INSIGHT—Fall 2005

TEXAS ASSOCIATION OF SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS PROFESSIONAL JOURNAL

FALL 2005

INSIGHT High School Reform

FALL 2005

p. 12

Volume 20

p. 25

No. 2 FEATURED ARTICLES

p. 20 It Takes More than Pressure to Improve Failing High Schools

12

by Pedro Noguera Emphasizes that without a serious effort to address underlying causes of school failure, even extreme measures will not produce the higher achievement and better schools that policy makers and the general public seek

Systems Leadership in Reducing School Dropouts

16

by John R. Hoyle and Virginia Collier Highlights a study of innovative efforts grouped into six categories to help stem the dropout tide, including 38 strategies identified by central office administrators in 10 urban districts

p. 16 How Can High School Teachers Promote Authentic Student Engagement?

The Answer Rests in the Quality of Classroom Questioning

20

by Jackie Acree Walsh and Beth Dankert Sattes Encourages consistent use of quality questions and research-based questioning strategies as tools to engage learners in activities that will increase both their joy in learning and their academic achievement

Try Another Way: 10 Practical Strategies to Make High Schools Work

25

by Stephen White Offers 10 “Try Another Way” strategies as practical ways to change classroom practice in today’s comprehensive high school which can be applied immediately to help reform schools and close learning gaps

FALL 2005

3

Officers DEPARTMENTS Upcoming Events at TASA

6

President’s Message

9

Executive Director’s View

11

Book Review:

30

Failure is NOT an Option

TASA Headquarters Staff Executive Director

Johnny L. Veselka

Associate Executive Director, Administrative Services

Paul Whitton, Jr.

Assistant Executive Director, Communications & Information Systems

Ann M. Halstead Emmy Starr

Editorial Coordinator

Karen Limb

INSIGHT

Executive Committee Arturo Guajardo, Pharr-San Juan-Alamo ISD, 1 Henry Herrera, Alice ISD, 2 Larry W. Nichols, Calhoun County ISD, 3 Rick Schneider, Pasadena ISD, 4 Gail Krohn, Nederland ISD, 5 VACANT, 6 Mary Ann Whiteker, Hudson ISD, 7 Eddie Johnson, Harts Bluff ISD, 8 John Baker, Seymour ISD, 9 H. John Fuller, Wylie ISD, 10 Jerry Roy, Lewisville ISD, 11 George Kazanas, China Spring ISD, 12 Ryder F. Warren, Marble Falls ISD, 13 Rick Howard, Comanche ISD, 14 Alan Richey, Bronte ISD, 15 VACANT, 16 Mike Motheral, Sundown ISD, 17 Michael Downes, Big Spring ISD, 18 Paul L. Vranish, Tornillo ISD, 19 John Folks, Northside ISD, 20

At-Large Members

Design/Production

INSIGHT is published triannually (spring/summer, fall, and winter) by the Texas Association of School Administrators, 406 East 11th Street, Austin, Texas, 78701-2617. Subscription is included in TASA membership dues. © 2005 by TASA. All rights reserved. TASA members may reprint articles in limited quantities for in-house educational use. Articles in INSIGHT are expressions of the author or interviewee and do not necessarily represent the views or policies of TASA. Advertisements do not necessarily carry the endorsement of the Texas Association of School Administrators. INSIGHT is printed by Thomas Graphics, Austin, Texas.

4

Alton J. Fields, President, Pleasanton ISD Kay Waggoner, President-Elect , Grapevine-Colleyville ISD Thomas E. Randle, Vice President, Lamar CISD Michael Hinojosa, Past President, Dallas ISD

Robert Duron, Socorro ISD Adrain Johnson, La Marque ISD Patricia Linares, Fort Worth ISD Alicia Thomas, North East ISD

Editorial Advisory Committee Alton J. Fields, Pleasanton ISD, chair Jerry D. Christian, Alamo Heights ISD Robert J. Duron, Socorro ISD Fred Hartmeister, Texas Tech University Jim Hawkins, Killeen ISD Mike Motheral, Sundown ISD Alicia H. Thomas, North East ISD Kay E. Waggoner, Grapevine-Colleyville ISD

Upcoming Events at TASA Excerpts from TASA’s Professional Development Calendar For more information about any of these workshops/trainings, please call TASA, 800-725-8272, or go online at www.TASAnet.org

Starting in

September Improved Questioning Three-Day Training-ofTrainers Seminar with Jackie Walsh and Beth Sattes g Who Should Attend • Curriculum and Instruction Specialists • Staff Development Providers • Principals • Teacher Leadership Teams g What You Learn • To restructure classrooms to make the learning environment more active, more student-centered, more constructivist, more inquirybased, and more metacognitive—in other words, more engaging to all students, especially those in the NCLB subgroups • To understand the theory and practice of effective questioning • September 26–28, 2005 or • June 7–9, 2006

Mentoring the Reflective Principal: Collaborative Approaches to Impact Student Achievement

Just for the Kids School Improvement Model: A Bridge from Accountability to Improvement

Seminar Series with Carolyn Downey

Three-Part Series

g Who Should Attend • Superintendents • District-level Curriculum and Instruction Administrators • Principals • Team—Principal Supervisor and 2 or 3 Principals g What You Learn • Role of the supervisors and other district-level staff in mentoring principals—monthly supervisors’ school visitation • Feeder school principals’ joint academic goals and interventions • Approach to writing/reviewing school improvement plans • Supervisor/feeder school principals’ collaborative examination of classroom practices through observations, calibration, and aggregating the data • Team approach for working with low-performing schools • Listening to the voice of your principals • • • •

6

INSIGHT

October 6–7, 2005 November 10–11, 2005 January 19–20, 2006 February 16–17, 2006

g Who Should Attend • District Leadership Teams • School Leadership Teams g What You Learn Part One (October 18–19, 2005) • Using JFTK School Reports to Guide Improvement • Studying the Practices of High-Performing School Systems Part Two (November 14–15, 2005) • Learning Lessons from HighPerformers • Comparing Your System Practices to High-Performing Systems

The Structure of Knowledge & ConceptBased Curriculum: Teaching for Deep Understanding Two-Day Training-ofTrainers Seminar with H. Lynn Erickson g Who Should Attend • Curriculum Leaders • Curriculum Development Teams Prerequisite: Prior Erickson workshop experience g What You Learn • Key Points supporting each training component • How to evaluate and guide the writing of clear and powerful conceptual, enduring understandings • October 20–21, 2005 • January 23–24, 2006

Part Three (March 2, 2006) • Developing a Targeted Improvement Plan • October 18–19, 2005 • November 14–15, 2005 • March 2, 2006

Specific locations and more info available at www.TASAnet.org!

Using Curriculum Design and Deep Alignment to Enhance Student Achievement Two and One-Half Day Seminar with Betty Steffy and Fenwick English g Who Should Attend • Superintendents • Deputy/Assistant Superintendents • Curriculum Specialists g What You Learn • Basic premises of curriculum alignment • Basic premises underlying deep alignment • How to write objectives with content and context deep alignment • How to write parallel test items that match released test items • How to examine instructional resources for topological and deep alignment • How to develop a curriculum design plan

Assessment FOR Learning: An Introduction for Leaders One-Day Seminar with Jan O’Neill g • • • •

Who Should Attend District Leadership Teams Principals Campus Leadership Teams Aspiring Administrators

g What You Learn • Introduction to Rick Stiggins’ Assessment FOR Learning approach • Clarification on the need for a balanced assessment system • Features of high-quality classroom assessments • Leader’s role in promoting assessment literacy • October 27, 2005 • March 7, 2006 • May 11, 2006

Creating Strategic Performance Systems

14th Annual First-time Superintendents’ Academy

Five-Day Internal Facilitator Institute with The Cambridge Group

Four Academy Sessions led

by Experienced Superintendents and Other Practitioners

g Who Should Attend • Superintendents • District Designee for Internal Facilitator g What You Learn • To facilitate your organization’s strategic planning process • To apply the Cambridge planning discipline • To gather vital data, as well as write and critique actual strategic plans • To access available support from The Cambridge Group, TASA, and AASA

• October 31–November 4, 2005 • May 1–5, 2006

g Who Should Attend • First- and Second-Year Superintendents g What You Learn • Effective superintendent practices • School law • Contract negotiations • Facility planning • School finance and budgeting • Time management • Technology leadership • Instructional leadership • Productive superintendent/ board relations • November 1–3, 2005 (Session Two)

• October 24–26, 2005

Leadership FOR Excellence in Assessment One-Day Seminar with Steve Chappuis (Rick Stiggins’ Assessment Training Institute) g • • • •

Who Should Attend Superintendents Deputy and/or Assistant Superintendents Directors of Research and Evaluation Directors of Assessment

g • • • •

What You Learn Roadblocks to effective assessment and how to overcome them Assessment competencies required of administrators Tools to help build an assessment-literate school culture What is necessary to merge a local assessment system with one in place at the state level

• November 15, 2005 • November 17, 2005

FALL 2005

7

Learn, Unlearn, and Relearn PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE “The illiterate of the year 2010 will not be the individual who cannot

High schools have been transformed in our lifetime from institutions that prepared most students for unskilled manual labor and prepared a few students for college to institutions that prepare students for lifetime learning. The average employee in America today will have 12–15 jobs within his/her working career, 5–7 of them by the time he/she is 30. Sixty percent of today’s high school students will go into jobs that do not yet exist. How do we prepare them for that? The illiterate of the year 2010 will not be the individual who cannot read and write, but the one who cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn.

Education and training will never end for today’s student. The major technological advances of our age require constant re-tooling, re-training, and re-thinking. Our nation will need a work force that can keep up with the changes. Pay will be based not on longevity, but on skills and performance and team work, team work, team work!

Who will the successful workers be? Those who can communicate, solve problems, and continue to learn, and those with positive attitudes who can lead as well as follow. People who are willing to “go where the work is.” Those who are responsible and adaptable and who are willing to take risks.

read and write, but the one who cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn.”

In addition to the basic skills, the SCANS report from the U.S. Department of Labor identifies five essential competencies required of our nation’s workforce: •

Workers need to know how to identify, organize, plan, and allocate resources—time, money, materials, space, and staff.

•

Workers need interpersonal skills to work effectively in diverse teams. They need to be able to teach others, serve customers, lead, and negotiate.

•

Workers need to manage the vast amount of information available. They must learn to acquire and evaluate data, organize information, and interpret and communicate information effectively.

•

Workers need to understand complex inter-relationships including social, organizational, and technological systems. They must be able to monitor and correct the performance of systems.

•

Workers need to work with a variety of technologies—select appropriate equipment and tools and maintain and troubleshoot them.

Any high school reform effort we tackle as a state and a nation must have at its core the development of these competencies. “Preparing a student for a career today is like preparing him for another planet,” according to Alvin Toffler, author of Future Shock. If we are really being asked to prepare students for jobs that do not even exist today then we must prepare them to “learn, unlearn, and relearn.”

FALL 2005

9

Accepting the Challenges of Leadership EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S VIEW “Already having one of the strongest convention programs ever, we have added a number of special sessions to assist school districts in serving the needs of students affected by Hurricane Katrina. . . ”

The beginning of the 2005-06 school year has been unlike any other. The devastation along the Gulf Coast has produced new challenges for Texas schools; educators throughout the state have accepted these challenges, embracing thousands of students forced to evacuate their homes in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama. We are all proud of the work that is being done and commend TASA members all over Texas for meeting the needs of these students.

During the past year, much of our attention has been devoted to the legislative debate on school finance, education reform, and tax relief. As a result of the Legislature’s inability to address the school finance issue, our attention is now turned to the Texas Supreme Court and we await their decision on this critical issue. We are hopeful of an early decision that will guide legislators toward the development of a funding system that addresses the core principles of adequacy, equity, and capacity.

TASA is committed to supporting Texas public schools to maintain the focus on student learning that results in high academic achievement for all. Your membership enables us to provide up-to-date information on current legislative and state policy issues, and advocacy on critical issues affecting schools and our members, as well as outstanding professional development opportunities for continuous improvement. Over the past year, TASA has established a key partnership with the Schlechty Center, creating a Standard-Bearer Network for Texas Schools and other opportunities for school leaders to develop the capacities needed to meet the multiple challenges facing our schools. In late fall, we will co-sponsor a Leadership Summit that is focused on models of successful school reform for secondary schools. Our professional development calendar is full of timely topics, seminars, and institutes that will enable your success.

As we approach the annual TASB/TASA Convention, we remain focused on helping you address both your immediate and long-term challenges. The convention provides an important opportunity for superintendents, school board members, and other school leaders to discuss important education issues. Already having one of the strongest convention programs ever, we have added a number of special sessions to assist school districts in serving the needs of students affected by Hurricane Katrina. The TASB/TASA Convention has always provided a forum for school leaders to build relationships, learn from one other, address critical education topics, and gather information about valuable school products and services. We are confident that the 2005 Convention will be no different and will provide valuable support to TASA members, school board members, and other local school leaders. We look forward to your participation in TASA programs and services throughout the year.

FALL 2005

11

“We already know that we will fail the exam because two-thirds of our students don’t speak English…”

It Takes More than Pressure to Improve Failing High Schools

by Pedro Noguera I recently visited a “failing” high school in Miami.

Actually, it might be called a double failure because in 2003 the school received an “FF” rating from the state because the majority of its students had received failing scores on the Florida Comprehensive Achievement Test (FCAT) for two consecutive years. I visited just before it was scheduled to take the state exam again and when I asked the school principal what would happen if the school received another failing score, he replied “We already know that we will fail the exam because two-thirds of our students don’t speak English; they just arrived in the country from Haiti.

We will fail again and then we will be an “FFF” school. The state is supposed to take over “FFF” schools, but I’m not worrying about that.”

W

hen I asked why he wasn’t worried he elaborated, “I’m not worried because I’m leaving this job. I’m tired of being humiliated. We work hard here—the faculty is dedicated and gives its all, and the kids are great. They try their best and we have very few behavior problems. They just can’t be expected to pass an exam in a language they don’t understand. The worst thing about this is 12

INSIGHT

the state doesn’t have any suggestions for what we should do differently. They’re just applying the pressure, and I’m fed up with it.”

Florida is not alone in pursuing this type of approach to “helping” struggling schools. The drive to establish higher academic standards through the use of standardized tests has swept the country, and since the adoption of the federal No Child Left Behind (NCLB) law, students in all 50 states are now required to take exams in grades 4 and 8 as a means of ensuring school accountability. Some states, such as Florida, Massachusetts, New York, and Texas, have taken NCLB a step further and require students to pass high-stakes exit exams, which are typically taken in grade 10, before they are allowed to graduate. If the U.S. Department of Education has its way, high school students throughout the nation will eventually be required to pass exit exams before they are allowed to graduate. As a result of this prospect, considerable attention has now focused upon high schools and the need to ensure that they will be able to meet this new academic challenge.

Schools like the one I visited in Miami provide a clear picture of the limitations of this approach to school improvement. Even with the threat of state intervention hanging over their heads, there was little reason to believe that it would find ways to escape the “FFF” rating.

This was not because the staff was lazy or ambivalent about raising the achievement of its students or because the students themselves were unable to learn. In fact, all evidence suggested the opposite.

Teachers and administrators at the school were making a concerted effort to meet student needs—offering extra test preparation classes after school; providing intensive English language instruction; and

doing what they could to keep students, many of whom had failed the exam twice already, from becoming discouraged and dropping out. The principal who told me that he would be leaving the school and the profession at the end of the year because he was “tired of being beaten down,” was described by everyone I interviewed as dedicated, hard working, and committed. However, despite its best efforts, the school had not found a way to provide its students with the language skills needed in time to pass an exam in English. This was not merely a matter of working hard. Research on language acquisition shows that many English language learners require several years to read and write at the high school level and master academic English (Rosaldo and Flores 1997).

What’s at Stake in the Use of High-Stakes Exams Does a policy that has the unintended effect of driving away good teachers and administrators, and denying students who have not been prepared the opportunity to earn a high school diploma and have a chance to enroll in college, make sense? Is the state of Florida, or for that matter Texas or any other state that adopts a similar policy, better off by imposing such “tough standards”?

In 2002, after Massachusetts implemented its first high-stakes exam, the consequences of raising standards and increasing accountability before any serious effort was made to improve struggling schools became painfully evident. More than 5,000 students who met all of the requirements for graduation but failed the state exam were denied diplomas. Ironically, most state leaders and major media outlets viewed the results as a victory, a sign that the state was finally “getting tough” with failing schools. However, a closer look at the students who failed suggests that perhaps the

See Pedro Noguera at the reason why so many public officials TASB/TASA Convention this year! could be satisfied with such dismal results is because the students who failed were in effect considered expendable. One-third of the students who failed the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment of Students (MCAS) were identified as learning disabled and in need of Special Education. Another third were students who the state identified as English Language Learners because they had not yet mastered academic English. Finally, the remaining third were students who came from schools that the state knew beforehand were so poor that the vast majority of their students would not pass the exam, in part because they lacked teachers who were qualified to teach core subjects, particularly in math. The overwhelming majority of the students who failed were poor and minority. How could their failure be regarded as a policy victory?

What makes this strategy particularly questionable is the fact that the record of state takeovers of failing schools and districts is abysmal. In districts such as Compton, CA; Lawrence, MA; Roosevelt, NY; Trenton, NJ; and many others, there is no evidence that state control has led to improvement. Past failure associated with policy measure should serve to remind us that state governments possess no expertise or special remedies for school success that they have been withholding. Without a serious effort to address the underlying causes of school failure, even extreme measures will not produce the higher achievement and better schools that policy makers and the general public seek.

While few can argue against the goal of increasing student achievement, it is not unreasonable to question whether raising standards and increasing school accountability are enough to

FALL 2005

13

improve struggling schools. This is not because there is necessarily anything wrong with doing either, but there is a faulty assumption underlying this approach that is occasionally expressed but more often implied: that schools fail because the staff is lazy and unmotivated, and that what they need to raise achievement is pressure, threats, and even public humiliation. What is particularly disturbing about this approach is that it ignores so many of the obvious things that we know are essential to raising achievement and creating better schools—recruiting skilled teachers, reducing class size, and providing students with academic support through tutoring during and after school (Newman 1992).

While the need for change is clear—too many students are dropping out and leaving school unprepared for either college or work—high schools have proven to be especially difficult to improve. Part of the reason for this is that high schools are steeped in tradition, and these traditions that most affect how they are organized, how instruction is delivered, and how students are treated, are difficult to change (Noguera 2004). Missing from the present policy debate is a well-thought-out approach to tackle these issues, and until such an approach is developed, it is unlikely that we will see widespread improvement, regardless of how much pressure is applied.

Small Schools to the Rescue?

At the present, the most common approach to high school reform is the effort to alter the structure of large comprehensive high schools so that students are assigned to small learning communities instead (Clinchy 2000). With funding from the U.S. Department of Education; the Carnegie Foundation; and most significantly the Gates Foundation, which has invested nearly $1 billion into this effort already, large urban school districts throughout the United States have embarked on an effort to transform American high schools by converting them into small learning communities. In New York City alone, more than $100 million has been allocated in the last three years for the development of new small learning communities. Similar efforts are now underway in Boston, Chicago, Detroit, Houston, and Los Angeles.

The thinking behind this reform is that if schools are smaller, students will benefit from a more personalized learning experience where they are known well by their teachers. The assumption is that by improving teacher-student relationships and decreasing the degree of anonymity in schools, student achievement will increase.

While there is some research available supporting this approach to school improvement (Fine 2002; Wasley 1998), most of this research is based either upon broad comparisons of student graduation rates and test scores, or qualitative data obtained from individual schools.

There is surprisingly relatively little research showing how or why small schools may be more effective, and very little guidance available for educators who are leading these types of change efforts on how to carry out these types of reforms.

Anyone familiar with the way schools work understands that the theory underlying the small school movement is fairly weak. Just because the size of a school is reduced, it does not necessarily mean that relations between adults and students will improve. Moreover, even if relationships between students and teachers improve, it does not guarantee that there will be an improvement in student achievement. The biggest challenge facing high schools is how to reduce 14

INSIGHT

“There is surprisingly relatively little research showing how or why small schools may be more effective, and very little guidance available for educators who are leading these types of change efforts on how to carry out these types of reforms.”

the boredom and alienation that is prevalent among students (Steinberg 1996). This is not an argument against small schools, but it does suggest that unless more is done to improve teaching and learning there is little reason to believe that making schools smaller will make them better.

Current data from New York City shows that the new small schools have an attendance rate of 89 percent compared to 80 percent at traditional high schools (NY Times, August 8, 2005). There is also anecdotal evidence that relationships between students and teachers are better at smaller schools, and that schools themselves are safer and more orderly. There is good reason to give these reforms the time needed to show results, rather than moving quickly to abandon this effort. However, the question before educators and policy makers is how much time will be needed to show results with the pressures associated with NCLB already hanging over us?

The clearest evidence that more is needed to improve student outcomes is the large number of poorly performing small schools that are already in existence. Throughout the country, many school districts already operate a number of small high schools, either for special populations, including at-risk students, or students enrolled in vocational programs, but few of these serve as models of school reform. Understanding why such schools have not succeeded in meeting student needs should be at least one of the questions asked before too much money or effort is invested in sweeping, costly reforms.

Getting to the Heart of the Matter: The Need to Transform School Cultures Missing from most of the most popular approaches to school reform are well-developed strategies for changing the culture of schools. By culture I am referring to the attitudes, beliefs, norms, and sense of mission that underlie the character of a school. School culture relates to the climate or atmosphere under which teaching and learning occur, and it is also about the nature and quality of relationships between adults and students within a school. Yale psychologist Seymour Sarason argued many years ago that school reform efforts were bound to fail if they ignored culture and only focused upon altering structure or curriculum (1971). Other researchers on school reform have come to similar conclusions (Perry, et. al. 2003; Wagner 1998). In addition to relationships, school culture also pertains to the mission of a school; the explicit and implicit message students receive about the purpose of education. Such a message is important for countering the distractions that may discourage students from taking school seriously (Steinberg 1996), the racial stereotypes that may undermine their confidence to succeed (Steele 1997), and the need to develop identities that enable students to see themselves as intellectuals (Noguera 2004).

Many reformers shy away from focusing on school culture because the concept seems too ambiguous. Unlike school structure, which is concrete and tangible, it can be difficult to measure progress when one is attempting to transform a school’s culture. Changing a course

schedule, reorganizing a grade configuration, or devising a new approach to assigning students to clusters within a school all lead to clear, identifiable changes in a school. Getting teachers to display greater interest in their students—to modify their approach to teaching so that they become more effective at meeting the learning needs of students—and getting students to take their education more seriously are harder to achieve and bring about. However, administrators who ignore the need to bring about such changes run the risk of engaging in reforms that produce superficial change, at best, but that do not result in a significant and sustained improvement in the academic outcomes of students.

No Child Left Behind has succeeded in getting schools to focus more intently on the need to improve student achievement. By requiring schools and districts to report test scores and disaggregate the results by various recognized subgroups, the law has also succeeded in making districts accountable for the performance of their neediest students. Only the most cynical critics can argue against the merits of these aspects of the law. However, for schools like the one I visited in Miami, with a longterm record of poor performance, at least as measured by standardized test scores, more than just pressure will be needed to help them to improve.

We must keep in mind that there is a large number of failing schools throughout the nation. By some estimates, these schools make up nearly one-third of the high schools in the United States, and they disproportionately serve the poorest and most vulnerable students (Cuban and Tyack 1995). Such schools need more than just pressure to improve; they need a total change in culture and they need real help.

Pedro Noguera is a professor in the Steinhardt School of Education at New York University.

REFERENCES Cuban, L. and D. Tyack (1995). Tinkering Toward Utopia (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Clinchy, E. (ed.) (2000). Creating New Schools: How Small Schools Are Changing American Education. New York: Teachers College Press.

Hillard, S. (2005). “In New York’s Inaugural Smaller Schools, ‘Good Year and a Tough Year.’” New York Times, August 8.

Newman, F. (1992). Student Engagement and Achievement in American Secondary Schools. New York: Teachers College Press.

T. Perry, A. Hilliard, and C. Steele (2002). Young Gifted and Black.

Rosaldo, R. and W. Flores (1997). “Identity, Conflict, and Evolving Latino Communities: Cultural Citizenship in San Jose, California” in Latino Cultural Citizenship, edited by William Floores and Rina Benmayor. Boston: Beacon Press.

Sarason, S. (1971). The Culture of the School and the Problem of Change. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Steele, C. (1997). “A Threat in the Air: How Stereotypes Shape Intellectual Identity and Performance”. American Psychologist, June Steinberg L. (1996). Beyond the Classroom. New York: Simon and Schuster.

FALL 2005

15

Systems Leadership in Reducing School Dropouts

by John R. Hoyle and Virginia Collier

School district CEOs are looking for ways to reduce the number of youth who drop out of school and fail to achieve the American dream. Researcher J. P. Green reported that 50 of the largest districts have a high school graduation rate ranging from 28 to 87 percent.

To confront these alarming statistics, beleaguered urban school executives are turning to systems leadership strategies to engage community, state and national agencies, foundations, and government in sharing the burden of keeping youth in school.

T

o aid school executives in strengthening systems leadership skills, the American Association of School Administrators created a Center for Systems Leadership. The Center is to help school system executives face multiple and competing systems (education, health, social services, corporate venture) and engage them in helping America’s youth find success in public education. A primary goal of the Center for Systems Leadership is to assist systems leaders to “help reach the achievement of universal proficiency” in public education. Systems leadership development could provide support to help school executives create alternative curricula and programs that meet the varied educational, social, economic, and personal needs of adolescents who have lost hope in earning a high school diploma.

According to Debra Viadero of Education Week, Tom Payzant, superintendent of the Boston Public Schools, is applying systems leadership with plans to restructure grades 9–12 to battle the ninth grade “enrollment bulge” in order to increase retention and the number of students earning high school diplomas. Payzant and other school executives find that more rigorous course requirements for graduation and growing devotion to “high stakes” exams for admission to the tenth grade are the primary road blocks for students caught in the ninth grade.

According to Viadero, the “ninth grade enrollment bulge has nearly tripled since the late 1960s.” While observers call this bulge a “national emergency,” district school leaders are seeking resources to initiate special academies, reading clinics, tutorials, and other strategies that focus on study skills and career education alternatives for ninth graders. These innovative efforts to retain students through high school, however, may be too few and too late for many students in America’s larger school districts.

To seek solutions to these troubling issues, this study was designed to gain a baseline grasp of the importance of dropout prevention in urban districts as reflected in the systems leadership strategies and actions of CEO superintendents. A personal conversation was held with the central office administrators identified as leading dropout strategies in the following 10 districts.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

16

INSIGHT

Colorado Springs District #11 Dallas Independent School District Los Angeles Unified School District Miami-Dade County Public Schools Oklahoma City Schools Sacramento Unified School District San Antonio Independent School District San Francisco Unified School District Salt Lake City Schools Tulsa Public Schools

The focus of this study was not how the district computed dropouts, which is an admittedly controversial issue; the district’s dropout rate, which is equally as controversial due to varying definitions; or the district’s full array of strategies for addressing dropouts. The focus was the strategies the districts saw as their frontline of attack in reducing dropouts as perceived by the person responsible for overseeing the effort at the district level by asking “What is your district doing to address dropouts?” and accepting what was stated in conversations of usually 30 minutes or less.

Findings Thirty-eight strategies for dropout prevention are referenced in this study. Some are identifiable by a program name, such as Professional Learning Communities, ranging from new commercial programs to efforts that have been used for years but are being reworked or reemphasized to increase effectiveness. The majority were considered to be dropout prevention programs. References to “recovery programs” occurred in only two districts. The district spokespersons in those two districts mentioned their superintendents as taking a specific interest in reducing dropouts and their boards as adopting dropout recovery as a primary goal. These spokespersons also seemed to have dropouts as their primary concern, as opposed to spokespersons whose discussions indicated their multiple other responsibilities or divisions in who was responsible for certain dropout strategies.

Three districts referenced formal dropout plans. In one, the board established an ad hoc committee of district administrators,

teachers, outside agencies, and parents to develop goals and objectives to review and recommend dropout initiatives. In another, an inclusive district/community/parent committee focused on the 15 strategies identified by the National Dropout Prevention Center. When the committee determined a strategy was not adequately addressed in the district, plans were made to address the need.

Strategies The 38 strategies identified by district spokespersons have been grouped into six categories: (1) punishments and incentives, (2) personnel, (3) targeted programs, (4) alternative schools, (5) community involvement, and (6) instructional strategies. Because of their diverse purpose and function, alternative schools are listed under punishment and incentives as well as in a separate category.

Punishments and incentives. Punishments and incentives were linked to the use of alternative schools in six districts. Alternative schools designed to encourage and entice students to remain in school were mentioned by five of the six districts and offered benefits such as flexible hours, compacted opportunities to earn credits, focus on special interests, and convenient locations. In Texas, disciplinary alternative campuses seemed to be the predominant use of alternative schools, which is probably due to the inability to expel students. In most of the districts, alternative schools of choice appeared to be numerous with alternative disciplinary campuses referenced only briefly.

FALL 2005

17

Five districts referenced the criminal justice system in some way New positions were being created for the purpose of addressing when discussing their dropout strategies. City and county courts dropouts in a small number of districts. In one district, dropout prewere mentioned with the greatest frequency. In California, there vention consultants were created with a federal grant. The primary appears to be a strong relationship between school districts and the activity of these new campus-based consultants is to organize a coordistrict attorneys, as Los Angeles and San Francisco Unified dination of services teams. These teams meet frequently and include Districts were the only districts to reference a strong relationship an “administrator with the power to make decisions” along with varwith district attorneys. In addition to mentions of the judicial sysious other district and campus personnel. Some form of this idea of tem, references to relationships with local judges and police were also common. Since judges enforce compulsory attendance laws and police assist in appre- “The differences in districts occurred when a decision had been made hending truants, this relationship is to be expected.

Mock truancy courts, “truancy sweeps,” peer courts, to hold campuses and/or the district itself accountable for doing and truancy centers were given as examples of these something about poor attendance.” relationships. City police departments were mentioned as the administrators of federal grants through the Department of Justice. These grants funded resource officers creating committees of diverse members to address student needs was on campuses. In one district, a federal grant is being used to develmentioned in about one-third of the districts. op strategies for keeping youth in school and turning them away from truancy and crime.

Another growing trend seemed to be the dedication of a personnel unit on the high school campuses in order to address dropouts in Only two districts mentioned incentives while eight districts mena structured and coordinated manner. It was interesting that tioned punishments, such as referrals to alternative schools or the school counselors did not seem to be the focus of the dropout precourt systems. While the use of alternative schools could be seen vention counseling programs. School counselors were mentioned as negative or positive, depending on the student’s choice in the only as referring students to varied programs established by police matter, their lack of incentive strategies is somewhat troubling. It departments or health department social workers. must be remembered, however, that this does not mean that incenTargeted programs. All 10 districts mentioned at least one protive programs do not exist in many or even all of the 10 districts. gram targeted at a particular problem or need. Examples are an It does imply, however, that incentive programs are not seen as a after-school program for students in order to provide academic priority in the overall strategies being used to address dropouts. support and supervision until parents are available. Other targetPersonnel. Personnel are used to identify any strategy that ed programs addressed anger management, anti-harassment, gang involved a position designated to dropouts or a strategy that was prevention, substance abuse, and truancy. Many of these profocused on involving people. In this category, parental involvegrams were being conducted in cooperation with state health ment was the most frequently mentioned strategy. The most comagencies or local police departments. Addressing more personal mon reference was to parental involvement at the elementary level. dropout-related student problems were the programs providing At the secondary level, parent involvement was more likely to be homebound and hospital services. linked with the legal system. The focus seemed to be educating parents about the law in regard to compulsory attendance and Reconnection centers for dropout recovery and transition support excused absences through automatic letters sent after a certain for students moving into middle school and high school are also number of absences to compulsory attendance at forums held by examples of targeted programs. Given the enrollment “bulge” in the district attorney’s office. the ninth grade, transition strategies for students moving into high The keeping of attendance is always linked to a personnel unit. The differences in districts occurred when a decision had been made to hold campuses and/or the district itself accountable for doing something about poor attendance. The use of attendance data appeared to be the most evolving issue in the districts. If the responsibility remained on the campuses, the district might be more clearly designating an administrator who was responsible not just for monitoring and reporting attendance but also for improving attendance. At either the district or campus level, a designated individual responsible for attendance was spoken of as a new position or a new focus for an existing position. It appeared to be the difference between holding the campus accountable for monitoring attendance and assigning an individual the responsibility for attendance.

18

INSIGHT

school have been basic to dropout prevention for some time. As NCLB increases the level of concern regarding dropouts, recovery programs like the reconnection centers mentioned by Dallas ISD are likely to become more visible and important.

Alternative schools. Six districts mentioned alternative schools as one of their strategies for addressing the dropout problem. These alternative schools took varying forms and configurations. The schools ranged from a digital school in a shopping mall to more traditional summer schools, night schools, and work education programs. With the exception of the digital school, no district mentioned alternative schools as being a new initiative. It was clear, however, that plans were being made in several districts to make more attractive alternatives to help hold students in school.

Community involvement. The community involvement examples and community resources mentioned by the districts were placed into three groups—governmental bodies, private companies, and nonprofit organizations. The most frequently mentioned governmental bodies were branches of the criminal justice system. Police departments, constables, city and county attorneys, and judges were referred to repeatedly as key elements in dropout strategies.

State and federal governments were referenced in regard to grants that had been awarded to individual districts as well as targeted services provided by branches of the government. In addition, collaborations with other school districts were mentioned. For example, several districts join together to provide night schools in Colorado Springs.

Mentoring programs also involve private businesses. An example is the mentors provided to San Antonio ISD by USAA Insurance.

In addition, local businesses and police provided some mentors while others came from faith-based organizations. The Sacramento schools are supported by a Carnegie grant for Linking Education and Economic Development. Nonprofit organizations were the third type of support provided by communities. Big Brothers, Big Sisters, Boys and Girls Club, Boys and Girls Town, and Fathers and Sons were mentioned as organizations primarily involved in prevention and tutoring.

mentioned in passing. The hope is that the activity in the house will cause the skunk to leave without ever having to undertake a skunk removal initiative. If the skunk decides to take up permanent residence or leave a lasting impression, however, immediate steps must be taken for its removal. CEOs are aware of the damage caused by dropouts and are beginning to address the problem aggressively with new strategies and the strengthening of old strategies. In districts where dropouts are a high priority, CEOs are displaying systems leadership to collaborate with community, state and federal agencies, and individuals to create strategies and assign specific responsibilities for dropouts at the district level.

The authors recommend that superintendents assume strong leadership by designating an individual as coordinator of dropout prevention to encourage a systems approach beginning in elementary schools. In districts where the dropout focus is less intense, systems leadership appears limited since no district plan was referenced that focused on dropouts. It is important to conclude that the absence of a mention of any individual strategy does not mean that a strategy does not exist in all of the districts interviewed. The intent of this study was to get a snapshot of what was first on the minds of district spokespersons with the assumption that these were the strategies receiving the most attention. In this regard, we were successful. Perhaps some of the strategies referenced may assist other district CEOs and their communities in enhancing their own noble efforts in stemming the dropout tide.

John Hoyle is professor of educational administration and Virginia Collier is clinical associate professor at Texas A&M University.

Instructional programs. Instructional programs are the final category of strategies. No typical academic programs were mentioned, but mentoring and tutoring programs were mentioned as being in place to help students in both the elementary and secondary schools. Professional learning communities were a strategy mentioned in one district. These learning communities were described as systematic approaches to dealing with troubled kids rather than relying on the individual teachers. The strategies of Ruby Payne regarding children of color and poverty were also mentioned as being helpful by another district. In addition, several districts specifically mentioned seeking ways to increase understandings regarding immigrant students, particularly from Mexico.

Conclusions None of the 10 districts felt they were meeting all the needs that a successful dropout program would require. All spokespersons seemed to be aware that the dropout problem is the skunk under the porch. Everyone knows it’s there, but it’s rarely seen and only

FALL 2005

19

How Can High School Teachers Promote Authentic Student Engagement?

The Answer Rests in the Quality of Classroom Questioning

by Jackie Acree Walsh and Beth Dankert Sattes Which of the following type of student response to classroom tasks, assignments, and work would you most like to observe in your school? (a) authentic engagement, (b) ritual engagement, (c) passive compliance, (d) retreatism, (e) rebellion (Schlechty, 2002)?

Did you respond “authentic engagement?” This preferred response seems obvious. How would you have responded had the stem read: “Which of the following type of student response to classroom tasks, assignments, and work do you most often observe in your school?” Few of us could have answered this second question in the preferred manner. Moreover, according to Phil Schlechty (2002), who created this typology of student behaviors, “many of the strategies that are being advanced to improve test scores are nothing more than efforts to increase passive compliance and ritual engagement and decrease retreatism and rebellion” (p. 4).

Schlechty, who holds that authentic engagement occurs when the “result or outcome has clear meaning and relatively immediate value to the student” (p. 1), advocates for authentic engagement and suggests that Working on the Work is the avenue to authentic engagement and improved student performance.

Potentially profitable areas for teacher work are classroom questions.

Teacher questions are the most common or familiar task confronted by most high school students—both written test questions as well as oral questions posed day in and day out as a part of instruction. In fact, for over more than a century of classroom observations, researchers have consistently found that most teachers use an average of 40 percent of instructional time for some type of question-response session (Walsh & Sattes, 2002, p. 24). This is not a bad thing because questions promote a plethora of valid instructional purposes, including focusing of attention, motivation of students, information processing, checking for understanding, drill and practice, and many more.

The problem resides in the significant gap between best practice in teacher and student questioning and actual practice. The substantial research base on effective questioning provides us with a set of guidelines that can lead to improved practice and an increase in authentic student engagement.

Over the past 15 years, we have been working with teachers to enhance questioning practices in their classrooms with the goal of 20

INSIGHT

improving student learning and thinking through a professional learning process called Questioning and Understanding to Improve Learning and Thinking (QUILT). QUILT provides a framework for improved questioning that uses five major organizers for teacher and student behaviors: Prepare the Question, Present the Question, Prompt Student Responses, Process Student Responses, and Reflect on Questioning Practice. Our experience in working with both secondary and elementary teachers leads us to conclude that teachers who consistently use the research-based behaviors contained in this framework succeed in improving student engagement in the answering and asking of questions—and in improving their academic performance.

Preparing the Question. Research shows that about 75 to 80 percent of the questions posed in elementary and secondary classrooms are at the knowledge, or recall, level—the lowest cognitive level. However, when students have opportunities to answer higher-level questions, they show an ability to analyze, summarize, and evaluate; they also score better on tests that measure recall and understanding of that content (Gall, 1984; Marzano, Pickering, & Pollock, 2001; Redfield & Rousseau, 1981).

An excellent tool to assist in the preparation of questions that move students to higher levels of questioning is A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives (Krathwohl, et al). This 2001 revision of the original Bloom’s Taxonomy provides a way for thinking about and classifying both the category of knowledge on which the question is to focus as well as the cognitive level. The Taxonomy separates knowledge into four categories: Factual, Conceptual, Procedural, and Metacognitive. It defines six levels of cognitive processing:

Remember, Understand, Apply, Analyze, Evaluate, and Create.

When students are meaningfully engaged in processing questions at the higher levels (i.e., apply and above), they are more likely to become engaged in thinking and to retain the information (Perkins, 2000)—and they are more likely to become authentically engaged in processing and answering the question.

Question formulation involves more than just deciding upon the appropriate level of cognitive processing. Quality questions also focus on content that is aligned with standards and assessment, and they help students connect this content to their own knowledge and experiential base.

Quality questions are also purposeful in that they engage students in cognitive processing appropriate to learning in which they are or can be meaningfully engaged. Questions need to be targeted to a student’s zone of proximal development (ZPD), that band of potential learning falling between what the student has already mastered and what is beyond the student’s current readiness to approach. The ZPD, conceptualized by Vygotsky, provides us with a tool for avoiding two extremes of questions, both of which inhibit authentic engagement: (1) questions that are too easy and therefore boring, and (2) questions that are too difficult and hence frustrating. ZPD affords the right amount of challenge, particularly when teachers plan questions that scaffold by helping students use prior knowledge and experiences as bridges to the new and unfamiliar.

Use of the “recitation script” does not preclude teachers from more actively engaging all students in answering all questions.

One simple strategy for increasing engagement is to ask the question before naming a student(s) to answer. Researchers have found that teachers frequently call on a student to answer a question before posing the question, so that most students never formulate a response. However, when teachers pose questions before calling on a student, all students are more likely to pay attention to the question and mentally prepare a response (Barell, 2003; Johnson & Johnson, 1985). Additionally, teachers can

“What exciting times these last two years have been for me! After 24 years of teaching, I am now witnessing a revolution. Let me correct myself, for I am more than a witness; I am a willing participant in this education revolution…I am changing my role from ‘dispenser of all knowledge’ to one of facilitator. I have begun letting my students discover knowledge in their classroom…A singular, very well conceived program has opened up my eyes to all of these possibilities…the QUILT process.”

—Social Studies Teacher, Pulaski County (VA) High School

Formulating quality questions is hard work, but the potential of such questions for engaging students in authentic learning makes the arduous process worthwhile. However, quality questions are only a vehicle for moving student thinking and learning in desired directions. It is when we use research-based strategies to guide and steer this vehicle for learning that we get more students engaged in the journey of learning.

Presenting the Question. Jones (1990) writes: “From an equity perspective, there is concern that a small proportion of students receive five times more interactions than the rest of the class. The fact that teachers have greater expectations for target students raises further concern when not all students are having equal opportunities to participate in class (659).” This is true, in part, because in the majority of American classrooms, the “recitation script” is the dominant form of discourse. In this mode, teachers and students alternate talk that is directed by the teacher’s asking of questions to students who respond with answers that are then evaluated by the teacher. It is in this context that researchers have studied target students—students who dominate classroom interactions and receive a disproportionate amount of the teacher’s attention (Sadker & Sadker; Jones; Tobin & Gallaher). These studies raise troubling questions about differential interaction patterns of students by gender, race, and achievement levels—with white males receiving a significantly higher proportion of classroom interactions. If, as researchers infer, the “essence of learning and teaching [is] to be found in the interaction among students and teachers that constitutes such a large part of classroom activity” (Wells, 3), these equity issues are even more disturbing.

FALL 2005

21

decrease the over-reliance upon “hand-raising” volunteers to answer questions and employ a more varied set of response formats. Most of us are familiar with such alternatives as work samples, signaled responses, and choral responses; however, these are infrequently used in secondary classrooms. When matched with instructional purpose, these simple strategies can markedly increase student engagement. Additionally, there are a variety of structured cooperative response formats that capitalize on the power of peer teaching. In the QUILT training, we explore a variety of these options and encourage teachers to reflect on the appropriateness of these alternatives to different contexts.

Prompting Student Responses. Researchers have found increased engagement and performance in classrooms where teachers communicate to students (1) their expectation that all students formulate an answer to all questions, and (2) their interest in hearing student answers for the purpose of finding out what the students know and think (rather than simply finding someone who can recite the teacher’s answer.) Additionally, there are three discrete teacher behaviors that serve to scaffold and support studentss: wait time 1, teacher cueing and probing, and wait time 2.

Wait times are pauses that provide students with processing time.

Wait time 1 is the time immediately following a teacher’s question before a student is called on to answer. Teachers usually require students to respond almost instantaneously, allowing less than one second for them to process the question and think through their answers before calling on another student. However, in classrooms where teachers wait three to five seconds, students give longer responses, answer more frequently at higher cognitive levels, demonstrate more confidence in their answers, and ask more questions to clarify understanding. Wait time 2 is the time period immediately following a student’s answer before the teacher or another student speaks.

Usually, teachers react immediately to a student’s response, waiting an immeasurably short amount of time before providing feedback or making another instructional move. In classrooms where teachers wait three to five seconds after the initial student response, students answer more completely and correctly, consider responses and draw more conclusions, ask more questions, increase interactions with other students, and demonstrate more confidence in their responses.

(Barnette et al., 1995; Hunkins, 1995; Rowe, 1986; Tobin, 1987).

In short, in classrooms where teachers consistently use wait times 1 and 2, students are more engaged in answering.

Cues and probes are verbal prompts provided by teachers to assist students as they attempt to remember or formulate a higher-level response. Teacher verbal prompts may be offered as emerging questions. They range from very simple hints (cues and clues) designed to spark recall during class recitations to more sophisticated clarifying and probing questions intended to elicit thinking as to why a particular response was offered. These verbal prompts are intended to sustain student thinking and responding. They signal to students that the teacher has an interest in each individual respondent’s answer—not just in getting the teacher’s answer (“the right answer”) on the floor in the shortest time possible.

Failure to use prompts signals that the teacher is ending or closing a student’s response or response turn.

Processing Student Responses. Virginia O’Keefe, a longtime student of language arts classrooms, wrote: “Schools have been designed to meet the needs of a certain class of learners—those for whom passivity is an acceptable way of learning. Quiet classrooms with docile students, dominated by the teacher’s voice, are still perceived as ‘good’ classrooms. That method works for a little over a third of our student population.” These are the type classrooms that breed the “retreatism,” “passive compliance,” or, at best, “ritual engagement” of which Schlechty writes. They are based on the “recitation script,” which has the teacher talking at every turn about his or her questions and answers. They are not inviting of student questions or student interactions one with another. continued on page 24

Using QUILT in the Foreign Language Classroom The knowledge and practice of QUILT behaviors help to establish a classroom atmosphere where every student is expected to participate. No one is "off the hook," and questions are distributed equitably. The seating arrangement of the students is adapted to facilitate communication, and alternative response formats are utilized to enhance participation. Perhaps the most valuable QUILT behaviors in the foreign language classroom are those of Wait Time 1 and Wait Time 2. Each student is expected to develop a covert answer for a teacher-posed question. If, as students are

22

INSIGHT

called on for their responses (in the foreign language), the teacher provides time for the students to think, their responses become more detailed, more personal, and more relevant.

Students who are given Wait Time 2 instead of immediate affirmation of a correct response will often add to it. Other students may piggyback off the initial student response (again, the target language) resulting in authentic communication.

—Teacher, Lumberton (NC) Senior High School

continued from page 22

One powerful teacher strategy for inviting student questions or comments is skillful use of feedback. All student responses offered in the context of a recitation require and deserve the appropriate type of teacher feedback. To withhold feedback from a student’s answer is to devalue that response by ignoring it. Appropriate feedback is governed by the nature of the student response as well as by the classroom context and includes positive, corrective, and negative feedback. Positive feedback confirms the correctness of the student response; corrective feedback communicates that the answer is either incorrect or incomplete and guides the student toward the correct or more complete response; negative feedback simply informs the student that the answer is wrong. Effective feedback can function to keep the class focus upon questions and responses as opposed to the personalities of students offering the answers and can thereby spotlight the academic purposes of class interactions. Properly used, feedback becomes a teaching tool, not just for the responding student but for the class at large. All students profit from feedback that is instructive, instructional, and focused. Further, they learn to listen when teacher feedback is of this nature. Effective feedback keeps the vehicle of learning on track and serves to maintain active student engagement.

Feedback usually functions to close or terminate a student’s answering. This is an important function of feedback during a recitation when pacing is of importance. In this context, feedback serves to inform the student as to the merit of a response. However, during a discussion, where there is no “right” answer, simple feedback can interfere with and even shut down student thinking. In this context, all types of feedback should be used sparingly and carefully.

One purpose of true discussion is to afford students with a climate and the opportunities to develop confidence in their expressions.

Discussion should wean students from dependence upon a teacher’s affirmation or correction and move them toward independence in thinking and expression.

Following the provision of appropriate feedback (or of no feedback in the case of true discussion), the teacher can move the class into what can become the most interesting segment of a questioning episode: the segment during which both the responding student and observing students are invited to extend, expand, or elaborate upon the initial answer or, in the case of responses to divergent questions, to offer alternative responses. Teachers can use the elaboration and redirection techniques to accomplish these ends. Via elaboration, teachers encourage students to expand upon what may have been a correct, but very abbreviated, response. The purpose in elaboration is to engage the student and classmates in a conversation that emerges from the response, to use the response as a springboard for thinking. This may result in a simple broadening of the response at the initial level of cognition, or it may lead students to higher levels of thinking. In either case, teacher and students learn to “piggyback” on initial responses as they enter into meaningful dialogues.

24

INSIGHT

As the dialogue progresses or as a means of increasing the number of student participants in the dialogue, the teacher can redirect the initial question to another student. Redirection involves posing the question in its initial form to someone other than the initial respondent. Obviously, all questions cannot, or should not, be redirected.

Questions that have been correctly and completely answered are not candidates for redirection. On the other hand, questions for which there are multiple correct responses or alternatives invite redirection.

When students perceive the primary purpose of questioning to be the facilitation of learning and the encouragement of thinking, they are more likely to join spontaneously into classroom interactions.

Teacher moves set the climate for questioning. A climate of mutual inquiry, trust, and respect enables students to take risks by offering a different answer or posing a question themselves. On the other hand, a climate of fear or anxiety, where students are thinking, “I hope I won’t be put on the spot today,” suppresses engagement and student questions.

Questioning for Authentic Engagement. If we are to move students toward authentic engagement in classroom discourse, we must encourage consistent use of all of the best practices previously discussed: • Preparation of interesting and engaging questions that invite students to make connections between the content of a given discipline and ideas and issues that are important to them • Creation of inclusive classrooms, where all students are expected and granted opportunities to think about all questions • Provision of scaffolds to support student thinking and responding, including use of the wait times and of cues and probes • Respect for student answers through the provision of appropriate and context-specific feedback • Encouragement of student questions and student-to-student interaction Quality questions and research-based questioning strategies are tools that can be used in every high school classroom to engage learners in activities that will increase both their joy in learning and their academic achievement.

Jackie Acree Walsh (walshja@aol.com) and Beth Danker Sattes (sattesb@ael.org) are co-developers and national trainers for Questioning and Understanding to Improve Learning and Thinking (QUILT), a nationally validated professional development program on effective questioning; co-presenters of a Video Journal in Education series, Questioning to Stimulate Thinking (1999); and co-authors of Inside School Improvement (2000) and Quality Questioning: ResearchBased Strategies to Engage Every Learner (2005). Walsh and Sattes work as senior research and development specialists at Appalachia Educational Laboratory (AEL), an educational research and development corporation located in Charleston WV, 1-800-624-9120, P.O. Box 1348, Charleston, WV 353

Try Another Way: Ten (10) Practical Strategies to Make High Schools Work

By Stephen White From Nation at Risk (1983) to No Child Left Behind in 2005, high schools have consistently been singled out as the educational institution most in need of reform—spawning both genuine reform efforts as well as political hype. The TIMMS study results remind Americans that, while 4th grade students compete reasonably well with their international peers, American 12th-graders finish consistently in the second or third tiers. The public views high schools much differently than they view teachers (Hart & Winston, 2005)—and much less favorably.

Educators are frequently reminded of their glaring flaws, magnified recently by the modest NAEP gains reported at the elementary level. Witness this comment from the National High School Alliance, issued in May 2004: “… [T]he American High School is leaking with the magnitude of the catastrophic Valdez spill.” The message is clear—make wholesale change now; high schools are broken; bulldoze the ‘Shopping Mall High School;’ and do it fast. Re-invent, Re-structure, and Transform—these are the buzzwords being applied to American secondary schools.

The Center for Performance Assessment founded by Douglas Reeves in the early 1990s has established itself as a resource to school districts intent on making such changes in teaching and leadership practice. The experience of the center has been that sustained high school reform is more a function of changes in teaching and learning than wholesale changes in governance, configuration, choice, funding, or licensure. A variety of other reforms have emerged as well that promise a new world order for the American high school. Comprehensive reform models routinely acknowledge specific teaching practices such as data-driven decision making, and the

resulting impact on student writing and the overall influence of quality instruction. However, teaching practices are commonly viewed as the outgrowth of this re-invention and/or transformation, rather than as the antecedent, or cause.

The Texas High School Project distilled high school reform characteristics down to an essential four: rigorous curriculum, leadership building, effective teaching, and the facilitation of multiple pathways to success. Exhibit 1 lists a number of indicators that can be used to measure changes in practice within individual high schools.

FALL 2005

25

Exhibit 1. Indicators to Elements of the Texas High School Project THSP Elements Rigorous Curriculum

Building Leadership

Effective Teachers

Results Indicators • • • •

Increased graduation requirements Standards-based framework for curriculum & instruction Assessments created to demonstrate standards Additional AP (advanced placement) enrollment, completion, and numbers of students passing the AP exams

• • •

Site administrator authority and autonomy in terms of staffing and budget Established process for developing new leadership Relentless focus on student achievement and building capacity

• •

Highly qualified in terms of preparation and licensure Teachers who connect to their students, have high degrees of efficacy, and exhibit high expectations for all Pervasive, continuous, embedded professional development driven by student needs

• Multiple Pathways to Success

• • •

Rich choices in curriculum options for students based on their interests and strengths; invitational learning Hands-on, authentic community-based learning opportunities Re-birth of career and market place connections, including strategic counseling and individual plan development

In Texas, real gains have been made. The overall graduation rate increased from 79.5 percent for the class of 1999 to 84.2 percent for the class of 2003, and statewide passing rates on the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (11th Grade TAKS) have increased from 49 percent in 2003 to 72 percent in 2004 (Texas Education Agency, 2005). It is unclear, however, whether these changes are the result of the large-scale reform initiatives or more granular changes in actual teaching practice. The author of the study suggests that the real solutions are less the result of ‘re-invention’ and more the result of leaders exercising discipline in their craft every day (Reeves, 2002). The following ‘Try Another Way’ strategies are offered as practical ways to change classroom practice in today’s comprehensive high school.

Stop Trying. The first ‘Try Another Way’ strategy is to stop trying. Cease the effort to tear down the comprehensive American high school structures and recognize instead the strengths and opportunities. An axiom of standards is to provide multiple opportunities for students to demonstrate proficiency. High schools offer the greatest opportunity for interdisciplinary efforts and multiple opportunities to demonstrate proficiency through their diverse course offerings. Why not try another way to allow students to demonstrate proficiency for a math problem-solving standard in Auto Mechanics or Fitness or Chemistry? When departmental teams ‘unwrap’ standards and collaborate to design instruction, multiple opportunities for success are created. Try another way.

Make Meetings Work. The second strategy is to change our meetings. Stop wasting opportunities for collaboration by reviewing announcements. It is even more important for adults to honor each other’s time and presence by coming to events prepared and on time. The discipline of leadership to make this happen is to set clear expectations and to follow through by holding others accountable. Meetings are the only possible opportunity for collaboration and we need to make them work with assigned roles, hunches, diversity of ideas, and norms that we are disciplined 26

INSIGHT

enough to enforce (White, 2005). Meetings also represent our only opportunity to re-direct time efficiently while achieving results.

Carefully constructed data team meetings provide numerous methods to make these proceedings effective and allow teachers the freedom to try another way.

Speak and Write in Sentences. The third strategy is even more basic. Try another way by instituting a standard for classwork across all 157 courses that requires students to use complete sentences.

Revolutionary! Require and monitor the use of complete sentences orally and in writing. Insist on it. Students can be taught to respond in complete sentences, rather than the mono-syllabic responses we are so quick to tolerate. If an entire high school would try another way with either the oral or written sentence requirement, students would spend a lot more time thinking, reasoning, and summarizing.

It is pretty difficult to write without engaging in thinking.

Score Student Work Collaboratively. The fourth strategy is a process that hundreds of schools and hundreds of thousands of students have benefited from—collaborative scoring. This simple procedure where teachers exchange student work for one common assignment each month, or even each quarter, continues to be a key element of 90/90/90 schools (Reeves, 2004)—schools with 90 percent student minority enrollment, 90 percent of students qualifying for free and reduced lunch (poverty), and 90 percent meeting standards. Many Texas schools with exemplary designation share these characteristics. Trying another way with collaborative scoring encourages teachers to become a little more attentive to their instruction, the performance of their students, and their general understanding of their content area. Why? Because being respected by one’s colleagues for one’s expertise is a powerful motivator for even the most reluctant individual. Pair teachers within departments, or let them choose partners. Just exercise the daily discipline of leadership to monitor and review examples of collaborative scoring at unpredictable times. Try another way.

Replicate. Lucy Steiner (2000) found education to be one of the least successful industries in terms of “scaling up” or replicating effective practices. We make it too complex. Try another way by simply asking faculty members to submit brief summaries each week of “ideas I borrowed, ideas I gave away” (White, 2005).

Replication needs to be as easy and fun as borrowing a recipe, not a grand jury trial. Have you ever noticed how we are very careful to insist that any new innovation meet all kinds of rigorous tests for validity and reliability, but the same standard is never applied to the status quo? High schools have more colleagues to learn from one another, and they can start small by replicating a process or strategy in a single classroom before expanding it campuswide. Try another way.

Ask Students What Works. Try another way by asking those who know. Students are experts in good teaching, recognizing pacing, organization, summarizing, questioning skills, and general good instruction. Ask them what would get them to class on time, or what would really engage them in thinking, or what was the best learning experience they ever had in school and what particular teaching practice made it so. This is a virtual treasure trove we miss far too often. High school students are experienced in school, as each brings a decade or more of observing and responding to instruction. Forget the traditional satisfaction surveys, and try another way by simply asking students “What works?”

Do It Right the First Time. The seventh strategy is to do it right the first time. Try another way by tossing daily homework requirements out. Before anyone has a coronary, I am defining homework as routine overnight work products, not reading or major projects

or assignments. If students are advised to come prepared, they should read and understand what they will be doing in class tomorrow, just as all professional educators should read and come prepared to meetings (see Try Another Way #2, above). Do it right the first time means that there is no home ‘work,’ but if student work submitted in class does not meet the standard, students are assigned re-work, as opposed to homework. Those who get it—who demonstrate understanding and can apply the skill—are free to engage in enrichment, but the assigned (required) outsideof-class ‘work’ would be for those who have not demonstrated proficiency. High schools are perfectly poised to have a large-scale impact by implementing these smaller-scale changes. Simple, but the message it sends is substantial—try learning rather than seat time; try quality and mastery over quantity. Try another way.

Standards Trump Textbooks. Try another way by being very clear that teachers are not to teach to textbooks, but to standards. The leader who is disciplined enough to communicate this standard across the curriculum through classroom work through feedback or school policies will help every teacher focus on what is essential and on student learning. Toss out the textbook coverage idea, and try another way by insisting on mastery and depth with a few powerful standards and indicators in every course. As leaders, try another way and expect to see standards addressed every lesson. Don’t wait for 80 percent buy-in. Since Texas has standards, this element should really be non-negotiable.

Get Students to Think! The ninth strategy is simply to insist that every lesson, every classroom is designed to get all students to think, and that each teacher is prepared to provide evidence to that

FALL 2005

27

effect, including performance assessments with progressively more rigorous thinking (e.g., Bloom’s Taxonomy), big ideas, and use of essential questions. Learning doesn’t occur by covering every chapter. It only occurs when students think through new knowledge and discover new perspectives. High school schedules naturally lend themselves to establishing cycles within lessons that produce closure.

Consider instituting a process where teachers not only monitor transmittal of knowledge, but develop indicators of understanding, application, and evidence of that application as well. Attention to such a protocol is something as useful to the band director as it is to the International Baccalaureate instructor in ensuring that thinking trumps curriculum coverage. Trying another way simply facilitates a culture of evidence and experimentation.

Data Every Day. The tenth strategy is simply to capture the lessons and learning of every day by collecting data to remember what happened and track changes in performance over time.

High schools are in a perfect position to gather important data without taxing instruction or changing operating procedures. It might be assessment data as basic as having students write a single reflective comment as their ticket out the door about the class just completed. Examine, total, graph, and start the next class. Later, take 10 minutes to analyze what happened. It might also be measuring adult actions, such as reciprocal teaching steps (four) observed by a peer or student teacher or administrator. Again, examine, total, graph, and analyze. It might be use of at least one major effective strategy, like note taking or engaging students with graphic organizers. Perhaps the data will be different indicators for Monday through Friday that provide five trends for analysis.

Secondary schools have the added opportunity to make data work by examining differences throughout the day or across courses in terms of classroom management, work completion, or the presence of questions. The combinations create endless possibilities for insights and actions only available in high schools.

Summary Readers will recognize the basis for Try Another Way in best practices and research about teaching and learning. Each strategy is rooted in collaboration, working on student work, standards-based curriculum, data-driven decision making, writing, and corrective feedback, all effective and powerful strategies that we know help reform schools and close learning gaps. Try Another Way reduces these concepts to user-friendly strategies every high school can implement and phase in as data demonstrates their effectiveness.

High schools are uniquely designed to discover the relationship of instructional strategies to achievement by course, teacher, class period, or department, and to examine correlations by disaggregating results by student groups, including graduation class, activity participation, and bus students, as well as the NCLB subgroups.

High schools that use Try Another Way invite action research.

Try Another Way strategies do not require wholesale changes in governance, scheduling, school size, course sequences, class size, or even extensive professional development. They can be applied immediately, and they offer teachers, students, and principals practices that are granular enough to observe and monitor each and every day. At the Center for Performance Assessment, the focus is on practical and user-friendly strategies to make standards work.

Try Another Way extends that focus by enabling leadership to 28

INSIGHT

develop a culture of evidence by providing a common language that is valued and easily replicated at every level. It communicates a simple message of continuous improvement, and is ultimately a means to approach challenges through a framework that is always willing to try yet another way to improve student achievement.

Stephen White is a professional development associate with the Center for Performance Assessment.

REFERENCES Coalition of Essential Schools (2005). National Web: Essential Resources for School Change. Available at http://www.essentialschools.org/pub/ces_docs/about/phil/10cps/10cps.html.

Oakland, CA: Coalition of Essential Schools.

Hart, Peter D. & Winston, David (2005). Ready For The Real World? Americans Speak On High School Reform Public opinion research conducted by Educational Testing Service. Available at http://ftp.ets.org/pub/corp/2005execsum.pdf.

Harvey, James & Housman, Naomi (2004). “Crisis or Possibility?

Conversations About the American High School,” Washington, DC: Institute for Educational Leadership, May 1.

National Commission on Education (1983). Nation at Risk.

Washington: U.S. Department of Education.

National Science Foundation (2004). Third International Mathematics and Science Study. Michigan State University: U.S. TIMSS National Research Center, East Lansing.

Public Law No. 107- 110 (2002) The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.

Powell, Arthur, Farrar, Eleanor, & Cohen, David K. (1985). The Shopping Mall High School. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Reeves, Douglas (2002). Daily Disciplines of Leadership. Corwin Press: Thousand Oaks, CA. Reeves, Douglas (2004). Accountability in Action, 3rd Edition.

Englewood, CO: Advanced Learning Press.

Sizer, Theodore R. (1992). Horace’s School: Redesigning the American High School. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Southeast Regional Educational Board (2005). High Schools that Work: An Enhanced Design to Get All Students to Standards. Atlanta: Southeast Regional Educational Board. Available at. http://www.sreb.org/programs/hstw/publications/2005Pubs/05V07.

Steiner, Lucy (2000). A review of the research literature on scaling up in education: The problem of scaling-up in education.

Chicago, IL: North Central Regional Educational Laboratory.

Available at http://www.ncrel.org/csri/resources/scaling/review.htm.

White, Stephen (2005). Beyond the Numbers. Englewood, CO: Advanced Learning Press

FALL 2005

29

Failure is NOT an Option

Book Review

By Alan M. Blankstein Published by Corwin, A Sage Publications Company, ISBN: 1-4129-0934-1

Reviewed by Anita M. Pankake, Ed.D., The University of Texas Pan American, Edinburg, TX Most of us recognize the now famous statement, “Failure is not an option,” as the words uttered by NASA Official Gene Kranz during the Apollo 13 crisis. Blankstein uses the concept embedded in this statement and its accompanying situation to frame his introductory comments regarding students in U.S. schools. Blankstein declares, “Failure is not an option for public schooling, either” (p.

3). To assure that failure is eliminated for children in the public schools and for the institution of public schooling itself, Blankstein advocates implementation of the “Couragous Leadership Imperative” (CLI). In the second chapter of the book, CLI is defined as “acting in accordance with one’s own values, beliefs, and mission—even in the face of fear, potential losses, and failure” (p.

25). He uses the chapter to elaborate on the meaning of CLI and the five steps individuals can take to implement CLI. The two chapters that follow focus on first, Total Quality Management Principles and barriers to change, and then, the importance of building a Professional Learning Community in schools as a context for success. These first three chapters set the context for the next six entries which focus on the principles.

Blankstein’s conclusion has only five paragraphs and merely links what has been presented to the school story used to reinforce the idea captured in the book’s title. The next 53 pages include 10 appendices and an 11-page bibliography. The appendices include a self-assessment tool; a nicely detailed process for developing mission, vision, values and goals; a rather useful set of questions that can be used to focus school conversation on a prevention and intervention practices—an even more important than usual process given NCLB; and an article by Alan Boyle discussing issues relevant to definitions of and practices in failing schools and effective schools.

The book is an interesting combination of familiar concepts presented in a new framework—CLI—and sorted into guiding principles. The focus is simultaneously on the school as a whole and on the individual child, which is different than many presentations.

Given the content, there is little with which to disagree. Blankstein uses some techniques that many readers will find helpful: (1) numerous vignettes and case studies from schools across the country; (2) diagrams to summarize and illustrate points made in the text; and (3) “Think it through…” boxes appearing periodically posing points for the readers’ reflection. Several items in the appendices seem to be useful tools that schools might use immediately.

Blankstein offers a chapter for each of the six principles “that guide The “Think it through…” boxes and some of the appendices make student achievement in high-performing schools”: this an excellent work for a book study; these items, in particular, will cause discussions of what the book “says” AND considerations of how it 1—Common Mission, Vision, Values, and Goals can be applied. Blankstein’s Failure Is Not an 2—Ensuring Achievement for All Students: Systems for Prevention and Option is quite readable; it is organized in such a Intervention way that reading the chapters over an extended 3—Collaborative Teaming Focused on Teaching and Learning time period will not be a problem. This, again, makes it an excellent book study choice, in tune 4—Using Data to Guide Decision Making and Continuous Improvement with the busy schedules of school leaders.

5—Gaining Active Engagement from Family and Community 6—Building Sustainable Leadership Capacity

30

INSIGHT

List current as of 9/8/05

Featuring: GENERAL SESSIONS SPEAKERS Herman Boone, former coach, TC Willliams High School, featured in the movie Remember the Titans Juan Williams, senior correspondent, National Public Radio Lou Holtz, author and legendary Notre Dame football Coach AND DISTINGUISHED LECTURES BY John Couch, vice president, Education, Apple William Strauss, author, and cofounder of LifeCourse Associates Shirley Neeley, Texas Commissioner of Education Raymund Paredes, Texas Commissioner of Higher Education Pedro Noguera, award-winning educator, author, and activist Eduardo Sanchez, Texas Commisioner of State Health Services

406 East 11th Street Austin, TX 78701-2617

The best speakers, exceptional exhibits, and don’t forget the comprehensive breakout and in-depth sessions!

Presorted Standard U.S. Postage PAID Austin, TX Permit No. 1941