school district is blessed with a union
leadership that focuses on what is best for the students and is willing
to work together with the administration toward achieving higher
student achievement. The reforms that have taken place in the district
would not have been possible without the collaboration of the teachers
association.
Professional Learning Communities and Collaboration
``At first Dr. Butler I was insulted that we were going to
the other school to look at their math department. I figured
that the trip was just a way to make us feel like we did not
know how to teach. But once we were at the other school I
learned that we were doing things that the other school was
doing and that I learned quite a bit. I am now more excited
than I have been in some time to work at some of the things
that we need to work on.''
Teacher to Dr. Butler, 2009
The above comment was made to me during a debriefing session after
the school district had sent a team of math teachers to visit a
neighboring school district that consistently achieves high scores on
the state math test. The group was one of the school district's
``professional learning communities'' that was started at the beginning
of this school year. The focus on the PLC in the vignette was math
curriculum and instruction. Professional learning communities are a
researched based (Dufour and Eaker, 1998) teacher collaboration model.
Teachers form learning communities to focus on improving student
achievement. Ridgway Area School District has adopted the model to
include book studies, data teams and more general topics centered on
improving student achievement. In the above example, teachers were
starting to examine their beliefs about how math should be taught and
what math content should be taught. Again, this is a collaborative
model where teachers are in charge of their professional learning. I
believe that teachers should be treated as professionals and held to
high standards. Professional learning communities provides an
opportunity for teachers to conduct research, examine data, and learn
cutting edge educational trends in an atmosphere and with colleagues of
their choosing. When teachers reflect on their own practice and receive
the resources to be able to learn, then increased student achievement
will occur.
School Board Focused on Student Achievement and Instruction
``This was a great night, I can't wait until we can watch the
school district accomplish these goals.''
Board member to Dr. Butler, 2010
This quote was made to me by one of our board members after we had
completed a board retreat where the board worked with a consultant for
three hours to create five non-negotiable goals for student achievement
and instruction (Appendix B). Research is clear about the power of
district leadership on improving student achievement (Marzano and
Waters, 2009). The school board crafted these five-year goals as a way
to focus all stakeholders within the system about what is important for
our school district; namely, student achievement. The pay-off has been
immediate. As the school board struggles to cut $100,000 from the
budget (total 13 million dollar budget) the board president is adamant
that the money set aside in the budget for board goals is not touched.
As he has said numerous times ``We have set these goals and we need to
give the administration resources to make sure these goals are
reached''. The board's focus on these non-negotiable goals has started
a shift in the way in which educational issues are discussed in the
school district. Decisions are often centered on how a particular
decision will help reach one of the board goals.
``This was the best professional development that I have
experienced in the school district since I have been a teacher
and this is my 17th year as a teacher.''
Teacher to Dr. Butler, 2009
At the start of the 2009 school year, all teachers in the Ridgway
Area School District were instructed on research-based instructional
strategies proven to increase student achievement (Marzano, Pickering
and Pollock, 2001). The focus for the teacher professional learning was
a collaborative effort accomplished through a committee and various
online surveys sent to the professional staff. The consensus from the
staff was that they wanted to learn more about instructional strategies
proven to increase student achievement. The framework that was chosen
for the professional learning was the work done by Marzano, Pickering
and Pollock (Classroom Instruction that Works). Each teacher chose to
be trained in four of the nine proven instructional strategies. The
administration then expected to see these strategies implemented in the
classroom. Professional learning focused on instructional strategies is
one example of how Ridgway Area School District has collaborated with
the teachers to provide effective professional learning. The role of
the principal in this process is vital. The principal not only
participates in the discussion, they also organize the agendas for the
meetings and set the ground rules for the PLC's. In all of the
turnaround strategies that I discuss in this testimony, the linchpin is
the principal. Their support, enthusiasm and professionalism determine
how high student achievement will grow.
The Challenges for Rural Schools
The number one challenge that I experience in my job is as a rural
superintendent is statewide and national educational bureaucracy that
is increasingly more ``top-down'', leaving very little room for local
control and flexibility on my part so I can respond to the actual
situation in my school district. I am concerned that local
superintendents will become mere ``middle managers'' instituting
reforms decided in the state or national education departments. This
phenomenon goes beyond an argument against unfunded mandates, but
strikes at the core of the relationship between a rural school and
community. Our school board often expresses to me that they feel like
they are losing control over the direction of their school system
simply because there are so many rules and regulations that must be
followed. The opportunity for a local board to create and develop
programs and services responsive to local needs is severely limited by
the system assuring compliance to these rules and regulations. For
example, Pennsylvania has been collecting school, student, and teacher
data for the past two schools years. This will create an enormous data
base where every child's schedule, grades, health records, and every
bit of professional and personal information about teachers will be
stored in a database in the state capitol. Our efforts to keep up with
the demands of this job have taken away from the normal duties of our
administration, especially our finance manager. We cannot justify
hiring a new person to take care of these duties so we absorb the
duties into the existing administrative structure. The time and energy
that is required for this database to be created (at very little
benefit for rural students, I believe) could be better spent helping
the school district research more appropriate data.
What kind of data would benefit rural schools? In their recent book
Hallowing out the Middle, authors Patrick Carr and Maria Keealas
discovered that rural schools spend a disproportionate amount of their
resources on students that are destined to leave their communities.
These students are the high achievers that go to college and never come
back. It makes sense, according to the authors, for rural school
districts to expend the resources on the students that are destined to
stay in their communities. I have been attempting to gather data for a
few months for our school district looking at where we spend our
resources, but I simply cannot do it in a timely fashion. I am not here
to complain about my job, I love it. My point is that this data may be
a significant turning point in revitalizing our community and I do not
have the data at my disposal yet because our administrators are
occupied with collecting data for our state-wide data management
system.
I mentioned earlier in this testimony that collaboration among
staff members and quality professional learning are valuable tools to
help increase student achievement. Rural areas are at a distinct
disadvantage because of their isolation from creating the context where
collaboration can occur between colleagues in different schools and
school systems. To allow teachers to gain quality professional
learning, the teachers are required to travel long distances and often
have to stay overnight. This places a burden on the budget that is
unique to rural schools.
The accountability system as it stands right now needs to be
adjusted to reflect the true picture of a rural school. The narrow
definitions of proficiency levels based on one test score create a
unique burden to rural schools. Many of my colleagues lead school
systems that are so small that a fluctuation of one student could mean
a 10-15 percent change in the number of students who are proficient on
a test. With pressure from the community to stay out of ``school
improvement'' these very small fluctuations create an atmosphere where
test scores become an inordinately important facet in the calculus of
what it means to be a good school. ``Drill and kill'' instructional
techniques start to dominate as teachers and administrators strive to
assure that one or two students stay at or above the proficiency level.
Finally, the turnaround models within the new School Improvement
Grants would be laughable if they were not so tragic for rural schools.
Just the experience that Ridgway School District had while briefly
considering these ``reform'' efforts are insightful. In the first
reform effort, our school district would fire the principal and 50% of
the staff. Obviously we could not do this and find any quality
replacements. We recently replaced one of our principals and received 7
applications from which only two were viable candidates. The next
reform measure is, fire the principal and then concentrate on
leadership for capacity building for the school and new leadership.
Again, finding a quality replacement would be difficult, but also
building leadership capacity would be expensive based on the travel and
other expenses associated with professional learning in rural areas.
Believe it or not, those two options were the most viable for our
school when compared to the last two options. The other two were even
more ludicrous. Shutting the school down and reopening it as a charter
school presents a host of problems including staffing issues. The last
option which is to shut down the school and send the students to higher
performing schools within the LEA is impossible since there would be no
other school within the LEA to send the students to!
For these reasons, I strongly support the position of my
professional organization, the American Association of School
Administrators, to ensure that all districts in the bottom five percent
have access to a fifth researched based model. This will help ensure
ESEA does not make the same mistake twice of one size fits all policies
that do not work for rural school districts. It will also allow for
districts to include the latest research in turnaround strategies in
practice over the course of new law.
ESEA Recommendations
``You cannot legislate change in teachers. It has to result
from teachers becoming reflective of their practice.''
Dr. Duff Rearick, CEO Blendedschools.net
``There is no doubt about it, job embedded professional
development is the key to improved student achievement.''
Dr. Pat Crawford, CEO Pennsylvania Leadership
Development Center
Everyone in education shares the same goal: improve student
achievement. We are currently experiencing a shift in society and
education that will fundamentally change the ``look'' of education over
the next few years. How can all schools and rural schools in
particular, position themselves so they will thrive and meet the needs
of 21st Century learners? To meet the challenges posed by this
fundamental change, efforts to change schools must not be reform
oriented. Rather we in education must strive for transformation of the
school system. Transformation will not come from a ``top-down'' model,
but can only come from efforts of the local stakeholders collaborating
to find solutions to solve unique, local problems.
First, reauthorization of ESEA must reflect the gains in
achievement that students make throughout the year. In our school
district we have had gains for students but this success is not
reflected in the ``official'' AYP status. By adding a value added piece
school systems will be able to target the strengths and weaknesses
within their school systems. This value added piece will allow
administrators and teachers to craft professional learning that targets
the needs of the students and teachers. Collaboration between the
administrators and the teachers centered on actual student achievement
gains will be a valuable addition to the reauthorized NCLB.
Second, encourage organic (local) development of teacher evaluation
centered on collaboration. I have provided you with an example of a
teacher evaluation that works well for our school district; I believe
that each school district should have the resources made available to
them to accomplish the same. I have listened to previous testimony to
this committee about the value of creating a teacher evaluation system
in a collaborative manner. I agree. However, I have one caution. Any
attempt by any national or state organization to attempt to create a
``cookie cutter'' teacher evaluation tool that will work in any school
district is going to fail. Our goal for the educational system must be
transformation and not simply reform. Transformation implies organic
problem solving to create solutions unique to every locale. Money
placed in ESEA to encourage school districts and teacher associations
to work together to create quality, research-based, differentiated
supervisions tools will lay the foundation for collaboration and school
transformation in rural school districts.
Third, professional learning must be encouraged in the
reauthorization of ESEA. Money spent to increase the capacity of
teachers to provide research-based effective instructional strategies
and increase their content area knowledge will increase student
achievement. I have witnessed teachers incorporating different
instructional strategies into their classroom and these strategies have
increased student participation and created a richer classroom
atmosphere. Professional Learning Communities are also an important
aspect of collaboration and professional learning. PLC's combine the
benefits of a collaborative professional learning model with a focus on
increased student achievement. Forming professional learning
communities takes time and training. Increased funding in these areas
will help all school districts meet the challenges posed by 21st
century learning.
Finally, quality internet access is a must for rural schools to
provide the best education for our students and professional learning
for our teachers. Virtual learning is not the future, it is the
present. Virtual learning formats allow rural schools to ``blend''
online formats with more traditional face to face education. Virtual
learning allows isolated rural areas to connect their students and
teachers to experts from around the country and the world. A rural
school that does not have the capability to access the World Wide Web
quickly and effectively is simply not able to prepare their students
for the 21st Century. Virtual learning is also a great way to connect
teachers with learning opportunities and experts from around the world.
Through webinars, chat rooms, and other learning formats, teachers can
experience high quality professional learning that would have been
unthinkable in rural areas 20 years ago. I conducted an online class
with recent high school graduates from Ridgway and a senior still in
high school using the ITouch. Through a collaborative effort with one
of our teachers who assisted me in the project we were able to connect
our students to nationally recognized experts in the field of
education. The students were able to discuss issues and trade ideas
with the experts with most of the work being done on an ITouch. What a
fantastic opportunity for students. Rural schools will increasingly
rely on such virtual environments to assure their students and staff
are offered the same learning opportunities as their urban
counterparts. Funding to make sure these opportunities are available
for rural students and staff will lead to increased student
achievement.
The problems confronting rural school improvement are not a result
of lack of effort or caring among rural educators. It is time for us to
start a transformation in education and the best place to start is in
the rural school systems. This can be accomplished through
collaboration and professional learning with a boost from virtual
learning formats. I believe with all of my heart that public education
in rural areas will lead to an era of rural community revitalization
and sustainability. However, I also strongly believe that solutions to
problems in rural areas must come from local areas. Rural schools must
serve as a ``space'' where community problems are sorted out and
solutions created. I doubt whether the reform framework that is being
offered by the USDOE will accomplish this task. The four reform models,
if forced on rural schools and communities, will only lead to increased
``rural ghettoization''. These reforms simply do not make sense for
rural communities and will ultimately be injurious to the schools and
communities.
Thank you for your time today and I would be happy to answer any
questions.
______
Chairman Miller. Thank you.
Ms. Bridges?
STATEMENT OF SUSAN BRIDGES, PRINCIPAL,
A.G. RICHARDSON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
Ms. Bridges. Good morning, Chairman Miller, Mr. Thompson,
and members of the committee. Thank you for inviting me to
testify this morning.
I am Sue Bridges, principal at A.G. Richardson Elementary
School in rural Culpeper, approximately 70 miles southwest of
here. A.G. Richardson enrolls just under 600 students from
prekindergarten through the fifth grade and employs 84 teachers
and staff. Our school's mission is developing the foundation
for lifelong success, and my teachers, staff, and I begin each
day with this mission in mind.
I know through personal experience that a principal's
leadership in a school must be focused on a cohesive mission
statement that is centered on student learning. At A.G.
Richardson we use data to define who we are, mark our progress
over time, and secure and manage the tools necessary to
continue to achieve our mission. Staying mission-focused is
especially important in a school environment where challenges
can and do pop up at any time.
I firmly believe that I have been successful in leading
change in my school because of my hardworking and dedicated
staff and because of the support and flexibility in decision-
making that I have been given by the school district's
administration.
To be effective all principals require the authority and
autonomy to make necessary changes in their school buildings.
This means principals must be able to arrange building staff
and resources to address the needs of students and to work
collaboratively with colleagues, both inside and outside of the
school, to identify the tools needed to sustain change and
growth.
There is no single plan or one set of resources or one
style of leadership that will make every school successful.
Each school has its own personality and culture, and successful
leaders use this information to make critical decisions every
day.
My school recently experienced a significant change. In
2007 A.G. Richardson was redistricted, along with five other
schools in Culpeper County. My staff and I had to lead our
school and community through this challenging time while
remaining focused on our school's mission.
Redistricting resulted in 60 percent of our students being
redistricted to a new school and replaced with students who
were entering our building for the first time. Our school
district is large and quite remote in parts. While there are a
number of neighborhoods now feeding my school, they are
scattered throughout the district and are several miles apart.
My staff and I quickly realized that we needed to take
great measures to assess the individual needs of our new
students in order to target instruction accordingly. We made
two strategic changes to remain focused on A.G. Richardson's
mission while bringing our new school family together.
First, we focused on the need for more real-time data to
inform classroom instruction. Grade-level teams began employing
targeted assessments to identify their students' specific
skills and needs and then divided their students into small
groups for direct instruction. During this process it was my
job to keep data discussions among teachers current and to help
them make effective instructional decisions, to help secure
volunteers to work with small groups of students, and to allow
for flexible scheduling of teachers' time to accommodate their
small-group instruction.
I began holding biweekly differentiation meetings with each
grade level to look at benchmarking data, student work, and
standardized test data. We knew it was critically important to
monitor our students' performance throughout the school year so
problems could be identified and remediated right away.
To further A.G. Richardson's mission, teachers shared their
successful instructional strategies with each other and worked
collaboratively to identify and refer our neediest students for
Response to Intervention services, which provided more intense,
skill-specific instruction.
Second, my staff and I identified the need to reestablish
an atmosphere of a neighborhood school to develop a sense of
community. I established what we call the Parent Liaison
Program to bring the school families together.
Parent representatives from each of A.G. Richardson's
neighborhoods serve as a two-way communication tool for me and
for each other. I use them to solicit feedback, to seek
volunteer help, to gauge the progress my school is making
throughout the school year, and to identify problems that may
need to be addressed. In turn, these parent liaisons
communicate with me concerns and issues bubbling up in their
specific neighborhoods.
I meet quarterly with the parent liaisons to discuss future
projects and activities, to solicit feedback, and to have an
open dialogue. Families who are new to our school are paired up
with a parent liaison in their neighborhood to provide them
with a connection to our school.
We recently performed a parent survey at A.G. Richardson.
While I collected and tallied the data my parent liaisons
reached out to individual families in their respective
neighborhoods to solicit additional feedback.
This approach has helped to develop a collaborative spirit
between and among A.G. Richardson's families and schools, but
it has also afforded me the opportunity to focus more of my
time and attention on the instructional needs at the school and
to manage the change process we have been going through in
recent years.
Instituting change in any organization is difficult, and
schools are certainly no different. Leading change at A.G.
Richardson required establishing and affirming our school's
mission, keeping all staff focused on that mission, and
securing and analyzing current data to inform the classroom
instruction of our students.
As the principal, I lead instruction by showing my teachers
and staff what is possible and supporting them with procedures
and resources so they can get the work done. I prop up their
efforts by working collaboratively with them to analyze student
data and monitor progress over time. As a result of our
strategic learning focus we have seen progress in our student
achievement and have maintained scores in the 80 percent range
for grades three through five in reading, math, social studies,
and science.
As the instructional leader, principals must have--they do
have a vital and unique perspective of their school. Because of
this, principals understand that local decisions--staffing,
resource priorities, infrastructure needs, et cetera--must
continue to reside at the school level and district level where
community and school needs can be adequately weighed and
addressed.
Recent proposals from the federal government have
recognized the important role principals play in turning around
low-performing schools but fail to factor in the need for
locally-based decision-making. I would argue--and research
backs this up--that principals are responsible for leading
change in all schools, and perhaps more importantly, sustaining
changes that focus on student learning.
Principals--especially those in challenging circumstances--
must grow in their jobs. Just as teachers work collaboratively
with each other to hone best practices in the classroom,
principals learn best from each other through networking and
mentoring opportunities.
We know that principals are second only to classroom
instruction in positively impacting our students' achievement
and must work collaboratively with teachers and parents to be
successful. Principals are experts at managing requests and
putting into practice what is best for the students who come
through the school doors every morning.
Ask any principal at any given time what they must be an
expert in, and be careful of their response. Principals are
teachers, nurses, counselors, finance directors, curriculum
experts, plumbers, lunch aides, behavior specialists, marriage
referees. You name it, the principal has done it. But the most
important role the principal plays is making decisions that are
best for his or her students and staff.
Beginning last week and continuing over the next 2 weeks--
and currently as I speak right now--A.G. Richardson Elementary
is completing Virginia's state assessments, the SOLs. I know my
students, teachers, and staff each week are all breathing a
little bit easier as we complete each assessment. I am
breathing a little bit easier, but I also know that the
pressure will mount again as we await the result of those
assessments and what that will mean for my school.
I continue to lead my school to remain focused on our
mission and will navigate all challenges thrown in our path.
And because I know my teachers, my staff, and families so well,
I know we will continue to succeed.
Thank you for providing me with this opportunity to address
you today. I would be happy to take any questions from the
committee.
[The statement of Ms. Bridges follows:]
Prepared Statement of Susan E. Bridges, Principal,
A.G. Richardson Elementary School, Culpeper, VA
Good morning. Chairman Miller, Ranking Member Kline, and members of
the committee, thank you for inviting me to testify this morning. I am
Sue Bridges, principal of A.G. Richardson Elementary School based in
rural Culpeper, Virginia approximately 70 miles southwest of here. A.G.
Richardson enrolls just under 600 students from prekindergarten through
the fifth grade and employs 84 teachers and staff. Our school's mission
is ``Developing the Foundation for Life-long Success'' and my teachers,
staff and I begin each day with this goal in mind.
I know through personal experience that a principal's leadership in
a school must be focused on a cohesive mission statement that is
centered on student learning. At A.G. Richardson, we use data to define
who we are, mark our progress over time, and secure and manage the
tools necessary to continue to achieve our mission. Staying mission-
focused is especially important in a school environment where
challenges can--and do--pop up at any time.
I firmly believe that I have been successful in leading change in
my school because of my hard-working and dedicated staff and because of
the support and flexibility in decision-making that I have been given
by the school district's administration. To be effective, all
principals require the authority and autonomy to make necessary changes
in their school buildings. This means principals must be able to
arrange building staff and resources to address the needs of students,
and to work collaboratively with colleagues both inside and outside of
the school to identify the tools needed to sustain change and growth.
There is no single plan, or one set of resources, or one style of
leadership that will make every school successful. Each school has its
own ``personality'' and successful leaders use this information to make
critical decisions every day.
My school recently experienced a significant change. In 2007, A.G.
Richardson was redistricted along with 5 other schools in the Culpeper
County School District. My staff and I had to lead our school and
community through this challenging time while remaining focused on our
school's mission. Redistricting resulted in 60 percent of our students
leaving A.G. Richardson to enroll in a new elementary school who were
replaced with new students entering my building for the first time. Our
school district is large and quite remote in parts--while there are a
number of neighborhoods now feeding my school, they are scattered
throughout the district and are several miles apart. My staff and I
quickly realized that we needed to take great measures to assess the
individual needs of our new student body in order to target instruction
accordingly. We made two strategic changes to remain focused on A.G.
Richardson's mission while bringing our new school family together.
First, we focused on the need for more ``real-time'' data to inform
classroom instruction. Grade-level teams began employing targeted
assessments to identify their students' specific skills and needs, and
then divided their students into small groups for direct instruction.
During this process, it was my job to keep data discussions among
teachers current and help them make effective instructional decisions,
to help secure volunteers to work with small groups of students, and to
allow for flexible scheduling of teachers' time to accommodate their
small-group instruction. I began holding bi-weekly differentiation
meetings with each grade-level team to look at benchmarking data,
student work, and standardized test data. We knew it was critically
important to monitor our students' progress throughout the school year,
so problems could be identified and remediated right away. To further
A.G. Richardson's mission, teachers shared their successful
instructional strategies with each other and worked collaboratively to
identify and refer our neediest students for Response to Intervention
services, which provided more intense, skill-specific instruction.
Second, my staff and I identified the need to reestablish an
atmosphere of a ``neighborhood school'' to develop a sense of
community. I established what we call the Parent Liaison Program to
bring the school families together. Parent representatives from each of
A.G. Richardson's neighborhoods serve as a two-way communication tool
for me and for each other. I use them to solicit feedback, to seek
volunteer help, to gauge the progress my school is making throughout
the school year, and to identify problems that may need to be
addressed. In turn, these Parent Liaisons communicate with me concerns
and issues bubbling up in their specific neighborhoods. I meet
quarterly with the Parent Liaisons to discuss future projects and
activities, to solicit feedback, and to have an open dialogue. Families
who are new to our school are paired up with a Parent Liaison in their
neighborhood to provide them with a ``connection'' to our school. We
recently performed a parent survey at A. G. Richardson Elementary.
While I collected and tallied the data, my Parent Liaisons reached out
to individual families in their respective neighborhoods to solicit
additional feedback. This approach has helped to develop a
collaborative spirit between and among A. G. Richardson's families and
the school. But it has also afforded me the opportunity to focus more
of my time and attention on the instructional needs of the school and
to manage the change process we've been going through in recent years.
Instituting change in any organization is difficult and schools are
certainly no different. Leading change at A. G. Richardson required
establishing and affirming our school's mission, keeping all staff
focused on that mission, and securing and analyzing current data to
inform the classroom instruction of our students. As the principal, I
lead instruction by showing my teachers and staff what is possible and
supporting them with procedures and resources so they can get the work
done. I prop up their efforts by working collaboratively with them to
analyze student data and monitor progress over time. As a result of our
strategic learning focus, we have seen progress in our student
achievement, and have maintained scores in the 80 percent range for
grades three through five in reading, math, social studies and science.
As the instructional leader, principals have a vital and unique
perspective of their school. Because of this, principals understand
that local decisions--staffing, resource priorities, infrastructure
needs, etcetera--must continue to reside at the local school and
district level where community and school needs can be adequately
weighed and addressed. Recent proposals from the federal government
have recognized the important role principals play in turning around
low-performing schools, but fail to factor in the need for locally-
based decision-making. I would argue--and research backs this up--that
principals are responsible for leading change in all schools, and
perhaps more importantly, sustaining changes focused on student
learning. Principals are second only to classroom instruction in
positively impacting our students' achievement and must work
collaboratively with teachers and parents to be successful. Principals
are experts at managing requests and putting into practice what is best
for the students who come through the school doors every morning. Ask
any principal at any given time what they must be an expert in and be
careful of their response. Principals are teachers, nurses, counselors,
finance directors, curriculum experts, plumbers, lunch aides, behavior
specialists, marriage referees--you name it, and the principal can and
has done it. But the most important role the principal plays is in
making decisions that are best for his or her students and staff.
Beginning last week and continuing over the next two weeks, A.G.
Richardson Elementary will be completing the Virginia state
assessment--the SOLs, or Standards of Learning. Each week, I know my
students, teachers, staff and parents are all breathing a little bit
easier as each assessment is completed. I am breathing a little bit
easier. But I also know the pressure will mount again soon as we await
the results of those assessments and what those results may mean for my
school. I will continue to lead my school to remain focused on our
mission and I will navigate all challenges thrown in our path. And
because I know my teachers, staff and families so well, I know we'll
continue to succeed.
Thank you again for providing me with the opportunity to address
you today. I would be happy to take any questions from the Committee.
______
Chairman Miller. Well, thank you very much to all of you.
This is an incredibly-arrayed panel here. We have the mean
school district--you said about 1,300 is the mean and you are
1,000--and we have a school here that is half that number in
one elementary school, urban, rural, and then mix in the very
large district.
In this round of questions I would like to raise a couple
questions, Dr. Simmons and Mr. Silver.
Dr. Simmons, you did these turnarounds and the strategic
initiatives with existing personnel--local school boards made
the decision about the teachers they had, the principal that
they had, and your initiative came in to that process.
Mr. Silver, you selected your teachers because you were
starting a new school within the school district, so you had
the opportunity to select your first tiers of teachers. But
that wasn't necessarily just a linear path to success; there
were--you didn't select the perfect teachers, each of those
people, so you had to deal with this question of capacity and
building that capacity for them to be able to work in a school.
And I just wonder if you might comment on that, because one
of the concerns has been that--the suggestion has been that if
you just close the school, fire people, rehire, that you are on
your road to success. Not every school gets the opportunity to
do that, nor necessarily wants to do that; they would rather
distinguish--but you still have to build, what is apparent by
what is taking place in that school in that time, additional
capacity to achieve these turnarounds.
I just wonder if you might comment on those sort of two
different models and how you dealt with dealing--that existing
structure and a modified structure that Mr. Silver had?
Mr. Simmons. When we look at the schools in Chicago we find
so many teachers and principals who have not had the
opportunity to really show what they could do, so there is this
vast resource of people who are out there, and when they get
the right model based on the research, the right support--
support from the central office--and they have a great school
leadership team, all these things come together and the
existing teachers respond in ways that exceeded their
expectations, our expectations, the expectations of the central
office. There is a vast resource out there that is untapped.
Chairman Miller. Thank you.
Mr. Silver?
Mr. Silver. I think that in the beginning of our school we
were able to get the seeds of success, in terms of creating a
culture, creating a big goal, creating systems for
collaboration, creating a team, getting family involvement.
And as we went forward, when our student achievement in
year two was only at 10 percent of our students actually
reading at grade level or above, there were two key things that
I think that we did that helped to propel us going forward.
Number one is, we went and observed at other high-achieving
schools with similar demographics. You know, when we started
this school we always said, ``We are going to close the
achievement gap; we are going to make sure that all students in
low-income areas can learn.''
Until we actually saw African-American and Latino students
in low-income neighborhoods achieving at high levels there was
a part of even me that didn't believe it; but when we saw that,
when we took our entire staff and we saw that this could be a
reality, things shifted. We knew that we could do this and we
had a responsibility to do it.
The second thing is that--what we learned from that visit
is the focus on standards and data. In the beginning we were
not necessarily focused. We were told we needed to focus on
curriculum or other things. That didn't work.
We need to focus on standards; we need to align ourselves
and make sure that we had data cycles. At this point, starting
in year three, every one of our teachers knew exactly where
each student was at with respect to the standard that they were
supposed to learn and had mechanisms to re-teach that standard
and intervention support to do it.
Chairman Miller. Thank you. When I visited Rosco Academy,
we are talking about teaching to the test in the school and the
principal, ``We will educate the kids; the tests will take care
of themselves.''
You talk about teaching to the standards in other schools
in my area, just down the road from where you are, and a lot of
it is about teaching to the test. What is the distinction in
these two educational models?
Mr. Silver. It is our responsibility to make sure that all
our students are learning standards. The distinction is this:
When I was a teacher when I started in my first year Compton,
California, through Teach for America, there were no real
standards. There was no real high-stakes test. I was teaching
whatever.
And now, you know, when students are in schools, often they
come in with different backgrounds and they come in with
different levels of learning. And students in poor
neighborhoods often come into kindergarten way behind their
more affluent peers.
Without a clear standard there is no way for us to increase
our expectation and make sure that all our students learn. It
is our responsibility to makes sure that the standards of
California are taught in English language arts, in math, in
science and social studies, and in all the different subject
levels. And without a standard and without a way to measure
that standard there will be no equity.
Chairman Miller. Dr. Simmons?
Mr. Simmons. I agree. I think that is a very well-put
statement.
Chairman Miller. That is enough from you.
Dr. Johnson, we hear all the time, and certainly we discuss
the federal role in education--one size doesn't fit all. But as
you pointed out, and I think as the witnesses have said
individually here, there are key elements. There are elements
of success, and we are in the process of sort of trying to
distill those to the extent that we can so that people can
reach for those elements as they think about turning around
their individual schools.
But also, you talk about this vision, this connection of
this experience to what comes next, and Dr. King's, Mr.
Silver's, and Dr. Simmons' testimony--it is the vision, it is
the vision of success and career, or college, or job--there is
this connection. I remember maybe in the 1970s and 1980s people
lamented that the world of work really didn't work for these
students because when I graduated, and in the town I went to,
you graduated from high school, you probably went to the sugar
refinery or the oil refinery, or you went to the chemical plant
or to the steel mill. You kind of knew what you were going to
do because other people in the town were doing that.
Today it doesn't work that way, and yet you have the
connection here--very strong connection--to the parents and
others thinking about, this is connected to whether or not I
can go to college and succeed in college.
The STEM program connects them to careers and opportunities
and knowledge about the academics and the career opportunities,
as I understand this. Mr. Hinojosa has explained this to me
over and over again, and I finally got it.
And in your case, it is a community--my takeaway was that
they decided that this school is the most important cultural
and economic asset that they have, and it is about their kids'
future. I mean, it is connected in that sense.
And I just wondered if you would comment--maybe I am off
base here--but as you think about how you put these elements
together it also has to have a vision for that parents--for
those parents and that community, it seems to me.
Ms. Johnson. Yes. I think that is absolutely critical. And
one of the challenges, what do you do in the places where there
don't seem to have that vision? So how do we push people along
to that vision?
We have to show them what is possible. We have to show
them--you know, the comments earlier about not only the state
standards and/or kind of the common core standards that are
coming out in ELA and math, but also looking at those 21st
century skills and the 21st century sort of standards of
excellence.
We need to give parents and community and school that
vision of what is possible, and I loved what Mr. Silver said
about taking folks out to see those schools in terms of the
individual teachers. This is the real challenge.
How do you take these isolated pockets and show them what
is possible? You have got to highlight the models that are
really working; you have got to bring them--in some cases,
rather than taking a whole teaching staff to see another
school, you have got to bring those models into those schools,
and not just to the teachers and the staff, but also to the
parents and community.
And I also think you can incent community groups and youth
organizations to be aligned with the school's turnaround
program.
Chairman Miller. I want to give Dr. King a moment if he
wants to respond to the question.
Mr. King. No. I agree that the connection is important and
it is important to have--you know, I believe in big, bold
goals, and, you know, if really setting out, you know, the
challenge--you know, in PSJA, when I got there the first
problem that hit me in the face was the dropout situation, and
we set a goal in that first year to cut it in half, and we
achieved that. We didn't set a goal to cut it by 5 percent, but
we set a goal to cut it in half.
In a matter of 5 weeks we opened a brand new high school to
bring back dropouts age 18 to 26 and get them their high school
diploma and connect them to college. That was instantly
successful, and in a matter of 3 months we graduated the first
50, and the community got all excited--the district, the
teachers--and they saw the capacity that, you know, we can do
something, we can make a difference.
And by this August, within 3 years we will have graduated
700 from that school of dropouts and would-be dropouts
connecting dropouts straight to college. So the connections,
the big picture, you know, looking at the needs of that
community, all of those things are important.
Chairman Miller. Thank you.
In my second round I would like to get Mr. Butler and Ms.
Bridges' response, but I want to turn to Mr. Thompson now for
his----
Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Chairman.
Dr. Butler, thanks again for coming to testify, and your
leadership in Elk County at Ridgway School District. In your
testimony you highlighted the difficulty that rural areas have
with the U.S. Department of Education--excuse me; I just came
off of a 5-day Ag public hearing, so if I start talking about
cotton and peanuts you know why--U.S. Department of Education's
four school turnaround models.
And during the release of the regulations the department
said, ``We understand that some rural areas may face unique
challenges in turning around low-achieving schools, but note
that the sufficient amount of funding available to implement
the four models will help to overcome the many resource
limitations that previously have hindered successful rural
school reform in many areas.''
So my question is, you know, is that accurate? Is the money
the primary obstacle to school turnaround in rural areas? And
what are the main challenges that rural school districts face
in turning around the low-performing schools if not overall
money?
Mr. Butler. Okay. A very good question.
We, at Ridgway, were very excited when the Race to the Top
came out and we looked at those reform models until we--you
know, the devil is in the details. And we were excited at first
because we were hoping we could have the--use some of the money
for the professional learning. You know, in our school district
we get the teachers and then we are responsible, I believe, to
make sure they get to a standard of performance where student
achievement is going to improve.
We look for teachers--you know, teaching comes from the
heart, and I think you can see that from Mr. Silver, his
passion to help, and that is what we look for in teachers. So
when we first looked at those models that is what we were
excited about, that we would be able to have funds to go out
and make sure we help these teachers who have the heart, we can
also give them the skills.
The turnaround models for our area are really a non-
starter, I believe. For example, if you are going to close a
school down to send the school--you know, students to another
high-performing school within your district, there is none
because that is the only elementary school, that is the only
middle school. If you are going to, you know, get rid of 50
percent of the teachers and your principal, that is a major
challenge, and that is why, you know, I just want to go back to
the fact of how much, you know, I am very proud of the
collaborative effort that we have had with the teacher
evaluation, how that was put together.
And also, you know, there is a responsibility on the school
district's part, I believe, in a rural area to get that teacher
up to par, up to snuff. But it is also up to the school
district to make sure if the teacher is not doing that that
they are no longer in front of students.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you.
Ms. Bridges, you talked about the importance of ensuring
that policies and interventions that are put in place to turn
around low-performance schools must remain at a local level.
The administration, on the other hand, believes that state and
local leaders lack the will to undertake the fundamental
reforms to turn around the most persistently low-achieving
schools.
Can you provide any examples that you know of as the
president of a state organization where state and local
officials have made the difficult decision to close a school or
to institute dramatic school reform efforts, and what impact
would the four turnaround models have on your school and school
district?
Ms. Bridges. I don't have any specific examples that I am
familiar with with regard to schools that have been closed.
However, I can speak to what the turnaround models would--the
impact they would have on our district.
Similar to Dr. Butler, if you closed the school it would
result--while there are six elementary schools in my district,
closing one would result in overcrowding conditions in the
other five. We just underwent redistricting to resolve that
issue. Closing a school would recreate that issue once again,
where we would have insufficient space to serve the students
that we currently have.
When you talk about firing 50 percent of the staff, what
criteria would be used? I think we need to be real careful and
clear on the criteria that is used to select which 50 percent
go and which 50 percent stay. That falls on teacher evaluation
procedures, which I feel like we have a good, solid program in
our district, but the documentation would need to be present.
You had better be able to document why 50 percent--who stays
and who goes. I think that would be a serious impact.
Truthfully, it is difficult finding highly qualified
teachers. Virginia is in a unique perspective of we often have
more teaching positions available than teachers to fill them.
We rely on our neighbors in Pennsylvania, actually, to recruit.
We recruit heavily in Pennsylvania.
I am a Pennsylvania native that got transplanted to
Virginia. And so I think that is an impact. It would result in
tremendous efforts to recruit highly qualified teachers. That
would be difficult.
Charter schools--when you talk about an agency taking over
a school, you know, it takes time to get to know a school and
the school culture. A new leader coming in needs to know the
school culture and the community it serves, and I think it
would take--there is a learning curve. I am not convinced that
immediate change would be evident because it takes time to get
to know the culture and then make the changes to make a
positive impact.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you.
Dr. King, you noted in your testimony a number of criteria
for how to move ahead with this, and quality leadership at both
the district and campus levels--you noted that that was
critical. And I wanted to see, first of all, specifically, what
positions were you talking about within your operation, your
school district, that you zero in on for developing that level
of quality in terms of the leadership?
Mr. King. Of course, at the campus level, the principal's
position and the rest of the campus leadership team--the
assistant principal, dean of instruction, whatever they might
have depending on the size of the campus. At the district
level, you know, the superintendent, whoever is in charge of
curriculum and instruction in particular and whoever is in
charge of personnel and staff development.
Those are all, you know, all very, very critical positions
and you need to have, you know high-caliber people, you know,
that have a vision and that want to move forward and don't want
to just do whatever they did last year. It is very important to
have that in all of those positions.
Mr. Thompson. Are there specific strategies you employ,
then, to--or what strategies do you employ to raise that level
of leadership within those individuals?
Mr. King. Well, to begin with is to set the expectation
very clearly of what is expected of people in those positions
to, you know, and to provide assistance, to provide training,
and if need be to move people around and do whatever needs to
be done to make sure you have got the right people in the right
chairs to get the job done, because you have got to have that
to get there.
Mr. Thompson. Okay.
Chairman Miller. Thank you.
Ms. Hirono?
Ms. Hirono. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I think the mantra now is turning around low-performing
schools, and there are many models emerging.
And, Ms. Johnson, you mentioned that there is not a lot of
data to really support the various models as yet.
So here are these schools all across our country and they
are being asked to turn around their schools, and they--what
can the federal government do to support the ability of our
school districts and, indeed, our schools to figure out what
models are out there, what might work for them? How can we help
to provide them with access to appropriate models? That is one
question.
Would you like to answer? Would any of the rest of you----
Ms. Johnson. Sure. I think, first of all, as we go through
this process the federal government can play a role in this
idea of national data collection. So right now we are starting
this first way of school improvement grants, and you have got
hundreds, possibly thousands--we don't know yet--of schools
undergoing this attempt to do turnaround. What are the
consistent metrics we are going to look at across the board so
that we have a better sense of what works where and what
matters most?
The other thing I think we can do is focusing the policy on
the outcomes that we know make a difference without being
overly specific about the means to get there.
So this issue of teacher replacement and what to do about
teachers--the federal government can play a role in ensuring
that schools have tools and supports to help them hire the
right kind of teachers for turnaround, and the policy should
require that schools have teachers in place that are committed
to change, that understand they are going to be evaluated and
are publicly accountable for what they are doing, but that when
they fire 20 percent or 50 percent doesn't so much make a
difference.
So putting those tools and structures and supports, I
think, are critical.
Ms. Hirono. We have four turnaround models, and would I be
accurate in saying that for all of the panelists that that is
way too restrictive to just have four models, that we ought to
come up with some language in the law in the reauthorization
that allows for a more flexible approach for schools? And I
don't know what that language would be, but is there agreement
that the four models, too restrictive?
Yes? Okay.
Mr. Butler. Yes. For sure.
Ms. Hirono. I get that.
Some of you mentioned that recruiting teachers, especially
in those models which require restructuring of the schools,
that is a tough thing to do. For example, in the state of
Hawaii we can't just go to the next-door state. We actually
have to get them to fly over and--our teacher turnover is
really high in some of our schools to the point where students
that I have talked to say, when I have asked them, you know,
``What makes it hard for you to learn in this school?'' and
they said, ``Our teachers don't stick around. They are not
around.''
So, Mr. Simmons, you have an interesting model because your
model is that you don't really--you don't move everybody out.
How do you get the kind of buy-in that we need at those schools
that are underperforming so that real changes can occur?
Mr. Simmons. How do we get the buy-in? That is an
absolutely crucial question that most leaders at the top don't
ask effectively.
We get the buy-in by asking people do they want to
participate. In all of our schools we require the principals to
have an 80 percent vote of the staff before we started to work
with them--a secret vote that was reviewed by the union
representative so that teachers had to buy in in terms of
saying that they were willing to work with it.
Same thing with the principals. They had to volunteer. This
was not a mandate. It makes an enormous difference if people
willingly sign up for using these kinds of funds. So that is
central.
The other piece in the buy-in is that it is important for
people to then participate in fine-tuning the program. We call
it a process because it is flexible. Flexibility is one of the
key words I have heard this morning.
Principals need autonomy. They need the flexibility. Well,
focused instruction process we use provides them that up front.
They are empowered to make changes and to continuously improve
the model as they get the data.
So these are things that get the teachers to stay in the
buildings. We have very low turnover in these buildings. It may
have been very high--30, 40 percent. Schools start to use these
kinds of processes and guess what? The teachers want to stay.
Ms. Hirono. So your organization is participating or
working with these schools over a period of 3 or 4 years. What
happens after you leave? How do the schools sustain their
commitment?
Mr. Simmons. It is up to the leadership of the buildings
and the district to provide the support, the climate for
sustaining it. In some schools it works very well. Sometimes
there is a new principal comes in, not interested in
continuing. That is a problem.
That is where the local school councils in Chicago make
such a difference, because the councils are there, elected by
the parents and the teachers, to look at what is going on. When
they see there is a program they like they go to the principal
who is new and say, ``We want to keep this program. It works.''
Ms. Hirono. My time is up.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Miller. Mr. Guthrie?
Mr. Guthrie. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have a question for Ms. Bridges. I am from Kentucky, and
Kentucky has the Site-Based Decision Making Council, which has
three teachers, two parents, and a principal on each, and they
kind of--they govern the school, for lack of a better--there is
a school board and everything still there, but they really
govern the school. And one of the issues that I worked on when
I was in the state legislature, when I would go visit schools
that were turned around or had areas that other schools in a
similar area weren't as successful and schools that were
extremely successful--we have some that were top performers; it
was always a strong principal with a good staff that led a
great staff.
In Kentucky the teachers can, over at the site base,
actually hire the principal. So it is the opposite of having
authority over the teachers. It can be the opposite. In most
cases--almost all instances--it works okay, but in troubled
schools sometimes it doesn't.
And so my question is, in Virginia, as a principal, what
kind of authority do you have? Because you talked about how
principals need more flexibility, more authority in a school in
your testimony. Could you just give some examples of your
authority and some things that you can do if there are problems
in the school? And can you hire and fire? I guess that is the
question.
Ms. Bridges. I am afforded a fair amount of flexibility in
my decision-making thanks to my supportive central office
administration. I do have the authority to determine my school
schedule--how long will a school day be--within reason. I am
limited by bus transportation; all of our students are bussed.
But how am I going to use that instructional time? How much
time will be devoted to reading instruction? How much time will
be devoted to remedial instruction to address concerns?
Enrichments--the opposite end of the spectrum, because we have
to consider both needs.
Flexibility with regard to my school funds--I am given a
lump sum. How do I choose to spend that money? I am given
flexibility with that.
I cannot hire and fire. I am given the authority to
recommend for hire and fire as long as--and the human resources
department is supportive of my efforts as long as I have
documentation, of course, to support that.
But a principal has to be given the authority to hire who
they need. I will give you an example. Recently we went through
a committee of interviewing candidates for a third grade
vacancy. The candidate I wished to hire had a master's degree,
highly qualified. She had been a long-term substitute in my
building, and we felt she would be a great fit for my third
grade team.
When I made the recommendation initially to my human
resourced department I was told, ``She will cost us too much
money. We have only budgeted X amount of dollars for teachers.
She will cost us too much money. You need to find another
candidate.''
I argued with her and argued the fact that she was
replacing a retiring teacher, so in fact, she was going to be
costing the district less money in the long run, and I did win,
fortunately. I can't say that is the same for all principals,
but those are the kinds of decisions and flexibility that we
need to have.
Mr. Guthrie. Thanks.
And there is one other thing I wanted to ask you. You
talked about using real-time data for driving instruction in
the classroom. One of our issues--and actually it has changed
since I have been in Kentucky--but we--or it is in the process
of changing--but we always tested our students in the spring
and then the results would come back in October and we used the
results for assessing the school. And it was a fairly okay--I
mean, it worked statistically that you could assess the school
with that, I think, accurately.
But what our system wasn't designed to do and didn't do was
drive instruction to the particular student. And so they are
trying to change that. The legislature has done some really
good work--since I left, I guess is why they are doing better
work. I worked on it until I came here.
And so what kind of real-time data are you using in the
classroom? Because our testing drove school--and I think in No
Child Left Behind it is a kind of similar model--our testing
drives school--assessing schools instead of assessing students
so a teacher can have something at their hands that they can
use and use that directly to instruct that student. And I just
kind of wonder what kind of real-time data you have from that
perspective.
Ms. Bridges. Spring assessments--end-of-the-year
assessments--can often be referred to as an autopsy. They tell
you what you did wrong but they don't necessarily help you.
Yes, they do assess your school and how you did, but it does
nothing to really affect change immediately. We recognize that.
We use what we call real-time data--I am referring to
benchmark assessments. We are fortunate to have an online
assessment program that disaggregates our data for us
immediately.
The teachers can assess, get their data--it is broken down
by question and student performance on those questions--and
then they group their children according to the performance on
those assessments. Those benchmark assessments are given every
6 weeks--4 to 6 weeks, depending on the assessment and the
length of the unit.
We also administer some growth model assessments which are
really important: the Developmental Reading Assessment, the
DRA; PALS, which is unique to Virgina, the Phonological
Awareness and Language Screening that is given three times a
year. We also administer MAP, which is Mapping Academic
Potential, through NWEA. That is a growth model.
That information gives us specific data right now--how are
students performing--and we are able to look at that data and
made adjustments and instruction to make improvements right
then and there instead of waiting----
Mr. Guthrie. Our yellow light--well, the red light just
came on, so I will yield back.
Chairman Miller. Mr. Silver, did you want to respond on----
Mr. Silver. I was just going to say----
Chairman Miller [continuing]. Ms. Bridges made?
Mr. Silver. Yes. I mean, I think your question is right on
and her answer is right on. While the high-stake testing is in
the end in California, for example, those benchmark assessments
that are aligned with that every 4 to 6 weeks are essential,
and we get those back real-time, within 5 minutes.
Teachers are in the office scanning it in and getting those
results by student, by standard, by question, and we have data
conferences afterwards with each teacher to figure out where
are our students at, what are the plans that they are going to
do, and also asking what is the support you need from us as we
got forward to make sure all students can achieve?
Chairman Miller. Ms. Woolsey?
Ms. Woolsey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
It is about time you were here, Dr. Simmons. We have had a
whole series of hearings and every one I have thought and said
out loud--I have even said it to Mazie--``Where is John
Simmons?'' Well, you are here because this is the perfect place
and the perfect panel for you to be on.
I have so many questions, Mr. Chairman, I could go on and
on.
So I am going to start first with you, John. In your
program, which sounds like a model that we should all just take
very seriously, do you have evaluation systems? Is that
important as a part of your measuring the outcomes--well, not
the outcomes--measuring your teachers? And how many teachers
were terminated over this period of time in order to make
things better? That is my direct question to you.
And then to the whole panel, I would like to know if you
have run into any reluctance--and your own included--to
actually embracing a new system of reauthorizing ESEA? We
brought out No Child Left Behind and forced that on everybody.
Now, are you having any reluctance with your colleagues,
peers, and the teachers saying, ``Come on, you are not going to
put another thing on us. We don't believe it; it is just a new
administration that has got some new bells and whistles''? How
are we going to prove to you that we really mean this and that
we are going to build on what we have learned?
So start with you, John, and your----
Mr. Simmons. The evaluation question is very important. The
data from our schools is that the principals are in the
classrooms observing what the teachers are doing on a much more
regular basis than ever before in the past. They really see
themselves as instructional leaders.
Second, teachers work together to help each other improve
their teaching. And assessment every 4 weeks is important. We
have assessments every 5 to 7 days of the students' work. They
are no-stakes assessments that the teachers give them and get
back within 24 hours.
So that data is used to assess each other. They are getting
the students of the teacher before them in the next grade level
below. They are desperate to improve the quality of that
teaching immediately, especially when they see low-performing
results. So there is a built-in process into what we have here
which has continuous evaluation of the teachers, which they and
the principals are under control.
Have a lot of teachers left for poor performance? Not in
our buildings. Why? Well, because the performance is steadily
going up and people are working together in ways that they
hadn't before.
And furthermore, this process brings in the students. When
students who are underperforming go into their success time
every day, in terms of if they are underperforming on the
standard they go into success time, other students that are--
have mastered the model come and help students who have not
mastered. ``Jimmy, come on. I want you to play my computer
games with me. You have got to give this author's purpose
standard together. What is wrong?''
So the students start to help each other voluntarily, and
in the first 5 to 6 weeks when we started this process and
these kids started to do this without any help from the
teachers--they were just in the same rooms--everybody said,
``Oh, my goodness.''
Ms. Woolsey. Thank you.
The rest of you----
Mr. Butler. Yes, I think we talked about what the reaction
of the teachers are to reauthorization. I recently met with our
math curriculum group and they said, ``Well, it is just another
thing coming down the road, you know,'' because I was sharing
with them the common core standards for mathematics, and I
said, ``Here is what we are going to be doing,'' and they said,
``Well, you know, we have a new president, a new governor,''
and all of these excuses.
And what I told them is we are in a time in our history
where we need to transform schools. We are not talking about
reform; we need to transform schools.
If we are going to meet the needs of the 21st century for
our students we must transform, and that means that we are not
going to go backwards. We are not going backwards to the way it
was done in the 1990s or the 1980s or the 1970s, that we are
looking forward. And that is the way it is going to be.
So are there questions? There may be questions, but as a
leader you have to say, ``Well, sorry. We are looking
forward.''
Mr. Simmons. I just want to add that teachers are asked to
leave our schools if there is some really poor performance
sustained over time. I don't want to leave the impression that
no one leaves.
Ms. Woolsey. No, you said very few.
Mr. Simmons. Some do. Yes.
Ms. Woolsey. You said very few; you didn't----
Mr. Simmons. That is right. Very few. Right.
Mr. Polis. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
First, I want to congratulate all of you. Really, these are
some inspiring stories and show that phenomenal job that many
of you and your organizations have done turning around schools,
closing the achievement gap through innovative and successful
models, and providing hope and opportunity to those who have
lacked it. It is wonderful to see how turnarounds are possible
and that they can be done in a collaborative way.
Before I got to Congress I was chair of our state board of
education in Colorado, and I saw across the many districts in
our state some cultures that were consistent with the kind of
changes you are talking about and some school districts that
resisted change and really had a resistance to tackling the
core reasons behind their persistently failing schools that
trapped families in a vicious cycle of poverty and ignorance.
I am very supportive of our department's efforts to zero in
on precisely these schools and A, deploy resources, but as
importantly, B, pursue essential conversations and decisions
that encourage and support change--real change at the school
level.
As Representative Thompson also alluded to, a recent study
found that about 40 percent of schools in restructuring status
did not take any of the five restructuring options required by
law previously.
And according to the department, over the past 8 years too
many states and districts have demonstrated little success and
little--and much unwillingness to undertake the kind of radical
fundamental reforms necessary to improve schools that in many
cases serve those most in need of educational opportunities.
I would like to hear your views on a couple things. I will
start with Mr. Silver.
I was very much amazed by--in your story, in the story of
your school--the culture of your district that encouraged
innovation and change, and the fact that they actually built
the center--the Cesar Chavez Center--not only for your school,
they invited people to come in and say, ``We need new programs,
new schools.'' What kind of led to that--to the district
getting in that place where they said, ``We know we need to do
something different,'' and how did they reach that point?
Mr. Silver. Well, honestly, it was the community. There
were about 2,000 people that came together at St. Elizabeth
Church--around 2,000--through Oakland community organizations,
and they partnered together and they said, you know--they
looked at the APIs, the academic achievement, and the size of
the schools in more affluent areas and they saw high
achievement, they saw small schools. Then they looked at the
poor neighborhoods in the flatlands of Oakland and they saw
large schools and they saw low student achievement.
And they said, ``This isn't fair. We need to do things
differently.'' So they mobilized and partnered with the
Coalition of Equitable Schools, with the Oakland Unified School
District, to have the school board pass a resolution to create
10 new small schools that were autonomous and had the exact
flexibilities that we are talking about today--budget,
staffing, curriculum, assessment, schedule. So that pressure
and that collaboration led to the board making that change, and
we were school number nine, and----
Mr. Polis. So you were able to build the political--you
know, always--generally the inertia not taking action is
usually easier than taking action. You were able to build a
political movement to make it the easier path taking action
politically rather than continuing to avoid taking action.
What suggestions do any of you have on how, from a federal
level, we can help overcome resistance and barriers to reform
through this ESEA reauthorization process to promote
interventions that work and improve student achievement
outcomes?
Dr. Simmons?
Mr. Simmons. I think the first and most important thing is
to encourage the local involvement, to get people truly
engaged. After the local school councils went into effect in
Chicago--3 years, the scores started to go up; they have not
stopped. It is in the testimony. For the prior 20 years they
had flat-lined at about 10 percent on the Iowa Test.
The only change that had taken place in those 3 years was
the introduction of the parents and the teachers choosing the
principal and deciding the use of the Title I money.
Mr. Polis. So to be clear, what you are saying is get more
local than the school district, whether it is neighborhood
councils, charter schools, autonomous schools--bring it back to
communities as opposed to kind of the larger district?
Mr. Simmons. The State of Illinois legislature looked at
what was happening in Chicago. They removed the Chicago Board
of Education because of the lowest test scores and the
incompetence. And in fact, people went to jail for corruption
after that and they put in the councils to replace the
authority and local accountability that is so needed and used
in places like St. Paul, and Edmonton, and and the state of--
no, the country of New Zealand uses it across the country.
Mr. Polis. I think Dr. King had a quick comment.
Mr. King. Yes. The other thing I would recommend is to look
at is systemically. And a lot of times the focus is the campus,
and it may be system problems that are, you know, causing
campuses to be stuck.
So whether it is lack of vision of the leadership, whether
it is, you know, political issues, you know, other types of
issues, you know, not supporting--but a system that is allowing
a campus to continue to fail. You know, to me the potential
there, especially with multiple campuses, there are potential
system issues then. I think looking at the system and not just
the campus.
Mr. Polis. Thank you all for your testimony.
And I yield back.
Ms. Chu. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Well, I was most impressed by all of you and the
achievements that you have made in your school districts. And I
was particularly impressed with you, Dr. Simmons.
Coming from a heavily urban area myself, in Los Angeles, I
certainly can relate to what you have been able to do and the
fact that you have been able to turn around all of these eight
schools and have sustained and improved results in six out of
the eight over a period of 3 years is very, very impressive,
indeed. What do you think was the problem that led to these
low-achieving schools in Chicago that your program addressed?
Mr. Simmons. I am sorry. What led to----
Ms. Chu. What were the problems--the fundamental problems--
in Chicago that your program addressed and was able to
overcome?
Mr. Simmons. The leadership at the Chicago Public Schools
came to us with a list of 200 schools that they were going to
either close or reconstitute immediately, and we were asked,
because of the work we had been doing in these neighborhoods
for 15 years getting good results, they said, ``Can you take 10
of these schools now?'' That was the problem. They did not want
to close or reconstitute the schools.
So that was the crisis. And none of them have had to be
either closed or reconstituted of the ones they gave us.
Ms. Chu. But what was it about the way that the schools
were operating that you changed?
Mr. Simmons. What was it we changed? What was it the school
changed?
Ms. Chu. Yes.
Mr. Simmons. They changed their thinking about what they
needed to do. When they saw the model that we had been using in
other schools in the city they said, ``Oh, we are trying to do
just that. That is what we want, but we don't know how to do
it.'' So the answer to your question is, we helped them put in
place what they had always wanted, and we trained them to do
the putting in place as well.
Ms. Chu. Well, in addition I am impressed that you make the
professional development and training of teachers and
principals lynchpin in your turnaround strategy. Rather than
firing them arbitrarily and just dismissing all the staff at
the school you try to give them the tools that they need to
succeed. And what strategies and programs have worked to make
teachers and principals part of the solution and why?
Mr. Simmons. What programs? I am sorry. What----
Ms. Chu. What strategies?
Mr. Simmons. What strategies? Essentially, it was provide
high-quality, on-site professional development for the teachers
and the principals. We provided coaching as part of that so
that they got coaching and training through workshops.
There was support for the parents in learning the Illinois
standards--something that we have not seen anywhere in the
country yet--so that when the kids came home with the homework
the parents knew what author's purpose, one of the Illinois
standards, was all about, and they had exercises to use to help
the kids.
The same thing in helping the principal and the leadership
team create a culture of trust. It already existed to a high
level because of the engagement of the stakeholders through the
local school councils. A lot of that was already there. We
helped them enhance that.
And finally, there was a focus on instruction--a laser
focus--which used the eight-step system on the back of the
testimony, which came out of Brazosport, Texas in the early
1990s, roots in Mastery Learning, University of Chicago, even
earlier. That lays out a very precise process for teaching, re-
teaching, helping the kids go into success time to get help
from each other so that they master the standard.
And the teachers get the feedback immediately every 5 to 7
days. Have they taught correctly or not? So the rigor of the
system was enhanced immediately.
Chairman Miller. Thank you.
Ms. Chu. Thank you.
Chairman Miller. Just for those who aren't aware, in
Chicago--correct me if I am wrong, John--every school has a
school board. Unlike one school board for the district and 50
schools, or 100 schools, or whatever it is, there it is local.
Very local. Just so people understand when he talks about this
connectiveness between school boards and schools, it is one-to-
one, so it is a little bit different than most of us experience
in our districts.
Mr. Scott?
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
holding the hearing.
One of the problems we have is that agencies tend to think
of themselves as follows and only concentrate on their one
area, and you end up with programs like--have things like zero
tolerance, which works well for the school system but just
transfers the problem to corrections. Everybody knows that
there is a high correlation between dropping out and future
incarceration and dropping out and teen pregnancy.
Is anyone aware--anyone on the panel aware of any analysis
or research which quantifies the social costs--the preventable
social costs--for maintained a 50 percent dropout rate in terms
of ongoing jail and teen pregnancy-related Medicaid and welfare
costs? For a school of about 2,000 it wouldn't be a surprise to
many areas to have about $10 million floating around in
preventable costs.
Let me ask it another way: Is it possible for a school to
succeed if you are surrounded by social frivolities such that
one of the programs in an area would be a safe passage program
where volunteers have to ring the school so the children can
walk to school without being criminally assaulted? Is it
possible for a school to succeed in a situation like that?
Mr. Simmons. There is very important data on the social
costs of underperformance and failure. That data has been most
carefully worked up by early child development people over the
last 20 years now. It shows dramatically that if you can catch
a child at the age of three to five and enhance their
capabilities with very modest inputs you are saving $50,000 per
person over their lifetimes.
Mr. Scott. And if we made those investments in the
community so that the community is--has less of the crime and
other problems that you would expect the schools to do better?
Mr. Simmons. Well, anything that will reduce the crime and
stabilize the communities is a good investment.
Mr. Scott. Okay----
Mr. Simmons. All this data says that I have just reported
is that when the quality of the learning goes up then you get
this incredible improvement in lifetime earnings where people
get through high school, they get through college.
Mr. Scott. Thank you.
I have a number of questions. I don't think I am going to
be able to get through all of them.
But let me just ask, when a school fails AYP there is a
prescribed response, some of which has nothing to do with the
failure. For example, if the students--English learners--fail
after 2 years all the other students can sneak out the back
door and run to another school, which does nothing to the
problem. Does anybody think that is a good idea or should the
response to a failure to make AYP have something to do with the
cause of the failure?
Mr. Silver?
Mr. Silver. Yes, I mean 100 percent. I mean, I think one of
the things that we need to figure out is, as we are--in
whatever we are doing, it is good that we are looking at
subgroups, but we need to make sure when we are looking at
subgroups that any intervention or any support is tailored
towards supporting them.
Mr. Scott. Mr. Silver, you mentioned teachers. One of the
problems we have is you have a teacher with an excellent
reputation, they are likely to get recruited by a number of
schools and have choices. And we are trying to set up an
incentive program where the best teachers end up at the most
challenging schools.
If you have the situation that you have suggested where you
get paid more when the students do better you would have an
incentive to go to the better schools where the students are
going to naturally do better. In fact, if you have a good
teacher at a challenging school and a bad teacher at a good
school, the good teacher's job is more at risk.
How do we set up an incentive program where we actually
incentivize the best teachers to end up with the most
challenging schools without these perverse disincentives?
Mr. Silver. That is a great question. I think the bottom
line is, what I am talking about is student achievement growth.
And I actually think it is easier to move student achievement
when it is at dramatically low levels. So a student that is
going to a--a teacher that is going to a school that has
students that are more at risk or at lower achievement actually
has a great chance to improve student achievement.
Mr. Scott. And they would see that as a possibility of
making more money?
Let me try to get in one last question. Replicability--we
have a panel of successes, but a school that is failing and
looking what to do might not know exactly what you did to
succeed. You may have had a charismatic principal or any other
kind of thing. Do we have enough research and best practices so
that a failing school would necessarily know what to do if they
wanted to?
Mr. Butler. I think if you look at themes across the panel
today you will see the theme of collaboration; you are going to
see a theme of community involvement; and I liked what Dr.
Simmons said, when the teachers are voting programs within
their school. I think all of those things are common themes
that would run across any demographic in the United States.
Ms. Johnson. I also think it is critical, though, that if
you bring in supports for these schools earlier on--so you
bring in some outside supports to help them assess where they
are at, look at their data, talk about engaging the community--
that was a question earlier--you bring folks together and have
them look at the data, see what is possible, and see where
their deficits are particularly, whether it is an ELL
population issue, whether it is an over-identification of
special ed, or whether it is an overall student achievement
issue, if you have got more support up front in that needs
assessment and that planning process, that is going to allow a
school to pick and choose among those research-based elements
that they need to focus on most to get those critical gains in
the beginning.
Mr. Scott. There is enough research out there so they know
what to pick from?
Ms. Johnson. I think there is enough for folks to get
started. I mean, everybody across here has identified those
same themes. So that is a good clue to us that these are the
themes.
But no, there is not enough research to say, ``This is an
exact science and we know that the instructional focus is, you
know 80 percent of this, and the leader is 30 percent, or 20
percent,'' whatever. We need more research to figure that out.
But I would argue that it is not necessarily research in
the traditional sense of these large random control trials that
take years, but--while those have value and merit--but that it
is really about this data collection in real-time. So look at
all these models people are doing now and figure out what those
core data elements are.
Mr. Simmons. Yes. You asked if there was research that
could guide schools in this situation. The answer is yes. And
we do need more research, as well.
But here is what the research tells us: The schools that
are in our testimony in Chicago, based on 20 years of research
in the city and around the country, including around the world
with high-performance organizations like from the private
sector--all these things show the same thing, and that is being
put into the schools that we are working with.
For example, schools that--the five essential supports in
Chicago are one-tenth the level of performance as those schools
that do apply them. So when you apply the essential supports
you get 10 times the increase on the Illinois and Iowa Test
scores. Pretty dramatic--in the research that's there.
It is like baking a cake. If you leave out one of the
ingredients of a cake you are not going to have a cake. If you
leave out one of the essential ingredients, as the research
shows, you aren't going to have a high-performing school. And
we have got 20 years of data showing that.
Chairman Miller. Mrs. McCarthy?
Mrs. McCarthy. Thank you, Chairman.
I want to thank everybody for your testimony, because you
certainly, in my opinion, pinpointed a number of things that we
are being challenged with as we go forward on reauthorization.
As you know, the blueprint that we are following certainly has
a fairly large component for charter schools.
And I have about five or six underserved areas in my
district, and yet there is one school that comes under that
underserved area that has 93 percent of minority students, but
they have a superintendent, they have a principal, they have
other teachers that all work together. Ninety-four percent of
their students go on to college. The dropout rate is almost
nonexistent.
So when Secretary Duncan was here I said, ``Why are we
looking at the schools that are failing? Why aren't we looking
at the schools that are doing well?'' I have nothing against
charter schools; I have a couple in my district. But the
problem is, if we are going to start spending more money into
the charter schools, that is going to come away from our public
schools.
And to me, the solution is, as all of you have basically
stated, that if we don't put in the core components into our
legislation we are going to be in the same place 10 years from
now. I do not see the answers, you know, just by going into a
new mold.
So when we look at the effective collaborate leadership,
strong emphasis on improving institutions, teachers supported
and continually working together to increase their own
learning, and a professional community, rich challenging
circumstances, parent involvement--we had a program in my
district, Project GRAD. It did terrific. Then we got a new
superintendent and the project went out.
The project went over to another high school, did terrific,
still doing well. Unfortunately, we are hearing that our
superintendent there will be leaving and we don't know.
So if we don't do this on the federal level I am afraid
that with all the great, you know, teaching programs and
everything else that are out there, this has to become what we
see as the future. What bothers me is everything that each and
every one of you have talked about--why doesn't it make sense
to develop a model that builds on these components, mainly
because we actually don't have all these components in the
blueprint?
So I throw that out to you, what your opinion is. I know
Dr. Butler, you are in a rural area. You would never have an
opportunity, most likely, to have a charter school. And yet you
took your school and turned it around.
So I guess I would just like your input on what we are all
talking about on improving education, which we thought we were
going to be able to do with Leave No Child Behind. We have this
opportunity now. The solutions, I don't think--you know, they
are certainly challenging, but they are not difficult. I will
take a response from anyone.
Mr. Butler. I would agree with you that, you know, as I
think about education and where we are going, you know, we are
not--this isn't rocket science. You have people that care doing
instructional strategies and curriculum and aligning to the
standards, you are going to get improvement.
One thing that jumps out to me as we were--as I listened to
this discussion is the impact of the school leader. You
mentioned that, you know, when a superintendent leaves maybe
the program doesn't get continued, and that is a shame. But
even there, you can evaluate a superintendent or put an
evaluation in place for a superintendent based on national
standards of school leadership that will encourage the person
next to continue those programs.
So I guess just the nature of being an educator, I like
assessment and I like to know where we are all the time, and I
like evaluation. So, you know, to make sure that those programs
get continued, you know, look at how you are evaluating your
superintendent, your high school principal. And if the school
district wants that to be continued then that should be placed
in there.
Mrs. McCarthy. I will just make one final comment. I know
that we are talking about looking at schools that are failing,
but to be very honest with you, yesterday we had school board
elections all across New York State for the budgets, and I am
happy to say that the majority of schools on Long Island,
anyhow, passed their budget, even during these economical hard
times.
But I will also say, looking at and following the scores of
``schools that are really doing quite well,'' as they say, are
actually not really doing that well. We have a number of
students that are excellent; we get five to 10 winners every
single year in some of the largest country competitions.
But it is our middle school students which this country is
going to need that need to also improve to race to the top.
They are capable of it, but we work, certainly, you know, all
we can with those students that are showing the brightest. But
we also work very hard with those that need to go through IDA.
But we tend to forget, sometimes, the larger population of
students who are right smack in the middle, and I think we
could improve on that with the programs that you are all
talking about. Thank you.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
What I heard from a number of people--and let me thank the
panel; I think you have provided a lot of insight that is
valuable--what I hear is talk about incremental improvements
along the way and using data that are collected to respond to
some of the reforms that are required.
The cost effectiveness of, Dr. Simmons, of your program as
it relates to the progress with our students compared to some
of the alternatives that are suggested out there--could you
share any additional information with us on that cost
effectiveness of your thinking, of your concepts?
Mr. Simmons. Yes. The five essential supports model is very
streamlined. It eliminates those elements that really are not
highly cost effective.
So what it concentrates on is what happens during the
school day. That is one thing.
And second, it finds that if you use the existing teachers
and principals and train them up it is much less expensive than
residential training programs that go on for a long time and it
is very expensive to select those people in the beginning.
Residential programs are fine; they are getting fine results.
But the cost effectiveness is part of the problem, and that
is why we get a $24 million tax saving over a 4-year period
when you compare our program with schools that have the more
elaborate programs--$24 million over 4 years for the eight
schools. That is significant.
Mr. Tonko. I have also listened intently about some of the
comments made about Title I, and letting those dollars flow in
accordance with formula and need. In my observation--and I was
formerly on the Education Committee in New York State in the
state legislature--and saw, and see today in the capital city
of New York, a very difficult situation where there is a super-
saturation of competition that is taxpayer-funded that competes
with the public system.
In these given days of state and federal budget dilemmas
there is not a finite amount of money that we can invest, and I
think it is our highest priority of investment in education.
Given that as a fact, where do we need to be in terms of--an
observation is that the systems that don't get their
appropriate Title I funded are those that are then failing, and
then we throw the competition in that at times, in my opinion,
is unfair competition.
I chaired the Energy Committee when I was in the State of
New York. I saw public power and all the good it brought, and I
saw the private sector and industrial concepts that were
brought by our utilities, where there is a for-profit column.
Can we afford to pay for profit at a time when we can just
funnel Title I monies into systems where the children are
failing? Because if we did our job correctly in the beginning
we might not need to get into this more perverse--any comments?
Mr. Silver. I mean, I think that the bottom line is that
schools that have high Title I populations--that have high
poverty populations--in these economic times need more, and
they are underfunded right now. And PTAs at more affluent
schools are raising hundreds of thousands of dollars to offset
this. We need to take this seriously.
We need to make sure that we are--at this time of
increasing expectation we need to increase resources not just
to schools that are doing well, but to all schools that have
high poverty populations. That is what I am saying.
And I think that at the end of the day we need to have
incentives to push districts so that they are going to provide
the type of flexibilities that we are talking about that are
necessary conditions and incentives and replications, and also
any school that has a high poverty population, it is our
responsibility--we need more funding for those schools.
Mr. Tonko. Yes, sir. Dr. Simmons?
Mr. Simmons. I think it is important to be very clear about
what the root causes of these problems are we are talking
about. Research has established decades ago that poor, low-
income children, minorities can learn to the very highest
levels. That is established; that is out there; no one debates
that any longer.
So what is the problem? Well, when I look at it it looks
like it is a leadership problem--leadership that is not
informed, or is informed and unwilling to make the decisions
that they need to make for all kinds of reasons, including
political and financial reasons.
So when you apply this research, as those of us who are
sitting up here are doing, you get these amazing results. Well,
let's apply the research.
That is so obvious because when you do it you get these
results and it doesn't take forever; we are getting schools
turning around in 1 year. No one believed in Chicago that that
could happen.
Mr. Tonko. Leadership problem at what level?
Mr. Simmons. At all levels in the system. Principals don't
have the highest of expectations.
The assistant superintendents feel that they have to
supervise closely the failing schools with using management
techniques that haven't been practiced in the private sector
for 30 years. They aren't empowering people in the buildings.
And at the superintendent level, they have got too many
other things they are worried about and they aren't focusing on
applying the research. That is as simple as I can state it in
terms of the core reasons why we have these problems that you
folks have to deal with.
Mr. Tonko. Ms. Johnson?
Ms. Johnson. I think when you look at funding and what can
we do to make a difference that is, again, where you have to
look at the whole system. And where we can get leverage
points--I mean, to Dr. Simmons' point about leadership, how are
we working with higher ed institutions and other institutions
to equip--build a pool of qualified principals that know how to
do school turnaround or to train the ones we already have? We
could get a lot of mileage out of that because you can
centralize what you are doing in sets of higher ed institutions
and then put those leaders out into the field.
There are other things like that I think we can do to think
about funding the system and funding points of leverage for
replicability without necessarily, you know, just going to each
individual school piecemeal by piecemeal. That, I think, is too
expensive of a proposition.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the
hearing.
Consistent themes: high expectations, leadership. I think
following up on my colleague's question, the resources and
attention that must be given to schools that have challenges,
be it poverty, and be it underachievement. Those seem to be
consistent points to this discussion.
I want to ask about, you know, as we talk about school
turnaround we must inherently, I think, begin to prepare
teachers and schools for the transformation that is going on in
the composition of our schools. And this includes the
increasing number of children with primary languages other than
English.
And so let me begin with Dr. King, and anybody else--with
this question: What is the important role in the turnaround
strategy of having teachers prepared to address that particular
need of children whose primary language is other than English--
--
Mr. King. I think it is imperative. You know, down there on
the border in South Texas, the districts I have worked in, the
majority of the students, you know, come to school with a
language other than English, basically Spanish being the
primary language, and it is imperative that teachers have the
training and everything.
There, in both districts I have worked in, we have moved
forward to basically the dual language concept and tried to
develop both languages to a very, very high level. And we are
at a point now of beginning to graduate cohorts of students who
are college-ready in either language, and we have found that as
a good way to accelerate.
So in our case, having teachers that are well-trained in
working with students--teaching a second language, and also
having teachers that are well-educated themselves in the
primary language to do a quality job in that language as well.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you.
Mr. Butler. In Ridgway we had two families move into our
district and we went from zero ELL students to 10, and we had a
very hard time--and to be very honest with you, we were out of
compliance because we could not service those students. Just a
case in point, you know, when we tried to find a Spanish
teacher it took us 1 year to find a qualified Spanish teacher,
and that is even above and beyond the ELL students.
So there are, you know--the challenge is, you know, when
you have those fluctuations in my district, how are you going
to address those students effectively?
Chairman Miller. Go ahead and answer, Mr. Silver, because I
was kind of mystified by how you were managing this exceptional
caseload of ELL students.
Mr. Silver. So when we started we had 0 percent of our
students were at grade level or above. Now we have 54 percent
of our ELL students are at grade level or above in ELA, and in
math we have 80 percent.
One of the things that we did was, as I said before, we
observed at schools that had high ELL populations and saw what
they were doing. We saw a couple of things: Number one, they
had amazing teachers, so we went out and got the best possible
teachers and supported our teachers as we went forward. Number
two, they had different strategies, like thinking maps, where
there could be visuals to support the English language learner.
And number three, they had a reading campaign.
When we looked at our data and we saw that only half of our
students actually were reading at home, we knew we had to make
a change. So we instituted a reading campaign where books were
all over the school, parents were reading with their kids
during the school day, and we challenged the kids to read 30
minutes a day every single day for the rest of the year. And if
they did that, at the end of the year they would have an
incentive.
One year I got on the roof; another year--right now my hair
is kind of matted down, but it is actually fro'd out--and I am
going to shave my head the last day of school if we reach our
goal this time.
The bottom line is, whether it is college, whether it is
whatever, investing everyone in a big goal--and specifically
literacy for ELL students--is a key component.
Ms. Bridges. I think another piece that is important is to
consider the needs of the families that support the school. And
when you have many families for whom English is their second
language we need to reach out to them as well.
Culpeper has a liaison parent who is bilingual. She meets
with parents, helps them fill out the forms necessary for
registration, helps them navigate all of the things that they
need to know when they come to this country, when the come to
Culpeper, what are our expectations, what do they need to do as
a parent.
School can be a very frightening place even for parents for
whom school was not successful or a happy place. When you are
coming in with a language barrier that can be even more scary,
so I think it is important to provide programs for parents
reaching out to them to teach them English and give them
opportunities to access the curriculum and our expectations in
their own language.
Mr. Simmons. So what I have heard this morning is the
evidence is pretty clear that the answers are there. The
question is why they aren't getting out there and being
applied.
This is where the federal government comes in. I think the
federal government is the only hope in the country to help
scale up these programs and provide the kinds of demonstration
projects that need to be in every state so that people can
easily get to see them.
We get hundreds of people coming to visit our schools, but
they don't have the money to travel more than a couple of
hours. But they could travel to the demonstration sites across
the country if the federal government were to actually focus on
providing demonstration sites of these best practices.
Mr. Grijalva. Mr. Chairman, I just want to thank the panel
because the responses regarding English learners from the
people that responded was many times that becomes an excuse,
and you are approaching it as a resource that needs to be
developed and given the same opportunity, and I appreciate that
very much.
Ms. Clarke. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you to the panel. Your dialogue has been very
stimulating today.
And I wanted to pick up on some of the points that my
colleague, Mr. Tonko, raised. I am from New York City and our
system was changed about 10 years ago to a narrow control
system due to many of the findings that, I guess, happened in
Chicago with school board corruption.
But since then we have had some challenges. We have
introduced the charter school movement, but it isn't scaled to
the point where it helps the vast majority of public school
students in the city of New York.
My first question is to you, Mr. Silver. In your testimony
you described how you turned around your school.
One of the elements that you mentioned as being key in your
school's success is that the teachers were required to observe
the pedagogy at high-achieving schools. And it is my
understanding that charter schools are supposed to be an
incubator for innovative approaches to teaching and education,
and charter schools are then supposed to disseminate their best
practices to public non-charter schools.
One of my concerns is that this information sharing has not
happened and is not happening. However, your school seems to
have bridged the gap. So would you discuss the relationship--
specifically the information sharing--between your teachers and
the teachers at the public non-charter schools?
Mr. Silver. Sure. One of the schools, I remember, we
implemented a new program at our school in math and some of our
teachers had some questions about it, and there is a school
called Acorn Woodland in Oakland, which is achieving massive
dramatic gains in a high-poverty population
And so I contacted the principal--she was also part of the
small schools movement--and said, ``Could we bring our teachers
over there to learn kind of what is happening with yours?''
They went over and then after that observation that meant much
more than whatever I could say or whatever some outside
consultant could say in terms of that program, seeing the
students in action. Similarly, that same school came and
observed some of our teachers and some of the strategies that
they were using and implemented them going forward.
You know, one of the things that got me into this work, I
remember when I was outside of the Teach for America office,
where I used to work, and someone said, ``You know, why don't
we create a new school?''
And then I said, ``Well, you know, that is cool,'' but then
I heard, ``Why don't we create new schools?'' The bottom line
is, if we have networks of schools where people are
collaborating, that is going to retain principals; that is
going to retain teachers and spread best practices.
Ms. Clarke. Let me ask you something. You mentioned you
went to another small school. Is that school also a charter or
was it non-charter?
Mr. Silver. Right. So, we are not a charter school--Think
College Now. That other school is not a charter school as well.
So we have learned from charter schools; we have learned
from non-charter schools; we have learned from Oakland Unified
Schools. We have learned all across the board.
I think the one thing that I would say, though, is that we
need to do more sharing, and if we are going to make sure that
our schools that are succeeding that are not charter schools
within the public school district, we need to provide the
charter-like autonomies for them to stay in the district and
the resources that will allow that to happen.
Ms. Clarke. My next question is for both you and Dr.
Simmons.
I find what you are doing in Chicago phenomenal, and I
don't know if folks in New York have contacted you yet, but I
will probably be calling.
I firmly believe that parental and community involvement is
often marginalized. It certainly has under the structure that
has been set up in the city of New York, where it is a top-down
governance structure, and pretty much the parental bodies that
exist, if they don't agree with the leadership, oftentimes get
shuffled around and changed.
In fact, research shows that parental involvement and
highly effective teachers are two of the keys to educational
achievement. So I strongly believe that the importance of
parental and community involvement--I believe in it so much
that my support for the ESEA bill is a bit wavering because I
just don't see where it exists in the turnaround models that
have been put forth.
With that said, parental and community involvement are key
parts of the schools' turnaround success. My question is, what
do you do to get parental buy-in at your schools?
And second, you mentioned requiring parents to sign a
contract to attest to the involvement in their child's
education. How did your school handle parents who do not live
up to their contract, and do you kick their child out of your
school?
Mr. Silver. We are a public school. We cannot kick out and
have never kicked out a student of our school.
The contract is an interesting thing. You know, what we say
to families is when they are coming in our doors, say, ``Expect
more from me as a principal; expect more from your teacher. And
I am going to expect more from you as a principal.''
So what the contract does is put something in that says,
``Hey, if we want our kids really to go to college this is what
it is going to take.'' If they are not going to--if a specific
parent is not actually abiding by that contract, I am going to
go to them, or our family resource center is going to go to
them, and say, ``What is holding you back?''
Our responsibility is to remove those barriers, to call the
boss of someone and say, ``Hey, you are legally allowed to be
here for 2 days without repercussions to make sure that you are
at a parent conference.''
Find out what the specific barrier is and try to remove it.
I had a parent who was a founding parent of our school say,
``You know, I wasn't really that into reading; I wasn't
interested in this,'' but now is so involved and came to so
many community meetings to create the school. We need to create
incentives, remove barriers, and support for our families.
Mr. Simmons. The way to get parent involvement? Well, you
have the evidence, again, right in front of you with the
experience in Chicago with the parent councils. There are eight
parents and community members, two teachers, and the principal
on that council.
Our parent programs sometimes have 50 to 100, 120 parents
come to these workshops. Why? Because it is directed at the
parents' needs.
The parents want most of anything--and we interview them--
survey them once a year--they want to help their children with
their homework, and that is what we give them, the very best
tools to do that. And they come. The council helps bring those
parents out.
So there is much more to this local school council thing
than a lot of people really understand, because the principals
depend on these parent councils to go out and handle parent and
community problems. So it is really a collaboration that exists
when these councils work.
Yes, and there are about 10 or 15 percent of the councils
that don't work in Chicago. That is just like the number of--
the percentage of Fortune 1000 companies that don't work--the
governance of them don't work very well either. So I don't see
that as a problem.
But look carefully at the council thing. It has made such a
difference, and a whole country like New Zealand, as well as in
St. Paul, where they doubled their test scores in 4 years after
putting in the councils. It took us over 10 years to double our
scores, but still we got them there.
Chairman Miller. Mr. Hinojosa?
Mr. Hinojosa. Thank you, Chairman Miller. Thank you for
bringing together this impressive panel to discuss best
practices in school turnaround.
Reforming our nation's dropout factories and their feeder
middle schools in this ESEA reauthorization is a priority for
me. As you know, I introduced H.R. 4181, the Graduation Promise
Act, to address this issue.
In Texas we are extremely proud of Dr. Daniel King's
outstanding leadership and success in turning around our
lowest-performing high schools.
Dr. King, we greatly appreciate your taking the time to
come to Washington for this ESEA hearing. Looking at your
presentation and some of the graphs that you presented us with,
it is very impressive to see the improvement that you have
caused there in those schools in PSJA, and I just want to say
that we are going to learn from what is working for us in deep
South Texas so that nationally we can include it in the
reauthorization.
You accomplished the goal which naysayers had predicted it
can't be done, and that was to improve and get more students to
graduate from high school. I applaud your extraordinary
leadership. My colleagues on this committee thank you for
traveling and giving us your ideas on how we can use it.
Sorry. I am so sorry, Mr. Chairman. I have been running
from one committee to another and----
Voice. We should dance. [Laughter.]
Mr. Hinojosa. I am so sorry. I turned it off.
My first question, Dr. King, is what elements are essential
to any school or school district to reform the effort that you
talked about? How have you been able to maintain continuous
improvement? How have you been able to get these things done
that have made the improvements at PSJA in deep South Texas?
Mr. King. Well, I think, you know, I think that, you know,
leadership and having a vision does matter. And, you know, I
think, you know, believing in our students that all of our
students, you know, can achieve well, not making excuses and
identifying--in every community there are strengths. And so
there on the border, you know, for years in a--you know, for
many parts it was looked at that because our students are--it
is one of the poorest areas of the country--that because they
come from low-income households, migrant farm workers,
immigrants, because Spanish is their first language--looking at
those as excuses for not achieving.
And we can also look at those students and those
experiences and find, you know, many strengths, and we can take
the language they do have and, you know, and build on that.
Spanish, you know, comes through the Latin language, which is
the root language of many--of science, and medicine, and so
forth. If we strengthen students in that area, when they go on
to the sciences they are going to have, you know, advantages.
So valuing what they have from home--certainly teaching
them English to a high level, but valuing what they bring,
valuing the tenacity that comes from the migrant farm worker,
from the immigrant who has fought to get to this country,
looking at those things and identifying, and valuing, and
empowering, and realizing that those students, you know, have
great potential.
Mr. Hinojosa. Tell me, what caught the attention of Melinda
and Bill Gates about your work that they would want to invest
in expanding your work down in deep South Texas?
Mr. King. Well, one of the things is that--I think a
viewpoint of not looking in many cases--you know, going beyond
the early--initial early college high school concept, which is
pulling some students together, whether they be chosen by
lottery and everything, and looking at scaling up and for all
students.
So whether in Hidalgo, where the high school is 800 to
1,000 students, turning the entire high school into an early
college high school, or in PSJA, opening--yes, it is an island
of excellence there at T-STEM Early College High School, but
from the very start saying this is going to be open to impact
the 8,000 students, and not being satisfied with 400 students
who attend that high school and do great things, but how can
that impact the entire district?
And not bring in visitors over to see that school while the
other schools are failing, but how can that school be used to--
basically to help us transform the entire district to show what
is doable for all students then there is not excuse not to do
it for all students, so----
Mr. Hinojosa. Thank you.
Mr. King [continuing]. It is the all student approach.
Chairman Miller. Mr. Holt?
The bells you hear, we have votes starting here so I want
to make sure we get through the----
Mr. Holt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thanks to the witnesses for really excellent and
uplifting testimony.
Our job, of course, is to devise legislation to scale up
successful schools to serve all 50 million schoolchildren in
America, and you have laid out a number of what sound like
necessary ingredients of professional development, and learning
teams, and engaging parents and community members. Let me focus
on one thing that has come up from several of you.
I would like to hear first from Dr. Simmons and Susan
Bridges with regard to assessments, and if time allows maybe
from others of you. You have talked about benchmark assessments
and growth model assessments with real-time feedback weekly,
monthly, disaggregated data used in real time to guide
instruction.
Three questions: Is that essential for school success? If
it is essential, how is that written into legislation?
And third, what is the teacher's role in this? How do you
get teacher buy-in for these assessments? Do they have a role
in developing the assessments school-by-school?
Mr. Simmons. I am happy to start that. Yes, assessment is
essential.
Tell me how teachers get feedback unless they have data.
They don't know if the lesson is taught properly or not. In our
schools they get the feedback every 5 to 7 days by looking at
the assessments that they design around those specific Illinois
standards.
Second, how does it get into the legislation? I may have to
think a little bit about that one because of the process.
But let me go to the third point: how to get the teacher
buy-in. As I mentioned earlier in my testimony, schools are not
accepted in our effort unless they get a vote of 80 percent of
the teachers in each school, and a buy-in to the assessment
process as well.
It is the eight-step assessment process developed in
Brazosport, Texas in the early 1990s. It is used in many cities
all over the country, and including the Broad Award people in
Aldine, Texas, for this year--this year's Broad Award.
Mr. Holt. Got it. Okay.
Mr. Simmons. So that is how we get the buy-in. They agree,
and then we have them--that is the first piece.
The other piece, and even more important, is that they then
need to participate in the selection of the assessments, in
reviewing the assessments, in making sure that they work well.
So we get the buy-in incrementally as they get--participate
more and more in the process of applying the assessments.
So we get big time buy-in by the time the first 6 months is
done, a year, from virtually all the teachers. They say, ``This
is the best thing we have ever had; why haven't we had this
before?''
Ms. Bridges. I would agree, assessment is essential. You
can't tell where you are going unless you know where you are,
and the assessment gives you that information.
Buy-in, I agree, teacher selection is critical, but also if
you put the data in their hands and teach them how to use it,
that is critical. You can hand them a piece of data and they
don't know what it means. You have got to give them the time
and the training to say, ``How does this data affect my
instruction? What does it tell me about my instruction?''
It is amazing how it removes excuses, because data is not
subjective; it is objective. It is what it is. It tells a
story.
And if you can get teachers looking at the data and using
it as the discussion point as opposed to, ``Well, I think--
well, I think this is what is going on,'' or, ``Well, I think
Susie had a bad day,'' or--the data just tells a story.
So I think the key to the buy-in, once they see that the
data really does reflect on their instruction and it really
does tell them what direction they are heading and what
direction they need to go, you will get the buy-in. It is a
payoff.
Mr. Butler. I would also suggest, we attempted to do our
benchmark assessments in our school district online so we could
have that immediate feedback. Our technological infrastructure
could not handle that, and therefore we still have a 2-or 3-
week lag to get our benchmark assessments.
So I would just ask that any consideration be given that
the capacity for the school districts to actually be able to do
an online benchmark assessments would be there----
Mr. Silver. I think this is totally essential--benchmark
assessments--and I think the key to ensuring that teachers have
investment in it is, number one, that it informs instruction.
And the way that it will inform instruction is making sure that
it is not only aligned with the high-stakes test, but also the
specific standards that they are teaching as well as that there
is time and tools to be able to use that data effectively.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am sorry I missed
the best practices discussion, but I really wanted to get in
and have a chance to just hear perhaps the last few minutes.
I wonder if--and it may be that you have dealt with this--
talking about principals, because we know how important a
principal is. I know that you have discussed this.
When it comes to teacher evaluation I think we have some of
the ideas about on what you base that in terms of data. What
specifically do you think are one or two of the most important
ways to actually evaluate principals? And secondly, how do you
recruit some of the best individuals--and they may be from
education, they may not be--to head up some of our schools that
could use the kind of assistance from a very energetic and
qualified administrator?
Mr. Butler. I think the first thing that you must look at
are the standards of how you will evaluate the principal and
you look at data. There is no question about it--you must look
at the school data.
Now, that data could be student achievement data, it could
be--they call it 360-degree evaluation, where you have
community data, student responses, all those different aspect
of being a principal are in that, because being an effective
principal is essential--is absolutely essential--for any school
turnaround, regardless of the model.
Mr. Silver. I would agree with that. The number one thing
is that any evaluation in it needs to be focused on data,
whether it is principals, whether it is schools, whether it is
teachers. And when we are talking about data it can't just be
high-stakes testing data. It also needs to be focused on
growth. It needs to have multiple measures as well.
And in terms of support, I think that looking at networks
that have worked, like New Leaders for New Schools, looking at
pipelines through Teach for America, looking at other programs
that are getting strong people in our system is essential.
Ms. Bridges. And continuing with mentoring programs for new
principals. To jump into a principalship, even if you have been
an assistant principal--not all models of assistant principal
roles are the same.
The assistant principal role should be a training for a
principal, but in some cases they are delegated the discipline,
the stuff that the principal doesn't want to do. So when an
assistant principal finally does become a principal it can be a
real eye-opening experience to all the things that are
required.
So mentoring, an experienced principal being paired with a
new principal will really provide that support and those
resources that they need to be successful and be a successful
leader.
Mr. Simmons. The best way to get the evaluation done on the
principals? Talk to the stakeholders. Don't forget the parents;
they are absolutely crucial.
People think that independent schools have a great way of
creating and sustaining principals. Well, those are parents on
those independent school boards, on those charter school
boards. And the local school council in Chicago handles that
because those parents do evaluate the principal, and they
remove them.
And in the first 6 years of school reform there was a
turnover of 80 percent of the principals. Who did that? It was
the councils. Yes, some left voluntarily.
So this is an amazing little feedback mechanism that is
built into this governance that is so locally organized because
it is my child that is getting a bad teacher, and that
principal is responsible for that.
Chairman Miller. We are out of here. I want to thank this
panel. This has been a remarkable morning.
You know, concerns of this committee and many who are
involved in the reauthorization outside in the greater
education community has been that these four categories that
the administration suggested in their blueprint, which were put
forth for us to comment on and look at, are really sort of
going back to your baking the cake. You can bake a cake in a
microwave; you can do it in an oven; you can do it over a
campfire, but if you don't have the ingredients it really won't
matter.
And so you can choose to say, ``We are going to turn around
a school; we are going to reconstitute a school; we are going
to close a school.'' It won't matter if you don't have these
ingredients in place.
And I think what you have shown us is that these are
common, they are important--the collaboration, the buy-in, the
community, the leadership, the empowering and the professional
development of teachers. If you don't do these things--and you
have to more or less do them together--you are not going to
turn around much of anything.
The other one that seems to me that is very interesting
here is this constant discussion about independence and
autonomy. For you it would be independence at the
superintendent's level. For Dr. Simmons, it seems to me, it is
independence from the superintendent in a large, centralized
system, and he has had some rather legendary battles with this
current secretary about what independence meant.
So again, but it is the same issue, whether it is in the
small, rural district or whether it is in a large, suburban
district or a large, urban district. And what is sort of
emerging for me is that these four choices are interesting, but
they have got to be fleshed out here.
And what we tried to here was present--and a number of the
other panels--that there is a portfolio of things you need to
bring to this problem of getting better performance out of
these traditionally low-performing schools.
And what is emerging in my mind is the sense that there is
a tradeoff here between flexibility and responsibility for
success, and if we are willing to grant people and provide--and
they are responsible--to provide them that flexibility to make
these choices about the ingredients--I think you would need
sort of a critical mass of them--but you may change them, then
we have got to sort of get out of the way.
And, you know, everybody here has talked about the
importance of data and what it drives. I am a believer that
that is just a fundamental platform in today's education
system. Teachers need--want, after they get it--data, and it
does that.
So this has really been helpful, and I want to thank all of
the witnesses and thank the staffs for putting together this
panel. I think you see the response from the members of the
committee. There are a lot of sort of urban legends out there
why things don't work or the way things really are, and yet, in
every one of these in those various situations you are modeling
success, and that is really exciting.
We don't get a chance to do success very often. So this is
really----
Thank you very much. I won't go on.
[Questions submitted by Hon. Dina Titus, a Representative
in Congress from the State of Nevada, and their responses
follow:]
Questions Submitted By Ms. Titus to the Witnesses
Thank you to the witnesses for being here today.
It is inspiring to hear about the ways that schools across the
country have been able to turn themselves around. My Congressional
District is part of Clark County, Nevada, which has the fifth largest
school district in the country--and encounters all of the issues that
go along with that--so I know that there are some schools that need a
drastic change. But I also believe that as this committee moves forward
with reauthorizing ESEA, we must make sure that we are not
disincentivizing the great principals and teachers we need in
struggling schools from taking on the challenge of turning them around.
One high school in Clark County several years ago was called ``the
worst high school in America.'' A new principal took over less than
three years ago, and under her leadership the school is making good
progress--the graduation rate has gone up, the drop-out rate has gone
down, attendance rates are up, and the achievement gap is narrowing.
These indicators are not where they need to be yet, but the school is
moving in the right direction. Yet under the current AYP model, even if
a school is making progress, the school may be forced to continue to
take on additional, ever more drastic steps to change the school in
ways that may interfere or interrupt the strategies that are working--
and may force the school district to replace the principal who is
making such good progress. In addition to losing a great leader, this
type of system can also create a disincentive for great principals to
move to struggling schools.
Given all of your experiences, how long does it take to turn around
a school? What are your suggestions for an accountability system that
is not all or nothing--one that allows schools to implement turnaround
strategies and gives the strategies sufficient time to work, yet still
ensures that schools are making progress?
______
Responses From Ms. Bridges to Questions Submitted
Regarding how long it takes to turn around a school, there are many
factors that can affect the timeline. Generally speaking, 3-5 years are
needed for sustainable turnaround. Turnaround greatly depends on the
buy-in from the staff; the first year should be a year of no major
changes, but rather, data collection, observation and careful
identification of strengths and weaknesses. After that, specific
strategies to address weaknesses must be implemented and given time to
determine whether or not they are effective. By the third year, if
strategies are effective, change should be evident. Sustainable change
has to be based on concrete data and it takes time to collect the data
that will best define in what direction to move.
How one creates an accountability system that is not all-or-nothing
is not an easy answer. My number one recommendation would be to move to
a growth model, which looks at baseline data and then sets an
acceptable percentage rate of growth for every student over a defined
amount of time (presumably, one school year). Assessments should be
collected on all students at the beginning of the year and administered
again at the end of the school year
to determine the rate of growth, rather then relying on one test
given on one day at the end of the school year. In addition,
``benchmark'' assessments should be administered throughout the year to
track progress so that adjustments in instruction and pacing can be
made immediately. Schools should be accountable for the growth of all
students. Not all students start at the same point; therefore, they
cannot be expected to reach the same finish line at the same time.
However, all students can be expected to demonstrate a rate of growth
relative to their skills and abilities.
______
Responses From Mr. Butler to Questions Submitted
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to your question. I think
your question really cuts to the chase as far as the challenges that
school leaders face when tackling a school turnaround project.
Your first question is insightful because policy makers must
balance the competing needs of time and ultimate accountability. I
believe strongly in order to turn around a school all stakeholders must
be engaged and have input into the direction the school is going. The
first step is for the school board to establish non-negotiable goals
for student achievement and instruction. This sets the tone for the
entire school district. Resources of the school district will be
aligned to allow for maximum effectiveness of the implementation of the
goals. The next step is to have each individual school's faculty and
staffs create mission and value statements that reflect the
idiosyncrasies of the school while also addressing how the school will
reach the goals set by the school board. This process is vital because
the staff will formulate and create goal and value statements based on
their input. Another step is for community engagement with the schools
and the school district. The goal here is for the school to become
totally transparent in their operations and structures. For example,
after a community meeting, there may be disagreement about a value that
the staff felt was already present in the school system. Obviously,
this would need to be addressed. Finally, the input of the students is
vital at every step in the process. The schools are in existence to
assist them so their participation on committees and gathering
``student voice'' is vital. I have just described a ``systems''
approach to changing a school. Systems thinking takes into account the
engagement of all stakeholders. There are many sub-steps within the
steps I described (curriculum development, instructional audits, etc),
but to have a significant turnaround all stakeholders must be engaged.
This is what we have tried to do in our school district. I think the
minimum amount of time needed to start seeing significant results is
three years.
An accountability system must have the ability to show growth of
student learning over time. In other words, I am advocating for a
``value added'' accountability system. I believe any school turnaround
experience that is successful must focus on data that allows the
educators to analyze the achievement progress of a student.
Professional Learning Communities are formed around groups of teachers
analyzing just this type of data so they can adjust instruction and
curriculum to meet the needs of the students. In Ridgway, ``Value
added'' data is more important for our school district because it
allows the teachers to adjust what they do in class in mid stream.
One final note: I encourage you to resist the call for a ``one size
fits all'' approach to school reform. As I stated in my testimony, the
four frameworks proposed by USDOE are unworkable for our small, rural
school district. A better idea may be an expanded list of options for
school district to choose from with a proviso to also create one of
their own. I feel very confident that our school district is improving
student achievement. However, our ``model'' is not reflected in any
framework proposed by the Department of Education. Our model addresses
the needs of our school district and community and is always being
adjusted as new information is available. Our model may not work in
another school district, but it does work for us and that is what is
important.
______
Responses From Ms. Johnson to Questions Submitted
Representative Dina Titus (D-NV) asked:
It is inspiring to hear about the ways that schools across the
country have been able to turn themselves around. My congressional
district is part of Clark County, Nevada, which has the fifth largest
school district in the country--and encounters all the issues that go
along with that--so I know that there are some schools that need a
drastic change. But I also believe that as this committee moves forward
with reauthorizing ESEA, we must make sure that we are not
disincentivizing the great principals and teachers we need in
struggling schools from taking on the challenge of turning them around.
One high school in Clark County several years ago was called ``the
worst high school in America.'' A new principal took over less than
three years ago, and under her leadership the school is making good
progress: the graduation rate has gone up, the drop-out rate has gone
down, attendance rates are up, and the achievement gap is narrowing.
These indicators are not where they need to be yet, but the school is
moving in the right direction. Yet under the current AYP model, even if
a school is making progress, the school may be forced to continue to
take on additional, ever more drastic steps to change the school in
ways that may interfere or interrupt the strategies that are working--
and may force the school district to replace the principal who is
making such good progress. In addition to losing a great leader, this
type of system can also create a disincentive for great principals to
move to struggling schools.
Given all of your experiences, how long does it take to turn around
a school? What are your suggestions for an accountability system that
is not all or nothing one that allows schools to implement turnaround
strategies and gives the strategies sufficient time to work, yet still
ensures that schools are making progress?
Question 1: How do we ensure we do not create disincentives for
great principals and teachers to take on the challenge of turning
around struggling schools?
Answer: Policies and funding must focus on training, attracting,
rewarding, evaluating, and retaining highly effective teachers and
leaders, especially in hard-to-staff schools and districts.
Representative Titus, research supports your statement that great
principals and teachers play a critically important role in
transforming student achievement. Teacher quality is the most important
component of a school's effect on student learning. Leadership is
second only to classroom instruction among all school-related factors
contributing to student learning. (Leithwood, Louis, Anderson, &
Wahlstrom, 2004; Harris & Sass, 2009). Unfortunately, leaders such as
the principal of the Clark County school you describe are not in great
enough supply to lead our struggling schools. It is important to focus
on building the supply of effective leaders.
The Institute of Education Sciences (IES) recently commissioned a
panel of experts to author Practice Guide on Turnaround Schools
(Herman, Dawson, Dee, Greene, Maynard, et al., 2008). In 10 of the 15
case studies analyzed, the leader was replaced and a new leader led the
charge. In contrast, in five of the schools, it was the existing school
leader who changed the school's culture, leadership structures, and
instructional focus. Thus, as you argue, while the research does
support a change in leadership in turnaround schools, it is possible
for an existing leader to embark on this path.
Our May 2009 research report, Hiring Quality School Leaders:
Challenges and Emerging Practices, funded by the U.S. Department of
Education, describes the challenges common to all school districts in
attracting and selecting effective school principals. These challenges
are as diverse as disregarding relevant school and district data,
failing to determine and understand the needs of the school, and
casting too narrow a net when searching for candidates.
Federal policy can support innovative programs to select, prepare,
assess, incentivize, and support principals in turnaround schools.
Higher education institutions, state agencies, and outside providers
can all contribute to the preparation of turnaround leaders. In
addition, principals and district leaders taking on the turnaround
challenge should be provided opportunities to network with other
leaders. The accountability system, which I address later, should
provide room for improvement over a period of time and encourage
frequent use of data to adjust turnaround strategies. Finally, monetary
incentives for meeting achievement outcomes can be used to reward
effective leaders.
Policies in support of teachers are also critical. As I noted
earlier, effective teachers are essential in improving student
achievement. Since schools in the bottom 5 percent--urban or rural--
often have difficulty attracting and retaining highly effective
teachers, policies should provide options for both replacement and
intensive retraining of existing teachers. Teacher training must extend
far beyond traditional professional development and include
opportunities such as apprenticeships and intensive boot camp--like
instruction. For new teachers, higher education institutions should
create specialized training programs for placement in turnaround
schools. Teachers who will be retrained should undergo intensive
trainings, visit high-performing schools in similar settings, and have
access to mentors and coaches in their classrooms who can model lessons
and coteach with them. Teachers need to see the desired instructional
approaches in action, with their students, for optimal performance.
Finally, incentives such as a positive school culture, time for teacher
collaboration, and monetary performance incentives should all be
considered.
Question 2: How long does it take to turn around a school?
Answer: Turning around a school involves changing the trajectory
not only of student achievement, but of culture, expectations, and
commitment by staff, parents, and community members. This process
generally takes at least two to three years, although select indicators
in the first year can likely provide insights into longer term success.
Although experts agree that high-quality teachers and leaders will
be essential to the success of turnaround efforts, researchers and
policymakers disagree about what constitutes a successful turnaround.
The IES Panel described earlier defined turnaround schools as those
schools that began as chronically low-performing but then demonstrated
dramatic gains in student achievement in a short time, defined as no
more than three years.
The timeline and intensity differentiate turnaround efforts from
other school improvement initiatives. Turning around a school, in this
context, means that the school has emerged from the triage state and is
making steady progress. It does not mean that the school transformed
from low-performing to high-performing within this short time frame. We
do not yet have the research or historical knowledge to know how long
it actually takes to create a consistently high-performing school.
Measuring progress on school turnaround is challenging for a
variety of reasons. Every school starts at a different place, with
different levels of achievement, teacher and leader effectiveness,
school culture, external supports, community engagement, and general
commitment to change. In addition, every school uses different
measures, and each state has its own set of accountability metrics, so
the comparisons of progress that can be drawn are relatively few.
We need a national reporting system for school turnaround data, so
that we can answer the questions about the type and number of gains we
should see during the turnaround process. For example, we know from
existing evidence that the school leader needs to signal a dramatic
shift in culture and expectations at the start of the first year of the
turnaround effort. The leader needs a ``quick win'' within the first 30
to 60 days of school. What we don't know is which changes are most
successful and which are not. Collecting this information is the first
important step to refining school turnaround and establishing
appropriate performance benchmarks.
Question 3: What are your suggestions for an accountability system
that is not all or nothing but one that allows schools to implement
turnaround strategies and gives the strategies sufficient time to work,
yet still ensures that schools are making progress?
Answer: The accountability system must include multiple prioritized
measures, including student growth, and must require--not just provide
guidance on--significant changes when targets are not met.
Researchers and policymakers have not reached a firm consensus on
the measures of a successful turnaround. However, we do know that
dramatically improved student achievement is the bottom line. The
challenge is to create a transparent, fair, and ambitious target for
each school. The targets must take into account the characteristics of
the school as it entered the turnaround process. A target for
improvement in student achievement in Year 1 is different for a school
with student test scores in the single digits than for a school with
student test scores at 40 percent of state standards. The longer term
targets, though, should be the same for both schools. Collecting
progress on a national level will provide insight into whether the
levels are set appropriately.
In addition to student growth targets, measures of the key
contributing factors to successful school turnaround should be used for
ongoing assessment of the school's progress. These can be used both for
reporting progress and for self-monitoring on behalf of the school.
The key is to create a monitoring system that (1) provides enough
data for school leaders and teachers to make informed decisions about
their practice regularly and not just at the end of the semester and
year; and (2) provides data at regular intervals so there are no
surprises in student outcomes at the end of the school year.
Schools with strong accountability systems coupled with early
indicators and monitoring systems will know what to expect when they
see their annual assessment data. An accountability system at the
federal level that includes multiple measures can foster this type of
monitoring at the school level.
Several states have provided schools and districts with rubrics for
needs assessments and a set of required leading indicators that can
offer some ideas for measurement. However, it is critical that the
factors span the key elements of turnaround (not just measuring what is
easy to collect) and that they are evaluated objectively.
Potential indicators of success are proposed in each of the
following areas:
District Readiness and Competency
The district plays a critical role in the success of an individual
school's turnaround effort. The district will be responsible for
ensuring operating autonomy, providing necessary supports to the
principal, aligning other efforts from feeder schools, supporting
hiring, and quite likely replicating the process in other schools.
In large urban settings, there is often an office of school
turnaround that functions as the district support. In medium-size urban
districts and smaller rural districts, the district administrative team
adds these responsibilities to their current workload. A district's
readiness to take on turnaround and its ability to sustain the process
are critical elements to measure. Currently, the urgency to begin the
work is shortchanging the time and resources devoted to the entire
needs assessment. The turnaround effort has not focused enough on the
importance of the district's role. In some cases, a change in district
leadership at one or more levels is needed to foster turnaround at the
school level.
Student Growth
States, districts, and schools are moving toward the use of
benchmark assessments (3--4 times per year) to assess student growth
and predict performance on high-stakes exams. Many schools have created
their own assessments, others have purchased systems from assessment
companies such as the NWEA Map assessment and the Wireless Generation
mClass. In the long term, as the Race to the Top--funded state
assessment consortia come together on common assessment practices, we
will be able to compare data more easily across settings. In the short
term, allowing schools to submit progress on both benchmarks and annual
summative assessments may be beneficial for examining student growth.
Strong Building Leadership
In 2008, Public Impact released School Turnaround Leaders:
Competencies for Success, which provides specific expectations and
behaviors for turnaround leaders. The Learning Point Associates Quality
School Leader Identification Tool also has a rubric for leadership
assessment. These tools and others like them can form the basis for
measuring leadership performance semiannually. In addition, questions
for the school and district about the level of operating flexibility
and autonomy of a school should be included in the overall assessment
of leadership. I recommend that the state or an external third party
perform this assessment. Feedback and coaching could then be provided
to the leader, if needed. The leader could also be recommended for
removal, if necessary, in order for the school to receive continued
funding.
High-Quality Teaching and Instructional Focus
Simple metrics in this category include instruction time in ELA and
mathematics and the number of highly qualified teachers in the
building. As teacher evaluation systems are built to include multiple
measures, these structures can be used to report on teacher
effectiveness for turnaround schools. These will likely include a blend
of student growth data, teacher observations, and some form of peer
feedback.
Learning-Focused Culture and Climate
Basic metrics in this category include teacher and student
attendance, truancy rates, number of disciplinary incidents, and the
dropout rate. Other measures might include examining whether the school
has an early warning system in place and whether it is working;
surveying teachers, students, and parents to measure the level of
engagement; and conducting interviews with a sample of teachers and
leaders to determine whether there is a pervasive set of high
expectations for all students.
Nonacademic Supports for Students
At the end of the day, research shows that factors outside the
school day have a profound effect on student learning. Turnaround
schools must have in place supports for students beyond the traditional
school day, as well as targeted plans for parent engagement. It is
critical to provide a variety of life-enriching experiences in the
arts, sports, and project-based learning with nurturing adults, as well
as supports for health and human services that are often inadequately
funded in high-need areas where these schools tend to exist. Basic
metrics might include the number and types of supports provided to
students and families by the school and the number and types of
supports provided by outside agencies in support of the turnaround
effort. Metrics can also measure students' perception of self-efficacy
to help determine the growth of their belief in a future for
themselves. A more in-depth analysis would explore whether the supports
both academic (afterschool remediation and enrichment programs) and
nonacademic (community/social services based programming and supports)
are aligned with common goals and objectives.
Staff and Community Commitment to Change
Commitment is perhaps the most critical element, but one of the
most difficult to truly assess. Some programs have required formal MOUs
or contracts with teachers and parents to signify commitment. Others
foster commitment through deep teacher and parent engagement in the
turnaround process. Basic metrics might include the number and types of
events hosted for parents, the number of parents attending, and the
number of teachers committing publicly to the turnaround program. While
surveys given multiple times can capture some of this data, site visits
from an external party really are necessary to observe whether leader
and teacher actions are demonstrating strong commitment. Site visits
would include observing teachers (do they collaborate regularly; do
they demonstrate high expectations for students; are they focused on
the goals), interviewing teachers and leaders, and speaking with
parents to gauge their level of understanding and commitment to the
process.
The system of accountability that the Committee develops should
include a balance of sanctions and supports. For instance, SIG funding
should continue to be offered as a support, providing intense funding
for schools to turnaround that can be used not only for outside
partners but also for creating incentives for teachers and leaders who
rise to the challenge of transforming these schools. At the same time,
for schools that fail to show signs of improvement within two to three
years with supports, more dramatic action, in the form of sanctions,
should be taken. We know from NCLB that when schools in restructuring
were provided nonregulatory guidance, 40 percent of them chose to
ignore it (Manwaring, 2010).
As I suggested earlier, policies must be flexible to meet the needs
of individual schools because every turnaround school faces a unique
set of circumstances. One district accountability example you might
examine further is the implementation of the Strategic Staffing
Initiative in Charlotte-Mecklenburg (Travers & Christiansen, 2010). New
principals were hired at turnaround schools and were given three years
to implement reforms before being held accountable because the district
recognized that turning around a school is a complex process that does
not happen overnight. However, the district also monitored progress of
the turnaround efforts over time with a number of metrics to ensure
that the school was headed in the right direction. These measures
included school progress reports, school quality reviews that were led
by external review teams, and evaluations of the implementation of the
school's improvement plan.
In summary, teachers and leaders are at the heart of the turnaround
effort, and substantial resources must be directed at a large scale
overhaul of teacher and leader development. The definition and duration
of time for turnaround are unclear, but we should establish common
national metrics to assess progress regularly, starting with the first
semester of Year 1. Finally, policies need to combine sanctions with
rewards to incentivize those that are improving and take stronger
actions where they are not.
references
Harris, D. N., & Sass, T. R. (2009). What makes for a good teacher and
who can tell? (Working Paper 30). Washington, DC: National
Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research.
Retrieved June 4, 2010, from http://www.caldercenter.org/
upload/CALDER-Working-Paper-30--FINAL.pdf
Herman, R., Dawson, P., Dee, T., Greene, J., Maynard, R., Redding, S.,
& Darwin, M. (2008). Turning around chronically low-performing
schools: A practice guide (NCEE 2008-4020). Washington, DC:
National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional
Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of
Education. Retrieved June 4, 2010, from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/
wwc/pdf/practiceguides/Turnaround--pg--04181.pdf.
Leithwood, K., Louis, K. S., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004).
Review of research: How leadership influences student learning.
New York: Wallace Foundation. Retrieved June 4, 2010, from
http://www.wallacefoundation.org/SiteCollectionDocuments/WF/
Knowledge%20Center/Attachments/PDF/ReviewofResearch-
LearningFromLeadership.pdf
Manwaring, R. (2010). Restructuring `restructuring': Improving
interventions in low-performing schools and districts.
Education Sector Reports. Retrieved June 4, 2010, from http://
www.educationsector.org/research/research--show.htm?doc--
id=1208019
Travers, J., & Christiansen, B. (2010). Strategic staffing for
successful schools: Breaking the cycle of failure in Charlotte-
Mecklenburg Schools. Washington, DC: Aspen Institute and
Education Resource Strategies. Retrieved June 4, 2010, from:
http://erstrategies.org/documents/pdf/CMS--case--study--
APR16.pdf
______
Responses From Mr. King to Questions Submitted
In my experience it takes about 3 years to turn a school around. It
takes one or two years to change the momentum. By the second or third
year, you should have significant progress on the indicators. However,
it may take several more years to get the school up to where it needs
to be. I am definitely concerned about an all or nothing system. If the
school is making good progress, it should be monitored to make sure the
improvement continues, but not forced to make drastic changes, like
selecting a new principal, reconstitution, etc. You are correct in
asserting that the changes and strategies need time to work.
The accountability system needs to give credit for progress., both
progress with individual students who have serious deficits and
progress for campuses that have serious deficits. Also the focus needs
to be broader. Many of the issues involved in campus performance are at
the district level.
______
Responses From Mr. Silver to Questions Submitted
1. How long does it take to turn around a school?
2. What are your suggestions for an accountability system that is
not all or nothing--one that allows schools to implement turnaround
strategies and gives the strategies sufficient time to work, yet still
ensures that schools are making progress?
Question 1: How long does it take to turn around a school?
This is an excellent question. There is no one answer, but here are
a few factors to consider that may increase or decrease the amount of
time that is realistic, yet ambitious.
Think College Now has made dramatic gains in student achievement--
but it did not happen overnight; it took time, planning, strategic
hiring and autonomy. It was not until the test results during the end
of year 3 (the third year we took the high-stakes test), that the
school began to make dramatic gains. As illustrated in the power-point
slide, during our first two years, only 8% and 10% respectively were at
benchmark in ELA, which were both below NCLB expected proficiency %'s.
It was not until the third year that the results at the end of the
third year tripled to over 30%, and in the fourth year rose to 49%, and
year six to 66%. Math followed a relatively similar trajectory. Over
the first two years, only 23% and 33% respectively were at benchmark,
which were near the NCLB expected proficiency expectations. It was not
until the third year that the results at the end of the third year rose
over 50%, and year six to 81%. What a shame it would have been if
people would have closed our doors after year 3 (as the results of that
year did not come out until that year was already over) because we
lagged behind NCLB percentages.
In addition, through the small autonomous schools movement, for the
first few years we were provided the necessary conditions--staffing,
budget and curriculum and assessment autonomy. We also had over a year
to design our small school in collaboration with families, educators
and the community. Bottom line--while the foundation was there from the
beginning--our collaboration structures, strong culture with a big
goal, and strong family-school partnership--it took us three years to
begin to show gains on the high-stakes test. Therefore, I believe it
takes at least three years, and if you are not provided the necessary
conditions (especially the ability to hire your own staff, control your
budgets, and use standards-aligned assessments, in addition to a
reasonable size), it may take even longer (i.e., 3-5 years).
Question 2. What are your suggestions for an accountability system
that is not all or nothing--one that allows schools to implement
turnaround strategies and gives the strategies sufficient time to work,
yet still ensures that schools are making progress?
As stated above, it takes time. That said, there is urgency for our
students. Therefore, there should be indicators in place during the
first few years that would foreshadow student achievement gains. For
example, observing a school even in year 2, and definitely by year 3,
you should begin to see improvement and increased outcomes in other
areas--i.e., school climate, school culture, partnerships, a unifying
big goal--that are seeds for success. These factors can be measured in
a number of ways--from utilizing survey data (parents, educators, etc.)
as well as observations. Often, you can tell in a few hours if a school
is going in a positive direction from observing the classrooms,
interactions on the yard, in the office as well as during a staff
meeting or a Professional Development session.
Perhaps most important, a system should measure not only absolute
achievement but also student growth in academic outcomes. For example,
while TCN did not make dramatic gains right away, it did make gains in
both math and ELA. Schools should be measured and evaluated even from
the beginning on their ability to make growth on the high-stakes tests.
Another measure that could be used is their growth on interim
assessments during the year, which are aligned with the CST. It is also
important to look holistically at the school's achievement data. For
example, a school that is meeting growth targets in almost all sub-
groups, and has a plan or willingness in a strategy to improve the
outcomes of any sub-groups that are not achieving targets should not be
penalized. In the current system if you meet 24 of 25 outcomes, you did
not meet NCLB. This is not fair, especially if it is an outcome that is
related to measures that may be out of a schools control (i.e., Special
Education students). It is also very important that any legislation
includes students who are recently reclassified (i.e., for the first 3
years) in the ELL percentage so that schools do not have a disincentive
to re-designate ELL students.
In summary, the most important points are to ensure:
Schools have conditions that set themselves up to meet
targets: staffing, budget, curricular and assessment flexibility
Student academic growth should be a factor in meeting
targets in addition to absolute outcomes
Schools have multiple ways to meet targets (i.e., showing
growth and/or meeting absolute outcomes)
Schools have increased absolute accountability over time
(i.e., a school in year 5 should be expected to show higher outcomes
than a school in year 2).
Schools are looked at holistically to ensure that if there
is one area (subject area or sub-group) that is not meeting a target
there is not the same punitive action as one that has the majority of
areas not meeting targets
______
Responses From Mr. Simmons to Questions Submitted
Thank your for your questions related to my testimony at the
Education and Labor Committee Hearing on Turnaround Schools, May 19th.
You asked:
``How long does it take to turn around a school?''
With a highly effective model like the one we use at Strategic
Learning Initiatives (SLI), schools can turnaround in one, two or three
years. The variance is mainly due to the quality of the school's
leadership team and the time it takes to help it become high
performing. For the network of Chicago K-8 schools that we discussed in
the hearing, 3 of the eight schools turned around the first year, 3 the
second and 2 the third.
As my testimony indicated, SLI schools achieve their results at a
fraction of the cost of the turnaround model that removes the staff,
including the principal, before the turnaround is started.
``What are your suggestions for an accountability system
that is not all or nothing--one that allows schools to implement
turnaround strategies and gives strategies sufficient time to work, yet
still ensures that schools are making progress?''
The systemic research shows that the best accountability systems
are those where the decisions are made at the school, and the district
retains the right to change the school leadership if there are serious
problems. This compares to the management system of a holding company.
The people closest to the students have the greatest motivation to
improve the quality of the school and hold each other accountable, as
compared to solely top-down management systems.
Chicago has such a system. It was implemented by the State
legislature in 1988, and helped launch, and sustain, dramatic school
improvement. Scores for schools in the lowest income neighborhoods went
up 150 percent in less than 15 years. In 1999, the St. Paul Minnesota
School Board adopted the Chicago model and increased the reading scores
100 percent in four years, and St. Paul has a 50 percent low-income
population that did not speak English. (See my May 19th Testimony and
my book, Breaking Through: Transforming Urban School Districts, chapter
1.)
Finally, as I indicated in my testimony, we rely heavily on data to
guide instruction and measure progress. The teachers know how much
progress each student is making in reading every seven days so that
they can tell how close the students are to achieving their goals.
______
[Whereupon, at 12:31 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]