ED 295 7'15

TITLE

INSTITUTION

REPORT NOPUB DATENOTE

AVAILABLE FROM

PUB TYPE

EDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS

DOCUMENT RESUME

SP 030 263

Increasing Educational Success: The Effective SchoolsModel. Prepared for the Subcommittee on Elementary,Secondary, and Vocational Education, Committee onEducation and Labor. House of Representatives, 100thCongress, 1st Session.Congress of the U.S., Washington, D.C. HouseCommittee on Education and Labor.House-R-100-00Oct 8779p.; Serial No. 100-Q. Reprinted materials containsmall type.Superintendent of Documents, Congressional SalesOffice, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington,DC 20402.Legal/Legislative/Regulatory Materials (050)

MF01/PC04 Plus Postage.*Educational Improvement; *Educational Policy;Elementary Secondary Education; *Government Role;*Policy Formation; Public Schools; ResearchUtilization; *School Effectiveness

ABSTRACTThe purpose of this Committee Print on Effective

Schools is to add substance to Congressional deliberation onlegislation which addresses school improvement as a priority on thenational educational agenda. The report provides the written views orsome of the nation's leading educators, who have made importantresearch contributions in the area of public schoolimprovement--using Effective Schools research as a base for suchimprovement. New studies by Michael Cohen, Thomas Corcoran, EugeneEubanks, and Daniel Levine are included, along with reprints ofpreviously published studies by Rohald R. Edmond, Stewart C. Purkeyand Marshall S. Smith, Jere Brophy, and Maureen McCormack-Larkin. Thereport presents an objective assessment of the Effective Schoolsresearch, and its application in school systems utilizing EffectiveSchools concepts. (JD)

***********************************************************************Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made

from the original document.***********************************************************************

[COMMITTEE PRINT]

100TH CONGRESS

1st Session {HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES100-00

REPORT

INCREASING EDUCATIONAL SUCCESS:THE EFFECTIVE SCHOOLS MODEL

PREPARED FOR THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ELEMENTARY, SECONDARY, ANDVOCATIONAL EDUCATION

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABORHOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

OCTOBER 1987

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOffice of Educational Research

and ImprovementEDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION

CENTER (ERIC)O This document has been reproduced as

received from the person or organizahonoriginatingO Minor changes have been made to improve

reproduction Quality

Poi, is of view or opinions stated in this docirment do not necessarily represent officialOERI position or policy

(THIS REPORT HAS NOT BEEN OFFICIALLY ADOPTED BY THECOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR OR THE SUBCOMMIT-TEE ON ELEMENTARY, SECONDARY, AND VOCATIONAL EDUCA-TION AND MAY NOT THEREFORE NECESSARILY REFLECT THEVIEWS OF ITS MEMBERS)

Serial No. 100-Q

Printed for the use of the House Committee on Education and Labor

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

78-655 WASHINGTON : 1987

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales OfficeUS. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402

2

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR

AUGUSTUS F. HAWKINS, California, ChairmanWILLIAM D. FORD, MichiganJOSEPH M. GAYDOS, PennsylvaniaWILLIAM (BILL) CLAY, MissouriMARIO BIAGGI, New YorkAUSTIN J. MURPHY, PennsylvaniaDALE E. KILDEE, MichiganPAT WILLIAMS, MontanaMATTHEW G. MARTINEZ, CaliforniaMAJOR R OWENS, New YorkCHARLES A. HAYES, IllinoisCARL C. PERKINS, KentuckyTHOMAS C. SAWYER, OhioSTEPHEN J. SOLARZ, New YorkROBERT E. WISE, JR., West VirginiaTIMOTHY J. PENNY, MinnesotaBILL RICHARDSON, New MexicoTOMMY F. ROBINSON, ArkansasPETER J. VISCLOSKY, IndianaCHESTER G. ATKINS, MassachusettsJAMES JONTZ, Indiana

JAMES M. JEFFORDS, VermontWILLIAM F. GOODLING, PennsylvaniaE. THOMAS COLEMAN, MissouriTHOMAS E. PETRI, WisconsinMARGE ROUKEMA, New JerseySTEVE GUNDERSON, WisconsinSTEVE BARTLEIT, TexasTHOMAS J. TAUKE, IowaRICHARD K. ARMEY, TexasHARRIS W. FAWELL, IllinoisPAUL B. HENRY, Michigan=RED CBANDY, IowaCASS BALLENGER, North Carolina

SUBCOMMITTEE O.: ELEMENTARY, SECONDARY, AND VOCATIONAL EDUCATION

AUGUSTUS F. HAWKINS, California, ChairmanWILLIAM D FORD, Michigan WILLIAM F. GOODLING, PennsylvaniaDALE E. KILDEE, Michigan STEVE BARTLETT, TexasPAT WILLIAMS, Montana HARRIS W. FAWELL, IllinoisMATTHEW G. MARTINEZ, California PAUL B. HENRY, MichiganCARL C. PERKINS, Kentucky FRED GRANDY, IowaMARIO BIAGGI. New York STEVE GUNDERSON, WisconsinCHARLES A. HAYES, Illinois THOMAS E. PETRI, WisconsinTHOMAS C. SAWYER, Ohio MARGE ROUKEMA, New JerseySTEPHEN J. SOLARZ, New York JAMES M. JEFFORDS, VermontROBERT E. WISE, JR., West VirginiaBILL RICHARDSON, New MexicoTOMMY F. ROBINSON, ArkansasPFTER J. VISCLOSKY, IndianaCrIESTER G. ATKINS, Massachusetts

PREFACE

October .1987.This report on the iiation-wide Effective Schools movement pro-vides the written views of some of the Nation's leading educatorswho have made significant research contributions in the area ofpublic school improvementusing Effective Schools research as abase for such improvement. The authors' studies in the EffectiveSchools field and their comments, are varied and broad-ranged.They provide an objective assessment of the Effective Schools re-search, and its application in school systems utilizing EffectiveSchools concepts.Some of the studies in this report have been previously pub-lished. The new studies not previously published, particularly ex-amine the relevance of the Effective Schocls research for educa-tional policymaking, especially ar, education policy is determined atthe Federal level.It is important that Members of the Education and Labor Com-mittee have access to this report in light of the national dialogueon education reform and school improvement. I believe that suchinformation can help Members in assessing avenues for Federal as-sistance in improving the Nation's schools, as part of the Commit-tee's oversight and legislative purpose.Our society's economic sectors and technological requirementsare constantly and rapidly changing, impacting heavily on the Na-tion's workforce. Any key to these changes must significantly indude the Nation's ability to educate its workforce, in order thatthe workforce keep up with the demands of change. Policymakersand lawmakers will be well served by this report's commentary onthe Nation's educational system, and the role that the EffectiveSchools effort can take in improving this system.

AUGUSTUS F. HAWKINS,Chairman, Committee on Education and Labor.

(111

4

INTRODUCTION

As the Nation grapples with major economic and social problemsin areas such as economic productivity and welfare reform, there isa growing recognition of the critical role education must play in de-veloping long-term solutions to these problems. The EffectiveSchools research, the subject of this Committee print, has immedi-ate and significant implications for the Congress and the Nation asafforts to improve our schools are undertaken.

When the National Commission on Excellence in Education re-leased its report, A Nation At Risk, on April 26, 1983, the cour trywas struck by the report's dire tone and gloomy outlook.The Nation was at risk, according to the Commission, because,"Our society and its educational institutions seem to have lostsight of the basic purposes of schooling, and of the high expecta-tions and disciplined effort needed to attain them."

Many educators disagreed with certain aspects of the report, ob-serving that numerous public school systems had conducted re-views similar to the Commission's efforts. These school systems hadalready begun reforms to address their educational limitations.

In fact, the Commission, probably sensing the existence of educa-tional reform efforts predating its own inquiry, had commissioneda series of papers discussing a growing school improvement endeav-or known as the Effective Schools movement. One of these papers,A Review of the Effective Schools Research: Implications for Prac-tice and Research, concluded that "it is fair to say that effectiveschools programs are widespread, are being fairly well implement-ed, have promise for secondary improvement as well as elementa-ry, and will expand in use over the next few years."

Interest in Effective Schools research by the U.S. Congress alsopre-dated the Commission's report. In March 1980, CongressmanAugustus F. Hawkins and then Congresswoman Shirley Chisholmco-sponsored a two-day conference on "Schools that WorkA Re-commitment to Public Education." The conference discussed how toidentify and promote models of school effectiveness. One of the keypresenters at this conference, and one of the founders of the Effec-tive Schools movement, was Ronald Edmonds, who at that timewas the Director of the Center for Urban Studies at Harvard Uni-versity.

For many years, Dr. Edmonds had challenged the view thatfamily background was a more important teacher than a child'sschool experience, and therefore "schools don't make a difference."At Harvard University, at Michigan State University, and as aNew York City school administrator, Edmonds put his EffectiveSchools research to practical application and concluded thatschools can make a difference when they improve the quality of

(V)

5

VI

their leaders ilp, their expectations for student performance, andschool climate. Edmonds noted that in his research on pupil per-formance, in the 20 elementary schools in Detroit's Model Citiesneighborhooc, that "pupil family background neither causes norprecludes elementary school instructional effectiveness."

The efforts by Edmonds and others launched he EffectiveSchools movement which is based on research and models of schooleffectiveness showing that instructionally effective schools havefive characteristics that distinguish them from ineffective schools:First, strong leadership at the school level; second, high expecta-tions that no child will fall below minimum levels of achievement;third, an or lerly school atmosphere conducive to learning andteaching; fourth, students' acquisition of basic and higher orderskills taking precedence over all other school activity; and fifth,frequent and consistent evaluation of student progress.

Effective &hools research primarily began in the inner cities ofthis Nation, among the children of the poor. An early pioneer inthis endeavor was George Weber, who, in a 1971 study, examinedfour inner cit,- schools in which achievement in reading was clearlyhigh for poor children. Weber found that all four schools evidencedstrong leadership by the school principal; high expectations for allstudents; an crderly school climate; strong emphasis on pupil ac-quisiticn of reading skills; and frequent evaluation of studentprogress.

Effective Schools research posits that teachers, principals, andschools control many educational elements that can improve student achievement, student behavior, and teaching and learningpractices. The underlying assumptions in Effective Schools pro-grams are: all children are educable; and, their educational out-,;omes derive primarily from the nature of the schools to whichthey are sent, not from the nature of the family or neighborhoodfrom which they come.

It is not known currently the exact number of school districtswith Effective Schools programs. Testimony before the Subcommit-tee on Elementary, Secondary, and Vocational Education indicatedthat, according to a 1985 National Institute of Education report,7,500 schools in 1,750 school districts had Effective Schools pro-gi ams. The actual total may be higher because mar./ schools havei .formally adopted Effective School: policies and because manyInv:? programs have apparently been started in the past year. TheCommittee is also aware that some 15 to 25 States have implement-ed Effective Schools programs. Approximate' j two-thirds of theprograms are found in elementary schools. The programs tend tvbe well-represented in large and moderate-sized cities and in ruralareas; but, they are less likely to be found in suburban areas.

To date, an impressive number of statewide Effective Schoolsprograms, and !peal school district Effective Schools programs areexperiencing reasonable to outstanding progress in improving aca-demic performance.

For example, the Connecticut State Department of Educationand the San Diego (California) County Office of Education have de-veloped very productive technical assistance programs for schoolsand school districts that voluntarily commit themselves to partici-pate in an Effective Schools effort. In this Committee print, the

6

VII

study by Maureen McCormack-Larkin delineates the degree of im-provement being experienced in one school district (Milwaukee) asa result of implementing an Effective Schools program.There is n a doubt that more study and research is needed to de-termine the dynamics of program implementation and impactwithin the school and in the classroom. However, several points areclear:

(1) The Effective Schools research findings are more than theory;a number of States, school districts, and schools have found theprinciples delineated by the research worthy of replication andhave implemented them in actual school settings.

(2) Where these programs are being implemented, they are gen-erally improving student academic achievement and providingother positive outcomes.(3) The programs do not necesarily involve large amounts offunding.(4) The Effective Schools techniques hold great promise for im-proving education in many other areas where they have not been

tried. This is true for secondary school improvement as well as forelementary schools.For those States and schools districts that have not yet explored

these programs, Effective Schools efforts could expand appreciablyover the next few years. Frequently, the Effective Schools conceptshave remained untried because school officials are unfamiliar withthe programs or the research evidence, because the leadershipneeded to initiate programs is lacking, or because school districtsdo not have the technical expertise or necessary start-up funding.Recognizing the need for a responsive Federal role in encourag-ing the Nation's public school systems to explore ways to improve,Congressman Augustus F. Hawkins, on February 2, 1984, intro-duced the first Effective Schools bill in the 98th Congress (H.R.4371, the "Effective Schools Development in Education Act of1984"). During the 99th Congress, the House passed H.R. 4463, tha"Effective Schools and Even Start Act" (June 17, 1986). H.R. 4463was authored and introduced by Chairman Hawkins and Congress-man Goodling and several other co-sponsors for the purpose of es-tablishing programs to promote effective schools and to encouragejoint parent-child educational approaches.

Work toward a Federal program supporting Effective Schools hascontinued in the 100th Congress. On May 21, 1987, the Housepassed H.R. 5, "The School Improvement Act," which would addEffective Schools language to the Federal compensatory educationprogram (Chapter 1) and the Federal education block grant (Chap-ter 2).

The purpose of this Committee print on Effective Schools is toplace in perspective the importance and the historical significanceof the Effective Schools movement in the Nation's struggle to im-prove public school education. In providing this perspective, theCommittee print presents the written views of some leading educa-tors who have played prominent roles in the school improvement/Effective Schools dialogue. The authors of these studies present avaried, broad-ranged, and objective assessment of the EffectiveSchools research, particularly as an applied methodology.

VIII

These studies will add a significant knowledge-base to Congres-sional deliberation on legislation to address school improvement asa priority on the national educational agenda.

OVERVIEW OF THE PRINT

This Committee print on Effective Schools combines new work bysome of the leading analysts in the field with a number of previ-ously published studies that have contributed significantly to theresearch. The new studies, by Michael Cohen, Thomas Corcoran,Eugene Eubanks, and Daniel Levine, show the relevance of the Ef-fective Schools research for educational policymaking at all levels,including the Federal level. They address the adequacy cf the re-search base; the impact of the research on current school reformactivities; the roles played by students, teachers, principals, dis-trict-level aaministrators, and State and Federal policymakers inreforming education. These new studies are reviewed below. A con-cluding section discusses the findings presented in the previouslypublished reports.

NEW RESEARCH

Given the significance of the new studies prepared specificallyfor this Committee print, it is important to discuss what they foundand what they suggest for Federal educational policymaking.

Effective Schools and State Education ReformMichael Cohen, in "Effective Schools and State Education

Reform: Implications for the Congress," provides an overview ofthe development and findings of the Effective Schools researchbase, anl shows how this research base has served to undergird theschool reform movement sweeping the country. Significantly, hedelineates what the lessons of this research are for policymakersand describes some steps that might be taken at the Federal levelto further educational reform.

From the research base, Cohen identifies four broad areas impor-tant for the development of Effective Schools: academic learningtime; school-level instructional management and coordination;school climate and culture; and instructional leadership. Practition-ers and researchers have over the course of the preceding decadelearned a great deal about how teachers can improve the amountof time students spend engaged in learning a particular subject. Al-though less is known about how to realize a tight linkage among ascnool's curricular goals, instructional objectives, in-school activi-ties, measures of performance, and personnel, he asserts that sucha linkage is important for achieving effectiveness. The develoi,mentof a strong sense of community among teachers, administrators,and students and an agreed-upon set of expectations about behav-ior help support currict.lar and instructional objectives. There isconsensus, according to Cohen, about the importance of instruction-al leadership from the principal; how to achieve that is a matter ofcontinuing research and debate.

Cohen states that policymakers, at all levels, have learned fromthis research that: (1) schools are . ble to make a difference in stadent performance; (2) schools arc the basic building blocks for

8

IX

achieving educational reform; (3) teachers' professional isolationmust be reduced; and (4) outside support is necessary for school-level reform.Cohen shows how the Effective Schools research base and the les-sons that it teaches gave impetus to the nature and direction ofrecent State efforts to reform education. The influence of the re-search is seen in the establishment of higher standards and expec-tations for students and teachers, efforts to .provide additional re-sources at the school level to teachers and principals, and activitiesto improve school climate and management. A second wave ofreform, focused on restructured schools, draws even more upon theEffective Schools research. This second wave, according to Cohen,calls for restructuring that will break down barriers betweenteachers, empower teachers and principals, permit schools to ad-dress higher order skills more effectively, and provide schools withgreater flexibility coupled with increased accountability.In congressional deliberation on educational improvement, Cohenposits that what is needed are the following: (1) the application of

the Effective Schools findings in schools with the greatest concen-trations of educationally disadvantaged students; (2) continued sup-port to replenish the knowledge base since current definitions of ef-fectiveness are necessarily time-bound; (3) steps to sustain the cur-rent reform movement through, for example, programs to supportmodels of restructured schools.

Role of the District in School Effectiveness.Thomas B. Corcoran, in "The Role of the District in School Effec-tiveness," moves the focus of the discussion to an area of criticalimportance for successful implementation of ,7ective schoolreform, but one for which the educational research base is extreme-ly limited. Cohen states in his analysis that school-based improve-ment activities need support from outside the school; Corcoran de-lineates how important that support is, particularly that whichflows to the school from the school district and district-level admin-istrators. Corcoran's findings are significant for Federal education

policy since the school district, not individual schools, is a primaryactor in current Federal education programs.District-level policymakers, Corcoran asserts, provide the contextwithin which local schools and their faculty and principals can un-dertake reform activities. He states that school districts influence

many aspects of schools' environments, such as attendance policies,curricular and other standards, the level of resources available,and how those resources are distributed. School improvement ini-tiatives often originate or are mediated at the district level, givingdistricts control over such things as which schools participate, howthe initiative should be viewed (e.g., a major restructuring ormerely a source of additional resources), and the level of resourcesto be devoted to the initiative.

A significant part of the environment within which schools func-tion is shaped by collective bargaining, an activity carried out atthe district level. The barriers that separate school staff are clearlyinfluenced by collective bargaining, according to Corcoran.

Corcoran identifies two models of district-level activity that havebeen derived from the Effective Schools research. One is seen in

X

practice through the proliferation of district-level Effective Schoolsprojects that focus on defining instructional objectives, settinggraduation requirements, increasing instructional time, ensuringthat tests measure what is taught, and establishing district-levelassessment of student performance. Corcoran views this as aneffort by districts to take greater control over their schools. He iscritical of this trend of top-down reform, positing that in Lhe longrun it may be counterproductive, exacerbating tension betweenschool-level and district-level staff, lowering teacher morale, andnarrowing the curriculum.

The second model for the district that has emerged from the re-search is that of a facilitating and protecting agentencouragingschool-level reform activities increasing school-level responsibility,and providing incentives for participation. Nevertheless, in thismodel, the district continues to set the broad context within whichreform is carried out.

Corcoran concludes by describing the steps that districts can per-form to improve the chances-that Effective Schools efforts will suc-ceed. Among these steps are: (1) determining which aspects of theoperation of school systems belong with school-level personnel andwhich belong with district-level policymakers; (2; setting clear ob-jectives for the school system; (3) defining the measures used togauge schools' performance; (4) establishing ways of encouragingschool-level personnel to identify their problems and to take stepsto address them; and (5) treating school reform as a long-term ac-tiv....y.

By focusing on the school district, Corcoran shows that Federalactivity to further educational reform might well be influenced bydistrict-level practices and personnel. He suggests that efforts tofoster positive relationships between schools and district manage-ment may be critical for achieving reform.

Administrative and Organizational Arrangements in EffectiveSchools

Eugene Eubanks and Daniel Levine, in their study, assess the or-ganizational and administrative coi.diticns necessary for implemen-tation of Effective Schools programs in schools serving economical-ly and educationally disadvantaged students, particularly thc_aurban schools with concentrations of poverty children. Their analy-sis complements that of Cohen by arguing that current schoolreform activity, even that inspired by the Effective Schools re-search, cannot succeed in poverty schools unless certain fun,iamen-tal shortcomings of those schools are addressed. They also stress, asdoes Corcoran, the importance of the organizational settings withinwhich schools are found. Their key message is that EffectiveSchools reform may require a greater investment of resources forsome kinds of schools than the research has heretofore suggested.These resources, according to Eubanks and Levine, are necessarypreconditions for successfi.: implementation of Effective Schools ac-tivities.

Eubanks and Levine focus on six broad areas of what must beaddressed for implementatio of Effective Schools programs inschools serving economically and educationally disadvantaged stu-dents. resources, organization, testing, secondary schools, adminis-

!_ 0

XI

trators, and planning. Drawing from the literature and their ownexperiences, they counsel that resources be devoted to reducingclass size, particularly in classes with high percentages of educa-tionally disadvantaged children, to increasing the number of super-visory and technical assistance staff, to acquiring additional in-structional materials and supplies, and to hiring more specializedstaff.The organization of schools and classrooms, according to Eu-banks and Levine, is a key to creating effective schools. Amongthese organizational issues is the grouping of students for which,they posit, there is no single best approach. Nevertheless, concernsabout segregating students by race or socioeconomic class suggest,to them, the importance of attempting heterogeneous groupingwhen possible. Another important organization issue, with impli-cations for Federal policy, is the coordination between regular in-

struction and compensatory education, such as that supported byChapter 1 of the Education Consolidation and Improvement Act of1981. Eubanks and Levine are critical of "pull out" arrangementsthrough which educationally disadvantaged students are removedfrom their regular classes in order to receive compensatory educa-tion.

The authors find that testing can be both harmful and beneficialfor school effectiveness. Testing that stresses basic skills hasprompted instructional strategies that have successfully improvedstudent performance at this level. This improvement, they suggest,has come at a cost of narrowing the curriculum to lower orderskills, leaving students without higher order skills, such as problemsolving. Eubanks and Levine assert that administrators must usetesting to increase the acquisition of higher order skills.

Urban secondary schools, according to the authors, pose particu-larly difficult problems for school reform, requiring creation of al-ternative structures, (e.g., schools within schools), strengthened fac-ulty, and increased numbers of support staff.Eubanks and Levine posit, as does Cohen, that leadership is criti-cal for the development of effective schools, They advocate betterpre-service and in-service training of administrators through paidinternships and other arrangements for providing management ex-perience. They link leadership skills to the creation of productiveschool climate.They state that systematic reform of schools serving economical-ly and educationally disadvantaged students succeeds or fails de-pending upon the kind of planning performed. Among their guide-lines for planning are limiting the number of objectives schoolsseek to achieve; targeting plans to central instructional issues; andincorporating the Effective Schools research findings into plans in

ways that show what steps need to be taken.Eubanks and Levine conclude that there are certain prerequi-sites for the reform of schools serving the educationally and eco-nomically disadvantaged. The first task is to secure requisite re-sources; the second is to develop new ways of utilizing those re-sources. In essence, Eubanks and Levine assert that the financial

and other capabilities of individual schools and school systems pro-vide a context influencing whether Effective Schools activities willor will not succeed.

1.1

XII

PRIOR RESEARCH

The previously published studies included in this Committeeprint serve two functions: (1; they provide some of the materialthat comprises the research base; and (2) they cover key aspects ofthe research base only briefly addressed by the new studies.

Ronald R. Edmonds, one of the key participants in the develop-ment of the Effective Schools research base, is represented with anarticle reviewing Effective Schools projects conducted in the earlyand mid 1970's, and delineating how research and practice caninteract.

Stewart C. Purkey and Marshall Smith discuss the shortcomingsof the primary research t1.- brms the Effective Schools researchbase. Although these !imitations, in Purkey and Smith's view, aresignificant, they nevertheless conclude that the school culture is acritical component of effectiveness, and that research on schoolsthat appear effective does reveal important characteristics of suchschools.

Jere Brophy's article, through its focus on effective teachingmethods for educating disadvantaged children, demonstrates thatthe research base offers, not only characteristics associated with ef-fectiveness, but ways of achieving improvement within the class-room. It further signals that the research base identified with Ef-fective Schools has expanded.

Finally, Maureen McCormack-Larkin moves beyond he researchto provide a detailed look at how one applies the Effective Schoolsresearch in a specific project. She delineates the positive resultsbeing achieved by that project.

121

CONTENTS

PagePrefaceiiiIntr)duction vEffective Schools and State Education Reform. Implications for tne Congress 1The Role of the District in School Effectiveness 20Administrative and Organization Arrangements and Considerations in theEffective Schools Movement 30Programs of School Improvement: An Overvie v 42Too Soon to Cheer? Synthesis of Research on Effective Schools 50Successful Teaching Strategies for the Inner-City Child 56Ingredients of a Successful School Effectiveness Project 60

(XIII)

Q. 1 3

Effective Schools and State Education Reform: Implications forthe Congress

(By Michael Cohen, Director of Policy Development and Planning, the NationalAssociation of State Boards of Education)

INTRODUCTION'

Recent years have witnessed a rare circumstance in which thepressure for educational reform and improvement have coincidedwith the availability of a well developed knowledge base to guideand inform the development of reform initiatives. Both state andlocal governing bodies have increasingly turned to educational re-search, and to research on effective schooling practices in particu-lar, to inform their deliberations over education improvement ini-tiatives.

Consequently, the Effective Schools research now enjoys fairlywidespread currency, from the state house to the school room.Thousands of schools have been involved in effective school pro-grams, sponsored variously by local school districts, regional educa-tional laboratories, state education departments, and colleges anduniversities. Countless numbers of teachers and administratorshave been trained, or at least exposed to, some portions of the re-search findings, in workshops and conferences sponsored by stateand national educational organizations. As far back as 1979 and1980, newspapers throughout the nation began carrying stories onthe characteristics of Effective Schools, highlighting both the re-search findings and local success stories at the same time. In theearly 1980's and continuing to the present, state policymakers andthe blue ribbon task forces they appointed incorporated the Effec-tive Schools research into a spate of reform proposals, rangingfrom increasing performance standards, lengthening the schoolyear, developing discipline policies, improving teacher and adminis-trator training, and the like. By now, many governors can summa-rize the Effective Schools research as well as can researchers, andthe research forms a good deal of the intellectual foundation forthe National Governors' Association call for continuing educationalreforms, "A Time For Results."The purpose of this paper is to provide the Congress with a per-spective on the Effective Schools research that can inform its ownefforts in this area. The paper is organized into three sections. Thefirst provides an overview of the Effective Schools research, brieflytracing its origins, summarizing key findings, and highlighting itsmajor implications for school improvement. The second sectionoverviews recent and likely state educational reform efforts, and

' Preparation of this paper was supported in part by funds from the Ford Foundation and theMatsushita Foundation.

(1)

14

2

indicates the way in which they have drawn on the EffectiveSchools research findings. The third and final section will includesuggestions for Congressional initiatives which grow out of the firsttwo sections.

EFFECTIVE SCHOOLS RESEARCH: AN OVERVIEW2

Since the mid 1970's, our understanding of schooling practicesthat produce higher-than-expected student achievement, and arelargely subject to the influence of teachers, principals and localand state policymakers :ias grown substantially. Significantly con-tributing to the development of this knowledge base are a smallnumber of studies which have compared more and less effective el-ementary or secondary schools serving predominately urban, poorand minority students. Typically, these studies identified schoolsserving similar urban populations, some of which showed relativelyhigh levels of student performance on standardized tests of basicskills, while others had more predictably low levels. Once more andless Effective Schools had been identified, reseat chers systematical-ly observed and compared the differences in the educational prac-tices employed in the two sets of schools, and were able to identifythose that contributed to increased school effectiveness.

Generally speaking, these studies found that a school in whichthe principal and instructional staff agree on their goals, believethey can achieve them, provide an environment conducive to ac-complishing their daily tasks, and monitor their effectiveness andadjust their efforts and practices based on such feedback, is likelyto be an effective one.

Importantly, the findings from these most visible EffectiveSchools studies have been supported, extended, and specified by lit-erally hundreds of studies on specific schooling practises. Researchhas been conducted on such issues as effective instructional prac-tices, the effects of teacher expectations, classroom managementpractices, school and classroom climates, principal leadership, staffdevelopment, and many other aspects of schooling. When consid-ered together, the findings from these studies provide a firmgrounding for identifying the most important educational practices,and for .....iderstark:,..ig how they can be incorporated into the dailyroutine of the school.

SYNTHESIS OF EFFECTIVE SCHOOLS RESEARCH

A number of scholars have synthesized the Effective Schools re-search, every author takes a slightly different approach, and hasgenerated a slightly different list of Effective Schools characteris-tics. Thus it is important to remember that while you might see

In order to make this paper more readable, I've ignored the convention of citing referencesfor each finding discussed the paper. For further reading and additional references, interestedreaders should consult. di Cohen, Michael. Instructional, Management and Social Conditions .nEffective Schools." In Allan Odden and L. Dean Webb (Eds.) "School Finance and Echool Improvement. Linkages for the 1980's." pp. 17-50. Cambrid;e. Ballinger Publishing Co. 1983 (2)January 1985. Special Issues of The Elementary School Journal. Special Issue o.. Policy Impliestions of Effective Schools Research. March 1983. Special Issue on Research on Teach.ng Implirations for Practice. tai Reaching For Excellence. An Effective Schools Sourcebook The NationalInstitute of Education. Washington, D.C.. U.S. Government Printing Office, 1985. (4) Pipho,Chris. "States Move Reform Closer to Reality." Phi Delta Kappan. December 1986.

01-5

3

different versions of the "factors contributing to school effective-ness", the differences are only superficial while the underlying re-search is quite consistent. I've chosen to categorize the researchfindings into four broad categories:

Classroom Teaching Practices;School-level Instructional Management and Coordination;School Climate and Culture;Instructional Leadership.

Classroom Teaching PracticesPerhaps the most important classroom variable determining stu-dent achievement is what researchers have come to call " Acade.

Learning Time" (ALT). This refers to the amount of time a studem.spends engaged in a valued academic task he or she can perform ata high rate of success. An index of ALT has been found to be sig-nificantly correlated with student achievement. This suggests thata primary objective of classroom teachers needs to be to ensurethat each student spends an adequate amount of time workingwith materials and activities that enable him or her to master par-ticular learning goals, and then have sufficient practice so that thestudent develops a firm grasp of the new content.

A number of teaching practices and strategies have been foundto enhance academic learning time, and therefore student achieve-ment. For example, specifically for young students or slow learners,active, direct instruction in which teachers clearly structure andexplain what is to be learned, present new materials in smallamounts, provide ample opportunity for student prr.ctice, providefeedback and, if necessary, additional instruction and practice op-portunities to students, works well. Teachers' classroom manage-ment and planning skills are also important, because they enableteachers to minimize learning time lost to disruptions, transitionsand other procedural tasks, and because they enable teachers toselect learning activities well suited to student's performancelevels. Teachers' expectations and sense of their own efficacy are im-portant as well. Teachers who have high expectations, and who be-lieve they can affect their own students' learning, also believe thatinstructing students in curriculum content is important and acceptresponsibility for teaching, and reteaching if necessary, until stu-dents master content. They create a business-like task oriented en-vironment. Through clear instructions to students, their choice ofmaterials and activities, and ce-efui monitoring of students, theycreate classrooms in which students are held accountable for theirwork. This sense of efficacy and concomitant positive expectationsare especially important to classrooms with large concentrations oflow-achieving students, for it is apparently easy for teachers to letthe previous low academic perfvfmance of students translate intolow expectations about subsequent performance.

Though the specifics of these teaching practices are crucial foreducators to know, they are relatively unimportant to Congress.However, there are several things about research into effectiveteaching practices which are important for Congress to be aware of.First, we do know a fair amount about what good teaching is,and much of what we know with confidence derives from a decade

11,6

.14

78-655 - 87 - 2

4

worth of educational research Congress has supported through theNational Institute of Education (NIE) and the Office of EducationalResearch and Improvement (OEM). Over time, modest investmentsin research are beginning to pay off handsomely.

Second, we know how to train teachers in the effective teachingpractices. There are a number of programs for training currentteachers which are based upon or otherwise incorporate these re-search findings. As a result of these programs, many teachers im-prove their own teaching practices and the academic performar cEof their students.

Third, these same findings are .Aseful for training school princi-pals as well. Knowledge of these findings, for example, can helpprincipals better observe and evaluate their teachers. They alsoprovide principals with a framework that can improve their man-agement practices, by enabling them to focus such disparate tasksas scheduling, discipline, and staff development around the themeof increasing instructional time for students.

F:..ally, it is important to recognize that there are healthy de-bates underway in the professionamong researchers and practi-tioners alikeabout the limitations of this research, as well as itsbenefits. For example, most of the research findings cited above arederived from studies of teaching Aementary school students basicreadbg and math skills. There is disagreement about how readilythese findings can be applied to teaching high school students, toteaching science, social studies, or other subject matter, and toteaching higher level skills such as problem solving.

These debates are important, and are serving to stimulate fur-ther research. Consequently, over time our knowledge base willcontinue to evolve and develop further.

School-Level Instructional Management and Coordination

In general, research on school-level practices is less well-devel-oped than research on classroom -le' el practices. Studies are fewer,findings across studies are less frequently replicated, and descrip-tions of specific practices are fewer. Nonetheless, with respect to

management and coordination of instruction, several themesemerge.

There is general agreement that the curriculum and the instruc-tional program in Efft_tive Schools, especially in elementaryschools, is tightly coupled. E.;sentially, this means that school goals,grade le-:el and classroom instructional objectives, instructionalcontent and activities, and measures of pupil performance are allcarefully aligned. Students are exposed to a well-ordered and fo-cusci curriculum and the instructional efforts of teachers andother instructional staff are consistent and cumulative.

This close relation among elements of the instructional programhas several implications. First, schools should have instructionalgoals that are clear, public, and agreed upon, that form the basis ofthe selection of objectives, content, and materials, and that are de-veloped through some type of planning process implemented at thebuilding level. Second, differences among classrooms in time allo-cated to the same content should not be extreme. Extreme differ-pneps nrohablv reflect the substitution of teacher preferences for

17

5

formal school goals and expose children in different classes to func-tionally different curricula that are not adequately matched toschool goals or performance measures. Consequently, tight couplingimplies that norms granting autonomy to teachers behind theclosed door of the classroom carry less weight than the sharedgoals of the professional staff. Third, expectations and instructionalactivities of none lassroom specialists (e.g., resource teachers, read-ing specialists) should support the efforts of classroom teachers.Fourth, a well-coordinated instructional program seems to requirethe use of achievement tests or other student performance meas-ures, to focus instructional efforts and to detect programmatic

weaknesses. Fifth, tight coupling implies an overlap between thecontent of instruction and the content of material used to measurepupil performance.

School Climate and CultureA number of studies and analyses suggest that Effective Schoolsgenerate a strong sense of community, with commonly shared goalsand high expectations for student and staff performance and mech-anisms for sustaining motivation, commitment, and identificationwith school goals.The norms and values that unite individual members of a schoolinto a cohesive community are academic as well as practical and

social. Positive expectations for student performance communicatethe primacy of the instructional mission of the school, and the obli-gation of both teachers and students to participate in it. Communi-ty in schools also requires the creation of a moral order, which en-tails respect for authority, genuine and pervasive caring about indi-viduals, respect for their feelings and attitudes, mutual trust, andthe consistent enforcement of norms that define acceptable behav-ior. Such a strong social order creates an identity for the school,provides meaning to membership in it, and reduces alienation. Thistype of school climate not only increases achievement but also im-proves student behavior and attendance, and reduces the incidenceof delinquency.The importance of a shared moral order should not be underesti-mated. Schools are fragile social institutions, easily disrupted byconflict in or around them. Compared to other types of organiza-tions. formal controls over the selection and activities of staff areweak, and especially in public schools, control over the selection ofstudents is limited or nonexistent. Students, in turn, are the invol-untary clientele of the schools; their willing engagement in the for-mally prescribed activities of the school must be treated as prob-lematic, rather than taken for granted. The situation is furthercomplicated because teaching and learning requires not only com-pliance but also commitment and engagement. Under such circum-stances, schools cannot rely simply on coercive power to bringabout order. Rather, schools are normative organizations that mustrely on the internalization of goals, the legitimate use of authority,and the manipulation of symbols to ,...ontrol and direct the behaviorof participants. Therefore, a shared moral order is an important

precondition for effective instruction.

j: 18

6

There is useful research regarding more specific aspects of schoolcultures that influence achievement. In particular, work normsamong faculty appear to be especially important determinants ofschool effectiveness. One set of studies highlights two norms thatcontribute to successful schools. One norm is collegialitythenotion that the work of ..Jachers is shared work, not work to bedone exclusively in the isolation of the classroom. Successfulschools, then, are characterized by a large number of interactions,involving a large proportion of the staff, about numerous aspects ofteaching. Extensive interactions and the expectations that heywill and should occur are powerful mechanisms for integrating thework of the school and generating commitment and shared valuesamong teachers.

A second norm, that of continuous improvement, reflects the ex-pectation that all teachers continue to improve instructional prac-tice, not just beginning teachers. Such a norm is enacted in schoolsthrough continuous analysis, evaluation, and experimentation withinstructional practices. When both of these norms are present andsalient in a school, there will be: frequent talk among teachersabout the practice of teaching (as distinct from talk about the back-grounds of students, the influence of external environments onschools, etc.); frequent observation of teaching by teachers; andteachers working together to plan, design, research, and preparematerials for teaching. These practices, in turn, are likely to resultin the development of shared values and a commitment to improveinstructional effectiveness.

Other research also highlights the importance of teacher colle-giality. One study compared teachers in a traditionally organizedjunior high school with teachers in a multi-graded, team-orientedmiddle school, each school of comparable size and serving compara-ble student bodies. Among other things, they found that the teamorganization, which required collective decisionmaking about in-structional matters, and the multi-graded organization, which en-sured that teachers on the same team instructed the same stu-dents, enhanced teacher efficacy. Teaching became shared work,and sustained interaction focused on solving the problems of stu-dents and improving the practices of teachers. Professional isola-tion among teachers was reduced. Furthermore, enhanced efficacywas frequently reflected in more positive classroom teaching.

There is also considerable evidence to suggest that student normsand interactions are powerful determinants of school effectiveness.Peer groups provide important role models and informal rewardsfor students. They often powerfully shape students' perceptions ofthe importance of schoolwork and influence the extent to which astudent commits time and energy to academic work. Peers are alsopotentially important instructional resources since under certaincircumstances they can provide tutoring and other forms of help totheir classmates.

Evidence is growing that peer group norms an:: eer interactionin schools are not determined solely by the characteristics of stu-dents or their family backgrounds. Rather, to a considerabledegree, they are responses to the structure and climate of theschool and classroom, as these are shaped by teachers and adminis-trators. For example, reseal ch findings indicate that the placement

-I 9:;,

7

of students in curricular tracks, classrooms and instructionalgroups influences students' choice of friends, patterns of interac-tion, and academically relevant group norms.In short, the evidence suggests that schools are more effectivewhen informal norms governing faculty and student behavior areconsistent with formal academic goals. It further suggests that or-ganizational aspects of the instructional program, as well as theleadership by the principal, can create a i environment that sup-ports instructional improvement and furthers student learning.

Instructional LeadershipThere is near universal agreement among researches and educa-tors alike regarding the importance of instructional leader .hip forschool effectiveness. Further, there is also nearly universal consen-sus that the building principal needs to play a major (though not

always exclusive) role in providing instructional leadership. Thereis considerably less agreement, however, on the particular strate-gies, tactics and behaviors which constitute effective leadership ona day-to-day basis. This is partly a function of the relative infancyof research on the work of principals; there has been far less studyof the role, behaviors, and effectiveness of principals than therehas been of teachers. It is also partly a function of the nature ofleadership itself, because leadership is often symbolic, indirect, andhighly varied from situation to situation. Nonetheless, there aresome aspects of the instructional leadership role of the principalwhich are increasingly coming into focus as research in the areaprogresses.First, leadership is situational in nature. In order to be effective,a principal's leadership style has to be matched to the particularconditions in the school. For example, principals working with ex-perienced and highly professionalized staffs might employ ratherindirect leadership styles, simply suggesting ideas of raising ques-tions with individual staff members, and otherwise providing thenecessary resources and latitude for good teachers to carry outgood ideas. In contrast, in schools with inexperienced staff, theprincipals may need to employ much more direct supervisory strat-egies.

Second, leadership is visible. Regardless of their particular lead-ership styles, effective principals have a visible presence in theirschools. They accomplish this by spending a good deal of each dayin the halls, classrooms, lunchroom, library and all other locationsin the building. Because of their visibility, effective principals z.reaware of developments within the building and have a constantflow of information available to them.Third, leadership requires a vision of instructional improvement.

Ef iective principals articulate this vision to the staff and others intl'e school, and use this vision to guide their many daily interac-tions. In instructionally effective schools, this vision takes theform of an emphasis on achievement. Effective principals tend toemphasize achievement by setting instructional goals, developingperformance standards for students, and expressing optimismabout the ability of students to meet instructional goals.

20

8

Put somewhat differently, effective principals are keenly awarecf the classroom factors which promote achievement, and have aconception of the variety of strategies and tactics they can use tostrengthen those practices. .

What is being suggested here is that the specific leadership be-haviors and strategies of principals, of necessity, will vary fromschool to school depending upon both the context of the school andthe personality of the principal. Having said that, however, a con-stant characteristic of effective instructional leaders is that theyhave a clear sense of the particular "levers" in their school whichcan be used to influence instruction, and they deliberately go aboutworking those levers to ,create and sustain conditions which pro-mote effective instruction.

Fourth, leadership focuses on school culture as well as to techni-cal instructional practices. As suggested above, the social aspects ofschooling, 0,he ethos si the school, are critical preconditions for theenactment of technically sound instructional practices. Effectiveprincipals recognize this, and employ strategies to strengthen theschool culture. These often involve the use of rituals, such as peprallies, assemblies, reward programs, and the like, which providemeaning to school membership, identify and celebrate achievementand success in school life, and define valued behaviors. These toolscan be used to highlight and reward academic success for students.

Principals can shape the work norms among faculty. They canannounce that they expect staff to be knowledgeable about effec-tive practices and to participate in efforts to improve instruction.They can model desired behaviors by participating in instructionalimprovement activities themselves. They can reward teachers whoare effective and who are trying to improve. Finally, they can pro-tect teachers who are implementing new practices from a varietyof competing demands on their time and energies, in order to im-prove the likelihood of success for those teachers.

LESSONS FROM EFFECTIVE SCHOOLS RESEARCH: IMPLICATIONS FORSCHOOL IMPROVEMENT

The findings reviewed above contain important lessons for policy-makers outside the school, such as local school boards, state legisla-tures and state boards of education, or the Congress, interested inimproving education. Among the more important of these lessonsare the following:

(1) Schools can make a difference. As Congress immerses itselfin the details of how schools can be more effective, it should notlose sight of a more fundamental point; namely, that schools can bemore effective. This stands in stark contrast to the prevailingwisdom of the late 1960's and early 1970's. As part of the 1964 CivilRights Act, Congress commissioned a study on "Equality of Educa-tional Opportunity" (also known as the Coleman Report) which ex-amined the relationship between school resources and studentachievement. This and other studies conducted at the time foundthat various school characteristics had relatively little impact onstudent achievement, when compared to the influence of familybackground. The finding was widely misinterpreted that "schoolsdon't make a difference' that there is nothing that schools can do

21

9

to ovei come the diradvanteges produced by minority group statusand poverty.By virtue of 1; number of conceptual and methodological ad-vancesadvance, sponsored in part by the creation of the NationalInstitute of Education in 1973researchers have been able to iden-tify and describe school character tics which do make a difference,especially for students from poor ...ad minority backgrounds.Thus, while no one seriously debates the importance of familybackground, we no longer believe that schools are unable to effec-tively teach students from all backgrounds. And this shift in beliefshas had important symbolic value, both for raising the perform-ance expectations teachers and administrators have of their stu-dents, and for mobilizing public and political and support for schoolimprovement.(e) The school is the fundamental unit of reform.The Effective

Schools findings are generally understood to imply that educationalreform efforts have to be targeted primarily to the school buildingas an institution, rather than to individual teachers or entireschool districts. This is in part accidental and tautological: whenyou look for effective schools, you are likely to conclude thatschools (rather than teachers or districts) are where the action is.More importantly, however, it reflects appropriate recognition ofthe effect that the school context, especially the behaviors of theprincipal and the teaching staff, has on the teaching strategies andpractices of individual teachers. Consequently, not only is theschool seen as the primary unit of reform, but there is a growingconsensus that schools require considerable autonomy and discre-tion in determining their own policies and standards.

(8) School improvement should reduce the professional isolation ofteachers.Related closely to the point made above, the .csearchstrongly suggests the importance of increasing the opportunities forteachers to work together with their peers. Historically, teachinghas been a profession in which work is typically performed in isola-tion from one's colleagues. This has had several undesirable conse-quences, including the limited codification of successful practicesand the virtual absence of systems to provide ongoing technicalsupport to teachers when needed. In Effective Schools, however,teachers frequently work and interact with each other. They areinvolved in stufv development programs together, offer and receiveassistance from one another, and share ideas and experiencesabout teaching. Consequently, their morale is often higher, theirenthusiasm greater. And, under these circumstances, teachers areoften more willing to experiment with new approaches, and aremore effective in meeting their students' needs. Significantly,recent proposals for the reform of the teaching profession recognizethe need to create structures which increase the likelihood thatteachers will interact collegially with one another,(4) School staff cannot engage in school improvement efforts ontheir own.Meaningful and sustained change, in schooling prac-tices require support and assistance from outside the school, in theform of technical assistance and training, leadership and guidance,and resources. While the individual school buildings should be theunit of reform, the role of the local superintendent in providingleadership, in the form of both pressure to improve and assistance

4' 22

10

and resources to support improvement, is critical. Further, particu-larly with respect to the implementation of complex improvementsbased on the Effective Schools research, it needs to be clearly un-derstood that implementation and improvement are long-termprocesses which unfold over a period of years.

STATE EDUCATION REFORM INITIATIVES: LINKAGES TO EFFECTIVESCHOOLS RESEARCH

When the National Commission on Excel lem..e in Educationissued "A Nation At Risk" in 1983, most statr;s were already atwork developing their own education reform hitiatives. Between1983 and 1984, virtually every state had at leaot one blue ribbontask force or commission developing reform proposals and buildingsupport for their enactment. Nationwide, there were over 200 suchtask forces at work, and their efforts unleashed a flurry of newpolicies, programs and initiatives, and, in many states, new educa-tion dollars from state legislatures as well.

One of the hallmarks of this reform movement has been the ex-tensive involvement of political and business leaders from outsidethe traditional education community. Responding to both increar Apublic concern over educational quality and a clear recognitir . ofthe '.Inportance of education to state and national economic hcdth,governors and legislatures, often with strong support from the busi-ness COMP unity, provided more money for schools. New dollars,however, 'vere not simply to fund "more of the same" educationalpractices. Rather, they were linked to policies demanding both dif-ferent and presumably better ways of providing schooling.

The education reform packages across the states defy any simpledescription Each state has crafted its own package, through somecombination of legislation, state board regulation, and state educa-tion agency initiative. Consequently, state reform packages varyconsiderably in terms of their specific content and focus; in wheth-er reforms were packaged into a comprehensive bill or enactedpiecemeal by the legislature and state board; in the number of spe-cific initiatives; in the policy instruments employed (e.g. mandatesvs incentives); in their implementation schedules, and in their costand the level of new resources supporting them. Ft.rther, states ap-proached reform against very different starting poiats. States varyconsiderably in terms of their initial levels of education fundingand the proportion of education ccsts paid by state government.They differ with respect to traditions of local control and the roleof the stair. And they vary considerably with respect to the per-formance of their education system.

Despite these differences, it is possible to discern some majortrends and similarities across the sates. In the remainder of thissection, we will examine the major types of reform initiatives, and,where possible, consider their connection to the Effective Schoolsresearch.

INCREASED STANDARDS

Virtually every state has taken some steps to raise performancestandards in education. These standards affect three broad classes

23

11

of actors: students, teachers and other education personnel, andschools and school districts.With respect to students, some 45 states increased their highschool graduation requirements. These efforts typically involved anincrease in the number of credits required for graduation. In otherinstances, states more tightly specified the distribution or requiredcourses, without increasing the total number of credits required forgraduation. These erforts generally required students to take addi-tional math, science, language arts, or social studies courses inorder to graduate.States also continued the trend, started in the 1970's, of increas-ing testing of students. This generally involved increasing thenumber of required tests, the grade levels at which testing is re-quired, or the number of subject are,:is in which students are tested.In some states satisfactory test scores are required before studentsare passed on to the next grade, and in more states students arerequired to pass a competency test before graduating from highschool.Finally, standards have frequently been increased for studentparticipation in extracurricular activities and interscholastic ath-letics. Best known as "no pass no play", these rules require stu-dents to maintain minimum grade point averages or receive a min-imum number of passing grades before they are eligible to partici-pate in extracurricular activities.Generally, increasing performance standards, for students wasintended to communicate higher expectations for student perform-ance. And, requirements for students to take particular courses orsubject matter reflects research linking student achievement to theamount of time allocated to teaching particular content. Thus,while not driven directly by the Effective Schools research, theseinitiatives demonstrate some diffuse connection to the findings.States have also moved to raise performance standards for educa-tion personnel as well, particularly for teachers. Such efforts in-clude raising minimum grade point average for either entering orcompleting teacher education programs. Competency testing forinitial teacher certification is now widespread, with teaching candi-dates now required to pass basic skills, subject matter, or pedagogi-cal knowledge tests in many states. At least two states, Arkansasand Texas, also required existing teachers to pass basic skills testsin order to retain their certificates.

Another mechanism for raising performance standards for teach-ers in many states has been new requirements for teach evalua-tion. In some cases, these requirements provided for uniform state-wide evaluation procedures, while in other cases local districtswere required to develop their own procedures. In moving to imple-ment these requirements, most state boards of education and stateeducation agencies relied heavily on the research findings on effec-tive teaching practices to develop the content and observation pro-cedures for the teacher evaluation t'struments.Less prevalent than increased standards for teachers are newstandards for administrators and local school board members. Asmall number of states have moved to raise certification standardsor institute evaluation requirements for principals and other ad-

2 4

12

ministrators. A few states also now require local school board mem-bers to undergo training as well.

School districts, and in some cases individual schools, were thefocus of state efforts to raise standards as well. Relying on their au-thority to define educational programs and accredit local schooldistricts, states took a number of steps. Often linked to increasedtesting or high school graduation requirements, states enacted anumber of curricular reforms. These typically involved strengthen-ing state curriculum guides or mandates, developing curriculumguidelines or mar...iates for more grade levels or additional subjectareas, or adding specificity to existing curriculum guidelines. In ad-dition, states often required local districts to provide more courseofferings, often foreign languages or advanced level courses in highschool. There were often new requirements for local districts tolower class size and provide additional guidance counselors andother services for students.

The new standards perhap .nost directly tied to the EffectiveSchools research are those efforts underway in such states as Mis-sissippi, South Carolina, Arkansas, Vermont and Indiana, in whichthe Effective Schools findings were built directly into school dis-trict accreditation standards. Traditionally, accreditation standardshave focused on assuring that local districts provided minimumlevels of resource (e.g., certified teachers, libraries) or program of-ferings for students. In these states, however, there is an effort toalso ensure that local districts engage in the educational practiceswhich are linked to effectiveness. In these states, accreditationstandards now reflect such factors as school climate, instructionalleadership, staff development, clear instructional goals, and thelike.

STRENGTHENING EDUCATIONAL PRACTICES

Most of the efforts to raise standards show only a weak connec-tion to the Effective Schools research. In general, they reflect anattempt to mandate uniform practices throughout the state, andare aimed at raising the performance levels for the lowest perform-ing students, teachers and districts. In contrast to these approachesare another set of state strategies which are more directly aimed atstrengthening and improving core teaching and schooling practicessuch as teaching and instruction, school management and principalleadership, and scnool climate. Generally speaking, instead of pro-moting greater uniformity throughout the state, these strategiesmore nearly reflect, and are responsive to the diversity of need atthe local level. And, perhaps more than the provision of largeamounts of new doll,._, they require increases in the provision ofsupport and services w teachers, principals and schools, for theirimplementation is more complex. Finally, they show rather carefulattention to the Effective Scho....ls research and focus directly Jo n,;orporating the research findinbs llt° school practice.

Efforts to directly strengthen educational practices are eNident instate efforts to provide training for teachers and administrators,ongoing technical assistance to schools, and new structures whichfacilitate local implementation of Effective Schools practices.

25

13

A number of states have instituted efforts to provide training toexisting teachers, or have employed other means to strengthenteaching practices. For example, since the late 1970's Arkansas hashad a voluntary, statewide inservice training program for teachers,based on research on classroom manage. tit and effective teachingpractices. By 1984, something on the orde two-thirds of all class-room teachers had participated in the training program. Anotherapproach is illustrated by Maryland, which approached instruction-at improvement by creating demonstration sites, based on four re-search-based models of classroom teaching, in every school districtin the state. The state provided extensive training in the demon-stration sites, and resources to provide technical assistance forother interested schools as well. And a growing number of states,such as Virginia, have instituted new programs for beginningteachers, in which major teachers provide support and assistanceto new teachers in their first year of practice.Additional training and support for principals has been acommon factor of many reform efforts. Nearly 30 states estab-lished statewide academies for principals and other administrators,which provide intensive training in school management and in-structional leadership. The LEAD program recently enacted byCongress should serve to incre 'se the number and expand thereach of these and related efforts.A growing number of states have acted to provide direct techni-cal assistance to individual school buildings to implement the Ef-fective Schools research, in the form of Effective Schools or schoolimprovement programs. In states such as Connecticut, Minnesota,and South Carolina, state education department staff work directlywith personnel in individual school buildings to review the re-search, assess current practice in light of the research, identifyareas needing improvement and develop and implement eligroingimprovement efforts.Finally, states are also beginning to change the organizationalstructures of schooling to increase the likelihood that effectiveschooling practices can and will be employed. These efforts havetaken a number of forms. South Carolina and Florida are pilotingschool incentive programs, in which performance goals are estab-lished for schools, in such areas as student performance and at-tendance, or parental satisfaction. Schools which meet or exceedthe goals are provided with small amounts of discretionary dollars,to be used for school improvement purposes. Efforts such as theseare likely to increase goal orientation and goal consensus withinthe school, provide an incentive for collaborative school improve-ment efforts, and provide discretionary resources with whichschools can develop programs tailored to their own specific needs.A number of states, including Tennessee, South Carolina, Virgin-ia, and Utah, are experimenting with various forms of careerladder programs. The common features of these programs (whiskotherwise vary considerably from one another) create and pay fornonclassroom instructional roles for teachers, such as developingnew curriculum materials, engaging in staff development, leadinginstructional improvement teams, or providing assistance to begin-ning teachers. From the perspective of the Effective Schools re-search, these efforts can be seen as attempts to alter the structure

26

14

of the school and the teaching profession in ways that promotenorms of collegiality and continuous improvement, and break downthe isolation of classroom teachers, from their peers.

A SECOND WAVE OF REFORM

Even as the reform efforts discussed above are being implement-ed, recent reports from the National Governors' Association, theCarnegie Forum on Education and the Economy, and the HolmesGroup, call for far reaching and dramatic restructuring of schoolsin ways which go well beyond anything yet attempted by states. Toa considerable extent, the recommendations from these groups re-flect a recognition that dramatic changes are needed to enhancethe professionalization of teaching and its attractiveness to talent-ed individuals. They also reflect a growing recognition that the tra-ditional structure and organization of schools place several limitson possible increases in educational effectiveness, even in light ofwhat we know about effective schooling practices.

As schools are presently organized, staffing arrangements andthe use of time in schools combine to leave relatively little time forteachers to prepare for instruction or review student work. Thereis even less time or opportunity for the development of collegialworking relations among faculty. Further, though the EffectiveSchools research suggests that schools need to develop the capacityto identify programmatic needs based on student performance, andimplement new programs and practices in response to those needs,few schools are capable of sustained effort of this sort. This is be-cause schools are not organized in ways which adequately build re-sponsibility for these efforts into clearly defined roles for staffmembers. Rather, they tend to get addressed on an ad-hoc basis, ifat all, and are rarely sustained over a period of years.

Similarly, typical instructional arrangements in schools appearto be better suited to teaching students lower level cognitive skillsthan they are at helping students master the more complex anddifficult skills of problem solving, original thinking, analysis, andthe like.

These problems and others arise directly out of the structure ofthe school. They are a function of the use of time in schools, theorganization of staff roles, the structure of the curriculum, and thedistribution of authority within schools and among levels of educa-tional governance. And, because these problems are rooted in thestructure and organization of schools, their resolution lies ultimate-ly in reorganizing school structure.

While no one yet has a very clear picture of what restructuredschools ultimately will look like, the Carnegie Report advancedperhaps the most well developed vision of what needs to be ad-dressed in the process. Among the steps suggested in the Carnegiereport include:

(1) More authority for teachers, individually and collectively, tomake educational decisions for their school regarding how best tomeet learning goals for students. The report calls for teachers tohave considerable control over such matters as the curriculum andcurricular materials to be used, the nature of the instructional

27

15

practices to be employed, the use of time, and the formation andsize of classes and other instructional groups.

(2) Additional staff support for teachers, so that teachers haveaccess to aides, instructors, clerks, secretaries and the usual arrayof support staff that other professionals routinely rely on. In addi-tion, the report called for more extensive use of peer tutoringamong students as an instructional strategy.

(3) More differentiation in the roles and responsibiiities of teach-ers, in ways which build upon and extend early experiments withcareer ladders. This includes the creation of a national certificationboard for teaching, and the creation of lead teachers who wouldassume considerable authority for instructional leadership and sup-port within the school.

(4) Considerably more pay for teachers, to make the rewards forteaching competitive with those in other professions.

(5) More varied school leadership structures, in which leadershipteams or partnerships of teachers, rather the school principal,would be responsible for providing school-wide instructional leader-ship.

(6) More discretionary dollars for schools, so that the primacy re-source allocation decisions are made at the school building level,rather than by the central office of the school district. This wouldgive school staff considerably greater leeway in purchasing materi-als, training, outside assistance, and in determining the numberand configuration of instructural staff in the school.

(7) More accountability for teachers and schools. In exchange forthe considerably greater discretion with respect to the means ofeducation, educators would be held more strictly accountable forthe outcomes of their efforts. This implies a greater role for thestates in establishing educational goals and performance standards,and requires a more sophisticated approach to student testing andassessment. It further requires that states dramatically alter theregulatory environment for education, considerably reducing theirefforts to regulate educational programs and practices.

States are just beginning to turn their attention to the policyagenda implied by these recommendations. And while there ap-pears to be considerable interest in them, it is likely to take moststates a long time to act on these. This is partly due to the dramat-ic and complex nature of these recommendations. It is also due tothe fact that most states are still digesting the last round of re-forms, and can't easily turn their attention to a new agenda yet.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CONGRESS

The preceding sections of this paper demonstrate that much hasbeen accomplished thus far. We have developed a substantialknowledge base which can, and has, informed and guided a broadarray of school improvement efforts. And state leaders have madesubstantial fiscal, policy and political investments in strengtheningpublic education, and seem prepared to make additional invest-ments in the future. These accomplishments notwithstanding,there is more to be done, and important roles for Congress to play.More specifically, Congress should consider steps which will: en-courage the application of the Effective Schools research in those

4 ,

28

16

schools with the greatest need and where it can have the greatestimpact; ensure the continued supply of research and informationon effective schooling, practices; and provide support and leadershipfor continuing the education reform movement.

APPLICATION OF EFFECTIVE SCHOOLS RESEARCH

The schools that could most clearly benefit from the applicationof the Effective Schools research are those serving predominatelypoor and minority students. These are the schools which typicallyhave the lowest achievement levels and whose students are mostfrequently at-risk. These are also the schools where the effectiveschooling practices have most consistently been associated with in-creases in student achievement.

Through Chapter 1, Congress already targets resources to suchschools with disadvantaged populations. Through the reauthoriza-tion of Chapter 1, Congress should consider ways of enhancing theeffectiveness of Chapter 1 services through the application of the Elfective Schools research. The goal here is to enhance the effective-ness of Chapter 1 programs by increasing the likelihood they willoperate in schools with clear goals, well articulat d curricula,sound leadership, supportive environments, and other factors asso-ciated with success.

One way to accomplish this would be through the schoolwideprojects authorized under current law. Effective Schools practicesmight be listed as among the kinds of activities a school could un-dertake as part of its schoolwide project. Also, schools implement-ing schoolwide Chapter 1 projects might be mandated to utilize theEffective Schools research as a basis for improving the educationalprogram they offer. (H.R. 950, introduced in the 100th Congress,proposes that a school may be designated for a schoolwide project ifits required plan describes how the school "will move to implementall Effective School program.") In implementing a program basedon the Effective Schools research a school typically forms a team ofteachers, administrators, and, in some instances parents and stu-dents (especially at the secondary level). The team then comparescurrent school practices with those identified in the research, iden-tifies areas needing improvement, and develops, implements andevaluates an improvement plan. To produce meaningful and last-ing change in school operations and effectiveness, such projectsneed.to be supported for three to five years. Schools need to be ableto obtain technical assistance on a periodic but regular basis. Thecost of such a program would generally be in the range of $10,000per school year per school.

DEVELOPMENT OF NEW KNOWLEDGE ABOUT EFFECTIVE PRACTICES

Over the next few years, schools will confront new problems thatcurrent research findings will not address in very satisfying ways.Over time, state policies initiatives together with demographic andeconomic forces are likely to produce significant changes in thenature of the teacher workforce, the structure of schools and of theteaching profession, the regulatory environment in which schoolsoperate, the nature of the students they serve, and the skill andknowledge demands society will place on their students.

29

17

In the face of these changes, the value of what we currentlyknow is likely to decline considerably. For example, knowledgeabout effective classroom management practices derived from stud-ies of traditional classrooms with 30 children will not be very help-nil to teachers in "restructured" schools, where the definition ofclassrooms may be quite different from the contemporary model. Itis even less valuable in schools where class size has been reducedto 15-20, because even at that point the nature of managementtasks and problems begin to change

Similarly, our knowledge about the instructional leadership prac-tices employed by principals will not be adequate for schools withseveral "lead" or "master" teachers working under a principalwith an MBA, and no previous teaching experience. Rather, wewill need much better information about how new leadership con-figurationsof administrators and teachers togethercan best or-ganize themselves to provide necessary school leadership.These are not simple academic problems. They reflect the factthat schools are changing, and that the definition of the most effec-tive practices is necessarily time-bound. As schools change, newpractices and organizational arrangements will be invented andtried out, some with more success than others. One role of researchis to bring evidence and analysis to bear on the task of sorting outwhich of the new approaches works best.Congress has an important role to play in ensuring that there isa steady supply of new information and knowledge to meet thegrowing needs of educators and policymakers. It can carry out itsrole in several ways.First, Congress can substantially increase funding for educational

research. Funding for research has never been high, and has de-clined since 1980. Yet despite limited investments, the payoffs arebeginning to be substantial. And one by-product of the recentreform era has been heightened attention to research by educatorsand policymakers alike. One of the most important ways Congresscan contribute to the momentum of education reform is to providesufficient resources for a broad range of research, development anddissemination activities. This will ensure that continuing attemptsto improve education can rely on up-to-date knowledge regardingbest practices and the means to implement them.

The need for regularly updating research on effective schoolingpractices has another important implication for Congress. Becauseresearch findings are time-bound, Congess should be careful not toinflexibly codify existing research findings into legislation. Rather,Congress should seek alternative ways of defining what is meantby Effective Schools research. Such means could include relying onexisting shared understandings in the education community re-garding the meaning of the term; relying on the Education Depart-ment and/or on an independent group of educators and scholars toperiodically prepare a current definition and summary of the re-search; or requiring recipients of funds for Effective Schoolsprojects to define the research for themselves and show how pro-posed projects activities draw upon the research base. Any one ofthese alternatives can serve to balance the need for a clear defini-tion of Congressional intent with the simultaneous need to keep re-

. i e 30

18

search-based programs responsive to advances in the knowledgebase.

Second, Congress can improve the information base for education-al policymakers at the local, state and national levels through theproposed redesign of elementary and secondary statistics collected byOERI and the proposed expansion of the National. Assessment ofEducational Progress. Taken together, those two improvements innational education statistics contain proposals to monitor theextent to which schools employ the Effective Schools practices on anatior wide and state-by-state basis, and relate these practices tostudent achievement. This data will enable policymakers to targetprograms, resources and new policy initiatives on those schoolpractices which most need to be strengthened. In addition, thesesame data provide a valuable tool for giving visibility to, and con-centrating public and educator's attention on, important schoolpractices.

SUSTAINING THE MOMENTUM OF REFORM THROUGH THE APPLICATIONOF RESEARCH

Congress can play an important leadership role in sustaining thecurrent reform movement and in speeding the development andimplementation of a second wave of reforms as well. This can beaccomplished through two initiatives.

First, Congress should challenge the states to develop andstrengthen initiatives which incorporate the Effective Schools re-search. Congress should provide resources for use by state boards ofeducation and state education agencies to strengthen effectiveschooling practices at the school building level, in ways that aretailored to the particular reform initiatives in each state. As indi-cated in the previous section, there is already a good deal of relatedactivity at the state level, ranging from state sponsored school lead-ership academies, Effective Schools technical assistance programs,staff development efforts for teachers, career ladder programs,school accreditation standards, and the like. One way for Congressto effectively build on these efforts would be to provide resourcesfor state designed efforts which show clear links to the EffectiveSchools research, and which are directly targeted on enhancirgeducational practices at the school building level.

State proposals should describe the particular activity or initia-tive, indicate the level of state resources committed tc, the effort,and show how Federal resources will expand or strengthen the pro-gram. Congress should permit a wide rant,,. of activities, includingthe development and start-up of new programs, expanding existingprograms to additional sites of participants, or the evaluation of ex-isting efforts.

Second, Congress should provide funds to support local experi-mentation and demonstration sites aimed at providing models of restructured schools. These efforts should result in models of dramati-cally new organizational arrangements for creating EffectiveSchools by strengthening opportunities and capacity for school sitemanagement and decision-making. They should inN olve the recom-mendations proposed by the Carnegie Forum and the NationalGovernors' Association, and should include such elements as in-

31

19

creased responsibility and decisionmaking for teachers, increasedstaff support for teachers, greater differentiation in roles and re-sponsibilities for teachers, more varied school leadership struc-tures, greater autonomy at the school site level for budgeting andresource allocation, and greater accountability for teachers andschools in terms of student performance.

Of necessity, such efforts will involve changes in the regulatoryand support efforts for demonstration schools at both the state andlocal school district level. Therefore, such efforts must involve part-nerships between individual school buildings, loz.-ai school boardsand the district central office, and the state board of education andstate education agency. Federal support for such efforts shouldtherefore be contingent upon the contribution of both local andstate resources, and upon the demonstrated willingness of stateand governing bodies to provide waivers to regulations asneedea, and to develop and impLIment Lew accountability mecha-nisms based upon outcomes and goals reached by the school, in-cluding student performance.

To be effective, such demonstration sites will require concentrat-ed resources over a minimum of five years. Resources should beavailable to support increased operating costs in the short term(with the provision that state and local revenues will support themin the long run), to underwrite development and technical assist-ance efforts, to document and describe the change process and ef-forts, to evaluate the results of the effort, an' disseminate newmodels and the lessons learned from them nationally.

Further, to ensure the effectiveness of this effort, funds should bedistributed to a small number of sites (e.g., 5-10) on a competitivebasis. This will ensure an adequate concentration of resources tar-geted on those sites with the greatest promise for success.

3278-655 - 87 - 3

The Role of the District in School Effectiveness

(By Thomas B. Corcoran, Education Consultant, fennington, N.J.)

INTRODUCTION

The Effective Schools research has directed the attention of pol-icymakers to the policies, practices, and conditions that seem tocontribute most to educational success in individual public schools.Unfortunately, the "theory" or model of school effectiveness thathas emerged from this research gives little consideration to theroles that the school district and district policymakers play in cre-ating Effective Schools. This omissicn is largely an artifact of theresearch designs used in studies of Effective Schools. As a result,much of the recent literature on school improvement treats schoolsas the signi'lcant units of change and school improvement is dis-cussed in terms of "school by school" strategies. Yet, public schoolsoperate within the context of school districts whose boards set theirpolicy and direction and whose central office staffs implement andmonitor those policies. While there is little research describing theimpact that school boards and e!strict administrators have onschool effectiveness, experience and common sense suggest thatthese actors play important roles in shaping the character, and theeffectiveness, of the public schools within their jurisdictions. Thepurpose of this paper is to review what is known, and what can beinferred, about the influence of school district policies and practiceson school effectiveness and to suggest some general guidelines forthe assessment of district policy and practice.

THE EFFECTIVE SCHOOLS RESEARCH

Research has demonstrated that some public schools providemore effective instruction to their students than other schools serv-ing similar populations. This research, based largely on studies ofurban elementary schools, has stimulated both the development ofnew theory in education and a reform movement seeking greatersocial equity in educational attainment through application of theresearch findings. The most popular summary of this research, theso-called Five Fact&r Theory, identifies strong building leadership,clear instructional goals, an orderly school climate, high staff ex-pectations and standards for student performance, and frequentmonitoring and assessment of student progress as the essentialcharacteristics of Effective Zchools (Edmonds, 1979, The EffectiveSchool Report, November, 1986). More comprehensive reviews ofthe liter& ire suggest more complex models. For example, Purkeyand Smith (1983) identified thirtA.ni distinct factors related toschool effectiveness.

Effective Schools are described as being different from schools ingeneral. They are more tightly managed. Their curriculums, in-

(20)

33

21

structional practices, and tests are more closely aligned and thework of their staffs is directed toward agreed-upon goals. Suchschools, researchers contend, are able to reduce the effects of socio-economic background on academic achievement. They are "strong"schools that have policies and practices that reduce the influence ofsocial environment and peer culture on .tudent behavior and aca-demic performance. Consequently, they are able to make greateracademic and behavioral demands on their students. Staff in theseschools set higher expectations for their students and place greateremphasis on the recognition of high perforn-ace. They make betteruse of their resources, especially time, and they reach out to attainparent and community support. Internally, such schools are char-acterized by a strong sense of community, consensus on goals, anda professional culture that supports success. Comparisons of suchschools with more typical schools suggest that the factors identifiedby researchers account for a significant portion of the variation inachievement among schools. Comprehensive reviews of this litera-ture have been conducted by Purkey and Smith (1983), MacKenzie(1983), Rutter (1983), and Corcoran and Hansen (1983).

The research on Effective Schools frequently has been criticizedfor methodological and conceptual weaknesses (MacKenzie, 1983,Rowan, Bossert, and Dwyer, 1983). It is important to note that mostof the studies have focused on urban elementary Lchools servinglow-income children, and that the "findings" are merely correla-tions between school characteristics and student performance onbasic skills tests. It also is significant that the criteria of effective-ness generally have been limited to student performance on stand-ardized tests of basic skills. Other educational outcomes haveseldom been examined although it is generally assumed that theEffective School factors also would contribute positively to their at-tainment. In spite of these and other limitations, however, thosewho have reviewed the studies have concluded that the findingsare important and are robust er.ough to provide the basis for thedesign of school improvment programs and the evaluation ofschools.

There are some good reasons for the e_neral optimism about thisbody of research. First, dozens of independent studies have pro-duced similar findings. Second, these findings are consistent withthe results from studies of effective teaching. There are a;so strik-ing parallels between these findings and analyzes of conditims inhighly successful businesses (Clark, Lotto, and Astuto, 1984). More-over, much of the research on implementation of school improve-ment and workplace reform has reached conclusions similar tothose drawn from the Effective Schools studies (Corcoran andHansen, 1983; Purkey and Smith, 1983). Finally, and perhaps mostimportantly, the findings make common sense to practitioners whoaccept their validity (Corcoran, 1985). In sum, there are powerfuland persuasive arguments for using the research on effectiveschools as the basis for public policy in education.

IMPLICATIONS FOR DISTRICT POLICY AND PRACTICE

Research on the characteristics of effective classrooms and effec-tive schools is considerably more exensive than studies of school

.s- 34

22

board performance and school district operations. Yet, leadershipand support from local educational leaders and central office per-sonnel are crucial to stimulating and sustaining school and class-room improvement. This conclusion comes from studies of schoolimprovement (Berman, 1984; Crandall, Loucks, and Eisenman,1983; Louis, Rosenblum, and Molitor, 1981) and from experience inworking with schools. It is also supported by a recent review of pro-grams based on the Effective Schools research which found thatmost of the programs had been initiated by school district staff(Miles and Kaufman, 1985).

Yet school effectiveness "theory" gives little consideration to therole of district lers in the change process and generally is asso-ciated with a "grass-roots" school-by-school approach to improve-ment. This view is a logical derivative of the hypothesis that schoolculture, which varies from school to school, is the dominant factorin determining effectiveness. In most cases, researchers have fo-cused on school variables and ignored the interaction with theschool district. School autonomy has been assumed in the researchdesigns and then often championed in the conclusions. Districts areexpected to play supportive roles but the real action (and initiative)is perceived to rest at the school level (Marsh and Berman, 1984).

This perspective is simply out of touch with the realities ofschool governance and operations. The school may be the properunit of analysis for research, but schools are not operationally inde-pendent of school systems and building leaders seldom initiate sig-nificant changes without district approval and support. Schoolsfunction within a nested hierarchy of federal, state, and localpolicy. The policies and operations of local districts, in particular,have a profound influence on school effectiveness and the possibili-ties for improvement. Furthermore, during the past three decadesthere has been a steady drift of authority away from the schoolbuilding to the district office as a result of collective bargainingand federal and state regulations (Eberts and Stone, 1984; Johnson,1984; Talbert, 1981). It is probably more accurate to think ofschools as being co-managed by district and building administra-tors, although that the balance of power and authority in this part-nership varies enormously from district to district (Cuban, 1984;Yin, Blank, and White, 1984). The question of the proper balancebetween school autonomy and district control or initiative cannotbe prescribed in the abstract. It depends upon the local politicalcontext, the influence and agendas of various actors and interestgroups, and, ultimately, on the decisions of local policymakersabout the desired mix of central control and delegation.

Even in situations in which some form of school-site manage-ment prevails, districts typically exercise enormous influence onschool and classroom effectiveness:

by determining the composition of the student body;by defining the criteria for student success or failure with pro-

motion standards, attendance requirements, and local gradua-tion requirements;

by determining the quantity, quality, and fit of instructionalmaterials;

through patterns of resource and time allocations;

35

23

by the degree of decentralization of decisionmaking (districtsvary in the amount of authority they give to principals and thedegree of latitude given teachers with curriculum);

through staff selection and assignments;by setting the tone for the organization and shaping the expec-

tations and work norms of their staff; andthrough collective bargaining and contract enforcement (Corco-

ran, 1985).District policies and procedures also have been shown to have

significant effects on the development and success of school im-provement programs. For example:

districts are typically the initiators of broad-based improve-ment effects;

--districts often determine which schools participatefor exam-ple, David and Peterson (1984) found that while the policy ofthe California School Improvement Program called for schoolsto volunteer, in practice, districts selected the volunteers;

districts may determine the implementation strategywhetherit be top-down, bottom-up, or a combination of the two(Berman and McLaughlin, 1979; Smith and Purkey, 1985);

the attitude of district leadership may influence school staffs'view of an improvement effort as a fundamental change, aproject, a source of funds, or more paperwork (Marsh andBerman, 1984; David and Peterson, 1984)commitment on thepart of leadership is critical to successful change (Fullan, 1982;Cuban, 1984);

the ability of the board and superintendent to work togethermay determine whether any improvement programs are initi-ated, whether they are supported adequately, how they areevali, ated, and whether they are continued (Buttram, Corco-ran, and Hansen, 1986; Institute for Educational Leadership,1986);

districts provide resourcesalmost all improvement programsinvolve costa, especially otaff time, that require district approv-al (Cuban, 1984; Rcwan, 1983);

districts are in the best position to provide schools with assist-ance because district staff are familiar with individual schoolsand are able to spend time working there (Crandall, Loucks,and Eisenman, 1983)the districts are more likely than otheragencies to have a pool of people to play this role (David andPeterson, 1984);

districts can often provide important incentives and for staffefforts and recognition for their accomplishments (Smith andPurkey, 1985); and

districts may be able to provide relief from policies, routines,or contractual provisos that limit or obstruct improvement ef-forts (Smith and Purkey, 1985).

Even this brief review makes it blatantly clear that district ,ead-ersthe board of education, the superintendent, and the centraloffice staffplay critical roles in shaping the outcomes of schoolimprovement initiatives. They are in the best position to initiateaction (or to obstruct it); they have the opportunity to plan and co-ordinate; they control critical resources; and, ultimately, theydecide shether the effort was a success or failure and if it should

36

24

be expanded, continued, or put on the shelf with other well intend-ed plans.

SCHOOL DISTRICTS AND COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

One of the most important ways in which district leaders influ-ence school effectiveness is through the content and the tone of col-lective bargaining. Bargaining takes place at the district level andthe management position is represented by district leaders ratherthan by building administrators. The agreements that emerge setcritical parameters for policy and practice in individual schools.For example, teachers covered by collective bargaining agreementstend to receive higher salaries, teach smaller classes, spend lesstime instructing students, and more time in preparation thanteacht-s working in non-union situations (Eberts and Stone, 1984).Bargaining also has significant effects on the management ofschools by increasing the formal authority of teachers, reducing thediscretionary authority of principals, centralizing policymaking re-sponsibilities, and placing restrictions on the work demands thatcan be made of teaching staff. Some contracts also include provi-sions that limit class size, restrict staff transfers, provide proce-dures for planning staff development programs, and create mecha-nisms for teacher involvement in school and district planning anddecision-making. All of these factors car- influence school effective-ness. Whether the net impact of collective bargaining on school ef-fectiveness is positive or negative can only be determined on a caseby case basis.

Although the limited evidence flat is available suggests that col-lective bargaining has a small positive effect in general on studentachievement (Eberts and Stone, 1984), the actual situation couldvary considerably from district to district. If labor relations in adistrict are characterized iv conflict and confrontation, it may bediffi^ult to sustain the high levels of cooperation essential to schooleffectiveness. If the district or the union leadership enforces thecontract in a manner that causes either principals or union repre-sentatives to adopt a "work to rule" attitude and become bureau-cratic, it may be difficult to create or sustain the kind of school"ethos" associated with school effectiveness. Flexibility is reduced,teachers define their responsibilities and commitments more nar-rowly, c, nmunications are hampered, and the quality of educationis likely to suffer. These problems are me_? likely to arise when thedistrict leadership refuses to accept the legitimacy of the union orpersistently acts in an autocratic, top-down manner. There is anold adage that management gets the unions that it deserves whichseems to apply to school districts as wt.11 as it does to other types oforganizations.

Conversely, cooperation between management and labor in aschool district may make it easier to implement school improve-ment programs. Finn (1985) has argued that collaboration betweenmanagement and labor is essential to successful school reform. Hecontends that there is a revolution underway in labor-managementrelations in the private sector based on the premises that an orga-nization functions best when everyone in it has an investment inits goals, subscribes to its central values, takes part in decisions af-

71-.;,i

3

25

fecting their v.- rk, shares responsibility for success or failure, andcan assume that the organization has an authentic interest in theirwelfare. Other commentators have noted the high degree of con-gruence between the deicriptions of management practices in suc-cessful private firms and the findings of the Effective Schools re-search (Clark, Lotto, and Astuto, 1984).

In sum, collective bargaining has a significant impact on localeducational policy and it may have considerable effect on school ef-fectiveness. The impact of collective bargaining is likely to varygreatly across districts because of differences in the content of con-tracts, the degree of contract compliance, and the climate of labor-managemezIt -relations.

DISTRICT APPLICATIONS OF THE SCHOOL EFFECTIVENESS RESEARCH

Districts all over the country !lave designed or adopted "effectiveschools" programs. 'Pypically, these programs are intended to raisetest scores and include elements quch as:

definition of instructional goals;new promotion and/or graduation requirements;

changes in time allocations for instruction;--mandated planning for each school;alignment of the curriculum taught and texts and materials

with the test being administered;revision of supervisory practices to align them with district

goals;creation of a district assessment program to monitor studentprogress; andstaff development focusing on effective schools and teaching,supervision, assessment, and planning (Cuban, 1984).

The general intent of these programs is increased control over in-struction and tighter coupling between the classroom and the dis-trict. The underlying assumption often appears to be that theteaching staff are not doing the job and that tighter prescriptionsand closer supervision are needed to raise their level of effort, keepthem on track, and improve coordination. This search for tightercoupling often results in improvement programs being designed inthe district office with little, if any, teacher input, and being imple-mented in a top-down fashion. As one observer has noted:

From images popular in the academic journals of schools as loosely linked, amor-phous enterprises with plenty of slack, a counterimage now emerges from suh dis-tricts of organizations tightly coupled in both goals and formal structure, targetedsharply on academic productivity District officials pursuing policies that fasten in-dividual schools snugly to the cer.tral office believe they have found just the righthammer to pound in a nail (Cuban, 1984).

Considering the pressure on district leaders to raise test scores,such policies are understandable, particularly if local policymakersbelieve that such approaches will produce quick gains in achieve-ment and hold off public criticism. Such such gains may be short-lived and the unanticipated consequences costly. The top-down,tighter-coupling approach to Effective Schools may simply produceincreased bureaucratization and a higher level of mediocrity. In-creased uniformity combined with stricter controls over teacherwork may lower morale, level of effort, and professionalism amongthe teaching staff Dependency on basic skills tests may narrow the

3 8,

26

curriculum and reduce the time devoted to other important cur-riculum content. Stronger accountability measures without com-pensating steps to enhance teacher discretion and participationmay raise the levels of conflict among teachers and administratorsand lead to ^ "work to rule" attitude. The press toward efficiencyis not necessarily bad, it may even be essential in some districts,but it is unlikely to create the conditions essential for long-termimprovements in school effectiveness unless accompanied by othermeasures that build and protect strong, professional cultures in theschools.

Most analysts interpret the Effective Schools literature different-ly from the version described above. The central message, theywould contend, is that good schools have a culture that promotesand supports goal consensus, cooperation, achievement orientation,problem-solving, and high discretionary effort. In this view, peopleand the resources that people bring to their jobs are a good school'smajor assets. Good school managers it is argued are those whocreate conditions under which people perform at their best.

From this perspective, the role of the district shifts from controlto the encouragement, nurturing, and development of the desiredwork cultures in schools and to the recruitment and developmentof the talent to take full advantage of the opportunites for improve-ment that are created. This suggests an inversion of the conven-tional approach to implementation of improvements. Emphasis isplaced on maximizing school level responsibility rather than ongaining greater control and ensuring uniformity of practice. Schoolstaff are asked to identify and clarify school problems, develop andimplement plans, make decisions about assignment of resources,and plan staff development activities.

The district's role in this approach is to provide direction and re-sources, including moral support, incentives for participation, time,funds, and technical assistance. The district, of course, continues toset the parameters within which school-based improvement occursby setting overall goals, defining indicators of quality, reviewingplans, and monitoring implementation. District leaders retain theresponsibility for school outcomes and cannot abdicate that respon-sibility. They an the ones who have both the authority and the re-sponsibility to create the school conditions under which optimal ef-fectiveness can be attained. The issue facing district leaders is howto best create those conditions.

WHAT SHOTTLD DISTRICT POLICYMAKERS Do?

Faced with conflicting advice about how to improve their schools,what should district leaders do? In the face of public demands forbetter student perfnnnance, choosing not to act is not an option.The answer to the dilemna facing district leaders about how todesign an appropriate strategy for improvement depends on thelocal political context, the quality of school personnel, the charac-ter of management-labor relations, and the expectations of the dis-trict and community. Beyond that, research does provide someguidelines for action. A review of the research suggests that thereare eight key functions districts must perform if school improve-ment is to have any real chance of success at the building level.

,39

27

District leaders must determine which decisions and functionsbelong to central administration and which decisions and taskscan be properly carried out at the building level. This is whatPet-1.s and Waterman (1983), in their bestseller on successfulcorporations, refer to as simultaneous loose-tight properties.District leaders must determine which values are so importantthat they must be tightly monitored and controlled and whichcan be delegated or left to discretion at the building level.District leaders must set and communicate clear goals. Theymust ask what the system is about and what it should beabout. Goals should be stated in a manner that permits verifi-cation of their attainment.District leaders must address the question of what should betaught and set up a process for making such decisions. Wheth-er curriculum is defined centrally, in each school, or, in somecases, in the classroom, there must be a process to validatethose decisions and ensure that they are actually put into prac-tice.

District leaders should define the indicators used to assessschool quality and change. Developing and managing this in-formation system is probably a central office function. Infor-mation should include outcome data and indicators of thoseschool conditions believed to be related to high performance.District leaders should develop policies that encourage staff toidentify and solve problems, wont cooperatively, and make themaximum effort to achieve goals. The district must foster a cli-mate in which people can be productive, cooperative, and will-ing to face up to problems. Trust is essential if people are toaccept responsibility for improvement.District leaders should foster policies that provide incentivesfor initiative and improvement. They should emplitvize thatimprovement is a collective responsibility and hold t'iunselvesand central offices accountable for carrying out their responsi-bilities.District leaders should ensure that the allocation of money,people, and time reflects district goals and priorities. The dis-trict must provide funds, technical assistance, and staff devel-opment to support improvements. The district leaders shouldalso insure that their policies in selecting, assigning, and pro-moting staff are consistent with their goals.Finally, the district leaders must take a long-term view of im-provement by setting reasonable timelines and providing forcontinuity of development. They also must provide stable lead-ership to guide the improvement effort and buffer it fromhasty evaluations or external interference. This can be difficultgiven the rapid turnover rate of board members and superin-tendents.

These are the major inferences to be drawn from the research onschool effectiveness and school improvement for school districts. Al-though they raise more questions than they suggest answers, theydo define an agenda for a district administration and board whowish to have their effectiveness judged by the effectiveness of theschools for which theyare responsible.

40

28

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Berman, P. (1984). "Improving School Improvement: A Policy Eval-uation of the California School Improvement Program: Vol. I:Summary and Recommendations." Berkley: Berman, Weiler As-sociates.

Berman, P. and McLaughlin, M.W. (1979). "An Exploratory Studyof School District Adaptation." Santa Monica: Rand Corp.

Buttram. J., Corcoran, T.B., and Hansen, B.J. (1986). "Sizing UpYuur School District: The District Effectiveness Audit."

Clark, D.L., Lotto, L.S., and Astuto, T.A. (1984). Effective schoolsand school improvement: A comparative analysis of two lines ofinquiry. Educational Administration Quarterly, 20(3) 41-68.

Corcoran, T.B. (1985). Effective secondary schcols. In R.M. Kyle(ed.), "Reaching for Excellence: An EffectiVe Schools Source-book." Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.

Corcoran, T.B. and Lansen, B.J. (1983). "The Quest for Excellence:Making Public Schools More Effective." Trenton: New JerseySchool Boards Association.

Crandall, D.P., Loucks, S.F., and Eisenman, J.W. (1983). "People,Policies, and Practices: Examining the Chain of School Improve-ment: Vol. X: A Roadmap for School :mprovement." Andover:The Network.

Cuban, L. (1984). Transforming the frog into a prince: Effectiveschools research, policy, and practice at the district level. Har-vard Educational Review 54(2), 129-151.

David, J.L. and Peterson, S.M. (1984). "Can Schools Reform Them-selves? A Study of School-Based Improvement Programs." PaloAlto: Bay Area Research Group.

Eberts, R.W., and Stone, J.A. (1984). "Unions and Public Schools:The Effects of Collective Bargaining on American Education,"Lexington: Lexington Books.

Edmonds, R. (1979). Effective schools for the urban poor. Education-al Leadership 40(3), 15-25:

The Effective School Report 4(11), 1.Fullan, M. (1982). "The Meaning of Change." New York: Teachers

College Press.Institute for Educational Leadership (1986). "School Boards:

Strengthening Grassroots Leadership." Washington, D.C.Johnson, S.M. (1984). "Teacher Unions in Schools." Philadelphia:

Temple University Press.Louis, K.S., Rosenblum, S., and Molitor, J.A. (1981). "Strategies for

Knowledge Use and Schc.:-.4 Improvement." Washington, D.C.. Na-tional Institute of Education.

MacKenzie, D. (1983). Research for school improvement: An ap-praisal of some recent trends. Educational Researcher 12(4), 5-16

Marsh, D. and Berman, P. (1984). "Conceptualizing the Problem ofIncreasing the Capacity of Schools to Implement Reform Ef-forts." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the AmericanEducational Research Association.

Miles, M.B. and Kaufman, T. (1985). A directo,_ of programs. InR.M.J. Kyle (ed.). "Reaching for Excellence: An Effective SchoolsSourcebook." Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office

41

29

Peters, T.J. and Waterman, R.H., Jr. (1982). "In Search of Excel-lence." New York: Harper and Row.

Purkey, S.C. and Smith, M.S. (1983). Effective schools: A review. El-ementary School Journal 83(4), 427-452.

Rowman, B. (1983). "Instructional Effectiveness in School Dis-tricts." San Francisco: Far West Laboratory for Research and De-velopment.

Rowman, B., Bossert, S.T., and Dwyer, D.C. (1983). Research on ef-fective schools: A cautionary note. Educational Researcher 12(4),24-31.

Rutter, M. (1983). School effects on pupil progress: Research find-ings and policy imp'ications. In L.S. Shulman and G. Sykes (eds.)."Handbook of Teaching and Policy." New York: Longman.

Smith, M.S. and Purkey, S.C. (1985). School reform: The districtpolicy implications of the effective schools literature. Tne Ele-mentary School Journal 85(3), 353 -389.

Talbot, J.E. (1981). "Institutional Change and School Organization:A Trend Toward Standardized Instructional Policy." Paper pre-sented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Re-search Association.

Yin, R.K., Blank, R.K., and White, J.L. (1984). "Excellence inUrban High Schools: An Emerging District/School Perspective."Washington, D.C., Cosmos Corp.

42

Administrative and Organization Arrangements andConsiderations in the Effective Schools Movement

(By Eugene E. Eubanks, Daniel U. Levine, University of Missouri-Kansas City/

There are hundreds of points that can and should be wade re-garding administrative and organizational arrangements and con-siderations to strengthen the Effective Schools movement for im-proving the education of economically disadvantaged students. (Wewill limit our analysis to the economically disadvantaged segmentof students, particularly those attending predominantly provertyschools in big cities.) However, due to severe space limitations, wecan summarize only a few of the most important of these points.We will do this under the following headings: resources; organiza-tional arrangements "nd grouping; testing; secondary schools prepa-ration of administrators; and planning for improvement.

RESOURCES

Experience, common sense, and some research support the con-clusion that significant additional resources generally are requiredto substantially improve the achievement of students attendingpoverty schools in big cities. Among the major categories in whichexpenditure increases generally are required are the following:class size, supervisory and technical assistance personnel; instruc-tional materials and supplies; and specialized personnel such as li-brarians and counselors.

CLASS SIZE

Whether class size reduction results in improved achievementhas been a long and tortuous controversy among educational re-searchers. Without recapitulating the history of this controversy,we can report that there is now some consensus for the conclusionthat substantial changes which reduce class size below the fifteen-to-twenty range can improve achievement provided that such re-ductions are taken advantage of to modify and improve instruction-al practice. Beyond this common sense conclusion, several recentstudies support the emerging and interrelated conclusions that thenumber of low-achieving students may be more imp. -tant than thenumber of students per se, and that classes with a ,latively highproportion of !ow achievers must be small if the average teacher isto function effectively in this difficult environment (see Levine,Levine, and Eubanks, 1985).

SUPERVISORY AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PERSONNEL

Substantially improving the achievement of vast numbers of dis-adva. 'aged students obviously will require major changes in in-structional methods and materials. This in turn means that teach-

(30)

4

31

ers -overty schools must learn to function much more effectivelythan ae average teacher has in the past, or has been prepared todo through his or her pre-service and in-service education.Fortunately, the good news today is that improved instructionalapproaches have been developed that can result in large achieve-ment gains among previously low-achievers, particularly as regardstheir performance on higher-crder skills such as comprehension inreading or other subjects and problem-solving in math. ProfessorDavid Pearson of the University of Illinois Center on Reading hascharacterized these recent advances in knowledge and technique asa "comprehension revolution" which has occurred during the pastten years.Unfortunately, the "downside" of this development is that teach-ers need considerable technical assistance and other forms of helpif they are to use improved instructional approaches effectively. Assummarized by MacGinitie and iviacGinitie (1986), the situationtoday is basically that "There is essentially nothing in instruction-al materials or in teacher training [of the past) that helps theteacher learn what to do when the child does not understand" (p.258).

Bruce Joyce, Beverly Showers, and others have shown that acqui-sition of new teaching skills and approaches requires many hoursof demonstration, coaching, and practice, facilitated by highlytrained specialists who provide support at the classroom level. Sig-nificant resources for staff development personnel, training materi-als, stipends, and other related expenditures typically are needed ifteachers are to become much more effective in working with disad-vantaged students. In addition, teachers must be provided withmuch more planning time than they usually have if they are to ef-fectively implement contemporary approaches such as masterylearn"ig or other versions of outcomes-based instruction (Levine,1985).

INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS AND SUPPLIESFor a variety of reasons, significant additional expenditures forinstructional materials and supplies usually are needed in workingto improve achievement of low achievers. One reason is becausemany students must learn at a faster rate than they have in thepast, and this in turn requires a wider-than-normal range of mate-rials selected in accordance with students' changing levels of per-formance and their individual interests and learning problems. Inaddition, effective utilization of new or different instructional ap-proaches frequently requires additional resources such as text-books, computers, and consumable materials.

SPECIALIZED PERSONNELThe need for additional specialized personnel is clearly evident atmost poverty schools in big cities. For example, elementary librar-ians are needed to help ensure that regular classrc Jm lessons areextended to and coordinated with independent learning and appro-priate reinforcement in the library, sufficient counselors are re-quired to help students cope with the special problems they en-counter in an inner city environment, home-school coordinators

32

often are required to ensure positive coordination of home andschool influences, and other specialized personnel may be needed tohelp plan and conduct fiP" trips, learning incentive programs, orother activities designed to motivate students and enrich theirlearning. In general, relatively large numbers of specialized person-nel such as administrators, librarians, and counselors are needed atpoverty schools, compared with middle-class or economically-di-verse schools, because faculty (including teachers) at schools with ahigh proportion of disadvantaged students are overloaded with amuch higher-than-normal incidence of problems they encounter inworking to discharge their responsibilities.

It is true that substantially increasing expenditures at povertyschools does not and will not automatically result in improvementsin instruction or student performance. Resources can be increasedfar beyond the average level in a school district, but little or no im-provement will take place unless they are used to bring about fun-damental changes in instructional methods, organizational ar-rangements, and other aspects of education mentioned elsewhere inthis paper. Indeed, this is just what happened at many povertyschools in the 1960's and 1970's, where large expenditures wereused to reduce class size, provide more specialists, or introduce ex-pensive instructional systems that did not result in basic improve-ments in instructional and organizational arrangements. Misuse ofincreased resources in the past, however, does not obviate the im-portance of additional resources required to implement changemore effectively in the future.

It is also true that there are some poverty schools which alreadyhave An adequate level of resources and are much more dependenton changes in their utilization rather than additional-increases--ifimprovement is to occur in achievement. Some New York Cityschools, for example, have relatively large resources availablethrough various local, state, and Federal sources, and may not re-quire additional money to bring about substantial improve -lent Inour experience, however, such schools are much more the exceptionthan the rule nationally. Most poverty schools we have visited orknow about require significant additional resources for expendi-tures such as those identified elsewhere in this paper.

We are embarrassed about and perhaps should apologize for de-voting so much of our limited space to advancing the (to us) obvi-ous conclusion that most poverty schools need additional resourcesto improve achievement. However, claims that povety schools re-quire little or Lothing in additional resources are sufficiently wide-spreadsometimes from people who should know betterthat wefelt obligated to emphasize this fundamental point.

ORGANIZATIONAL ARRANGEMENTS AND GROUPING

During the past fifteen years we have devoted a considerableamount of time to studying, visiting, and otherwise learning abouteffective poverty schools at which average f eading or math achieve-ment is much higher than other similar schools. One of the mostimportant characteristics which distinguishes those successful pov-erty schools that f.ley Lave unusually effective arrangements forteaching low-achieving students.

45

33

In some cases, such arrangements emphasize provisions of addi-tional assistance to improve reading performance through tutoringbefore school, during lunch, or after school, utilization of teachers'aides, reductions of non-essential time in art, music, or other sub-jects, formation of smaller-in-class groups for low achievers thanfor other students, and other means (Sizemore, 1985). This type ofapproach requires that most or all teachers be unusually flexible,skilled, and hard-working in instructing low achievers.In other cases, arrangements at unusually effective povertyschools emphasize placement of the lowest achievers in relativelyhomogeneous classes organized and taught so as to accelerate theirlearning. In essence, this involves placing the lowest achieving stu-dents in the smallest classes with outstanding teachers and supportstaff who emphasize characteristics, such as relatively rapid pacingof instruction and stress on improving students' self-concept as alearner, that have been ;dentified as important in working success-fully with groups of 1'w-achievers (Leinhardt and Palley, 1982).One potential advantage of homogeneous grouping of the lowestachieving students is that it can make the job of most teachers

throughout the school much more manageable.In still other cases, improved performance by the lowestachievers has been attained through their placement in heteroge-neous classes which emphasize individualized a ad small-group in-struction. This approach can be successful as loag as average classsize in a school is relatively low, teachers have sufficient materials,skill, time, aid help to provide meaningfu: individualization, andinstructional procedures incorporate additional assistance for lowachievers through team learning or other means. Overall, this ap-proach. probably .has_the -most potential- for helping-all students-in-crease substantially in achievement, but it is relatively expensiveand it often fails because inadequate resources are provided tomake it workable (Lindelow, 1983). Elizabeth Cohen (1986) has sum-marized some of the problems educators have encountered tryingto deliver instruction emphasizing individualization in heterogene-ous classrooms as follows:

This change. . . meant that teachers were going to need support in solving prob-lems with the uncertain technology, support zit learning how to work with aides.Because no one gave the teachers the help they needed, these innovations Wen de-generated.... (p. 158).

Our discussion in this section raises the old que24-,ion of whetherhomogeneous or heterogeneous grouping is superk . We have seenboth arrangements as well as several intermediate mixtures suc-ceed in poverty schools, which leads us tc, conclude that, from somepoints of view, how well grouping is carried out may well be moreimportant than whether it is homogeneous or heterogeneous.In general, we believe that it is best to avoid or minimize homo-geneous grouping to the extent possible, particularly in raciallyand socioeconomically mixed settings where such grouping maygenerate segregation within or across classrooms. However, inmany poverty schools strictly heterogeneous organization may notbe feasible, and some an.ount of homogeneous grouping may bemore workable, provided that appropriate special assistance isavailable to the lowest achievers. In the latter situation, we agreewith a recent review of research in which Robert Slavin identified

A 46

34

the following "general principles for making ability grouping an ef-fective practice at the elementary level. Students should remain inheterogeneous classes at most times, and be regrouped by abilityonly in subjects in which reducing heterogeneity is particularly im-portant (for example, math and reading) ' Grouping plans mustreassess student placements frequently and allow for easy reassign-ments based on student progress" (Slavin, 1986:4). Unfortunatelythe general principles advocated by Slavin are rarely followed sys-tematically in practice.

Beyond these principles, we believe that some new terminology isdesirable for partially circumventing the frequently emotional con-troversy between those who support and those who oppose homoge-neous grouping. The best language we have heard for this purposeinvolves the concept of "levelling," which advocates making abroad distinction between readers and non-readers, or, sometimes,between good readers, poor readers, and non-readers. Once this dis-tinction is made, special assistance must be nrovided for poor read-ers and non-readers. A similar distinction pr )bably should be madebetween students who are above and below ,,ome level of minimallyadequate functioning in mathematics.

One particularly critical aspect of organizational arrangementsfor improving achievement at poverty schools in big cities involvescoordination of the regular instructional program with compensato-ry resources such as Chapter 1. The model approach for prwidingcompensatory education is to "pull" students from regular classesfor special assistance, but many or most pullout arrangements un-fortunately are not working effectively because they are poorly co-ordinated with regular instruction, reduce accountability of regularteachers, -create confusion and disruptivc movement throughoutthe school day, and otherwise detract from effective delivery of in-struction. New York, Kansas City, and some other urban districtshave made large improvements by reducing or eliminating pullout,and many other districts must either emulate their example orfind ways to implement pullout more effectively, if academicachievement is to be substantially improved at urban schools.

TESTING

Administrators also are responsible for initiating and implement-ing testing and el,:.luation policies and practices that will guide theeffective schools movement in productive directions. Improvementsin testing and evaluation are particularly required in order tocounteract destructive tendencies towa:d overemphasis on low-level, rote learning at poverty schools in big cities.

Achievement patterns in many big cities indicate that much em-phasis is being placed on improving students' performance in"basic" rudimentary skills that are easiest to teach and test. In ad-dition, such skills are easiest for students to learn and not onlyhelp keep them "occupied" with worksheets ar.d workbooks butalso tend to bolster their sense that they are accomplishing some-thing in school. It is difficult for teachers and students to resist thistendency, particularly since emphasis on higher -order skills callsfor more active learning methods that are particularly hard to im-plemen in sizable classes with a high proportion of low achievers.

id 47

35

Data on achievement trends in big cities support the conclusionthat much progress is being made in teaching low-level skills, butdeficiencies in higher-order skills are still severe (Levine and Eu-banks, 1987). In Milwaukee, for example, the average fifth-gradecapitalization and math computation scores are at the 55th per-centile nationally, the average spelling score is at the 57th percent-ile, and the average punctuation score is at the 59th percentile.However, the average math problem-solving score is at the 47thpercentile, and the average reading comprehension score is at the40th percentile.

In Kansas City, Missouri, similarly, average sixth-grade achieve-ment at predominantly-black elementary schools in the inner cityis at the national average of 6.8 (grade-equivalent) in the mechan-ics of language (spelling, punctuation, capitalization), but is at 6.1far below the national averagein reading comprehension. Stu-dents who have been drilled for years in lower-order reading andmath skills now perform fairly well on standardized tests throughthe sixth or seventh grade, but many can only "call-out" the wordswithout understanding what they read, or do simple arithmetic op-erations without being able to understand math concepts or prob-lem-solving methods required for success later in school or in amodern economy.

Worse, testing practices frequently reinforce destructive tenden-cies to overempha.s ze lower-order skills. State or district tests insome locations specify a large number of sub-skills that are sup-posed to constitute "reading", but instruction in these sub-skills&equality only helps students select the correct multiple-choice re-sponse on a test but not actually read with understanding (MacGin-itie and MacGinitie, 1986; Harris and Cooper, 1985). When suchtests are imposed-as-the standard for perforthanc-e across a diverseset of schools, students in middle-class schools generally performwell and move quickly to instruction in more important higher-level skills, while students at poverty schools in the inner city getmired in a repetitive cycle marked by learning, forgetting, and re-learning of narrow sub-skills.

Testing can be an engine for improvement rather t :nera-tor and reinforcer of destructive emphasis on lower ;kills inthe inner city. Among the viable opticils available , 'nistra-%ors, policymakers, and other school officials are to com-ponents of standardized tests that deal with the relatively most im-portant higher-order skills, or to use tests, such as the Degrees ofReading Power, that are designed explicitly to assess performanceon dimensions other than rote mastery of narrow sub-skills. It willhe unnecessarily difficult to wean teachers and students from em-phasis on rote learning so long as performance is assessed on thewrong criteria.

SECONDARY SCHOOLS

At the senior high and intermediate (i.e., junior high ter middleschool) levels, the conclusions set forth above regarding resourcesand organizational arrangements also apply, but problems in re-forming secondary schools are more severe than those encounteredat the elementary level, and therefore workable solutions require

48

36

even greater change in traditional practice. Some of the conclu-sions we have reached regarding successful reform of secondaryschools with a high proportion of low-achieving, disadvantaged stu-dents are enumerated below.

(1) Urban secondary schools enrolling many low achievers re-quire fundamental structural change. Productive structural changecan include such possibilities as creation of "school-within-a-school"units, establishment of "Institutes" or "Centers" that allow stu-dents to concentrate on studies in which they are particularly in-terested, and arrangements for teaching across subject areas to em-phasize common themes in English, social studies, math, science,and other subjects.

(2) In nearly all urban secondary schools with which we are fa-miliar, some change is required in the composition of the faculty,in order to introduce more teachers who are both able and willingto work with low-achieving urban students.

(3) To carry out major improvements in structure, staffing, andinstructional approach, secondary schools generally require at leastone support person for every nine or ten teachers. (This generaliza-tion holds for socioeconomically-mixed as well as poverty schools.)Support staff can include a variety of p )sitions such as administra-tor, supervisor, counselor, sub-unit director, program director or co-ordinator, specialist in curriculum and/or instruction, staff devel-opment specialist, and technology specialist. Successful organiza-tions in business and industry, health care, military services, andother fields typically have one support person/supervisor/technicalconsultant for every eight-to-ten employees. It is hard to under-stand why people believe that schools, which have increasinglycomplex and difficult objectives to carry out, can function effective-ly with a much smaller amount of leadership and supervision.

We admit that our comments and recommendations regardingreform of secondary education are at variance with the initiativesnow being implemented for this purpose in many locations. Recent-ly summarized by Sedlak, et al. as involving mostly a variety of ef-fort to "tighten administrative and inst:uctional controls" withoutproviding for fundamental improvement in the organization andoperation of high schools, these so called reforms essentially in-volve "relatively inexpensive" changes in supervision, testing, aadmanagement. We agree with the assessement of Sedlak and his col-leagues when they conclude that these initiatives usually "give theappearance of solving the problems without disturbing the schools"significantly (pp. 180-181).

PREPARATION OF ADMINISTRATORS

Recognition of the importance of principals and other adminis-trators in creating more effective schools is almost universal. In ad-dition, there seems to be growing recognition that the task ofbringing about real improvement in elementary and secondaryschools is enormously difficult. Interesting debates can be carriedon concerning the extent to which other faculty can or most pro-vide leadership in addition to or in place of the principal, differen-tials in the possibilities for providing leadership between the ele-mentary and the secondary levels, the appropriate administrative

44:9

37

sequence for emphasizing school climate, instruction, and evalua-tion, and other related matters. Nevertheless, nearly everyoneagrees that o_ standing adminitrators arts required if instructionis to become significantly more effective, and that the general levelof leadership must be much improved in the future.

Given these truisms, pre-service and in-service preparation of ad-ministrators must be substantially strengthened or the EffectiveSchools movement probably will thrash around without having asystematic national impact. Serious efforts to improve administra-tive leadership necessarily will include the following interrelatedcomponents:

paid internships at both the pre-service and in-service stages.In addition, the supervisor of interns should not have morethan nine or ten interns assigned to him or her at any onetime.opportunities to gain first-hand familiarity with instructional

arrangements, operational procedures, climate improvementefforts, and othr aspects of education at unusually effectiveschools. Such familiarity with effective practices can be ob-tained through' a combination of internships, mentor programsfor new or potential administrators, collegial study arrange-ments through which administrators visit and analyze eachother's schools, and other means.

Administrator preparation activities such as those describedabove are relatively expensive in comparison with the usual in-service and pre-service activities now provided. Thus one maydoubt whether serious efforts on a widespread basis will belaunched to adequately improve the capabilities of public school ad-ministrators, even though training programs of the magnitude indi-cated are standard in many businesses and professional positionsoutside-education.

Emphasis on administrator preparation is particularly critical atthif, stage of the Effective School movement due to growing recog-nition of and stress on the importance of organizational culture inimproving achievement at concentrated poverty schools. Researchincreasingly indicates that the norms and attitudes shared by fac-ulty are a key consideration in determining whether meant, ,;fulchange -AP. occur and become institutionalized. Innovations in in-structiorn technology and curriculum without concomitant andsupportive change in organizational culture 'II not produce signif-icant and lasting improve: ent.. Successful change in-olves muchmore than simply dewl.oi,ing or obtaining caps ole stall.At thr same time, rare- .',rely little "acnoemic knowledge is avail-able concerning how ano ,hat one does to charge organiationalculture in practice, and st'dly academic knowledge of this kinddoes not in any case necessarily affect the b.el,..1vior or those wholearn it. We do know, howeve-, thrt improver, All- in organizationalculture is one of the key contributions made by adr.liwstrators inunusually Effective Schools, an :hat successful administrators areable to do thir because they developed s accssft-1 "theories-in-use" that "fit" the particular circumstances at a given seNool Ad-ministrators at unusually Effective Schools, in other words, have

somehow learned how to "make sense" of the myriad of problemsand opportunities that exist in their schools; through continuous

50

38

"strategic dialogues," they communicate a vision of improvementsufficiently powerful to change faculty motivation and organiza-tional culture (Taylor, 1984, 1986).

In our opinion the best and surest way to help principals a, idother administrators learn to develop and implement appropriatetheories-in-use bearing on organizational culture and other key as-pects of the change process is through internships and mentoringarrangements such as those described above.

PLANNING FOR IMPROVEMENT

Successful implementation of systematic efforts to improveachievement at poverty schools depends on improvement in site-level planning to deliver instruction more effectively. Generalguidelines should be utilized to help schools and districts avoidsome of the mistakes that have been common in various EffectiveSe tools projects throughout the United. States. Several guidelinesto serve this purpose are provided below. (The guidelines are adapt-ed from Levine and Leibert, 1987).

1. Do not overload schools, or allow them to overload themselvese' part of a public relations attempt to "demonstrate" that they aredoing everything possible to improve achievement.

In addition to limiting the number of objectives and componentsin a school plan, central office personnel should help school facul-ties select relatively simple approaches for improving instruction.For example, it is known that students differ somewhat in pre-ferred learning style, and school plans frequently specify that in-struction will be reformed to take account of learning differences.If the approach specified is relatively simple and manageable, suchas emphasizing an alternative mode of instruction for corrective in-struction, most teachers probably can proceed to make instructionsomewhat more effective for many students. If the solution selectedis complicated, such as design and re-design of learning environ-ments with reference to 20, 30, or even 100 or more types of learn-ing preferences, the result probably will be still another innovationwhich is carried out only on paper.

2. Require that school personnel deal with strategic instructionalissues as part of their plans for improvement.

One implication of our preceding discussion is that planningguidelines and formats should be formulated with reference to keyinstructional issues such as grouping of students. If, for example, aschool plan specifies that improvements will be made in readingperformance on standardized tests, the plan should provide infor-mation showing that problems and alternatives regarding groupingwere considered in the context of reading instruction. Evidencealso should be presented showing that reading skills and activitieshave been carefully selected and scheduled at the grade and class-room avoid page-by-page emphasis on low-order skills.

3. Ass,istance from the central office must be furnished primarilythrough technical support from persons, not forms to fill out anddeadlines to meet on paper.

Resolution of difficult problems involving delivery of instructioncannot be achieved through filling out forms describing compo-nents in an annual school plan, no matter how elaborate. To ad-

51

39

dress these issues successfully, schools need many kinds of techni-cal assistance from persons who can help them develop agreementsregarding priorities for change, identify obstacles to change inpractice, and work out solutions to complex problems within theirparticular school context.We admit that it is much cheaper and easier for central adminis-trators to collect and process reams of paper designated as "annualimprovement plans" than it is to provide intensive and useful tech-nical assistance. We have seen too many instances, however, inwhich assistance primarily took the form of processing paper to be-lieve that this approach can make much difference.4. To the extent possible, plans as well as planning directives aru;

formats should focus attention on the most common pitfalls in im-plementin4' a particular approach to improving Instruction.This guideline is implicit in our previous recommendation thatthe central office should require schools to heal explicitly withproblems they encounter in grouping of students and other key in-structional issues. Other pitfalls such as mental and physical over-load of teachers also should be addressed.Many districts now specify one or another mastery learning ap-proach to improve instruction at the elementary level. Research aswell as the experience of many educators indicate that there arepredictable pitfalls that frequently detract from the success ofthese approaches. Anderson and Jones (1981), have identified someof these common flaws as follows: (1) lack of priorities among in-structional objectives: (2) failure to organize objectives into well-se-quenced units; (3) failure to orient and schedule students and in-struction properly; (4) over-testing; and (5) unjustifiable decisionsabout performance standards. If planning does not help schoolsdeal effectively with these problems, mastery learning tends to re-inforce negative tendencies toward slow pacing of instritction em-phasizing low-order learning.At a broader level, common pitfalls in mastery learning includeneglect of students' interest and enjoyment in learning, failure tocoordinate mastery learning with other instructional approaches,failure to provide teachers with sufficient planning time and,equally pernicious, assigning teachers so many low-achieving stu-dents that teachers cannot give them enough learning time andteacher support. At this level of analysis, much of the problem inimplementing mastery learning involves making it manageable andfeasible for teachersa consideration that should be explicitly ad-dressed in formulating and carrying out individual school plans.5. Modify some of the language of the effective schools literatureto reflect key instructional and organizational issues as part of theplanning process.

Although most of the school effectiveness studies have been cor-relational and hence severely limited in indicating specific actionsto improve achievement, this research has helped identify some ofthe important manipulable characteristics and variables (Good andBrophy, 1986). To make this literature even more useful as a guidefor school planning, we believe that some of these cl-aracteristicsshould be re-defined to focus partly on resolution of key instruc-tional and organizational issues. For example, the characteristicwhich Edmonds (1982, p. 4) described as "the principal's leadership

52

40

and attention to the quality of instruction" might be re-written as"The principal provides leadership in identifying and implement-ing solutions to central instructional issues such as pacing andgrouping."

Similarly, the characteristic most commonly referred to as "highexpectations" and described in more detail by Edmonds (1982, p. 4)as "teacher behaviors that convey the expectation that all studentsare expected" to attain "at least minimum mastery" might be re-written as "assistance is provided and instructional arrangementsand practices are structured so that all students are expected andrequired to meet minimum performance levels." In our experience,discussing teacher "expectations" often leads to a fruitless debateon whether teachers believe their students can learn. Improved ter-minology could help direct attention to questions such as how toprovide assistance for slow learners through altering instructionalarrangements, how to communicate high expeUations through re-quirements for completion of classroom tasks, and how to imple-ment rigorous yet realistic promotions policies.

CONCLUSION

Although the conclusions reached and the issues considered inthis paper necessarily touch on curriculum and teaching, they arefirst and foremost the province and responsibility of :.:hoot admin-istrators. Organizational arrangements at the school level, policiesand practices regarding school structure and staffing, and utiliza-tion and availability of resources are determined to a significantdegree by administrators at various levels ranging from the schoolsite to the central office.

Whenever or wherever adequate resources are not available tocarry out fundamental reform of instruction, acquisition of addi-tional resources must be the primary priority for administratorsand policymakers at all levels. Wherever or whenever adequate re-sources are available or become available, administrators are re-sponcible for revising organizational arrangements to ensure theireffective use, though such revisions may well create conflict andopposition from some faculty members, teacher organizations, orother sources. What administrators must particularly avoid andoppose are the schemes being advanced by state government officials and legislators, local boards of education, bureaucrats, andother who in the absence of needed fundamental changes are pro-posing to improve achievement by simply "tightening up" onstandards or testing the minimal competence of disadvantaged students for whom improved performance depends on availability ofadequate resources together with fundamental changes and im-provements in the ways they currently are used.

REFERENCES

Anderson, L.W. and Jones, B.F. (1981). Designing InstructionalStrategies Which Facilitate Learning for Mastery. EducationalPsychologist. v. 16: 121-137.

Cohen, E.G. (1986). On the Sociology of the Classroom, pp. 127-162in J. Hannaway and M.E. Lockhead (eds.), The Contributions of

53

41

the Social Sciences to Educational Policy and Practice." Berke-ley, Ca.: McCutcheon.Edmonds, R. (1982). Programs of School Improvement: An Over-view. Educational Leadership. 40: 4-15.Good, T.L. and Brophy, J.L. (1986). School Effects, pp. 570-602 inM.C. Wittrock (ed.), "Handbook of Research on Teaching." NewYork: Macmillan.Harris, T.L. and Cooper, E.J. (1985). "Reading, Thinking, and Con-cept Development." New York: College Entrance ExaminationBoard.Leinhardt, G. and Palley, A. (1982). Restrictive Educational Set-tings: Exile or Haven? Review of Eelucational Research, v. 52:557-578.Levine, D.U. and Eubanks, E.E. (1987). "Achievement Improvementand Non-improvement at Concentrated Poverty Schools in BigCities." Metropolitan Education (in press).Levine, D.U. and Leibert, R.E. (1987). Improving School Improve-ment Plans. The Elementary School Journal. v. 87: 397-412.Levine, D.U. (1985). Key Considerations for Achieving Success inMastering Learning Programs in D.U. Levine (ed.), "ImprovingStudent Achievement Through Mastery Learning Programs."San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Levine, D.U., Levine, R.F., and Eubanks, E.E. (1985). Success :ill Im-plementation of Instruction at Inner-city Schools. The Journal cfNegro Education, v. 54, (Summer): 313-332.Linde low, 3. (1983). "The Emerging Science of Indivilualized In-struction." Eugene, Or.: University of Oregon Clearinghouse onEducational Management.MacGinitie, W.H. and MacGinitie, R.K 1986). Teaching StudentsNot to Read, pp. 256-269 in S. deCastell, A. Luke, and K. Egan(eds.), "Literacy, Society, and Schooling." Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.Sedlak, M.W., Wheeler, C.W., Pullin, D.C., and Cusick, P.A. (1986)."Selling Students Short." New York: Teachers College Press.Sizemore, B. (1985). Pitfalls and Promise of Effective Schools Re-search. The Journal of Negro Education, v. 54, no.3 (Summer):269-288.Slavin, R. (1986). "How Ability Grouping Affects Student Achieve-ment in Elementary Schools." CREMS. June, 1986: 2-4.Taylor, B.O. (1984). "Implementing what works. Elementary princi-pals and school improvement programs." Unpublished disserta-tion, Northwestern University.Taylor, B.O. (1986). "How and Why Effective Elementary PrincipalsAddress Strategic Issues." Paper presented at the annual meet-ing of the American Educational Research Association.

54

42

Educational Leadership 40 (December 1982): 4-11. Reproduced vith permission ofthe *amnia lion for Supervision and Curriculum Developnent. Copyright (e) 1902by the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. All rightsreserved.

Programs of SchoolImprovement: AnOverviewUniversities, state agencies, and schooldistricts have established schoolimprovement programs based oneffective schools research.

RONALD R. EDMONDS

r

Educators have become memos.ingly convinced that the charactaut= of schools are important

determinants of academic achievement.Since 1978 an extraordinary numberand variety of school improvement pro.grams have concentrated on a schooleffects interpretation of the relationshipbetween achievement and family back-ground Such programs represent a ma-im educational reform and derive froma fairly rapid educator acceptance of theresearch of Brookover and Lezotte1197% Edmonds (In). Rutter 11979).and a number of others who hose studied characteristns of both effectise andrneffectne schools

11115 article was prepared Wider contractto the 1sational Institute of Education forpresentation at a conference on The Implycanons of Research for Practice.' held atAbbe House. Virginia. Februcm 1982

Several school effects researchershave independently concluded thateffective schools share certain asentralcharactenstics. However, two important,caveats exist. researchers do not yetknow whether those characteristics arethe causes of instructional effectiveness.nor have the characteristics beenranked. We must thus conclude that toadvance school effectiveness, a schoolmost implement all of the charactens.tics at once.

The characteristics of an effectiveschool are 11) the principal's leadershipand attention to the quality of instrucbon. 121 a perNanse and broadly under.stood instructional focus; (3) an orderly.safe climate conducive to teaching andlearning: (4) teacher behaviors that con.sey the expectation that all students areexpected to obtain at least minimummastery, and (3) the use of measures ofpupil aelieNement as the basis for pro-gram evaluation.

To be effective a school need notbring all students to identical levels of .mastery, but it must bring an equalpercentage of its highest and lowestsocial classes to minimum mastery.This measure of school effectnenessserves two broad purposes First, it per-mits the middle class to establish thestandard of proportionate master.against which to fudge a school's effec-tneness. Second. it permits schools to

itonata It Edmonds Is Protestor of Educe,.non. ikfichwan State Unnands. East Lem.stnst,

4 EOL COW% L 1Dt

55

43

be easily charactcnzed as improving ordeclining as the proportion of the lowestsocial class demonstrating mastery rises

Dzovascs 1982

or falls.Three types of school improvement

programs have resulted from the school

5b'LP

"To be effective aschool need notbring all studentsto identical levelsof mastery, but itmust bring anequal percentageof its highest andlowest socialclasses tominimummastery"

eFectventss research (1) programs thatare organized and administered withinschools and school districts. (7) pro-granr that arc administered by stateeducation geneses. which provide in-centives and technical assistance to localschools and districts: and (3) ,uogra ms ofresearch, development, and technicalassistance usually located in a universi-ty. The university programs tend toemphasize the duseminat, on of know!.edge gained from research on schooland teacher effects as well as descriptionand analysis of the technology of schoolintervention.

Local District ProgramsThere are now more than a score ofurban school districts at various stages ofthe design and implementation ofschool Improvement programs based ondie characteristics of school effective.mess Fise such programs In New YorkCity. Milwaukee. Ch.cago. hew Ha.

;

"Clearly, changemust beschoolwide andinclude bothprincipals andteachers."

ven, and St Louisall attempt to intro-duce approaches to leadership, climate,focus, expectations, and assessment thatconform to charactenstics of school ef-fecfiveriess. These programs are dissimi-lar in that their designs for change aredifferent. Some of them invite schoolsto voluntanly participate while othersrequire participatio' Some were initiat-ed by school officiah while others wereinitiated by outsiders.

The New York Cu, Schtlol Improve-ment Protect (SIP) ts the most widelypublicized of these efforts Between Au-gust 1978 and February 1981. I waschief instructional officer of the NewYour City Public Schools. I thereforepresided over the design and implemen-tation of SIP. which was part of a targetattempt to improve the school system sbasic approach to teaching and learn-ing. Since 1978 there have beenchanges in the Ncw York City schools

6

44

an such basic areas as cumculum re-quirements and the minimum standardsfor pupil promotion

SIP was and is the most generouslyfunded of the five projects describedhere. The project began in October1979 with nearly million dollars ofsupport provided by the Ford Founda-tion, the Carnegie Corporation, theNew York Foundation, the New YorkState Department of Education, and theNew York City Public Schools.

57

Sow V*

Dining the 1978-79 school yearabout 15 persons were recruited andtrained as school liaisons. The trainingcovered the research on school effects,the use of instruments to evaluate theschools, and procedures the staff were tofollow when consulting with individualschools. Initially each participatingschool was assigned a full-time liaison,by 1980-81 each liaison was assignedtwo schools All of the participatingschools were volunteers.

EDVCATIOUL LLAC4 WnP

"Thus no localschool designshould depend onchanges overwhid3 the localschool does nothave control."

45

committee of principals. teachers,and parents was then formed to pasha-pate in and approve all mkt. activitiesin the school Using intemews andclassroom observations, the liaison con-ducted a "needs assessment" of theschool in order to determine the pnna-pars style of leadership, the instuction-al focus of the school, the climate,nature of teacher expectations of pupilperformance, and the sole of standard-ized measures of pupil performance inprogram evaluation. On the bans of theneeds assessment, a plan was developedby the liaison and the school's commit-tee to introduce the effective shoo]characteristics where they were absentand to strengthen them where theywereweak Dwripgions of supportive educa-tional sauces were developed inside theschool district and in greater New YorkCity These descriptions were used bythe liaison to decide which serum wererequired by the school improvement

Dissent198Z

plan.In New York City. typical interven-

tions included teaching principals theelements of instructiotul leadership,seminars to Improve teachers' use ofachievement data as a basis for programevaluation: and developing and dissemi-nating written descriptions of theschool's major focus.

The New York City School Improve-ment Project u annually evaluated onmeasures of organization, institutionalchange, and measures of pupil perform-ance on standardized tests of achieve-ment The Ford Foundation conceivedof and funded a "documentation unit"to evaluate the outcomes of the protectand to record its evolution Theachievement data for each school haveshown an annual increase in studentsdemonstratigg academic mastery

(he school imprownent project orkis/woke is also based on school effec-tiveness research. but is substantially

,58

different from the New York City proj-ect During the 1979-80 school year.18 elementary schools regarded at thetime at the least effective in the Milwau-kee school districtweie assigned bythe superintendent to participate in thisproject

The Milwaukee project was prima nlydeigned and implemented by MaureenLarlun and relied solely on school dis-trict resources It snit ally focused onteacher attitudes toward the educabilityof the schools' predominantly low-in-come students.,

The St Louis protest was Initiatedfrom outside the school distncr Duringthe 1980-81 school year. John Ervin,Vice President of the Danforth Founds'don, persuaded St. Louis school offi-s.als to permit several inner-city schoolsto participate in a project designed tointroduce the characteristics of effectiveschools. From the beginning. Ervin andarea superintendent Rufus Young used

'''

46

"This muchis certain:significant

numbers ofeducational

decision =Jeershave concluded

that the findingsfrom research on

effective schoolare accurate and

efficacious."

a design focused on broad partopahonand shared decision making. With Dan-forth support, teachers and pnnapalswere chosen to visit New York City'sSIP and a Pontiac, Michigan. improve-ment project based on the Brookover-Lezotte characteristics of school effec-tiveness From these visits, St. Lowseducators gained personal knowledge ofeffective schools.

The 1980-81 school year was spentin intense planning with the assistanceof area university faculty who illustratedthe processes of change and the behav-iors associated with school effectiveness.Area superintendent You has report-ed achievement gains for all participa,-ing schools.

The New Haven, Connecticut, protectfocuses on all schools within the districtand is directly supervised by the superin-tendent. New Haven is especially inter-esting because of its long association

8

with Jim Comer of Yale. Comer'sScharf Power (1980) descnbes a ten-yearhistory of direct intervention in threepredominantly black New Haven ele-mentary schools. COMO'S approach toschool improvement emphasizes themental health skills of educators andseeks a qualitztve improvement in theinteraction between teachers and stu-dents, :chool and family, adults andchitdren The New Haven schools inwhich Corner has worked have dramati-cally improved both interpersonal rela-tions and the quality of teaching andlearning. Superintendent Jerry Tamahas set out to build on Comer's modelin ,an overall approach that derives frommy correlates of effectiveness (Ed-monds, 1979).

My mayor differences with Comerfocus on tactics and outcomes. Corner'sapproach is grounded in the disciplinesof psychoicgy and psychiatry in that heteaches the psychological origin of pupil

59

behavior in order to improve the qualityof educator respor.se. This orientationhas required many educators to lamnew skills. Corner's program not onlyraises achievement but has a desirableeffect on the affective outcomes ofschooling. My approach is somewhatmore modes; in that the goal is in-creased achievement and the measure ofgain is exclusively cognitive. The at-tempt to integrate these two approacheshas not been under way long ener lh topermit evaluation.

The Chicago proyect represents yetanother alternative design. During the1980-81 school year, Dean RobertGreen of Michigan State University sUrban Affairs Program was hired by theChicago Board g Education to presideover the design of a 4h:segregation planfor the Chicago schou'... Green is anational authonty on desegregation de-signs, especially as they relate upilplacement, equitable rules g. .ming

EDUCATICY4AL LEADERSHIP

student behavior. supplementary serv-ices, and the myriad elements that con-tribute to effective desegregation.

was hired by the Chicago Board ofEducation to design the portion of thedesegregation plan that would directlyaffect teaching and learning This divi-sion of labor produced two distinct plans(Green. 1981) which were submitted tothe Chicago board in the spnng of 1981Green's plan focused on pupil place-ment to desegregate the schools Myplan was intended to standardize t'curriculum. emphasize achievement inevaluation, and otherwise cause the sys-tem to implement what is known aboutschool effectiveness.

The school board rejected Green'splan for pupil placement and only re-cently submitted to the federal court aplan for voluntary desegregation. Myplan, however, was adopted, submittedto the federal court, and ordered intoeffect in September 1981. That was anunfortunate development. Had theboard adopted both plans, It would haveadvanced desegregation and achieve-ment simultaneously. Its failure to doso, however, implies that programs ofschool improvement can substitute forpupil placement plans for &snap-rion. Improved achievement for blackstudents is unrelated to the legal, moral,

;

Marisa 1982

47

and ethical oiligition to eliminate dis.cnminabon a. a charactenshc of pupilplacement.

Supenntendent Ruth Love didn't ar-nve in Chicago till after both plans hadbeen submitted to the board. It is there-fore reasonable to expect that Love willinterpret the court order in ways thatreflect her formidable mastery of thevarious elements that advance achieve.ment in a large urban school system.

The school improvement programsthus far discussed are but a few of manynow under way. Our expenth,e withimplementation gives no basis for pre.faring any particular design. We knowfar more about the characteristics ofschool effectiveness than we do abouthow they become effective. Neverthe-less, it is possible to make summaryobservations of potential use to all pro-grams of school improvement.

Clearly, change must be schoolw deand include both principals and teach-ers. All programs of school improve-ment should be evaluated on at least twodistinctive measures. Changes in stir.dent achievement are an obvious impor-tant measure. Of equal imp..cince are&salable changes in the institutional,organizational nature of a school as afunction of changes in principal andteacher behavior. Formative evaluation

is distinctly preferred over summahveevaluation. Finally, while most changeswell occur within the school, some im-portant and desirable changes can onlybe made by the school board or thesuperintendent. Local school designs forimprovement will from time to timereveal aspects of board policy or admin.istratve rules that impede the plan. It isimportant at such times to continue thelocal school plan while acknowledgingthat distnetwide changes may not occuror may take a long time to accomplish.Thus no local school design shoulddepend on changes over which the localschool does not have control.

StatAchniniatered ProgramsA number of sate departments of edu-cation are circulating materials designedto encourage local school districts toadopt soLool aaprovement plans basedon school effectiveness research. Forexample, the Missoun Department ofEducation has produced a film nowcirculating throughout the state and theOhio Department of Education, in ad.dihon to dissemination activities, is of-fenng modest financial support to Ohioschool districts willing to pursue schooleffertiveness proorazns.

The most formal state program is theOffice of School Improvement of theConnecticut Department of EducationDuring the 1979-80 school )ear, de.partment staff spent substantial time inNew York City observing the SIP train-ing program and liaison behavior inproiect szhools. Connecticut was espe-cially interested in the instruments thathad been developed to evaluate thecorrelates within the schools. The Con-necticut Office of School Improvementnow offers two services to local schooldistricts.

First, districts are invited to submitdesigns for school improvement basedon the characteristics of effectiveschools. Some of those designs are fund-ed with grants from the state. Second.whether funded or not. all Connecticutschoch districts may request technicalassistance from the Office of SchoolImprovement. For example, any districtmay ask state personnel to use the evalu.alive instruments to conduct a needsassessment in a local school. State per-sonnel also teach officials of the localdistrict how to use the instruments. As aresult, a number of Connecticut dis-tricts have 1k-end and implementedprograms of school improvement basedon the characteristics of effectiveschools. The prehmInary reports areenthusiastic altho igh no formal evalua-

60

9

bons have yet been produced.The New Jersey Education Assocm-

bon (NJEA) offers an Interesting vans-bon on these state programs. 05oals ofthe state dice of the NJEA were alsosent to New York to observe SIP, and in148041 NJ EA launched its own Effee-hotness Training Program Local chap-ters of the Nib-A may request assistancefrom the state office to design and im-plement a program of school improve-ment The state office then sends to thelocal chapter a team of trainer to con-duct needs assessments and staff devel-opment activities designed to encouragethe development of local plans Unfor-tunatdy. none of these state activitieshas produced evaluative materials thatpermit assessment.

University -Based ProgramsThe Titk IV Kent State University de-segregation assistance center is a pro-gram that combines dissemination andtechnical assistance.

In cooperation with the Ohio Depart-ment of Education. Kent State has heldstatewide improvement conferences andis working with a number of OM» dis-trieb an the design and implementationof kcal plans for school improvementbased on the school effectiveness re-search. Kent State has interpreted theschool effectiveaess research as comple-mentary to a nd supportive of local plansfor desegregation The Kent State De-svegabon Center graphically illus-trates that regardless of the partscularplan for desegregation. all schools profitby exploiting what is known of thecharacteristics of effective schools

A similar program is now under way.4 the University of Michigan's Programof Equal Opportunity (PE% which isalso a Title IV desegregation assistancecenter PEO's dissemination materialscopilot!), note the complementary na-ture of school effects research aro!

effects research (Breakthrough. 1982).Finally, there is Michigan State Um-

venity's NIE-funded Institute for Re-search on Teaching. which is part ofMSU's College of Education Somefaculty of the Institute study the corre-lates of effective teaching while othersfocus en the correlates of effectiveschools.

The College of Education has fomieda unit called the Center for SchoolImprovement whose purpose is to syn-thesize and disseminate the knowledge

red from research on effectivehods and effective teaching Dunngthe 1981-82 school year. Michiganschool districts were invited to cantata-

10

48

Ii

:44Nikr fnoa:

pate in a training program focused onthe implications of this knowledge forpractice More than 100 principals,teachers, and central administratorsfrom Michigan's 21 largest school dwbids are new designing local programsof school improvement to be imple-mented in one or more of the schools intheir distnc The demand for train-ngpogroms bassi on research on effectiveschools and effrotve teaching illustrateswidespread educator interest in knowl-olge-based &sips or school improve-molt

These bnef descriptions of local,state, and university programs of school=moment are typical of the rangeand vanety of such programs and actin.hes, although they do share certainumilanties.

Common Characteristics ofImprovement ProgramsIn all of these improvement programsthe local school is the um'. of analysisand the focus of intervention All ofthese programs presume that almost allschool -age children are educable andthat their educability don es from thenature of the schools to which they are

61

sent. While all of these programs wouldadvocate increased financial supr,ort forschools, their designs focus on moreefficient we of misting resources. Final-ly. all of these programs we increasedachievement for low-income children asthe rneasur. of gain while presumingthat such *gains will accrue to the evengreater benefit of middle-class childrenThese shared characteristics form aninteresting basis for lodging the long-range prospects of the programs Istrongly urge all programs of schoolimprovement to provide the basis fortheir systematic evaluation.

It is equally important to suggest ad-vances in educational research thatwould benefit these protects More basicresearch on school effectiveness wouldreinforce the correlates of school effec-tiveness and further advance our knowl-edge of effective schools. kaong thefundamental research issues yet to bestudied is whether the correlates ofschool effectveness are also the causesof school effectiveness Basing improve-ment programs on the causes of schooleffectiveness wild dramatically in-crease acliievernent rates.

Research on school effectiveness hasbeen complemented and reinforced by

Ecoc.vr.oros. liAoc ,our

49

"While all of theseprograms wouldaid warte increased

r. financial supportfor schools, theirdesigns focus onmore efficient useof existingresources."

M105 S....444

research on teacher effectivenessBrophy (1974). Good (1979), and Ros-enshi: e (1978) for example, hose lo-cust' on the tar' el behaviors andel:Atom eharacteosbes that describeinstrucoorully effective classroomsTeacher effects analysis of the interac-tion between pupil achievement andpupil family background parallelsschool effects analysts in that both focuson aspects of the school to explain whysome schools succeed wt.:: greater pro-portions of their pupa populations thando others

The maps findings from research onschools and research on classroomsshould be integrated From a conceptu.al point of new both groups of research.en emphasize behaviors within theschool as the Trie drizmunonts ofachievement in basic school skills. Bothgroups of researchers depend on thediscovery of effeetwe practice in contrastto invention of recommended practicetheon zed to improve achies ement. Fur.therm= the correlates of effectiveschools and effective classrooms deriveexclumely from the environment suerwhich local schools hose control

these two sets of research findingsalso complement each other and would

Dcaroars 1982

be st-engthened were they integratedFor example. one of the correlates ofeffectre schools as the pnneiyars in-structional leadership. One of the mani-festations of instructional leadership asfrequent prinapal.teacher discourse fo.cused on diagnosing and solving in-structional problems in the classroomPrincipals who have Intimate knowledgeof the most effective techniques of class-room management and instruction arewell prepared for discussions with teachen focused on tie classroom It as prob-ably safe to say that as schools acquirethe characteristics of effectne schools.they create a school climate more recep-tive to teacher use sf the correlates of(-Feeble teaching

Finally, only a few of the programs ofschool amprosement reflect the findingsfrom research on organizationalchange The disparity of designs forlocal school improvement exists partlybecause of their different analyses of themeans by which organizational changzmight occur. As we record the progressof these protects. at would be well tonote the extent to which their successesand failures derive from the presence orabsence of the principles of organizes.bora! development.

This much is certain significantnumbers of cduca horn I decision makershave concluded that the findings fromresearch on effective schools arc accu-rate and efficacious We are thus observ.mg the 'golden tton of programs ofschool Imptosement based on a com-mon body of knowledge. This intimateinteraction between research and prac-tice collates the usefulness of researchon schools and classrooms and encour-ages an expanded agenda cf educafionalinquiry

,The details ol the Milwaukee programappear an this issue in an /rock written byLotto. -Afilssoukee's Protect RISE: pp.16-21

Reermas

BwIthro411 ID, 2 Minter 1982) Pro-gtam for Educational Opportunity Eastlaming: Unwersay of Michigan School ofEducation, 1982

Becok.ovet. W. B and knock. L WChanges 113 School Charanemna Conn.diva with Charges in Student MonumentEast lansiny Michigan State University,College of Urban Development. 1977

Brook.ovet. W ft and others Vows.fay School Climate and School Maw,anent East lansinv Michigan State Urine:,soy. Colter of Urban Development. 1976

Brophy, J E.. and Coed. T. L Tack,Student RefatainsAips Cause: and Conse-quence, New York. Holt. Rinehart dr Win-ston. 1974

Coma. n School 'ewer /op& ons ofAn Intereentsurs Protect New York. FreePress, 1980

Edmonds. R. "A Ducumon of the Liter/-One and Issue- F.elated to Effector School.mg: Volume o i. Loma CEMREL Inc .1979

Good, T and Csomvs.13 -The Mason.n Mothers.00n Effectiveness Protect An Ex-perimental Study in Fourth Crack Chu-rooms locum: of Educational Psychology71(1979); 35S-362.

Caen. R. -Execuove Summary of Progran, Recommendations and Pupil Assign.ment Aspects of Student Delegregabon Planfor Chicago Public Schools Chicago Boardal Education. March 14. 1981

'Instructional Monomer* Orpnamgfoe Excellence' hlissoun Department ofElementary and Secondary Educes:0,1981

"New Jenny Educational AssociationSchool Effecoveness Training Program"Trenton new Jersey Educsoonol Anon,.bon. 1979

Rosenshine. B Instructunal PonoplesDirect Instmetson Mona University ofIllinois. 1978

Rue-r. Is( Vaughan, B . Mommore. P,and Ouston, I Fifteen Thousand HoursCambodge, Mass Ilanaad UniversityPress. 1979

62

11

50

Resource Information ServiceSTEWART C. PURKEY AND MARSHALL S. SMITH

Too Soon to Cheer? Synthesis of Research on EffectiveSchools Educatsenst Leadershsp 40 (Decesber 1932): 64-69. Reproduced with pressman

of the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Copyright (c)1982 by the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. All rightsrase eyed.

Te recent literature on schoole'ffectiveness concludes that dif-ferences a- von: schools do affect

students' academic achievement. Thisliterature challenges previous researchthat had found unequal academicachievement to be prams* a functionof family background and related varia-bles (Coleman and others. 1964 Jencksand others. 1972). Easily measured dd.ferences among schoolsclass size,teacher salanes, number of books in thelibrary, the reading stns. the age of theschool building, or whether or not theschool had a compensatory educationprogram were found to kW little rela-tionship to achievement (Averch andothers, 1972, Coleman and others,1964 Jencks and oth-rs. 1972. Ste-phens, 1967. Hanusheb, 1981, Mullinand Summers. 1981, Mumane, 1980).

Stu-aes on the determinants ofachievement have been concerned withvariables relating to (I) how schools andschool districts are structured and makedecisions, (2) the process of change inschools and school districts, and (3) theway in which classrooms and schoolscan increase the amount of time spenton productive instruction. Althoughthese variables are less susceptible tomechanical changes in policy, they arealterable (Bloom, 1981)genen:ly withdifficulty, but often for little money.

Our attention in this article is direct-ed to the literature on school-level Clac-ton. Following Barr and Dreeban

Stewart C Poetry is a doctoral candidateaehearch Assistant and Marshall S Smith itArector. Wisconsin Ender for Education

march. School q Education. LinissmryWtomsin at Madison

(1981). we new school systems as "nest-ed layers" in which each organizationallevel sets the context and defines theboundanes for the laver below (thoughthere is a reciprocal influence). If thelocus of the educational process is at thelowest structural level. the classroom, itis nevertheless the adjacent layer, theschool, wducl, forms the immediateenvironment in which the classroomiunctions The quality of the process atthe classroom level is enhanced or di-minished by the quality of activity at thelevel above It.

Review of the School FffechernessliteratureWe have clustered the studies that havereceived the most attention in theschool effectiveness literature into fourgroupsoutlier studies. case studies.program evaluation studies, and "other"studies. The lack of empirical data inmany of the studies precluded us fromcarrying out a quantitative synthesis.Following the review of studies we ex-amine the growing literature on aceimplementation of change in schoolsand recent research on theones of orga-nization in order to gain an understand-ing of academically effective schools.

Outlier Studio. One major manyof school effectiveness research has beento stabscolly determine highly effectiveschools (positive outliers) and unusuallyineffective schools (negative outliers).Most such studies employ regressionanalyses of school mean achievementscores, controlling student body socio-economic factors. Based on the regres-sion equation, an "expected" manachievement score is calculated for eachschool. Thu "expected" score is sub-tracted from the actual achievementlevel of the school to give a "residual"score for each school. The researcherthen selects the most positive and themost negative residual word and labelsthe schools they represer.' .4 unusually

64

63

effective or ineffective. Characteristics ofthese two types of schools are thenassessed by surveys or case studies todetermine the reason for the outcomes

Studies that have adopted this generalapproach include three anted out bythe New York State Department of Edu-cation (1974a, 19744 1976). a studyconducted for the Maryland State De-partment of Education (Austin. 19Lezotte, Edmonds. and Ratner's studyof model canes elementary schools inDetroit (1974) Brookover andSchnetder's (1975) study of Michiganelementary schools; and the study ofDelaware schools by Sparta and others(1977).

The similanty among these studies isstnisng in two areas' the means ofschool identification (four used regres-sion analysis to identify outliers, and theselection of only elementary schools asstudy sites. Quality and c_-'elusions.however. vary considerably . di CUMpie, the first New York study (19"4aafound that methods of reading instrucbon vaned greatly between high and Ionperforming schools A follow-up study(1974b) found the oppositethe method of reading instructtin did not appearto make any difference A third NewYork study (1976) again found salientdifferences an classroom instruction, al-though it did not highlight the sameinstructional features as the first studyThe Maryland study (Austin. 19'8)concluded that effective schools arecharacterized by strong instructionalleadership, while Sparta and others(1977) found that effective schools hadpnncipals who emphasized administnitive activiti3. The Sparta study idenry-fied at !east seven general variables relat-ing to achievement Brookover andSchnoder's Michigan study (19751found six. Moreover, Brookover andSchneider did not mention abilitygrouping. while the Delaware and twoof the New York studies considered thisa sigaificant feature Finally. although

EDUCATIONAL LLADEIL411P

it is cited by many in support of Variy/USlists of critical factors, we could find nodiscussion of the substantive findings ofthe Lezotte (1974) study of Detroit'smodel cities schools

While the studies do correspond inseveral respects, the variations in theirfindings should stile .s 2 caution tothose who would reduce such disparateliterature to five or sin variables SUM-lady, those variations suggest that novariable in particular is crucial None-theless there is some consistency in theresults The more pervasive commonelements are better control or disciplineand high staff expectations for studentachievement Each of these variablesshowed up in four of the seven studiesfor which there are data An emphasison instructional leadership by the prin-cipal or another important staff mom.bets was found to be important in threestudies

Although outlier studies vary ni qual-ity, they commonly suffer from the fol-lowing weaknesses

I. Narrow and relatively small S0771Ida used (or intmune study Thoughthey often sift through a fairly largeP0Fulafloto, researchers who used a dahstical procedure followed by a Usestudy approach had a final sample rang.mg from 2 to 12 schools. The smallsample sizes suggest that the c ha ractens.hes that appear to discriminate between.high and low outliers are chance events.The lack of representabvenes o thesamples also raises issues about theirgeneralizability. On the basis of thesestudies ..lone we might make tentativeclaims about what constitutes an effec.use lower grade reading program in anurban elementary school with a pre.dominantly lowncome and minoritystudent population. The evidence willnot take us beyond that with any certainty.

2 F:rtor in identification of outlierschools The strength of the outlier tp-proach depends on the quality of themeasures used to distinguish the effectsof social class and home background Ifthese measures are weak of inapptoptsate, differences in school characteristicsbetween high and low outliers will beconfounded with student backgroundl'erences. Two of the studiestheNew York State study (1976) comparing148 "positive" schools with 145 "nega-tive" schools and the Maryland study

51

(Austin. 1978)suffer from this prob-lem to ,uch an extent as to render theirconclusions meaningless.

3 inappropriate compansons In abrief note Klitgaard and Hall i19"4irecommended comparing positive outli-ers with average schools rather than withnegative outliers. We were struck by thetendency of outlier researchers to ignorethis good advice The important differ-ences between effective schools and average schools may be very different fromthe differences between "ineffective"and "effc.tve" schools. Unless schoolsare capable of making quantum leaps ineffectiveness, it will probably not greatlyprofit a very poor school to compareitself to an exceptionally fine school.None of the studies addresses this issue.

Case Studies. We carefully studiedfive school case studies cited in variousschool effectiveness reviews (Brookoverand others, 1979, Brookover and Le-zottc, 1979, Rutter and others. 1979.Vcnezke and Vinfield, 197% Weber,1971) and three recent additions to theliterature (California Stale Departmentof Education, 1980, Glenn, 1981, Le-vine and Stark. 1981)

Six case studies in this group lookedat urban elementary schools The stud-ies varied in quality of methodology andclarity of reporting Taken together theylooked closely at a sum total of 43schools, an ,verage of a little over sevenschools per study The inherent weaknesses of the ease study approavh andthe small samples seem a frail reed uponwhich to base a movement of schoolimprovement Yet the commonality offindings among the Case studies andtheir similarity to ether kinds of studiesincrease their credibility

Five factors stand out as a common tomost, but not all, of the six case studiesThese are (1) strong leadership by theprincipal or another staff member, (2)high expectations by staff for studentachievement, (3) a clear set of goals andemphasis for the school, (4) a school.wide effective staff training program,and (5) a system for the monitoring ofstudent progress. An emphasis on orderand discipline showed up in two of thestudies, and a large number of factorswere specific to a single study

The authors of the other two casestudies took a more complex look at thenature of effective schools than did the

previous six. Brookover and othersi19791 observed two matched pairs ofelementary schools One school in eachpair was highoconng, the other louscoring. The researchers theorized thatstudent achievement was strongly affect.ed by the school social system, whichvaried from school to school even with-in similar subsamples with SLS andracial composition controlled

The school social system was said tobe composed of three interrelated ( aria.Wes. ill social inputs istudent bodycomposition and other personnel in-puts). 121 social structure such as schoolsize, open or closed classrooms, and soforth), and social climate (schoolculture as the norms. expectations. andfeelings about the school held by staffand students). While school social in.puts affect academic achievement, theyare 'modified in the processes of inter.action" wrth the school social structureand school social climate tp 141

An effective school was described asone "characterized by high evaluationsof students, high expectations, highnorms of achievement, with the appro-mate patterns of reinforcement and in-sttuction," in which students "acquire asense of control over their environmentand overcome the feelings of futilitywhich characterize the students inmany schools" (p. 243)

The study by Rutter and otheis 119791stands out n four respects it was alongitudinet study carried out from1970-1074, it examined secondaryschools, it looked at It inner-cityschools in London, and it attempted tomeasure school outcomes in terms ofstudents' in-school behavior, atten-dance, examination success, and delin-quency The general argument is thatsecondary schools vary in outcome inthe four areas above, that these Yana.tior are associated with the C112;2(1013.ties of schools as "social institutions,"and that it is a school's "ethos thatinfluences students as a group. Schoolethos includes the "style ..nd quality" ofschool life, patterns of student andteacher behavior, how students aretreated as a group, the management ofgroups of students within the school,and the care and maintenance of build.ings and grounds.

A troubling aspect of this study, how.ever, is that the more effective schoolshad higher percentages of middle -in-come students than did the less effective

DECESISEA 1982

64

6;

"Schoolgovernance wasfound to be ofcriticalimportance increating safeschools."

1=211111Mill11110111:111111111111111=1

schools. If academic achievement. at.tendance, and delinquency are stronglylinked to social class integration. thenthe possibility exists that the significantdifference between schools is not Inschool processes but in school COM0031ton This problem is magnified by thefact that only two of Rutter's 12 schoolscan be considered to be academicallyeffective.

Program Evaluations. A thud catego-ry of school effectiveness research isprogum evaluation. We looked at sixevaluations that examined school.levelvariables Armor and others t19761.Truman and others (1976). Don andHolley 1I9E . and three studies tarriedout by the Michigan Department ofEducation (Hunter. 1979)

Armor and others identified theschool and classroom policies and otherfactors that have been most successful anironing the reading scores of annes.utychildren" sp. v) who attended schoolspartscspating in the School PreferredReading Program in the Los AngelesUnified School District. The Trumanstudy examined reading programs inelementary schools throughout the na-tion The researchers suneyed a large

52

number of programs and carefully stud.led the charactenstics of a few schoolsthat had especially successful effortsDoss and Holley summarized data froman evaluation of Title I programs inAustin. Texas. The three Michiganstudies were conducted from 1973-1978 in an attempt to understand wi tatkinds of schools can carry out effectivecompensatory education programs.

By and large these studies arc meth-odologically stronger than the precedingtwo types of research. However. theircommon findings are remarkably con.ustent with the outlier and case studies.Most schools with effective programs arecharacterized by (I) high staff opt-eta.tons and morale. (2) a considerabledegree of control by the staff over in-structional and training decisions in theschool. (3) clear leadership from theprincipal or other instructional figure.(4) clear goals for the school. and (5) asense of order in the school.

Other Studies The comparativestudy of public and private secondaryschools by Coleman and others (1981)makes an interesting contribution to theanalysis of effective school charactens.to. 'Thar basic contention is that pri-vate schools are academically superiorto public schools. While the method-ology leading to thss conclusion a or-sentry the subiect of considerable de-bate, of particular interest are thosefeatures of ?matt schools that werehypothe.zed as accounting for theiracademic superiority.

On the school letel private schoolsacre more likely to exhibit characteris-tics that stem to encourage academicperformance. betty attendance. morehomework more required. rigorous aca-&mic subsects, and overall more ex-tensive academic, demands." Privateschools were less likely than publicschooh to possess charactensms thoughtto harm academic achievement. damp-tive behavior (fights. cutting ...lass.

threatening leathen. and su uni. studentperception of distiplmf as being aneffei.-bye and unfair. and student perceptionof lack of teacher intestst an studentathievement behavith and so forth.

NIEs Safe School Study U.S De-pa.tment of Health. Education. andWelfare. 1978, was concerned withidentifying the elements that make

schools sa(e. nonviolent, order!) institu-tions of learnir.g. Though the stud) didnot evaluate the academic effectivenessof schools nor focus on school charac-teristics that were linked alth academicsuccess. many of its findings regardingthe difference between safe schools andviolent schools are reletant to the discussion of effective schools.

School governance was found to be ofcritical importance sn creating safeschools. The central role in school gov.emance is played by the principal.Those who scned as firm ()marsh:tar.tans, strong behavioral role models (forstudents and teachers alike), and educa.tional leaders were cnicsal in makingthe school safe. Also contributing toschool effectiveness is the strong relytionship indicated in the study betweena school's `structure of order" and acadernic success. Moreover, "one of themeasures assocuted with the turn.around (of a violent school) seems tohave been smprcning the academic program and stressing the Importance ofacademic excellence" (p. 169) The implications of this study for building aces.demically effective schools are intrigu-mg.

Genera CntiqueSpecific cntsusms of pa-mural studioand methodulogiea nonvathstandusg.and disregarding a number of inconsis.tenues in findings, there remains anintuitive logic to the results of the re-search. Flaws in the origsnal researchshould not discredit the notion of dn.covering effectast school characteristicsseeds for school improvement thatcan be sown elsewhere. However, blan-ket acceptance would be dangerous.

Fos example. there has been no sys.remota, sampling of different rypcs ofschools The existing research tends toconcentrate on urban elementaryschools with successful reading anthuimath programs in the Icnves gradesGiven that, the gcneralizabthty of theresearch is limited. There is also adearth of longitudinal studies. It a nuttreat that the reading scores of a third.grade floss an an effective sthoul willlook the same when that ...lass a an thesixth tai eighth grade. Similarly, it seemsreasonable and prudent to expect aneffective ski to have been so Liston.tally before raising the bonnet of successover its doors. Few studio acquireschools to bt contently effective Nt.

66 EDUCIMONAL LFAIXILSNIP

"There are manypossibleapproaches toturning anacademicallyinferior schoolinto a moresuccessful one."

ISSEINIMMINIMINIMMONEMI

have researchers examined schools thatare systematically hying to improve.

Finally, the implicit assumption ofmany reviews of the literature and thepress seems to be that once aware of a setof 5.--or 7 or 12key features, schoolscan simply decide to adopt them (Thefurther implication is politically loaded:schools that do not acquire these char.aete. .s lack the will or desire toeffectsvelit instruct all their students.)Even if these "easy.to.essemble model"features were necessary for effectiveschools, they would not be sufficient.

The history of educa lion reform dem.onstrates that, no matter how wellplanned, systematic interventions tnschools are not always successful eitherin form or outcome (Berman andMcLaughlin, 1977, Elmore. 1978,1979.40). In fact, current theories ofschool organization suggest that therearc structural and procedural character.Imes of schools that militate against thissort of top.down change For exampleif schools are indeed "kosely coupled-syste ns (Welch, 1975) having weaklinkage between administration levelsand the relatively autonomous class.room, then notions of effectiveness thatdepend on strong and dogmatic admin.

53

asinine leadership are immediatelyhandicapped.

Having expressed our reservationsabout the available research and writingon scho...1 effectiveness. we ncscrthclessfind a substantive cast emerging fromthe literature There is a good deal ofcommon sense to the notion that aschool ss more likely to have relabselyhigh reading or math scores if the staffagree to emphasize those subjects, areserious and purposeful about thr task ofteaching, expect students to learn, andcreate a safe and comfortable ensinonment in which students accurately pen.tense the school's expectations for academ ie success and come to share them.

Toward a Theory of School

ImprosementThe Impottamc of theCulture of the SchoolA different approach to school imposemerit than the recipe model rests on aconception of schools that links contortwith process to anise at a notions ofschool culture (Brooloser and others,1979. Rutter and others, 1979) Contentrefers to such things as the organization.al structure, roles, norms, values andinstructional techniques of a school,and the information taught in the cur.riculum School process refers to thenature and style of political and socialrelationships and to the flow of inifonnszlion within the school It is a school's

Highlights from Researchon Effective Schools

Two elements In particular appear to be common to effective schoolshigh expectations for student achievement on the part of school staffmembers, and strong Instructional leadership on the part of the schoolprincipal or another staff member Other elements that are common toa significant number of effective schools include:

Welldefined school goals and emphasesStaff training on a tchoolwide basisControl by staff over instructional and training decisionsA sense of orderA system for monitoring student progressGood discipline.

In addition, private schools with high student achievement havegood attendance, assign more homework, offer a s :rong academicprogram, and emphasize high standards. Schools that are safe forstudents also str-.4 academic excel't ice and program improvement,and have strong leadership.

However, schools should not blindly accept or attempt to instituteall of the characteristics associatedwith ,effective schools The studies

undertaken thus far have not been longitudinal, nor have they concert(rated on other than urba,i elementary schools that already havesuccessful programs In some schools, structural or procedural factorsmay simply preclude the successful

implementation of certain characteristics.While one approach to improving

achievement is based on a highlystructured model that imposes char ge from higher levels of adminisomits most successful change results from collaborative efforts thatinvolve schoolwfde reforms, the participation of staff members on alllevels, and a focus on the overall culture of the individual school,

Resource Information Service (RISS provides ASCO mermiers accessto research and sources of information on selected topics Theinformation Is available through RISsponsoredresearch syntheses,the RIS column in Update, and the quarterly

publication CurriculumUpdate.

DECELIUt 1992

6 6.

6'

culture resulting in a distinct climatecomposed of attitudes, behaviors. ergsnizattonal strut:um. and so on. that isinfluential in determining the school'seffectiveness. An academically effectiveschool would be likely to have cleargoals related to student achievement,teachers and parents with mgh expecu-bons. and a structure designed to maxi.mite opportunities for students to team.

The appropriateness of the schoolculture flown is supported by ideasderived from organization theory andfrom research on the implementation ofeducation innovation. Recent researchand theory hare related a notion ofschools as C11 $31C31 bureaucracies. hienarchically structured. susceptible to 13nowt control, and with high capon.Went% at the lowest level (theclassroom) to the goofs act by the admin.unation. A competing and more per-suasive desenpton of schools is thatthey are "loosely coupled systems" Inwhich teachers are largely independentof the principal's immediate supervision(March and Olsen. 1976; Wick. 1976).If schools aft indeed loosely coupled,then attempts to increase their effective-ness through imposing discrete policiesby fiat arc unlikely to bear (rust. Schoolsby their nature may not prove amenableto command structure approaches. es-pecially given the voted in:crests of thevarious groups of relatasely autonomousprofessionals involved in the day.todayoperation of a school. Furthermore.teachers may not agree with the prints-pa/ (or with each other) on essentialvariables, and the recipe models saynothing about overcoming or avoidingthat resistance

The school culture model begins toresolve the diler..ma posed try loosecoupling. It MIMICS that changingschools requires changing people, theirbehaviors and attitudes, as well as

school organization and norms. II as-sumes that consensus among the staff ofa school Is more powerful than overtcontrol, without ignoring the need forleadership.

Studies of Implonentation efforts re-inforce the validay of the school CUltUreperspective and highlight the imponta nee of forging consensus in the processof improving schools. Of particular smporunce is the fact that change (andpresumably maintenance thereafter)will not take place without the supportand commitment of teachers who must

54

come to "own" new educational ideolo-gy and techniques (McLaughlin. 19'8)

Though specific tactics may vary, thegeneral strategy is best characterized asone that promotes collaborative plan.ning, collegial work, and a school 3I1710-spheic conducive to experimentationand evaluation (Deal and others. 1977,Hargrove and others, 1981. Hawley,1978, Little. 1981. McLaughlin, 19'80Miller u,1980) suggested itasan approachthat sees teachers as part of an entireschool organization engaged in develop.merit sctnittes that take place over timeSuccessful change efforts arc thereforemore likely to be realized when theentire school culture is affected,

The literatures on school organiza.non and on innovation implementationlend /tenets to the school culture ap-proach to improving academic achieve-ment. Both stress the importance ofacknowledging the Interplay of factorsthat compose the school culture andemphasize the need to address all facetsof the school when attempting changeFinally, both undoline the significanceof staff agreement about the norms andgoals of the school and suggest ways offorging that consensus in the real worldof public education.

ConclusienWe have argued that an academicallyeffective school Is distinguished by itsculture a structure, process, and climate of values and norms that channelstaff and students in the direction ofsuccessful teaching and learning, In thatregard we lean in the directson indicated

(7the .esearch of Rutter and others979) and Brookovt ..end others (1979),

The lists of effective school charactcristics compiled by mho researchers androamers are also helpful to the extentthat they have captured than factorsthat are likely to have cumulative sm.pact on pupils achievement

A cultural approach to school smprove:nen! also has the advantage ofIcing equally applicable to elementaryand secondary schools. The logic of thecultural model is such that it points toincreasing the organizational effective-ness of a school building and is neithercatIolocl nor tunic-A:rex specific,Certainly the greater complexity andsite of secondary schools indicate thatattempts to change their culture willprove more difficult, and the greaterdiversity of secondary schools' socially

mandated goals further complicates cfforts to improve 3CaltMit effectivenessHowever, research by Rutter and others(1979). Coleman and others (1981).Hargrove and others (1981). U S Department of Health. Education, andWelfare aria and others suggests thatthe culture of secondary schools can bemanipulated to promote academic cf.fectiveness, The same research also suggests that schools effective in one areatended to be effective in other Wen (3theme often repeated throughout theeffective schools research. ',hough supporting data are generally not provided)

There are many possible approachesto turning an academically inferiorschool into a more successful one Oneapproach is based on a tightly structuredhierarchical model in which change isdecreed from the top (the district or atleast the principal) Administrative fiatcan announce clear goals, organizeplanning meetings, and institute modelevaluation systems There are otherplaces where such direction may beabsolutely critical to upsetting an otherwisc firmly established pattern of "Ind(olive operation Our strut. however,is that there are few schools in whichmandated changes will be enough toencourage the development of a producttire school climate and culture. Mostsuccessful school change efforts will bemessier and more idiosyncratic thansystematic and will net. to focus oncollaborative, whole-school reform

In summary. the data indicate thatschool-level factors can promote learning in the classroom By studying aca-demically effective schools we can Wentat characteristics that together create aschool culture conducive to studentachievement However, in attemptingto build more effective schools we mustabandon our reliance on facile solutionsand the assumption that fundamentalchange an be brought about from thetop down, Instead, a more promisingnotion rests ens the conception ofschools as functioning social systemswith distinctive cultures in which theImprovement effort is directed towardincremental, long-term culturalchange.°

6$

64'7

f(eitinsera

Anna, I), Conty.Osequeta. P Con,M . td1, McDonnell. L Pascal APaul, E Ztllman C Anal/1114th(

EDUCA maw. l...oUSHIP

SdvailPrefensdReading Program in SelectedLo wales Minonty Schools Santa Masi,a. CAL Rand Cm:monism 2976,

Anson, C R. Proem Emluatrom AComm/maim Study cf Outhm &Allmon.Maryland State Department of Education.1976.

Averch. H. A.. Carroll. S ) Donaldson,T S. Malang. H I. and Pincus I HowMena u Schee/mg? A Cnbedst Renew andSynthesis c(Rniareh Andiron Santa Mom.ca. Calif Rand '-orpontion. 1972

Bur. R., and Dreeban. R. School Poley.Prod:akin. and Prohntinty. Ouctgo Uns.yeruty of Chicago. 1981,

Berman. P.. and McLaughlin, M. WFederal Prqgnints Supporting Educe nalCharge. Vol. 11. Factors Abating impiemmoton and Contmuaton. Santa Motu.ca. CALI Rand Corporabon. 1977.

Bloom. B. S. 'The New Direction inEducational Research and MeasurementAlterable Variables.' Papa peened at themeeting of the Amman Mammal Re.march luareeiabon.los Angela. Apnt 1991

Drachma, W B.. Beady. C. Flood. P.Schweitrot 1.. and Wuenbaier, 1. SchoolSocial Systeme and Student AchievementSchools Can Male a Difeena. New YorkPraeger. 1979.

Bmobries. W B.. and Lame, L. WChasm in School Charanerutio Conti.dent with Changes in Student Adurnernent.East laming. Mich Institute lee Researchon Teaching College of Education. Mick.pm State Una...nary. 1979.

Brookont W B . and Schnekin. I M.'Academic Emironments and ElementarySchool Achimement ' curnal c( Hemarchand Development in Educetion9 2197 58 82.91.

Calikenta State Department d Edina.Lion Report on the Ueda, Studio Salad.eel ECE Schools with Incasing and Do.musing Reading Scorn Sacramento Meecd Program Evaluation and Roarch. 1980

Coleman. I. S.. Campbell. E., Hobion,C MtPutland, L/404 A , Weinfeld. Fand Tort. R. Equality c( Educational Op.pommy Washington. 17.C.1 CorcnuncritPrinting O6 eve. 1966.

Coleman. S T and KsS Pala and Pnvata Schcots(drahlgoe Natenal Opinion Raearch Cam% Univanity °Equal" 1991

Deal T E.: Intik J . Roesler, I h.. andStadhow A TM Early Childhoos Zdiamnon Prepare An Summed c( In Impactand Implenentation. Sacramentono State Department of Education. 1977.

Dols. I) . and Hdky, F A Caw forNato:mat Feuer. Tido I Schcolende Fmk*,(ORE Publication No III 881 Austin, Tea.arc Office of Research and Evaluation. Atistin independent School District. 1982

Mot R. F 'Orpruzabod Models ofSocial Program Implementation' In Mob

Demon 1992

55

UV Chap Happen Edited by D MannNew Yost Teachers Colkge Press, 1976.

Ehnen, R. F 'Backyard Mapping Ica.piementsbon Research and Policy Ottnon.' Pciatical Science Quarterly 94 (1970.608 601416.

Cknn B C Whit Waist An Examine.trop c(Ektue School, for Pose Black Chd.den Cunbeidge, Mau Center for Law andEduabon. Hanard Unnersity. 1931

lianushek E. A. "Throwing Miner AlS.C)10011,' loam I ef Policy Andrus andManagement I (1981k 19-41

Harrow. E C, Graham. S. C.. Ward.L. E.:Abenwthy. V :Cunningham. . andVaughn. W. K. Regulations and Schools'The Implementation of Equal Education ReHand:Wad Children Nashville Institute(tie Public Policy Studies, Vanderbilt UM.vents.. 1961

/lanky. W D. "Hones Before Cann De.velopng Adipose Schools and the Limits ofInnovator' In Mating Change Happen.Used by D Mann New Tort TeachenCollege Pros, 1971

Henter. M. C 'Nut Report el theMichipn CostEfectiveness Study EastLansing Michigan Department al Educa.bon. 1979.

lends. C S.. Smith. M Arland 11 .Bane. NC I .C.ohen. D Clan, 114 Heim.B . and Michelson. 5, Inequaldr A Rms.arm ent c( the &fact q Fonda and Sewmtmg an Animas. New York Bog Boob.1972.

EMPard. R. E.. and Hall. C. R. "AreThere Unusually Electric Schools? four.nil of /lumen Resource* 10 12 9748 90-206,

Levine. D. U.. and Stark I. ExtendedSummary and Conclusions. Inostutiouland Orgenicatkesal Ancriganunta and Pro.cams tot Imswonne Academic Achievementat Inner City Elenmory Schoen KansasCity. Mo. Uniscruty of hinsoun.11ansasCity. School of Education. Center for theStudy of Matropobtan Proldams in Edna.Eon. August 1981

Lezottc. L. W.. Edmonds. IL. andRatner. C. A Final Ropy. Remedy IceSosmal Failure to Equitably Deliver BasicSchool Alla East Laming Department ofUrban and M ion Studies. MichiganState Winnow. 1974,

Laic. W Success and SofDoelopnent In Urban DesegregatedSchools A Summary of RecendyComOtodResearch" Paper mennted at the meeting ofthe Amman Educational Rematch Awn.,Lon, Lim Angeles. Apnl 1991

March. J. C and Olen. I. P. Ambiguryand Chola in Orgarsuations Bern Um.vendebforlaget 1976.

McLaughlin. W nplementation asMutual Adaptation: Ounce m ClassroomOmni/soon' In Making Change HappenEdited 5g. C Mann new York TeachersCollege Press, 1976

Millet L. "BYTES Implications for StatDevelopment In Tame to Loam. Edited byC Denham and A. Lacbemun Washing.ton, DC US Deem" ',ant of Education,1980.

hfupnrs S P . and Summers. A. A. isMore Better? A Renew of the Evidence onthe Etas-memos el Spending on Comma,.goy Education Unpublished manuicripUnnernty of l'erintshania, May 1951

Mumma. R biterpreting Vet Evidenceon School El actserneu (Waling Papa No.21301 New Hann. Conn Institution foeSocial and Policy Studies. Yale Unhandy.December 1980.

New Tot State Department el Educa.bon Reading Achanement Related to Edu.whom' and Enswonniestal Conditions in12 MOW& City Ekniestary Schools, Alta.

N Y Division of Eduabon Evaluation.March 1974a,

New Yost State Department d tam).bon Schaal Factor Influencing ReadingAoksevenent, A Casa Study of Tiro InnaCdy Schooti, Albany. N.Y Mee of Edu.anon Performance Review, 1974b

New Tort Stale Department of Educa.bon. Three Stratqia foe Studying the actsc(Schtial Hama. Albany. N.Y Bureau ofSchool Programs Evaluation. March 1976.

Rothn, K. Mantua. B . Mortunon. P .Ouston. I wish Smith. A Petra ThousandIleum Seomdary Moab and Vint Elmson Gawk Cambndge. Man. HarvardUniv.-rain Ray. 1979,

Spam l L. Valdes. A. L. hfcConnickW 1 Mien. I.. and Ceppert W, 1, Dela.ware Educational Accountability SystemCAW Stadia. Elementary Sdools Grade I..4, Donn Delaware Department of PrahaInstruction. 1977

Stephi.u. I, M, The Preens cf Soluobrig.New Toet. Holt Riothart. 1967

Truman. a A.. Waller. MA . andWilda, C A Dnoroove and AnalyticStudy of Compensa tory Reading Nero.,Final Rood. (Vol, 2, e10.76.168 Pence.ton. N.I Educational Tasting Sawa.1976.

U 5. Department of Heath. Education.and Welfare Vastest SchooteSele Schools,Thy Sala School Study Report to the U.S.Conran (Vol. U Washington. D C U.S.Comment Printing Mae. January 1976,

Venally. R. L. and %Welt I. FSchools That Soared Beyond tsPeciationeanItoodmg (Stvzhes on Education TechnicalReport No. Ir Newark University of Dela.ware, 1979.

Waal, C. InneCity Children Can beTouait to Baud. Four Swank! Schools.Washington. D.0 Conned foe Basic Eduawn. 1971

Wad. K. E -FalucabaulOrganuanomas Loosely Courted Swami " Administrahie Science Quarterly 21(19761 1.29

68

69

56

Successful Teaching StrategiesFor the Inner -City Childby Jet, Brophy -

A largo body of research generated In the 1970sMadge c orilgt M. ISCOOragIng Inforffla lion for allteachars, but especially for teachers of Innor-clty students.Innir.c1f7 students can be taught effectively, saysMr. Brophy. Teachers do make a difference.

he Seventies produced a great deal ofpintas In research on teaching.

Sophisticated research designs and class-room observation systems were der&°Pod. and sisniflant tundra from suchsources m the National (oakum of Edu-caddy and Project Follow Through madeit potable to study large cumbers of dewrooms around the U.S. The outcome hasbeen a consistent set of findings on theelements of effective basic skills instrue-lion, especially for inner-oty students.

Teachers and toucher educators shouldbe aware of these research findings forseveral reasons. First, these findingsspring from luaoscak dusroom re-sarch; they do not rely solely on untestedtheory. Second. then Unroof:al implicit.dons of the data are feasible and math*for teachers with Claud of 20 to 40 stu-dents; they do not require special facilitiesor equipment, full -time aides, or otherhard-to-come-by resources. Third, the In-suuctiona implications are generally apepliable, because they have beta derivedfrom observations of typical publk schoolteachers and typical students aimed Inordinary school activiilm.

The research to which I refer includesseveral large scale correlational studies,showing that teachers who teach studentsbask skills effectively differ systematicallyin their classroom behavior from thosewho do not.: bollowup eXpedtcents havedemonstrated that teachers can be trainedto use those classroom behaviors that areassociated with student learning tabu;moreover. students taught by teacherswith this kind of training outperformcomparable students of teachers withoutsuch training.: Findings from ruearch ofthe Seventies do not agree In every rocma but this body of research has given

JERE BROPHY k palm. u ale Cos.kite of Educetkri cod rodbuctor of the IRO.tutelar Poore* On TeerAine (1A7) MitisisestState tterrerstry. Ego array 7.5 wore is*mond in pert by the MT. whir k fluidalprinrrity Oar Prof/unix To end in.StIlIlfkA of Ow Notions, Insbruteoy Alton(NM. US. Deperolont of &wen, rra414,0orir expeeried A thls Al

a28,01 Mika the position .net ,any orhaply she endorsenteat of the N1E,

consistent support to main principles,on which I shall now focus.:

Teachers Make a Difference

Academic achievement In the late Six-ties was commonly viewed as a product ofIntelligence and house background un-related to quality of hut:wain. Teacherswere said to have little or no impact onstudents' achievement, a conclusion thatcontradicted both common sense andmost people's own school expel/ma.Nonetheless, some people stall believe thistoday.

die research of the Seventies has dear-ly disproved this notion by establishingthat sour teachers are reliably more effa-uve than others in producing studentlamina alas on standardised tests ofbasic stills, even when students' Initialachievement leftism taken into account.Stable individual differentia In teacher cf.fectiveness are th xtrabk ducat changesIn class she and composition. Croatdynamics and other fames unique to cer-tain classes, and teacher health andwelfare (which vary from year to year). Ishall review bas eight teacher charac-teristics or behaviors that are aucclatedwith success in producing student lamingPins.

I. Teethe opmtationt. ink dQNI-rloa and sense ala):047. A congruentau of expedances and attitudes undatiesthe stuck behavior of effective lath-as. These tea as sompt the rap onsibil-icy for teaching their students. They be-lieve that the students are capable oflearning and that they are capable ofteaching them successfully. If the ca-node. Instructional methods, or mks.don devices that they Inte...ed to use donot work, they lbw' others that v d work!If something is not leaned the first timethrough, they teach it again. In amend.these teachers treat student failure as achallenge; they do not write off certainyampten as untathabk bemuse theylack ability or experiential background.These attitudes are characteristic of effec-tive teaches in any setting, but they areespecially vital foe teachers working Ininner-oty schools.

2. Student opportunity to kart. Stu.dents of effective teachers learn more thanother students, in part because they aregiven more opportunity to learn. Effectiveteachers allocate most of their availabletime to Instruction, and they ceptize andmanage their classrooms to Insure that thetime is actually spent In that What Thusthe students of effective umbers spendmany more hours on academic tasks eachyear than do students of ineffective =ch-em. Sometimes the annual differenceamounts to several hundred hours.: Effec-tive teachers view time as a precious com-modily that must be used wisely to achievelearning outcomes.

3. Classroom management and &-Mika:kn. Careful allocation of time isnot enough; it must be backed by an cf.ncicat classroom lancing environmentand by stoup management that msnautsstudent Ingsgazent in academic =thir-ties. Organization of the classroom en-vironment begin before schaA starts Inthe fall with the armament of physicalspace and sating pawns to complementthe teacher's Instractiona obiectives andmethods.

Once the students arrive. effectiveteachers take time right away to instructthem on classroom crocedura and rowtines.' They show their =keg what todo, d ads predict, and follow throughwith rt.airelas and periodic renew. In theearly grades. effective tactical begin theyear wish detailed instrcaloo on how tomake smooth transitions between activi-ties. to sharpen pencils, to obtain equin-ox:at. to get help with assignments, andto check their work. Older students usual-ly require lest formal instrudion ondassrocco preadult: and routines, butthey do require a dear underasnding ofthe tePlIter'S elpectatiOas and consistentfalo through. Effolive mochas at allgrade levels make sum that their studentsknow what they are supposed to do. tut'demand how to do It. and realize thatthey will be held accountable for moansthese expectations.

Effective teachers also use effectivegroup management tech:aka:m.1 Theyplan lessons carefully to provide asmooth, continuous focus foe students'

Phi Delco Koppon 63 (April 19E9: 327-330. Reproduced vitt% the persuasion ofPh: Delta Kappa, toe., copyright (c) 1952. APRIL 11712 527

69

attention. They accomplish trans be-tween activities quickly and efficiently.They give students assignments of appro-priate difficulty and sufficient variety to1114.(0.52 their interest. Students knowwhat to do if they need help and what op-tions are availthle to them If they com-plete their assignments early.

Effective dassromn otsaniution andstoup management techniques minimizedisruption. Students are likely to remainattentive and engaged when that teacherpresents appropnate activities, keepsthese activities moving at a good pace.and monitors students' responsiveness tothan. Careful preparation of the physicalenvironment, early instnivitn on class-room procedures and routines. and continuous review and maintenance throughout the year lead to a classroom =Aron-meat that promotes leanilops

4. arms/tan poem. To leant et-ficient17. students must be engaged inmeaningful tasks. Variety and a degree ofchallenge help to motivate learnms, butthe key variable seems to be the match se-tweak students' present achimnient Ladsand the difficulty levels of the r assignedtasks. Students learn best when they pro-ceed rapidly but in very small sus. Ifthey are consistently pun work that istoo difficult. they= bkely to sive up andbecome "motivation problems."

This Eenersl principle has been wellknown for some time, but recent researchindicates that students require a very highsuccess rate in order to progress efficient-ly. There is dnureement on this point,however. The literature on achievementmotivation suggests that a 50% successrate is optima/. at least for youngsters whodo not fear failure. This has scrutiniesbeen taken inappropriately to meanthat classroom questions and unpunentsshould be geared to a 30% success rate.Other writs.. have reached s. similar con-clusion from their belief that hishelevel"thought" questions are more valuabkthan krwerluel "fact- questions or fromtiles belief that learning Is likely to berepetitive, banns, or pointless If it ts "tooeary " On the other hand, advocates ofmastery !twins usually demand at leastan 10% summa: rue on assiptments, andadvocates of progathmed learning expectthe success rate to appro.-eh 100%. Newresearch supports this posiural findingsshow that teachers who aim for :accessrates of 90% to 100% on student assignments produce mote learns:is then teach.ern who tolerate higher failure rates. Theimportance of sum= rate to learning hasled one stoup of marchers to define"academic learning time" as the timestudents spend engaged In seedcase taskswith high sumess rates.*

Very high success rates (90% to 100%)are especially snthortant t,c settwork as.sluments, when students are expected towork independently without frequentmonitoring by or assistance from the

fag PHI DELTA KAPPA/I

57

"Meachers whoaim for success

rates of 90% to 100% onstudent assignments

produce more learningthan teachers who

tolerate higherfailure rates."

tea her. Somewhat lower success ewes=be tolerated in larscgroup utryuction,since the teacher is present to mandril students' nsponses and provide immediatefeedback. E-en in this case, a teachershould aim for 70% to KA correctanswers, especially when working withinneaty students."

Thus the student' of effixtive teachersare exposed to and progress through mot-matenal t ether students. and the pMg of classroom activities and of prop 4through the ounculum is generally brit.Out they move along in small steps. andthey experience consistent success alongthe way. This approach is not only effec-tive but probably essential for teachingbasic skills to most students, because somuch of the curriculum in the early gradesis cumulative and students ea: expected toweek Independently for much of the time.

S. Acme teaching. Effective teachersof innecaty students are more than in-structional managers who distribu4 andcorrect assignments. They actively teachtheir students in large and small groupsdemonstratind skllls, explaining concepts.conducting participatory and practice scavities, explaining asesnments, and re-devils whets necessary. If they are first.grade teachers working with readinggroups, they introduce new words, pointout important phonetic (-thins. andweek with students on word as lyr.s andguy comprehension:4 If they are fourthgrade trultheIMUKS teachers, they spendtime with the doss developing key conapes or rah, and they make sure Jutstudents undavvid the asslpunent thew.cnrbly before they release than to workindependonly.11

Students who receive much of their in.:auction directly from the teacher gen-(sally do better than those who are expetted to kart on that own or from oneanother To learn independently, studentsmust be able to read, understand. and follow directions. They must be able to ids-oft, key concepts and to correct their ownerrors. Furthermore, they must be willingand able to sustain sufficunt levels of con-

castration and effort. No youngsters inthe early grades and probably only a smallpercentage of older students possess thiscombination of skill ,ad motivation. Yetthe emphasis of use Sixties and earlyeeventses was on teacIterthroof curriculaand tiolndualued learruns packages thatchanged the teacher's role from mane.tonal leader to instructional manager.The notion that there was too much"teacher talk" in classrooms and notenough "student talk" compounded theproblem. The research of the Seventiessuggests that these attempts to change thebucher's traditional role were mistaken.

6. Teaching ro mastery. Following ac-me instruction in new content, effectiveteacher, provide opportunities foe prac-tice and application, monitoring inclavidual students' progress aid providing feed-back and remedial instruction. Their stu-dents consistently arena= high successrates because these teachers make surethat new knowledge and skills are mas-tered to the point of overkerning. Funskills are taught in hierarchically se-quenced strands; thus success at any givenlevel Inlay requires mastery of skillstaught earlier and s'zlity to apply them inrevs SallitiorS. But students typically can-not retain and apply skills unless they havefirst overturned them It Is vital to teachto this level of mastery consistently, ifamsatent success is the goal.

Curriculum theorists and teacher educaters oftc s criticize teachers especiallythose in usziepeny schools for placingtee- much emphasis on low-level °btutires. The term "low level" implies thatsuch objectives are trivial and easilymastered. Neither claim is true. Nationaland state assessment data regularly revealthat vast number of students have failedto master even fa Unusual objectives insuch areas as r ..e.ing and nuthemuics.Yet everything we know about learningcornet= and hierarch/car Maimedskills tells us that hi:halevel objectiveswill not be readily comprehended, letalone mastered, until lowerlevel O-ttawa are not only mastered but overleveed to such a point that they can becombined and applied in the leaning ofmore complex .nstenaL Thus It is not supposing that effective teach= spend muchof their tune &skids factual questions andsupervising practice of basic skills. Thereappear to be no shortcuts to effluent pcformanee on his/it:ia/el objectives.

7. Coutde-level d(iferenas. I ..are lidthat effective instruction in the basic skilssInvolves determination to teach theseskills thoroughly, careful allocation ofclassroom time to this purpose. organza'don and managernens of the classroom toinvolve students in academic actinues,prograninuns for busk euthculmn pacingand easy success, active instruct= andsupervision of students, and teaching tomastery These pnnaples constitute ageneral model for instruction in basic

plil irplirplbb--, ill ki44111131;i1E111q PO Ill1UP4 1111141 W PO h9Y14'1U4g441° 1111440PP n111141114 ligq11 P °Tara '410111

d1P2 0 1 Vl'lIg-ti Ian ollb-P-01.411--V2.. li .a.t. v

bit MM.?: ! iiiihhPiiMin14 polgu

1811411g11 pligigq12141/111 W2111" let"10121 lla glg4ciiiliu- iiia sthfgo ..gilgqiii. pig. P110' gig 4B 111-31 POT Will1141101-uiiiggp;11.10112§ la SOK All:4E1214gvg1,081.01-8.111 -.111-0 41 °bib. -di 11:24!Gv:

gig.1 ill 3 f s.-1902/4°411-1e.e a 'a W-14§ n4.g 11 fggvq 7ohil41.1.§1 .-aig 1 1 1 .ulfa oti_ .0.101 v2.hg1.41.,.; =Gm A -117011.eal Avg v tzgp44 nag-11111g a ilhatlilling: WeneA4liwus

-

Ingredientsof aSuccessfulSchoolEffectivenessProject

In five years Milwaukee's Project RISEhas significantly raised the achievementlevels of students in 18 elementaryschools.

Ze..mfM%

In 1979 the local school board c.reaed 18 elementary schools InMilwaukee to improve their

achievement levels in reading. math,and language to reflect strode ornational norms. These schools wereidentified as the lowest 2ctuevingschools in the system. All were locatedIn the central aty and served a pre-dominantly loincoMe and mmomystudent population

r,:o changes were made in the adminium:on or in teacher or studentcomposition, and no additional mon.tes were allocated to these schools. Yetachievement levels have increased sig.ruficantly in the last five years.

Maureen UcCcernactgark ubo is on!rate as a almost:an supernsor m theMilwaukee ruble Schools. eurren4 Insolved m researcb related to efectizesctools. Sbe is an officer q' the NauonalCour-a I for Efeake Scbools and um proea dtrector of doe Miluasikee Teacher Ex.pectatkon Projea ..mdassatam to the dare.tor of Prona RISE *Ara .0,

yri.p

Art;647;4

77.

I

gduestionsl Lesderehip 42 (March 1985): Reproduced with pernission

of the Association for Supervision sod c riculun Developsent. Copyright (c)1985 by the Association for Supervision atJ Curricula Development. All rights

reserved.

73

.1*

31

61

Figure 1. The Essential Elements of Effective Schools.

Coordination of Supportive Services1 Instructioral approach, curnculum content, and ma-ten& of supplementary instructional semcc coor-

dinated with the classroom program2 Pullout approach used only if it does not fragnent

the classroom instructional program, doesno. resultin lower expectations for some students, and doesnot interfere with efforts to maximise the use oftime

School Climate

1. Strong sense of academic mission2. High expectations conveyed to all students3. Strong sense of student identification/affiliation4. High level of professional collegiality among staff. Orgoing recognition of personal/academic excel-

lence

Curriculum

1. Grade-level expectations and standards i.. re.ding,math, and language

2. Planning and monitoring for full content coverag.

Instruction

1 Efficient classroom management through structuredlearning environment

2 Academic priority evidenced in increasedamount ofallocated time

3. Key instructional uehaviors (review and homeworkcheck, developmental lesson, process/productcheck, actively monitored seatwork, related home.woiic assignment)

4. Direct instruction as the main pedagogical appro., hS. Maximizing academic engaged time (time-on-task)6. Else of the accelerated learning approach (planning

for more than one year's growth)7. Reading, math, and language instruction beginning

at the kindergarten level

Evaluation

1. Frequer. , assessment of student progress on a row,tine basis

2. Precise and informative report card with emphasison acquisition of basic school skills

3. Serious attitude toward test-taking asan affirmationof individual .ccomplishment

4. Test - taking preparation and skills

Pt art and Community Support

1. Regular and consistent communication with parents2 Clearly defined homework policy that is espoused

to students and parents3 Emphasis on the importance of regular school atten-

dance4 Clear communication to parents regarding the

school's expectations related to behavioral standardsS. Increasing awareness of community services avail.

able to reinforce and extend student learning

Project RISESince 1979 these schools have panics-pated in Project RISE, ahich attemptsto raise student achies anent be s%s-tetatically implementing the essential&men,: of efectste schooling Theseelements (see Figure I) were derivedprimarily from the research and lam.lure on school and teacher effective.ness and from the reported practicesof other effective schools.

By the close of the 1983.-d1 -4:hootyear. Project RISE had been operatingfor five years. Figure 2 charts the per-centage of elementary students in Mil-waukee's 107 elementary schools whoscored average and above averageonstandardized tests. The most Sionifiicant gains occurred between 1979 and1983 and brought the Protect RISEschools to the level set by the schoolboard

Among the RISE schools. severaldistinguished themselves from the restin their exceptional rate of gains and

Figure 2. Percentage of Milwaukee Elementary StudentsAchieving Average or ALove.,Averate Scores on Standardized

Tests from 1975.75 Through 1%344.

Percentageof Students

100..

59;

73

tb75

6560555045403S S.so

76

and and 3rd Grade Math

aty Average

RISE Schools

77 lb '79 60 '01 '82 '63 4(continued on ri 331

32

74

Enttanova LuocrornP

62

high levels of achievement. Specificchanges made by these fast improvingschools fall into four categories.changes in stab attitudes, changes inschool management and organization.changes an school practices and poll-cies. and changes in classroo.s prac-tires While each of the 18 sdools inProtect RISE ma) have made ow: ormore of these changes, the fast-improving schools made most or all ofthem

Changes in Staff AttitudesStair members verbally and behavior-ally ez.;..ressed the belief that all oftheir students cool,: achieve regard,less of socioeconomic status or pastacademic performance.

insetvace activities that underscored the educability of all studentswere offered These sessions were osigned to re-educate misinformed per-sonnel by relax, s the individual defi-cit and adiral deficit theories that arecommonly used to explain the under-achievement of low-income and ma-norm, students. The school deficit the-ory was exhLined and the potency ofschool expectations t mphasized.

Staff members were encouragedto meet and establish networks withpractitioners from efectne schoolsthroughout the country. RISE pnno-pals and teachers visited effecuseschools. and practitioners from theseschools came to Milwaukee to sharehow they had changed their schools

Literature and reports related tot%e successes of schools that servedlow-income and minority studentswere disseminated among staff andreviewed on a regular basis. reinforc-ing the belief that low-income sm.dents can perform at high levels ofachievement.

Grouping practices and programsthat identified some students as lowachievers were abandoned.

Staff members indicated an im-provement m their sense of self-esteem and efficacy as professionaleducators

inseolce arivities included ex.change forums wherein teacherswould act as the consultants in pre

agate

Percentage04 Rodents

too9590858075 J.70656355 ...

54°5

4035 1.)3

tistathttgeof StodIots

..93es .1.

e°75706560_SSSo40_40*IS J.)3

Percentage04 Studiosgo.95

90esto..75 ...70_65DO_SSSo45.act_3533

2 (continued).

Sth Grade

Orr Average

I____

Math

MS Schoch

76 77 78 79 0 it '62 '63 14

had and 3rd Grade Readog

Cite Average

I.

ME Scheele

L76 '77 78 79 13 '81 '82 13 '64

Sth Grade Itesderg

_Cky Avenge

._._._.____._._.__,_e.--e'"''"--"".

It5E Schools

76 '77 '73 79 10 11 '82 '13 14

moat 1985

75

33

63

senting successful methods and prac-tices to other teachers, and principalswould share their successes in variousdomains. This contributed to a shiftfrom depending on c nude educational experts to recognizing the expertisewithin their own ranks Staff members

Va. t Met tIoreoevry "Mk :Oa*

from the fast-improving schools fre-quently volunteered or were asked tolead these sessions

Staff members (rather than thesuperintendent or central office per-sonnel) acted as spokespersons for theschool effectiveness program at local

"Principalsinvolved teacher:in importantplanning anddecision-makikigprocesses,therebygenerating astrong sense ofownership oftheir school."

professional meetings, press confer-ences, university ciasses, and commu-nity forums Thus, the practitionerswho were responsible for the imple-mentation and successes of the pro-gram were the ones to discuss theprogram and receive the recognitiondue.

when visitors came to the schools,the principals shared with the staff theresponsibilities involved in guidingtours, explan `ng the program. andrecognizing the eccomplishrnent, ofindividual staff members and students.

Staff members orchestrated theirown professional development amyl-ties Schools used their allocated fundsto design their Wen/CC selecting thetopics and presenters A number ofRISE principals and teachers led aprofessional education group calledthe League of Urban Educators TheLeague, which received no fundingand met after school. was a voluntary

34

76

EcteAnow. LEADUSHIP

64

group of teachers. principals. centraloffice staff. WM UMW professors, andbusiness and community leaders, nhumet month!) in a prestigious unwersity conference center a share a potluckdinner. lwe,i to a presentation on anissue related to urban education, anddiscuss the issues raised in the presetsLawn For the most part. the presentations focused on the essential de-ments of RISE. Participating membersreport that the League elevated theirstature as professionals, united peopleacross role and Status lines, and sets edas a professional support group

Changes in SchoolManagement andOrganizationPrincipals reported a change in theirrote as building manager to includebeing an instructional leader

Pnn.pals had the opportunity tomeet w1.1 other principals from effec-tive schools who emphasized the im-portance of being knowledgeable ofthe cutriculum and of instructionalpractices, visiting each classroom on adad, basis. and concentrating theagenda of the staff meetings on inistructional issues

Principals insolved teachers in important planning and decision-makingprocesses, thereby generating 2 strongsense of ownership of their school

Principals in these schools loos.cned the linkages between central of.fire and the school and strengthenedthe sense of school ownership. thusengendering the responsibility amongSUS for the schools successes or fail.ures One way they did this was byempowering the teachers in acting asathocates for the changes proposed bythe teachers. For example, whenteachers denounced the pullout apepreach used by supplementary programs as being disruptive and cowlterproductice. and recommended thatall programs be conducted in theirclassrooms coordinated with the class-room instructional program, the prin.clogs supported the teachers in im.plementing this approach

Although all of the annual am-pros ement plans were required to in.

dude the RISE essential elements.each school decided for Itself how tobest reach the protect goals based onthe unique characteristics of theschool

School effectiveness commineesassumed responsibility for makingplans to improve school climate, readtog and math achtes ement and theschool's evaluation program Theirplans were presented as recomm.sdations at staff meetings for discussion.modthcation. and adoption

Principals established grade levelteams and arranged for them to meeton a weekly l'saStS dunng the sci,00lday for planning. sharing, and Coordinetting the( efforts

Staff members expressed their rec-ognition of the inter' latedness oftheir responsibilities and the need towork together as a unified system,

During the progiam's five-year pe-nod, the schools operated less as a setof separate classrooms and programsand more as a unified body with inter-related and interdependent responsi-b les The principals heightened thisawareness in a number of ways, forexample. by emphasizing the respon-sibility each teacher had in seeing thatstudents were performing at or abovegrade level A 3rd grade teacher sooncame to realize that all of the effortexerted to prepare her students forthe 4th grade could be renderedmeaningless if the following year the4th grade teacher did not also worktoward grade level proficiency Theteacher also realized that the 2ndgrade teacher's failure to prepare hisstudents for the 3rd grade would creare a burden for this 3rd grade teach-er.

Behavioral expectations were devcloped and consistently reinforcedby all staff

supplementarl programs discon.united the pullout approach andworked with the classroom teacherwithin the classroom setting

Changes in School P setteesand PoliciesA strong academic emphasis was clear-ly evident in the fast improving

"Staff membersverbally andbehaviorallyexpressed thebelief that all oftheir studentscould achieieregardless ofsocioeconomicstatus or pastacademicperformance."

siosen 1985

77

35

11===- iliairczaan=

65

"A strongacademicemphasis wasclearly evident inthe fast.improvingschools, with afocus onacquiring basicskills."

schools. with a focus on acquiringbasic skills

BeCallse the majority. of the students were performing far belowgrade level in 19-9, staff membersexpressed the need to concentrateon reading, math, and language artsIS a first step in improving studentachievement In 1984, staff membersin the fast improving schools reportedthat the majority of their students arenow performing at or above gradelevel, and that plans are now underway to move from effectiveness toexcellence. These plaits include broad-

; I

Terry C..&

ening and strengthening the CurntUlum, learning better r .0 of teachinghigher order skills, and possibly adoPt-mg computer programs, Great Booksstudy clubs, and critical thinking propCRS,

Extracurricular activities and 3.5sembly programs emphasized aca-demic achievement by including com-petitive meets with the trading andmath olympic seams, academic peprallies, student recognition programs.oratorical presentations, debates, andso on,

The schools were characterized bywellmaintained and orderly environmeats

Behavioral expectations were de.%eloped by the staff, and a commit-ment was made to consistently enforcethem.

The principal conveyed these be-havioral expectations to the students atthe opening assembly at the beginningof the school yea:, followed by a dis-cussion of the expectations in eachclassroom.

Behavioral expectations wereprinted in the student handbook anddistributed to every parent.

Student traffic in the hallways wasreduced by the elimination of pulloutprograms.

Some schools substituted outdoorrecess with indoor study breaksthroughout the day when studentscould casually interact, go to the lavatory, and so on.

'he schools clearly articulatedgradelevel objectives and minimumstandards within each subject area

Staff members were involved inthe development of gradlevel objec.(Ives and standards

Grade level standards were de.fined as those skills, concepts, and'earnings that are prerequisite for suecess at the next grade level,

Gradelm el standards were print.ed on -Yes 1 C.1" sheets, reviewedwith studenn, and distributed to'parerns.

The schools developed a school.wide policy that expected all studentsto complete daily homework assign.menu

EDUCATIOSAL itADU01111.

78

66

"The schoolsclearly articulatedgrade-levelobjectives andminimumstandards withineach subjectarea."

The rigorous nature of the home:oak policies w2S defended as neces-

sary to bring underachieving studentsto gradelevel proficiency.

Principals and teachers enforcedthe policy by monitoring the doors atdismissal and sending emptyhandedstudents back to their muss to gettheir homework

Parents were in' ed if studentswere not completing their homeworkassignments and told that the studentswould be retained after ,unch, duringrecess, or after school in the "homework center" to comple . missing assignments.

The schools had scaoolwide polldes designed to proem instructionaltime from unnecessary disruptionsand distractions

Come of the schools idea fledblocks of time in the daily schedulewhen the enure school would beteaching reading, math, and language

acts Interruptions such as public address announceme as. requests fromthe office. pullout programs, and thelike would not be allowed duringthese instructional periods

Changes in ClassroomPracticesTeachers planned to teach the entiregradc.level curriculum content to esery student

The gra& 'esul objectives wereorganized into units of instruction.and teachers used content coverageschedules to plan on a yearly, weekly.and daily bans.

Adjustments in the content coverage schedules were made throughoutthe year as some lessons requiredmore or less time than expected.

Lessons were usually taught to thewhole class and were supplementedwith small group corrective or enrich-ment instruction.

Whole-class instruction was taughtat the student's grade level, and small-group instruction was taught at thestudent's performance level

ilv: pullout approach for cont.pensatoty education was replaced byan in-class delr.ely of service. Suppontcachen were in classrooms duringthe instructional lesson, which pre-pared them to supplement the instrucnon.

Precautions were taken to avoidostensibly Identifying or labeling mudents as Title I students or as the "slowgroup."

Grouping was flexible, and outside observers commented that theywere unable to idenuf, the slow learners.

Instructional lessons were highlystructured and generally included thekey instructional behaviors.

These behaviors were identifiedIS, a review of the previous lesson andhomework check, a developmentallesson using di instruction, a tic

essproduct s. . for understanuing,actively monitored scamork and theassignment of a related daily homewrc assignment

Staff members rep,.ted that thesystematic and structured nu,.. atonalformat helped maintain urdei by mini

miring the opponuruty for d sruptisebehavior and inkreased the academicengagement of the students

Teachers expected their students toperform at or above grade level, andused remed'al measures to help un-deracluoing students athame tograde level proficiency

Teachers used some form of accelerated learning This ts IS describedIS an intervention strategy intended tohelp underachieving students makemore than a year's gain in a givenschool year. This currio 11 designand instructional approach includedconcentrated instruction that focusedon the essential content included with-in each of the preceding levels

When many older students corn.phined that they were embarrassed tocarry home books that were yearsbelow their grade level and thatyounger students were using. theschools prepared and dinnbutedbook covers with the school's nameand logo to all the students Soon theunderachieving students began bring-ing home the books and assignmentsneeded to help them advance tograde-level proficiency.

Concluding Rent:AssProtect RISE appears to bo a promisingexample of the successful imi.:^men-cation of the school effectiveness andteacher eftettweness findings Theproject schools began with a clearvision of what an effective school istone performing at or abase nationalnorms in reading, math, and languagearts, with no disparity based on race orclass), they used the school effectiveness correlates as a framework fordeveloping their own plans: and theyieiplemented these plain in a systemniu and self-uonsciuos manner

The RISE practitioners are modestwhen discussing their accomplishments Th.y are obviously proud ofthe gains their students ha%e made.but are quick to point out that becoming an effective school is only a firststep. Narrowing the educational agenda was a necessary prerequisite inturning their schools around, but nowthey are eager to accept the challengeof convening their effective schoolsinto excellent schools 0

isimoi 1985

7978-655 (80)

037