How to Save a School

How to Save a School: Failure and Success in American Public Schools
Jesse A. Louviere
Tulane University
[SOCI 1050-­‐01 – April 24th, 2012]
HOW TO SAVE A SCHOOL
Abstract
When exploring the issue of failure in American public school systems, it is important to look at things holistically. How are American schools doing over time and compared to other countries? This paper also looks at policies in American public schools at a national, state, and local level. Moving from broad structural policies to a more personal level, this paper also looks at students in so called “dropout factories” to see what the indicators of risk are. What does research show to be the cause behind low GPAs, dropouts, problem behavior and the like in students? Lastly, what are successful school systems doing, and what perspective would a former educator/administrator/guidance counselor have on education and failure? It is important to touch on several crucial pieces of this puzzle.
2
HOW TO SAVE A SCHOOL
HOW TO SAVE A SCHOOL: FAILURE AND SUCCESS IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS
The news headlines for education in America are telling: reform in Mississippi, an overhaul on Ohio, Teacher of the Year laments education cuts. Obviously something is wrong, but what is it? How is America doing compared to school systems in other nations? Statistics from the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) measured the math and science scores of 4th and 8th grade children in 2007. According to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), a mathematics score of 529 placed U.S. fourth-­‐graders 9th of 35 participating educational systems, but this score was not measurably different from the scores in 4 other educational systems. The U.S. fourth-­‐graders ' average science score (539) was lower than the scores in 4 educational systems (all located in Asia), and not measurably different from the scores in 6 other educational systems. In mathematics, U.S. eighth-­‐graders’ average (508) was higher than that in 37 of the 47 other participating educational systems, lower than 5 educational systems, and not measurably different from the scores in the remaining 5 educational systems. In science, the eighth-­‐graders’ average (520) was not measurably different from 3 other countries, but it ranked the U.S. 10th of 47 countries (TIMMS 2007).
The Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), a similar test administered every 3 years, is a new standard. It tests children at 15 years of age from countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-­‐operation and Development (OECD) as well as in other non-­‐OECD countries and school administrations. The U.S., as of 2009, was below average in math and not measurably different from average
3
HOW TO SAVE A SCHOOL in science and reading. The average for the US in math, science and reading is 496/1000, compared to an international OECD average of 493. Rather than being first or even in the top ten, America ranked 17th of the 65 education systems tested, and did not score significantly different from the average.
It helps to get an international perspective of how America is doing. If America wants to lead the world, especially in education, there must be some sort of reform. After looking at some aspects of the American education that could use improvement, we can look at the American students themselves, take another international look at the educational system in Asia – where there are many strong performers and successful reformers – and finally, get perspectives from a Louisiana administrator, educator, and counselor.
FACTORS OF FAILURE: HOW ARE THINGS GOING WRONG?
One tenet that is appreciated in most forms of scholarly study is that “structure determines function”. The U.S. has several policies at various levels of government that mold the education system. To start from the top down, we have the federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). The ESEA was enacted in 1965 and has gone through successive reauthorizations every 5 years since (Jennings 2000). The current iteration, the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), attempts to raise the bar of educational standards in a novel and somewhat controversial way. Adequate yearly progress (AYP) is the tested benchmark; fifth graders, for example, must annually score higher than the previous fifth graders. The two basic strategies to ensure this involve corrective reform of schools that fail
4
HOW TO SAVE A SCHOOL to make AYP and the punitive “kick ‘em while they’re down” strategy of reducing school funding (Fritzberg 2004). Schools that do meet the state-­‐set criteria receive additional Title I funding, but it is not hard to see that reducing the funding of a struggling school with the latter strategy is counter-­‐productive to the goal of improvement. Some researchers challenge whether sanctions and punitive measures have more basis in sound research or hopeful ideology (Ravitch 2009). Another criticism of NCLB is that it implicitly promotes a “mile-­‐wide, inch-­‐deep” style of teaching to the test that is insufficient for mastery of necessary math, science, and reading skills. Teaching the broad range of topics to be tested invariably requires a somewhat shallow treatment of each topic individually. Inefficiency at a More Local Level.
At the district level, things should be simpler and more concise. There should be more room for variation with some policies and consensus on others. It is surprising to hear such statements as, “You can always find money if you are committed to doing something. You just spend it now and cover it next year when the budget goes up,” from a superintendent, no less. Washington D.C. had been trying to enumerate the staff it had on payroll for five years as of 2004, and a school in Philadelphia unexpectedly found $8 million that could have hired 180 teachers (Roza and Hill 2004). Why is accounting in school districts difficult? Revenue does come from various sources at different times, and some accounting systems are kept separate from each other, but methods for tracking (and therefore being to adjust to) real dollar costs on a per-­‐pupil basis are published and simple.
5
HOW TO SAVE A SCHOOL
So what are the implications of a district not knowing what a school spends? Districts do not track real-­‐dollar costs of their schools; there is ambiguity about such things as teacher salary cost averaging. If the official allotment for two schools is $500,000, districts assume that this is spread equally. However, if one school is in a high-­‐poverty area and the other is in a well-­‐to-­‐do area, there are very real differences in how this money is partitioned (Roza and Hill). It is a well-­‐discussed phenomenon that new teachers generally start out in high-­‐poverty areas – schools that are well off may receive hundreds more applications from teachers – and this means that these teachers get paid less. After teachers gain teaching skills and experience, they have agency in where they can teach. As well-­‐off schools tend to have more experienced teachers, they receive more resources to cover the salary differences (which can vary from $25k to $65k). One study showed that district resources were diverted from high-­‐poverty schools to low-­‐poverty schools, with the consequence that $959,730 allotted for one school in Cincinnati were unfortunately diverted for high-­‐salary teacher costs in another school (Roza and Hill). This reverse-­‐Robin Hood scenario means some already well-­‐performing schools have an extended budget for resources such as experienced teachers while needy schools are still lacking.
Although the focus here is to touch on different forms of failure, it is worth looking at how one would solve such a problem. Roza and Hill proposed a national requirement for districts to track real-­‐dollar costs; the idea was shelved at the 2001 reauthorization of the ESEA (Roza and Hill 2004). Interestingly enough, the National
6
HOW TO SAVE A SCHOOL
Education Association’s agenda for the 2006 reauthorization had several proposals on money partitions and provisions, but none about real-­‐dollar costs (ESEA 2006). The simple hope here is that transparency in the actual costs (since there is apparently plenty of funding) spent on schools will propel a dialogue between parents, teachers, and administrators on why some schools receive more funding than others, when this is not on the district budget. A redistribution of money to fund high-­‐poverty area schools would provide financial incentives that could attract sorely needed experienced teachers.
AT A PERSONAL LEVEL: WHAT ABOUT THE STUDENTS?
Regardless of the rules being made or the money being spent, education is really about one thing: the student. What is the goal of educating a student, anyway? One would be hard-­‐pressed to find this basic answer in research literature. It’s a given that we have to prepare the future generation for society, the workforce, academia and the economy, but what does it mean when we fail to educate children? Indicators of Risk for Dropout.
One factor that ties several others together is dropout rates (Suh 2007). All the common sense notions of failure such as low GPAs, misconduct, and disengagement in school activities/programs, are indicators of risk for dropping out of school. Other factors outside of a student’s control include crime rates, socioeconomic status, and family status (parents’ educational attainment, family size, etc.). To start with the first factor, “academic failure increases students’ alienation from school, leading to absenteeism, which in turn increases dropout
7
HOW TO SAVE A SCHOOL risk”. What’s interesting about this statement from Suh is that one risk factor directly feeds into another. The researchers elaborated on this in their study, noting that these risk factors are multiplicative, rather than additive. Impoverished students living in a violent area with low grades and poor attendance would certainly have lower graduation rates than students with low grades alone (Suh and Suh 2007). In Suh’s study, 16.3% (more than for any one risk factor) of the students had multiple risk factors. The percentage of likelihood for dropout increases from 17.1% for any one risk to 32.5% for two, and 47.7% for three risks (Suh and Suh 2007). It is striking how close the last number is to chance; one could almost predict graduation rates in this situation with the flip of a coin.
Strategies to Reduce Dropout Rates.
The same researchers proposed early prevention and intervention efforts to combat dropout risk, including help from guidance counselors, after school programs, and “prevention efforts” for behavioral problems (Suh and Suh 2007). A study by Wirth and Bond in 1991 identified at-­‐risk students and put them in a vocational special-­‐needs program with an available counselor (Wirth, Bond, et al 1991). The dropout rate for these students was 8.4% compared to the 2009 national rate of 5.6-­‐10.4% (NCES 2009). Without the standard error of the latter estimate (8%), this compares favorably.
The appeal of guidance counselors for students is that they play a pivotal role in the identification, monitoring of, intervention, and follow-­‐up with students who are at risk for school dropout (White and Kelly 2010). Guidance counselors
8
HOW TO SAVE A SCHOOL schedule courses, counsel students with problems, administer tests, connect students to resources, help with college applications, and much more. The recommended ration is 250:1, but the actual ratio of students to counselors is closer to 457:1 (NOSCA 2011). If counselors help to re-­‐engage students, how should behavioral issues be addressed and what do after-­‐school programs do?
For behavioral issues, there is a general model for school discipline. Problematic children are, at the very least, removed from the classroom to minimize the distraction to other students and placed in detention. One well-­‐documented problem is that students with lower socioeconomic statuses tend to be disproportionately disciplined (Wehlage and Rutler 1986). Being taken out of the classroom cuts down on learning time, which has a direct effect on students’ grades. It also disengages the student from a learning environment, and in some cases places the stigma of being a “troublemaker” on said student. Instead of compounding these problems, some researchers advocate a new form of discipline that would instead emphasize learning and self-­‐regulation rather than procedures for addressing infractions. It would encourage connectedness and trust/caring between teachers and students. This clearly describes a move away from punitive reactions (Gregory, Skiba, and Noguera 2010).
After school programs typically see 10-­‐30% attendance rates. Coupled with that are funding and sustainability problems. There are actually a myriad of sources for funding after-­‐school programs, but demand is high, funds themselves are limited, funds may not be sufficient, and funds may be time limited (Gardner, Roth, and
9
HOW TO SAVE A SCHOOL
Brooks-­‐Gum 2009). The complexity of application and reapplication is actually a lengthy bureaucratic struggle. Furthermore, there are constraints on how funds may be used.
The benefits and real merit of successful programs are the academic outcomes (Gardner et al. 2009). Although improvement of students in after-­‐school school programs is increasingly based on test scores, there are other important improvements. Students not only tend to perform better in school, but they also have a better study/work ethic, and positive attitudes about their schools. The problem with using test scores to measure effectiveness here is that improved scores don’t necessarily reflect 100% of the programs’ benefit. Compared to a 30-­‐40 hour school week, a few hours after school may only show a small bump in test scores. It’s important thing to note and account for better study habits, more enthusiasm for school, and better performance on non-­‐standardized tests (Gardner et al. 2009). If beneficial outcomes are strictly associated with test scores, then there could be a funding problem with standards-­‐based testing under NCLB.
SUCCESS ABROAD
Picture two runners, the U.S. and China, on the same track, running past each other toward what each assumes is the finish line. Although it is not so much of a sprint as it is a marathon, the U.S. is increasingly moving toward regimented, standards-­‐based testing. At the same time, China and others are embracing what are called the “holy grails” of traditional U.S. education: creativity, innovation, invention, and individualism (Coppola and Zhao 2012).
10
HOW TO SAVE A SCHOOL
Sir Ken Robinson puts this in perspective by asking why we will still have our schools organized like factories with bells, specialized subjects, separate facilities, and students educated by batches. Instead of conformity and standardization, he speaks of the merit of divergent thinking, an essential component of creativity. Where are schools doing this?
Several strategies from Shanghai
As one of China’s most developed urban areas, Shanghai is a leader in educational reform. Popular support for education means there is no issue with universal education, with compulsory enrollment above 99.9% and senior secondary school enrollment at 97% (OECD 2011). Anyone is able to attain higher education; Shanghai’s success in education is reflected by its top rank on the 2009 PISA test (PISA 2009). Major reforms in Shanghai education involve top-­‐down reforms implemented through examinations or policy shifts. Weak schools are systematically strengthened in several ways: re-­‐organizing/closing them, classifying and closing low performing schools, transferring funding with positive discrimination (such as raising rural schools’ per-­‐pupil spending), transferring teachers from urban areas to rural, and pairing off urban districts with rural ones. Under commissioned administration, good schools also take over administration in weaker ones for 2-­‐3 years (OECD 2011). Many see these and other strategies as very effective, and there are lessons to be learned by the U.S. here. The view is that students are complex human beings. Improving their educational achievement is accomplished by holistically considering and changing contextual factors. The payoff
11
HOW TO SAVE A SCHOOL comes in the form of more capable and more productive citizens that bolster the economy, which in turn continues to provide the means for educational improvement.
Ideas from Singapore
Over the span of a single generation, Singapore has become one of the great success stories in Asia. The philosophy, much like Shanghai’s, is that education is key to economic development (OECD 2011). Singapore’s heavy investment in education is reflected in its PISA rank of 5th out of the 65 countries (PISA 2009). Success, in part, comes from Singapore’s small size. Like turning around with a kayak rather than a battleship, Singapore can afford to be dynamic in terms of pursuing various policies. Generally there has been a strong universal focus on science, math, and technology education, much like the current science, technology, engineering and technology (STEM) goals in the U.S.
What can we learn from Singapore? Again considering Singapore’s small size, it should be easy to apply their policies at the state level. Changing any educational system takes five to ten years, but along with that long-­‐term vision, it is important to be dynamic and change policies as conditions change (OECD 2011). In Singapore, investment in education is a central priority and new policies are implemented with remarkable fidelity and consistency throughout the country. In the U.S., we could couple this dynamism and policy fidelity with a strong central capacity with the authority to act as necessary. The ministry of Education in Singapore is constantly assessing what is and isn’t working, and is respected by school professionals. This
12
HOW TO SAVE A SCHOOL constant assessment, aided by data and practitioner experience, leads to continuous improvement (OECD 2011).
PERSPECTIVES OF A LOUISIANA ADMINISTRATOR
It has been said that when low-­‐performing schools improve, the heart of the engine of change is almost always a dedicated principal and staff. Keeping this heart healthy requires professional development, a strong curriculum, resources, smaller class sizes, more instruction time, etc. Mrs. Cynthia Smith was a guidance counselor, math teacher, public school administrator, and private school headmaster in Mississippi. In stressing a simple approach to reform, she says:
My experience and my gut tell me that no matter how affluent a district or competent the administration, the true fix is found in the classroom. An administrator’s main priorities should be that of a motivator, coach, and resource person. Administrators should be seasoned enough to recognize good teaching and allow teachers enough “space” to operate with their own style.
True teaching is an art form. Anyone can take piano lessons, art lessons, dance lessons, etc. But the true artist has that special gift of arousing the audience to be a part of the performance, or even perhaps aspiring to be a performer. Such is a teacher. Universities do a fair job of teaching the art of teaching, but there aren’t enough graduates that truly rise to the standard of excellence in their performance.
Administrators and teachers should always remember that it’s not about the “wonderful programs” that make a school; it’s the people that determine the quality of the school. Mrs. Smith’s motto has always been, “You can’t teach them if you can’t reach them”. Even though some students are truly sponges, eager to learn what
13
HOW TO SAVE A SCHOOL ever is thrown at them, it is the other majority of students that teachers must be intent on developing a sense of trust, fairness, honesty etc. Trust and fairness have become a common theme in addressing teaching effectiveness, new forms of discipline, and student engagement in schools.
When running a school, what should the priorities be of an experienced education? “In order to have a good school, the priority must be to improve delivery of instruction. Get better teachers and improve the teachers in the school. An administrator must be able to recognize good teaching and motivate teachers to improve quality of instruction. It is never about programs, it’s about the people.” This too, indirectly, hits on an important lesson that the U.S. can learn from other successful countries: people (mainly children) are our most valuable and important resource.
In order to “run a school” an administrator must first be a diagnostician. Review the data from absences, discipline referrals, test scores, etc. Identify the area of the problem. Identify key components of “disease”. Define an appropriate treatment, whether it be from schedule to personnel. Model appropriate behaviors and get all stakeholders involved and by all means. Work harder and longer and more productively than anyone else on your staff. However, one must learn to delegate, administration is a team effort.
14
HOW TO SAVE A SCHOOL
References
Albrecht and Joles. 2003. “Accountability and Access to Opportunity.” Preventing
School Failure. 86-­‐97.
Chapman, Laura. 2007. “An Update on No Child Left Behind and National Trends in Education.” redOrbit. April 22, 2012. (http://www.redorbit.com/news/education/1180724/an_update_on_no_chi ld_left_behind_and_national_trends/)
Chubb, John and Ravitch, Diane. 2009. “The Future of No Child Left Behind.” Education Next. 9(3):49-­‐56
“Dropout Rates.” National Center for Education Statistics. April 22, 2012. (http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=16)
“Elementary & Secondary Education.” U.S. Department of Education. April 21, 2012 (http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/index.html)
Fritzberg. 2004. “No Child Left Behind: Assessing President Bush’s Assessment Law.” Educational Foundations 18:7-­‐24.
15
HOW TO SAVE A SCHOOL
Gardner et al. 2009. “Can Afterschool Programs Help Level the Academic Playing
Field for Disadvantaged Youth?” Equity Matters.
Gregory, Skiba, and Noguera. 2010. “The Achievement Gap and the Discipline Gap.” Educational Researcher. 39(1):59-­‐68.
“International comparisons of Achievement.” National Center for Education Statistics. April 20, 2012 (http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=1)
Jennings, Jack. 2000. “Title I: Its Legislative History and Its Promise.” Phi Delta Kappa. 81(7):516-­‐22.
NOSCA. 2011. “School Counselors: Literature and Landscape Review.” Civic Enterprises. 1-­‐56.
Mahbubani, Kishore. 2010. “5 Lessons America Can Learn From Asia About Higher Education.” The Chronicle. May, 2012. pp. 1.
“PISA 2009 Results.” OECD Programme for International Student Assessment. April 21, 2012.
(http://www.pisa.oecd.org/document/61/0,3746,en_32252351_32235731_ 46567 613_1_1_1_1,00.html)
16
HOW TO SAVE A SCHOOL
Roza, Marguerite. 2004. “How Within-­‐District Spending Inequities Help Some Schools to Fail.” Brookings Institution Press.
Suh, Suhvun, and Suh, Jinovo. 2007. “Risk Factors and Levels of Risk for High School Dropouts.” Professional School Counseling. 10(3): 297-­‐306.
“Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS).” National Center for Education Statistics. April 20, 2012 (http://nces.ed.gov/timss/)
Wehlage and Rutler. 1986.
Wirth-­‐Bond et al. 1991. “A School Counseling Program That Reduces Dropout Rate.” School Counselor. 39(2):131-­‐37.
White, Susan and Kelly, F. Donald. 2010. “The School Counselor’s Role in School Dropout Prevention.” Journal of Counseling & Development. 88(2):227-­‐235.
Zhao, Yong and Coppoa, Brian. 2012. “U.S. Education in Chinese Lock Step? Bad Move.” The Chronicle, February 2012, 1-­‐8.
17
HOW TO SAVE A SCHOOL
2006. “No Child Left Behind Act is Working.” U.S. Department of Education. April 20,
2012 (http://www2.ed.gov/nclb/overview/importance/nclbworking.html)
2011. Lessons from PISA for the United States, Strong Performers and Successful Reformers in Education, OECD Publishing. April 21, 2012 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264096660-­‐en)
18

References: Albrecht and Joles. 2003. “Accountability and Access to Opportunity.” Preventing School Failure Chapman, Laura. 2007. “An Update on No Child Left Behind and National Trends in Education.” redOrbit. April 22, 2012. (http://www.redorbit.com/news/education/1180724/an_update_on_no_chi ld_left_behind_and_national_trends/) Chubb, John and Ravitch, Diane “Dropout Rates.” National Center for Education Statistics. April 22, 2012. (http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=16) “Elementary & Secondary Education.” U.S Fritzberg. 2004. “No Child Left Behind: Assessing President Bush’s Assessment Law.” Educational Foundations 18:7-­‐24. Gardner et al. 2009. “Can Afterschool Programs Help Level the Academic Playing Field for Disadvantaged Youth?” Equity Matters. Gregory, Skiba, and Noguera. 2010. “The Achievement Gap and the Discipline Gap.” Educational Researcher. 39(1):59-­‐68. “International comparisons of Achievement.” National Center for Education Statistics. April 20, 2012 (http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=1) Jennings, Jack NOSCA. 2011. “School Counselors: Literature and Landscape Review.” Civic Enterprises. 1-­‐56. Mahbubani, Kishore. 2010. “5 Lessons America Can Learn From Asia About Higher Education.” The Chronicle. May, 2012. pp. 1. “PISA 2009 Results.” OECD Programme for International Student Assessment. April 21, 2012. Suh, Suhvun, and Suh, Jinovo. 2007. “Risk Factors and Levels of Risk for High School Dropouts.” Professional School Counseling. 10(3): 297-­‐306. “Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS).” National Center for Education Statistics. April 20, 2012 (http://nces.ed.gov/timss/) Wehlage and Rutler Wirth-­‐Bond et al. 1991. “A School Counseling Program That Reduces Dropout Rate.” School Counselor. 39(2):131-­‐37. White, Susan and Kelly, F. Donald. 2010. “The School Counselor’s Role in School Dropout Prevention.” Journal of Counseling & Development. 88(2):227-­‐235. Zhao, Yong and Coppoa, Brian. 2012. “U.S. Education in Chinese Lock Step? Bad Move.” The Chronicle, February 2012, 1-­‐8. 2006. “No Child Left Behind Act is Working.” U.S. Department of Education. April 20, 2012 (http://www2.ed.gov/nclb/overview/importance/nclbworking.html) 2011. Lessons from PISA for the United States, Strong Performers and Successful Reformers in Education, OECD Publishing. April 21, 2012 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264096660-­‐en) 18