South Loop: Real Change for a Real School

This semester, I’ve read a lot about school improvement. Specifically, I’ve read several detailed explanations of how educators can create meaningful change in schools by working with data in a systematic and collaborative way. For example, I read Boudett, City, and Murnane’s (2013) eight-step guide to school improvement. Their model of change begins with forming leadership teams and training the staff on how to “read” various assessment data to then having teachers examine data in collaborative groups and use the data to develop a school-wide focus. Once the focus is selected, teachers then decide on and implement a series of strategies. The success or failure of these strategies is then reviewed, and the whole cycle begins again. In their book Enhancing RTI: How to Ensure Success with Effective Classroom Instruction & Intervention, Fisher and Frey (2010) present their vision for an RTI² system that provides all students with quality core instruction that has a clear purpose and follows the research-proven release of responsibility model. Their system is responsive to student needs to the extent that as soon as any child falls behind (as determined by one of the formative assessments that is scheduled to be given periodically throughout the year), that student receives additional layers of support. Efforts of all school members are coordinated and often reviewed in leadership teams. Although the two aforementioned plans for school improvement were described in great depth and detail, providing educators with an almost step-by-step guide for school change, these plans struck me as overly idealistic and out of reach for real schools. Perhaps this is because the authors seemed distanced from the day-to-day reality of what happens in schools. Even though these individuals worked with schools, they were not in schools everyday. In the introduction to their book, Fisher and Frey write, “We were privileged to learn alongside teachers in the City Heights Collaborative . . . The collaborative allowed us to try out many of the ideas in this book with actual students and teachers” (p. vii). That is, the authors of the book came up with the ideas that they would now “try out” on the school. No matter how much they claimed to work with schools, ultimately, they were on the outside looking in. Patrick Baccellieri’s book Learning Communities: Using Data in Decision Making to Improve Student Learning is different because it shows what really happened in one school over a period of five years. Baccellieri was himself the principal of the school featured in his book, and his book thus offers a first-hand perspective of how change occurs in real schools and in real time. His work shows that change can happen with the right leadership and commitment—even though that change can be slow and difficult.

Baccellieri took South Loop Elementary School, a school that local media described as a “‘sinking ship’” (Baccellieri, 2010, p. 20), and turned it into a shining example that many are now trying to copy as they seek to improve their own schools. The history of South Loop is one with which many teachers of low-performing schools can identify. Baccellieri writes, “Historically, over 65% of South Loop’s students in grades three through eight demonstrated below-proficiency performance on the State Board of Education’s Illinois Standardized Achievement Test” (p. 59). In other words, almost two-thirds of the school’s students were failing, based on the state assessment data. Moreover, Baccellieri explains, “Some of the persistent conditions of the school included high teacher autonomy, serious student behavior problems, and controversies within the community” (p. 22). Exacerbating these problems was the high rate of turnover in both leadership and teacher positions. For example, South Loop had six different principals between 1995 and 2002 (p. 19). Baccellieri himself was only appointed interim principal at the beginning of the 2002-2003 school year and thus functioned somewhat in limbo until he was given an official contract in November of 2002 (p. 21). However, Baccellieri had a vision in mind that he quickly moved to put into action. This vision focused on improving two key areas: reading achievement and school culture. Although Baccellieri says that the school did a lot of work to change its culture by implementing a program called Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS), the book does not discuss these efforts at length (Baccellieri says his work to change the school climate is the subject of another book). He does emphasize, however, that efforts to target reading and culture were essential to effecting change.

Baccellieri’s used a standards-based-change approach to target reading achievement (p. 32). However, his approach very much relied on teachers working collaboratively. This collaboration proved difficult to implement as teachers were used to working in isolation. To address this issue, he restructured the school schedule in the following ways: “(1) an extra 90 minutes of professional development time was scheduled every 15 school days, and (2) grade-level meetings were held during the school day where teachers met on a weekly basis for 40 minutes with others who taught in the same grade level” (p. 63). Despite having the time to work together, teachers resisted. In discussing grade-level meetings, one teacher quoted in the book admitted, “I remember [a reading coach] had to come to my classroom to get me for each one. I was scared and hiding at my desk” (p. 86). Eventually, teachers did overcome their reluctance and, over time, their work together became more structured and more meaningful. Eventually, teachers met to create assessments, discuss student data, and plan instruction. As Baccellieri grew to understand, structure was key in making these meetings productive. He explains, “The work for school teams must be supported by structures—annual rituals, monthly routines, and weekly protocols during team meetings. Each of these structures is grounded in high expectations for the quality of teacher professionalism, support for teacher collaboration, and reflective dialogue on teaching and learning” (p. 146). During Baccellieri’s time at South Loop, he worked with teachers to create the following framework for improvement:

1)    Interim assessment analysis identifies areas of concern;

2)   Determine common assignments, or assessments targeting learning needs and addressing key state standards;

3)   Assign or administer common assessments, assignments, or student work to monitor progress;

4)   Protocols during weekly grade-level team meetings are used to share, score, discuss, and analyze common student work;

5)   Plan and teach, meeting student learning needs while addressing key state standards;

6)   Use monthly schoolwide professional development to address needs from team meetings and to move the work forward. (p. 146)

By working together through the six steps outlined above, South Loop’s achievement improved dramatically. Baccellieri notes that between 2002-2007, “In all areas tested, the percentage of students meeting and exceeding state standards moved from 32.4% to 83.4” (p. 82).

In considering this stunning improvement, it is important to keep in mind that change did not happen overnight. Indeed, the six-point framework just presented was not even developed at the beginning of Baccellieri’s time at South Loop. Rather it evolved over time. Even collaborative meetings were not very structured at first. Baccellieri writes, “There were few or no routines or structures that supported teacher conversations about summative or formative assessment data in 2003. During this school year, conversations about assessment occurred, but they were neither ongoing nor comprehensive” (p. 90). The conversations “were instructional in nature—intended to help the teachers become familiar with some basics about assessment” (p. 90). However, as time progressed, the work at South Loop became more targeted on standards and actual steps to improve student achievement. Baccellieri describes this change as follows:

In 2004, routines for working with assessments and assessment data were put in place. In grade-level team meetings, held three times a year, teachers examined schoolwide assessment data. By the end of that school year, assessment data were used for schoolwide curriculum planning. In addition to these activities, teachers collaboratively scored writing assessments and gave data presentations at schoolwide gallery walks. All these activities were ongoing after 2004. (p. 91)

In discussing change at South Loop, one teacher explained, “Teachers were expected to know what students were expected to learn and how that was different from previous years when teachers taught literacy by teaching one chapter after another from a test book” (p. 134). Indeed, prior to Baccellieri’s arrival, teachers at South Loop did not seem to be familiar with their state standards at all. In speaking of one of the first professional developments after Baccellieri’s arrival, one literacy coach said, “That was the first time we were introduced to the element of learning standards. The first time I ever saw that” (p. 64). This is shocking since you would expect a literacy coach to be one of the most knowledgeable educators in the building. If even the literacy coach did not know much about state standards, it seems unlikely that other teachers in the building would know much about them.

Instructional delivery was also impacted by the standards-based change at South Loop: “Teachers shifted from teaching from podiums to teaching student-centered lessons in classrooms with tables for groups and learning centers” (p. 134). However, like everything I have described thus far, shifting from teacher-led to student-led classrooms was a process. One of the school’s literacy coaches explains, “Differentiation definitely came in later [2005 and 2006] when there was more emphasis put on, you know, having guided reading and working with students at their level and knowing where to bring them up from” (p. 136).

The extent to which students took ownership for their learning was also a part of the process that developed over time. Baccellieri notes, “One important stage in the Standards-Based Change Process is student engagement, where students know the expected outcomes, then own the learning outcomes by monitoring their progress using rubrics” (p. 137). However, this type of student engagement would have been impossible during Baccellieri’s first year at South Loop since, by their own admission, the teachers themselves did not even know what students were supposed to learn. The teachers themselves had not developed rubrics that could monitor students’ progress towards reaching these outcomes.

All in all, the entire school had to function differently in order for significant change to result. The school principal took responsibility for this change and seemed to do everything in his power—from starting a non-profit organization to raise funds for new instructional materials to soliciting the aid of local universities to restructuring school schedules—in order to make the change work. Adding credibility to this account of school change is that the work teachers and school leaders did during year one of the change process was quite different from the work these educators were doing in year five. No one—not even Baccellieri—expected immediate change. Change happened in a natural way with everyone in the community learning bit by bit and changing the way they worked slowly but surely. I think that anyone who is truly interested in school change should take certain lessons from Baccellieri to heart. Anyone interested in really changing schools must realize that change happens slowly and in stages. Additionally, change happens only when the leadership makes it a top priority. Finally, in order for change to take root, certain structures (such as time for teachers to work together) need to be put into place.

Frameworks for Change

Baccellieri’s account of change reads as authentic and plausible since he actually lived through the entire change process from start to finish. Moreover, the change evolved organically over time. Change was a “work in progress,” and readers of his book sense that each day was a day to learn about what worked and what didn’t, so that changes were made to the change process when needed. However, in point of fact, Baccellieri’s framework for change is similar to what other authors we have read this semester call for. For example, in their chapter on initiating RTI² efforts, Fisher and Frey write ““For RTI² to work, it has to become accepted and institutionalized, not a special program that individual teachers can opt into or out of. It has to be hardwired into the very culture of the school” (Fisher & Frey, 2010, p. 127). This is exactly what Baccellieri did at South Loop. He started by creating structures (such as the time for professional development and grade-level meetings) that eventually led to routines and procedures for working with student data in meaningful ways. Moreover, Fisher and Frey write, “Organizational change directed at hardwiring excellence begins with the leadership” (p. 127). If it were not for Baccellieri’s commitment to change, South Loop would undoubtedly still have the abysmally low student scores that it had in 2002 when Baccellieri took over. It wasn’t enough to tell teachers to change or even to expect change. Baccellieri really had to change the way the school functioned. It is important to note that no teacher—no matter how determined—could have effected this change. The change had to be from the top-down even though it very much depended on all teachers working together. The reason I’m bringing this up is that I have noted in previous blogs that while well-intentioned, the different frameworks for change could never happen unless the leadership made it a priority. Baccellieri’s work with South Loop shows that when the leadership does make it a priority and gets everyone else on board, real change is possible—with time and sustained effort.  

References

Baccellieri, P. (2009). Professional learning communities: Using data in decision making to improve student learning. Huntington Beach, CA: Shell Education.

Boudett, K. P., City, E. A., & Murnane, R. J. (2013). Data wise: A step-by-step guide to using assessment results to improve teaching and learning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2010). Enhancing RTI: How to ensure success with effective classroom instruction and intervention. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

RTI2: A Beautiful Yet Impractical Dream

Despite the best instruction by the most dedicated teachers, some students fall behind. The goal of RTI (Response to Intervention) is to help students by placing them into intervention as soon as they need help. It is therefore a big improvement over “the traditional method for identifying a learning disability, referred to as a discrepancy model, [which] requires the presence of a statistically significant gap between expected and actual performance” (Fisher & Frey, 2010, pp. 16-17). Waiting for such a gap to form could mean wasting time (sometimes years!) and increasing frustration for both teacher and student. This model also allows little problems to turn into big problems by essentially ignoring them until those problems are big enough to “matter.” RTI rejects this model and seeks to give help when help is needed so that no student falls too far behind. However, Fisher and Frey (2010) argue that RTI does not go far enough. Instead, they argue for the RTI² system, presented in their book Enhancing RTI: How to Ensure Success with Effective Classroom Instruction & Intervention. Like RTI, RTI² has three tiers: Tier 1 represents “regular” instruction that all students receive; Tier 2 involves supplemental intervention services for those students who need additional support; and Tier 3 provides more intensive intervention for those students who have been unresponsive to Tier 2.

Tier 1, quality core instruction, is a necessary component of RTI² even though it is for everyone—not just students who are struggling. Fisher and Frey repeat throughout the book that intervention is never a replacement for quality instruction. They write, “RTI² is undermined when schools rely on Tier 2 or Tier 3 interventions to compensate for inadequate, unresponsive, and erratic core classroom instruction” (p. 25). They specify, “Approximately 75 to 85 percent of students should make sufficient progress through core instruction alone. Schools where this is not the case should focus on improving core instruction” (p. 24). But what does quality core instruction look like? According to Fisher and Frey, good instruction has several components. They emphasize that the teacher should always have a clear purpose in mind and that students should know what this purpose is. This makes sense because teaching without a purpose in mind would undoubtedly lead to haphazard and unfocused lessons. Beyond purpose, good core instruction should follow a “release of responsibility model” (p. 30). This model requires teachers to initially assume all responsibility for completing a task but then to transfer that responsibility to students. The stages of this model are as follows: teacher modeling, guided practice, collaborative work, and independent practice. In modeling, teachers show students the kind of thinking expected of students. Fisher and Frey write, “Modeling requires that teachers provide an example of what happens in their own minds as they solve problems, read, write, or complete tasks” (p. 34). Modeling could focus on many different areas. However, Fisher and Frey focus on four key areas: comprehension strategies (“questioning, inferring, making connections, summarizing, monitoring, predicting” (p. 34)), word solving (determining the meaning of unknown words by using context clues, word parts, and/or resources such as dictionaries), text structures, and text features. Each of these areas provides students with strategies to access texts so that students are not just learning about one text or one topic. Rather, these strategies help students access any text. They are tools students can use each and every time they read in their quest to become independent learners.

The next step in the release of responsibility model is guided practice, “the strategic use of cues, prompts, and questions designed to facilitate student thinking” (p. 38). At this stage, the teacher is working very closely with students, usually in a small-group setting. In order to ensure that students really understand the task, the intensity of a small group is appropriate. Fisher and Frey specify, “Guided instruction provides teachers with an opportunity to engage students in thinking without explicitly telling them what to think. It’s also an opportunity to scaffold student understanding before they’re asked to complete tasks independently” (p. 39).

After guided practice, students are ready to be a bit more independent. However, the next phase of the process, productive group work, allows students to help each other before they perform tasks completely on their own. In order for group work to be productive, “groups need interaction, firm deadlines, agreed-upon roles, and interdependent tasks to complete. Collaborative learning tasks are those that could not have been accomplished by an individual” (p. 40). These suggestions prevent scenarios in which only one student does the work even though students are technically sitting in a group. The idea is something like a puzzle with all the different pieces coming together to form a whole.

Finally, we arrive at independent learning, “the application of information to a new situation” (p. 41). Before independent learning happens, the teacher has provided students with an example, has guided students in completing tasks in a small-group setting, and has allowed students to work collaboratively. Students truly have gone through a process and are now ready to try a task on their own. Going through the previous steps maximizes students’ chances of success.

Most students who receive quality instruction should make progress, but some may still fall behind. Fisher and Frey explain, “Supplemental interventions, commonly referred to as Tier 2 interventions, are triggered when a student’s progress slows to below expected levels. This gap is formally measured through benchmark assessments that are given at least three times per year” (p. 52). There are a number of forms this intervention could take. However, Fisher and Frey explain that such intervention should increase the intensity of instruction by using a qualified teacher, additional time, smaller group size, and additional assessment. The suggestion for using a qualified teacher sounds like common sense. However, the truth is that oftentimes paraprofessionals or volunteers—individuals who are not certified as teachers—are the ones leading intervention. This is completely backwards. Fisher and Frey write that “the students who need the most help need more time with the person who has the most expertise—the classroom teacher” (p. 55). Next, Fisher and Frey write that Tier 2 intervention requires additional time. This recommendation is straightforward. After all, the students wouldn’t need intervention if their core instruction was giving them everything they needed. Fisher and Frey suggest small groups for intervention because “when the teacher-student ratio is reduced to this size, teacher attention increases, which translates into increased opportunities to provide corrective feedback, scaffolded instruction, and collaborative peer learning experiences” (p. 53). Every teacher knows that a whole-group setting allows some students to zone out or goof off. Even if students realize they need help and try to get that help during whole-group time, the teacher may not be able to do so because of time considerations. So by reducing group size to two to five students as Fisher and Frey suggest (p. 53), the teacher can be sure that each student gets the attention that he or she needs and deserves. Additionally, Tier 2 intervention necessitates more frequent assessment to ensure that students are actually making progress. If learners are not progressing, the intervention should be altered to fit the student’s needs. However, if a student is not progressing despite all of this, an additional layer of intervention, namely Tier 3 intervention, might be needed.

Tier 3 intervention provides students with an even more intensive layer of instruction than Tier 2 intervention. Fisher and Frey write, “This level of intervention is notable for its increased duration (more than 20 weeks), frequency (often five times per week), and decreased group size (individual)” (p. 76). In order to make sure that this daily one-on-one instruction benefits students, Fisher and Frey explain that five conditions are necessary. First of all it is extremely important to have a qualified teacher leading Tier 3 intervention because “only expert teachers are in a place to make split-second decisions that facilitate student understanding of the text and knowledge about literacy processes” (p. 80). Even computer programs that make big promises about targeting student skills—and which many school districts rush at great expense to adopt for their intervention programs—are no substitute for qualified teachers.

Tier 3 intervention should also be comprehensive, meaning that intervention should not focus solely on a skill, such as fluency or phonics—especially if that skill is taught in isolation. Rather, “good interventions should begin with reading, writing, listening to, and thinking about meaningful texts” (p. 82). This does not mean that a child who needs work in phonics should not get phonics instruction. Rather, “instruction in the processes of reading and writing (e.g., word recognition, comprehension strategies, vocabulary, fluency) ought to help facilitate students’ engagement with and understanding of real texts, rather than take center stage in the program” (p. 82).

Additionally, it is of the utmost important that Tier 3 intervention be engaging. Fisher and Frey dutifully point out, “Most students who participate in intensive interventions have had negative, or at least unproductive school experiences” (p. 85). Moreover, “As students repeatedly experience failure and lack of relevance, they become harder to engage in subsequent years” (p. 85). In order to pull these students back in, Tier 3 intervention should use engaging instruction and materials that are relevant to the student and build the student’s sense of confidence.

Students are incredibly complex, as are their instructional needs. Assessments should be used in Tier 3 intervention even more frequently than they are in Tier 2 intervention in order to align intervention with these complex student needs. Fisher and Frey write, “Ongoing assessments are necessary to determine if students understand the varied purposes for reading and writing, which skills they have already mastered, and where they could use further assistance” (p. 86). Individualized instruction is key. Fisher and Frey add, “Purchasing, adopting, or designing an intervention without this kind of information [i.e., the information assessment data provide] would likely be a futile consumption of teacher energy, student time, and fiscal resource” (p. 86). All instructional choices should be based on data that reveal with precision exactly what the student needs.

Finally, Fisher and Frey note that the most important element of effective Tier 3 intervention is time actually spent reading and writing. They note, “The amount of time students spend reading and writing (truly engaged in reading and writing rather than reluctantly pulled through a difficult or uninteresting text by the teacher) ought to substantially outweigh the amount of time that students spend practicing skills and strategies related to literacy” (p. 87). After all, the goal of intervention is to help students read and write. While individual skills may contribute to this goal, time teaching such skills should not supersede time spent on reading and writing actual texts.

Over and above everything I have mentioned, the RTI² process, which Fisher and Frey advocate, requires the continuous collaboration of specialists, such as the “special educator, Title I teacher, reading specialist, and classroom teacher” (p. 13) to provide exactly the instruction that each child needs. Moreover, they recommend having an “RTI² committee to examine school improvement” as well as “grade level meetings to design continued support for the following year” (p. 13).

There is no doubt in my mind that following Fisher and Frey’s RTI² process would lead to great improvements. However, their recommendations require an enormous commitment in terms of time, money, and resources from the entire school community. Logistically, I find it very difficult to believe that many schools could make this commitment or would even be willing to try. For example, consider my school. Currently, the district mandates all students who have not met proficiency levels on the end-of-year state assessment to be in intervention. This corresponds to Fisher and Frey’s Tier 2. However, looking at our recent assessment data, a full 60% of students would need to be placed into intervention. According to Fisher and Frey, our data indicates that we must improve our core instruction, as too many students are apparently falling behind grade level. The administration and leadership team at my school know that our core instruction is not consistently providing students with what they need. In fact, my job as reading coach exists in large part to help teachers reach that high level of core instruction. But change is not easy, nor does it happen overnight. Since I started working at my school two years ago, the level of instruction offered by the Reading/Language Arts Department has improved dramatically. However, teachers still struggle with implementing the release of responsibility model, often going to the one extreme of complete modeling or the other extreme of having students work independently. The in-between phases (guided practice and collaborative work) are often forgotten and therefore learning is compromised. We know this and are working on it. In the meantime, students do need to be placed into intervention. Currently our elementary teachers have thirty minutes each day to conduct intervention with their own students. However, most intervention groups are larger than the two to five students Fisher and Frey recommend. In some cases, entire classes of students are in intervention. And while we know this is a problem, we have not come up with a better solution. As I said earlier, a full 60% of our students qualify for intervention according to guidelines set by the district. In middle school the problem is worse since intervention is conducted through Intensive Reading classes. These are full-sized classes with their own textbooks, workbooks, and other resources. There is a lot of material to cover in these programs and, as such, many teachers tend to follow a whole-group format, which prevents students from getting the kind of intense, individualized help they really need to improve. Exacerbating the issue is our school schedule, which is made up of 54-minute periods. Given this time frame, even middle school teachers who want to work with small groups find they do not have sufficient time to do so unless they completely abandon the pacing guide provided by the district—a move the district would strongly discourage. Moving to a block schedule would help. However, each year I have worked at this school, we have voted on a schedule, and block scheduling gets voted down time and time again. Beyond this, middle school teachers are overwhelmed with trying to determine the needs of their 150 or more students. To pinpoint needs for this many students would require a major time commitment, extending a teacher’s workday well into the evening and weekend hours.

Another problem with intervention at my school is that most students who are in intervention never place out. Year in and year out, they lag behind their on-grade-level peers. This should, in theory, trigger Tier 3 intervention. However, I cannot imagine having enough funds to hire teachers to work one-on-one with the number of students who would qualify as Tier 3. As the school’s reading coach, it would make sense for this to be my job. However, this is not happening, nor do I foresee my principal using me in this capacity. From what we currently understand, the FSA only counts students who meet proficiency and does not look at learning gains. As such, working with students who are struggling the most is—from a high-stakes standpoint (which is the one my administrators are interested in)—essentially a waste of time. Our school will not earn points by focusing our efforts on helping kids who need the most help. It would be far better in my administration’s eyes to pull out students who are just below grade level and could potentially, with extra support, cross the threshold into FSA proficiency.

In terms of an RTI team to look at student progress, our school can barely manage to hold leadership team meetings. Everyone is overworked and overstressed. Unless additional funds are given to school to hire more staff and more support staff, I don’t see students receiving the help they so desperately deserve. Given the clash between the reality of my school and Fisher and Frey’s model, RTI² seems a beautiful dream that will never truly material until something significant changes.

References

Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2010). Enhancing RTI: How to ensure success with effective classroom instruction and intervention. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

School Improvement: Ideal Versus Reality

There is always an inordinately long gap between when students take the state assessment at the end of the school year and when state assessment results are reported. After a year of hard work, both teachers and students are anxious to know if that hard work has paid off. Sometimes teachers feel an overwhelming sense of accomplishment and pride when their students’ scores are high. Other times teachers are crushed by low scores that belie their hard work and dedication. But no matter what the scores may be—even if they are among the top for the district or even state—school administrators always want teachers to improve. If only there were some magical formula! Improvement undoubtedly requires every member of the school community to work hard each and every day. At our school, we have been told time and time again to focus on the standards. However, sometimes improvement can seem random, and it is difficult to know what particular strategies actually lead to growth in student learning. In an attempt to bring order to school improvement initiatives, Boudett, City, and Murnane (2013) have outlined an eight-step process. The rest of this blog will provide a detailed description of this eight-step process and then contrast it with the school improvement process mandated by the Miami-Dade County Public Schools. In writing this blog, I hope to highlight the contrast between an idealized version of the school improvement process and the reality that many educators are experiencing.

The Ideal: Boudett, City, and Murnane’s School Improvement Process

The school improvement process outlined by Boudett, City and Murnane (2013) is comprised of the following eight steps (p. 11):

1) Organize for Collaborative Work

2) Build Assessment Literacy

3) Create Data Overview

4) Dig into Student Data

5) Examine Instruction

6) Develop Action Plan

7) Plan to Assess Progress

8) Act and Assess

Their first step, “Organizing for Collaborative Work,” (p. 13) requires schools to build the foundation for school-wide collaboration by making sure that certain structures are in place. This means, first and foremost, that a leadership team should exist to initiate the process. It also means that the school must commit to an improvement process with specific steps. This process will then serve as a roadmap and will help to ensure that everyone stays on track. Boudett et al. argue, “By breaking the work into discrete steps, the process makes an overwhelming prospect feel manageable” (p. 15).  Of course, Boudett et al. undoubtedly think their own eight-step process will lead to improvement, but they say that simply committing to a structured process—whether or not it is theirs—is essential. Moreover, it is important that the school sets aside time for teams of teachers to meet to undertake essential school-improvement tasks, such as analyzing data or devising strategies to improve teaching and learning. Without such time, the school improvement process will never get off the ground. Even if it does, there will be no follow-through. For this very reason, many schools now have common planning time. Whether schools carve out time for common planning, faculty meetings, or some other format (such as professional learning communities), Boudett et al. “have found that meeting at least twice a month for collaborative planning seems to work well for schools” (p. 19). However, even if schools meet on a consistent basis, there is no guarantee that anything productive will happen. As anyone who has ever attended a faculty meeting at the end of a long work day can verify, naysayers will quickly derail any true chance of improvement if some ground rules are not set up beforehand. Having an agenda with clear objectives and even following protocols with specific steps and roles for participants can ensure that time spent working together is truly productive.

           

Once the foundation is set, it is important to build the school staff’s assessment literacy (Boudett et al.’s second step). After all, much of the work of school improvement will center around interpreting test results, and if the staff does not know how to do this—or how different types of tests yield different information—then the school may be making decisions based on a faulty or incomplete understanding of the data.

After the staff has a basic assessment literacy, it is time for step three, which involves taking a closer look at all of the data collected in the building and creating a data inventory. After all, every school collects mountains of data, and this data can be extremely useful if you know where to look and what to look for. But rather than looking at the data in a haphazard way, it is very important to identify a focus area. Boudett et al. advise, “The [focus] area should be directly related to instruction and broad enough so that all staff members engaged in the conversation see themselves playing a role in addressing it” (p. 68). Once a focus area has been identified, the school will be able to look at the data they have in a more targeted way. They can also begin to ask questions about the data they are examining. Boudett et al. write, “The underlying questions should also drive every aspect of the presentation of the assessment data and provide a rationale for why it is important to present the data one way or another” (p. 71). For example, the following questions may all be valid depending on the school’s needs:

Do you want to emphasize time trends? Are you interested in cohort comparisons? Is it important to analyze student performance by group? Do you want to focus the discussion on the students who fall into the lowest proficiencies or those who occupy the highest? (p. 71).  

After deciding on a focus area and creating some type of data display that highlights the focus in a meaningful way, it is important to “allow staff members to make sense of the data” (p. 83). It is not enough to just explain the data to them. Rather, the staff must take ownership of the data, and the only way to do this is to have them actively working with it. After looking at data, the staff should come up with a priority question that “is focused on educational matters, not on other student-related issues that might be outside your school’s control” (pp. 84-85). After all, if an issue is outside of the school’s control, then there is no chance any effort on the part of the school will improve the issue. In crafting a priority question it is helpful to center the question around “a single learning standard, subgroup of students, or type of work” (pp. 84-85).

After looking at data and coming up with a priority question, educators proceed to step four, digging into the data. This step requires teachers to ponder the “learner-centered problem.” What this means is that it is not enough to know that students are not performing well. Rather, it is important to understand—or to at least attempt to understand—what led to this lackluster performance. No rash steps to improve a student’s performance should be implemented until this problem is thoroughly analyzed. Although you cannot fully get into a student’s head, looking at appropriate data and triangulating the story that different data provide should give teachers insight into why students are struggling.

Once you have looked at data and have gained insight into what might be leading to problems, you now need to examine instruction (step five) because it is instruction that has the power to change outcomes. Boudett et al. write, “The primary focus has to be on what we have control over—what happens at school. This is not an easy task. Despite their hard work, teachers don’t often see great improvements on state tests, and they don’t think it’s possible to work any harder” (p. 112). Part of examining instruction means developing a vision of what “effective teaching looks like so you can assess whether what you’re doing now fits or doesn’t fit that vision” (p. 118).  However, one must not label teaching “effective” at random. Boudett et al. warn, “When looking internally to develop ideas of effective practice, the key is to ground the discussion in evidence” (p. 119). If there is no evidence that anything happening at your school site is effective, it may be time to turn outward by “visiting another school or attending a professional conference, or you can bring it in, by learning from consultants or reviewing research” (p. 120).

Once the school has a picture of effective instruction in mind—whether that picture came from within the school, outside the school, or a combination of both—it is absolutely essential to developing an action plan (step six), which means “explicitly committing to a particular strategy or set of strategies for instructional improvement and writing up a formal action plan is important” (p. 134). Educators must “agree on what your plan will look like in classrooms” (p. 141), “put the plan in writing” (p. 144), and “assign responsibilities and time frames” (p. 144).

In order to track how the action plan is affecting student learning, the school must implement Boudett et al.’s step seven, which is deciding on a series of assessments to administer over the course of the action plan. Boudett et al. explain, “It is important to establish short-term, medium-term, and long-term goals so teachers have targets to aim for and benchmarks by which to assess their students’ progress” (p. 162). After all, without these assessments, it will be impossible to determine if the strategies implemented as part of the action plan are working.

After all of this planning, the school must then embark on step number eight, which entails actually following through with the plan and then evaluating whether or not the action plan has been effective. Sometimes educators must face the harsh reality that their plan of action was not effective. However, in most cases, students will have benefited to some extent. In any case, Boudett et al. encourage schools to “celebrate success, revisit your criteria and raise the bar, and plan how to keep the work fresh and ongoing” (p. 185). The process is cyclical, so working through all eight steps does not mean that the process is over; it just means that it is time to review what has happened and to start a new phase of the process. The task of school improvement is never really over.

The Reality: School Improvement in the Miami-Dade County Public Schools (MDCPS)

Each year, schools in MDCPS are required to create a formal School Improvement Plan (SIP). This year, the SIP was due at the end of September. In theory, this would have given teachers about a month to approach school improvement in a structured way. In theory, teachers should have had some time to look at student data, determine an area of focus, and begin analyzing this focus area in a meaningful way. Perhaps schools could have had two or three faculty meetings to undertake this work collectively. However, in reality, the school, as one unified group, did not discuss school improvement at all. Instead, department chairs were given less than a week to set goals and commit to strategies for their respective departments.

As the reading coach for my school, I was tasked with leading the Reading/Language Arts Department in selecting goals for school improvement and identifying strategies that would help us meet those goals. I was also required to pinpoint a series of steps we would take and identify individuals who would be responsible for monitoring those steps. Finding an hour to meet with all members of a department was a challenge. Meeting as a school was a sheer impossibility that did not even cross anyone’s mind. In terms of meeting as a department, it came down to one teacher-planning day the very day before the SIP was due. Unfortunately, many of the teachers had taken the day off, so many members within my department had no input at all over what went into the SIP. Furthermore, many teachers were angry that they had to “waste” their teacher-planning day on doing “paperwork,” which generated negative energy and blocked real discussion of what would truly benefit students. The task shifted from what do our students need and how can we help them to what will our administrators count as acceptable completion of this task. After about half an hour, something was hastily created and agreed upon. The paperwork was mailed to the principal, at which point she cut and pasted all the goals and strategies of the respective departments into one document and sent it off to the district office.

We did not look at any data to complete our component of the SIP.[1]

We did not share our goals and strategies with anyone outside of our department.

We have not revisited, discussed, or even so much as mentioned the SIP since that one half-hour meeting that took place at the end of September.

The Bottom Line

School improvement is clearly not happening the way it is supposed to in MDCPS. At a superficial level, the School Improvement Plan required by MDCPS bears some resemblance to Boudett et al.’s eight-step process. However, upon deeper inspection and reflection, there is very little chance that MDCPS’s SIP will lead to genuine improvement. If districts are serious about school improvement they cannot require schools to rush through a mandated school improvement process. What is needed is time. We need time to analyze data, time to reflect, time to discuss strategies, time to observe each other, time to research strategies that are supported by research and time to assess our students and evaluate whether or not they are making progress. Given how busy teachers are, I do not see how a school-improvement process such as the one recommended by Boudett et al. could ever get off the ground unless it is given absolute priority status by the school administrators. And this means that the school should—as recommended by Boudett et al.—commit to one improvement goal and not require different departments to select different goals, find their own strategies and develop their own action plans. It also means that the goals and strategies must be the focus of ongoing discussion at the school level. Again, this means that administrators must make the goal and strategies a priority and make sure that time is spent at faculty meetings working on these goals, revisiting these goals, and evaluating progress toward these goals.

If administrators commit to working on a school goal as an absolute priority, then I do believe school improvement is possible. However, the district as well as school administrators must do its best to make sure its initiatives do not supersede the goal of school improvement. Something always seems to get in the way of actual school improvement. Even if we genuinely wanted to embark on Boudett et al.’s process or something like it, our chances of success would be thwarted. For example, two of this month’s faculty meetings were canceled because our school—just like every other school in MDCPS—was required to train teachers on a new component of their evaluation, the Deliberate Practice Growth Target (DPGT). Common planning meetings within the Reading/Language Arts department are now wholly dedicated to disseminating information learned at monthly coach meetings (which I attend) or district-led professional development sessions (that selected teachers within my department attend). There is simply no time left to do the work of school improvement in a systematic and meaningful way. The district requires schools to create an improvement plan but then requires them to do so many other things that no time is left to actually implement the plan.

Until the district actually grants schools the time to do school improvement work, and until administrators make it a priority, school improvement will remain an unattainable ideal for MDCPS and any district that functions in a similar manner.

References

Boudett, K. P., City, E. A., & Murnane, R. J. (2013). Data wise: A step-by-step guide to using assessment results to improve teaching and learning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press

---

[1] I am tempted to say that no data was available for us to work with, for FSA data had not been released at that point in the school year. I must admit, however, that we could have used i-Ready data from the previous school year to make data-based decisions. However, to analyze i-Ready in a meaningful would have required time that we were not given.