A r c h i v e d  I n f o r m a t i o n

Recommendations

• Build the capacity of principals to provide instructional leadership.^[1] For over 20 years, educational literature has described the importance of instructional leadership in improving academic achievement; however, federal education legislation has virtually ignored the importance of principals. Federal, state, and local education agencies should promote strategies for building the capacity of principals to provide the quality of instructional leadership demonstrated by the principals in the nine schools studied. Strategies that built the capacity of principals in the schools studied included the following:
• providing opportunities for principals to visit and learn from other schools with similar demographics that achieved higher levels of success,
• assisting principals in accessing, understanding, and using achievement data to guide decision-making processes,
• ensuring that principals have adequate time to engage in instructional support efforts on a daily basis,
• giving principals easy and regular access to central office personnel who could help principals overcome barriers or respond constructively to problems,
• giving principals time for their own professional development around promising instructional practices, and
• mentoring principals through processes for identifying, supporting, and, if necessary, firing personnel performing below expectations.
• Channel resources in ways that provide additional instructional leadership to schools. Federal, state, and local education agencies should consider other ways to increase the quantity and quality of instructional leadership available to schools. One of the most powerful uses of Title I resources at the nine schools was the development of instructional facilitator or specialist positions within schools. These specialists worked with teachers on a daily basis in improving classroom instruction. Efforts should be made to increase the extent to which Title I dollars support these and similar efforts to increase the quality of teaching in all classrooms in high-poverty schools.
• Create clear, measurable, and rigorous school accountability provisions. In all nine schools, educators exhibited a deep sense of responsibility for improving the achievement of the children they served. Often, state and district accountability policies helped frame and focus the responsibility felt by educators. Therefore, the federal government should continue to encourage states and districts to frame rigorous school accountability requirements. However, it is important to note, that educators in the nine schools were motivated primarily by a commitment to service to children, not by a need to comply with minimal district or state requirements. Generally, these schools went far beyond the minimum expectations of their states and districts. So, states and districts should consider ways to frame accountability provisions in a way that exceeds minimum progress expectations and encourages educators to focus on goals that exemplify quality educational service to children. In other words, defining adequate yearly progress expectations is insufficient. Many educators will be motivated to higher levels of performance by policies that define exemplary academic achievement and excellent service to students.
• Ensure that accountability provisions are accompanied by adequate strategies to build capacity and provide support. Some of the nine schools were able to make dramatic gains in only three to five years. Improvement does not need to take decades before results are visible. However, results are most likely to come quickly if there are a few clear, consistent, measurable achievement goals and strong support from the district office to help schools achieve those goals. Accountability without capacity to succeed is only an exercise in frustration. In considering requirements for adequate yearly progress, states and districts should set ambitious requirements, but also provide high levels of support. One of the most important supports is time for school personnel to engage in processes that align instruction to standards and assessments. In the nine schools, much of the value of such processes came as teachers developed a deep understanding of what their students were expected to know and be able to do. Another important value of the processes came as teachers learned that they could be a source of ideas, support, and encouragement to each other as they considered how to teach students the expected knowledge and skills.
• Along with accountability, provide schools adequate flexibility, and support to use that flexibility well. The nine schools had the capacity to meet and exceed accountability expectations because they had reasonable fiscal resources. In particular, they had sufficient resources to provide teachers with the materials, equipment, training, and support that was perceived necessary for students to succeed. Also, the schools had the flexibility to use those resources in a manner that was tailored to the unique strengths and needs of students. Just as importantly, the nine schools demonstrated the capacity to make good decisions about the use of their resources in a way that would result in improved student achievement. Therefore, federal, state, and local education agencies should ensure that accountability provisions are coupled with adequate resources for schools and reasonable flexibility in the use of those resources. Also, policy makers should not assume that educators know how to use resources and decision-making opportunities well. Principals and school decision-making committees may need high quality training that helps them use data to focus resources on critical areas of instructional need. In some of the schools studied, central office personnel provided this support. In one school, such support was provided through coaching associated with their adoption of a comprehensive school reform model. In other cases, principals learned these skills through years of trial and error.
• Infuse the tenets of comprehensive school reform into other federal education programs. The federal government?s focus on comprehensive school reform should be expanded and infused into other federal education programs. There was nothing piecemeal about the reform efforts of the nine schools. They did not seek to reform one aspect of the curriculum or a few supplemental programs. Instead, they sought to improve every facet of the school in a manner that would lead to the academic success of each student. Most of the schools did not use nationally known models of comprehensive reform; however, they emphasized many of the components of comprehensive reform, as defined in the federal Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration Program legislation. Other federal education programs should be examined to determine how they might be strengthened through an emphasis on the principles of comprehensive school reform.
• Use legislation, policy, and technical assistance to help educators create regular opportunities for true professional development. Educators in the nine schools exhibited a true sense of professionalism. They worked together (often on a daily basis) to improve their teaching and enhance student learning. Professional development needs to be completely reconceptualized. In the nine schools, professionalism was developed as teachers spent time regularly planning, working, and learning with each other. Traditional notions of conferences and workshops have their place; however, they are poor substitutes for the time spent by teachers, working collaboratively, around instructional improvement issues. State and federal resources should support the costs associated with the provision of high-quality, school-based professional development that dramatically increases the amount of time educators spend working with and learning from each other.
• Provide resources for increasing the quantity of time made available for instruction. Although the nine schools made excellent use of the school day, they increased the likelihood that all students would achieve state standards by increasing the amount of instructional time available to students. State and federal resources should support efforts to increase the quantity of time made available for instruction. After-school programs, "Saturday Schools," and extended-year programs are important vehicles for ensuring that students have opportunities to meet challenging academic standards.
• Strengthen legislation and provide technical assistance to encourage schools to build the capacity of teachers and parents for increasing parental involvement at school. At the nine schools, educators worked hard to improve achievement and show parents that there really was hope for their children. They worked hard to reach out to parents and build relationships where relationships might have been poor for many years. Furthermore, they worked to help parents understand that there were many ways in which they could contribute to their child?s academic success.

  In the current Title I legislation, schools are required to build the capacity of parents to support the education of their children. Similarly, schools are required to build the capacity of school personnel to work effectively with parents. These nine schools seemed to understand these concepts and use them in powerful ways. Much more needs to be done to emphasize these requirements in federal, state, and local policy. Furthermore, schools need high quality, sustained technical assistance that will help them go beyond paper compliance and reap the benefits of a strong partnership with parents.

• Research is needed to better understand how school districts can better support the improvement of teaching and learning in high-poverty schools. Among the nine schools studied, the ones that made the most rapid gains had the strongest support from their district office. Research has focused largely on the school as the unit of change. There has not been adequate attention given to the role of the district in providing support to school reform efforts.

[Improvement Strategies]

[Bibliography]