 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|||
 |
 |
|
||
 |
|
You
are here:
Trends in School Reform
In the last couple of decades, a variety of serious attempts have been made to improve schools. Some school improvement efforts have produced model classrooms and model schools. Some interventions have been targeted as "turnaround" efforts to improve low achieving schools. While there have been many approaches, strategies and designs toward school improvement, there are several broad trends sweeping public schools in this age of reform. I would like to describe three of these trends influencing school reform; namely, standards-based reform, comprehensive school reform and student-centered reform.
Standards-based Reform
Teachers and administrators in schools across the country have had to grapple with the issues of standards and improving student performance. Standards identify the centerpiece of the curriculum for academic learning responding to questions such as, "What do students need to know?" and "What are they expected to do?" to succeed in life. At the heart of standards based reform is the assumption that higher standards are a core component of school improvement and student success. Standards-based reform is about forming a clear idea of what excellence is and improving the quality of student work and learning.
The standards movement has its roots in curriculum content and skills. The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) was one of the first national professional organizations to publish national curriculum standards and goals. The application of standards can also be found to describe and define excellence for professional practice. The National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) has worked to strengthen the teaching profession by establishing high standards for accomplished teachers. NBPTS has developed a national voluntary system to assess and certify teachers who meet these standards. A decade ago, the Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) was formed to create a new set of standards to define and guide the practice of school leaders. The national ISLLC standards were published in l996 and have been adopted by 30 states.
Student standards are to provide a clear focus, and combined with assessments, are to insure that every student succeeds academically. The 2002 reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, commonly referred to as "No Child Left Behind" (NCLB), expands the federal government's role to assure that every student succeeds academically. This law requires all schools, school districts, and states to show that students are meeting the achievement targets in reading and mathematics. Never before in our history has so much weight been placed on the performance of students on mandated state tests nor have the stakes ever been higher.
Comprehensive School Reform
Comprehensive school design changes focus on research-based solutions to improve student achievement and success. Also known as "whole school" reforms, comprehensive school reforms are externally developed school improvement programs adopted by individual schools. The U.S. Department of Education has identified eleven components representing comprehensive school reform. Several of the components are connected to the school's ability to integrate instruction, assessment, classroom management, professional development, and parental involvement to raise student academic achievement. Comprehensive school reform designs can be replicated in numerous schools, although the reforms require technical assistance for implementation.
One example of a Comprehensive School Reform approach is the Accelerated Schools Program (ASP). The primary goal of ASP is to bring children in at-risk situations at least to grade level by the end of sixth grade. A main feature of ASP is the structure and application of three guiding principles:
1. unity of purpose for the school;
2. empowerment of the staff in school decision-making with the responsibility to follow-through on actions; and
3. building instruction on student strengths.
Teaching strategies called "powerful learning" are designed by teachers to provide a rich, interactive, and constructive classroom for students.Student-centered Reform
This reform effort is based on the notion that school success and student learning are improved by personalization and strong relationships of teachers' knowledge of and caring for students. Examples of efforts in student-centered reform can be seen in establishing new and/or converting existing high schools into small school environments, or creating ways for teachers to teach the same group or classroom of students for more than one year. This instructional practice is called "looping."
Small schools for high school students are sized for no more than 600 students, and 400 or less is strongly recommended. Small schools are designed to promote sustained and positive relationships between students and their teachers, to develop a strong sense of collaboration among teachers, and to create strong ties between parents, families, and schools. What is desired is for teachers to come to know their students well—their interests, strengths, and weaknesses as learners. In this way, teachers should be far more able to teach, coach, nurture and demand excellence from each student. Combined with a common focus on goals and high expectations for students to leave high school prepared for further education and success in work and citizenship, small schools tout the "new 3Rs"—rigor, relevance, and relationships.
The benefits for increasing personalization in schools have been well-cited in research. Students in small personalized learning communities come to class more often, drop out less frequently, encounter less violence in school, and get better grades than those in regular-sized, traditional high schools. In addition, some research shows that small schools have the most promising effects on achievement for ethnic minority students and students from low-income families.
Closing the Achievement Gap
A main focus for all the school reform changes described above is closing the persistent achievement differences between groups of students. Achievement test results at all levels – by school, school district, state and national – show that minority students fall behind white students. The achievement gap is defined by the U.S. Department of Education as the difference between how well low income and minority children perform on standardized tests compared to their peers.
In order to close the achievement gap, it is clear that what we do and don't do in schools matters and it matters a lot. Four common elements emerge as promising efforts to close the achievement gap in schools. They are:
· Clear Goals: An important characteristic common to schools and school districts successful in raising achievement is the focus on clear, commonly defined goals.
· Rigorous curriculum: A challenging and rigorous curriculum linked to high standards and assessment makes a difference.
· Extra help for students who need it: Providing assistance for students before school, after school, and during the summer are all ways to extend learning time for students in order to achieve well in school.
· High quality teaching: Recruiting and retaining high quality teachers in the classroom stands out to make the most difference in closing the achievement gap in student learning.Successful school reform efforts share many common features as described above. In closing, I would like to emphasize an additional element in school reform – the importance of building a strong political base of support for quality work in our schools. Public support for public education continues to rank high on most opinion polls. School reform and improvement to provide children with the tools they need to succeed in life rings true for 94 per cent of the population according to the American Association of School Administrators. There are strong signals from the public that education really does matter. A number of efforts in school reform are showing improvement in student performance. The next steps are to start public support for what is necessary to improve teaching and learning and to close the achievement gap.
Michael Silver, Ph.D., graduated from Central High School in Omaha, Nebraska in 1966. He went on to complete bachelors, masters and doctorate degrees from Washington University in St. Louis. Silver was a teacher and served in school and district office administrative positions in the Parkway School District in St. Louis from 1972 to 1986.
Silver was formerly Superintendent of Schools for the Tukwila School District in King County, Washington, but now is Director and Assistant Professor of the College of Education- Educational Administration at Seattle University. His honors include the Arts Education Tribute Award, by the Washington Art Education Association (2001); Superintendent of the Year Award by the Washington Library Media Association (2000); recipient of an Excellence in Educational Leadership Award by the University Council for Educational Administration (1998), an A+ Award recipient by the Washington Council for Economic Education (1992); and selection to the Executive Educator 100 by Executive Educator magazine (1985).
You may contact him at Loyola Hall 415, Seattle University or via email : silverm@seattleu.edu
© March 2004 New Horizons for Learning
http://www.newhorizons.org
info@newhorizons.orgFor permission to redistribute, please go to:
New Horizons for Learning Copyright and Permission Information