RECOMMENDED READINGS

AUTHENTIC PEDAGOGY: STANDARDS THAT BOOST STUDENT PERFORMANCE…….……. 1 CRAFTING AUTHENTIC INSTRUCTION……………………………………………………. 16 PERSONAL BEST………………………………………………………………………….… 33 REDEFINING COLLEGE READINESS ……………………………………………………….. 36 BUILDING A NEW STRUCTURE FOR SCHOOL LEADERSHIP ………………………………… 67 SOCIAL SUPPORT & ACHIEVEMENT FOR YOUNG ADOLESCENTS IN CHICAGO: THE ROLE OF SCHOOL ACADEMIC PRESS………………………………………………………………….. 108 RECLAIMING CHILDREN LEFT BEHIND: ADDRESSING THE CAUSES AND CURES FOR LOW MINORITY ACHIEVEMENT …………………………………………………………………. 147 CARING RELATIONSHIPS: THE MAIN THING ……………………………………………….. 153

in restructuring schools

Authentic Pedagogy: Standards That Boost Student Performance By Fred M. Newmann, Helen M. Marks and Adam Gamoran

common theme runs through many of the current school-reform proposals: Students should become “active learners,” capable of solving complex problems and construct- ing meaning that is grounded in real-world experience. A In this issue report, we offer a conception of instruction and assessment that remains consistent with active learning, but which also offers another critical element: It emphasizes that all instructional activities must be rooted in a primary concern for high standards of intellectual quality. We refer to this conception as authentic pedagogy.1 This report includes general criteria for authentic pedagogy, as well as more specific ISSUE REPORT NO. 8 standards that can be used to judge the quality of assessments tasks, classroom lessons SPRING 1995 and student performance. We offer examples of tasks, lessons and student performance that score well on these standards. Authentic Pedagogy: We also offer new evidence, based on our study of 24 restructured schools, that The Vision 1 authentic pedagogy pays off in improved student performance, and can improve student Criteria performance regardless of gender, race, ethnicity or socioeconomic status. The results Connections to Constructivism were consistent across different grades and subjects in schools across the United States. Authentic Pedagogy Until now, arguments in support of “authentic” teaching have often been made on Authentic Pedagogy: philosophical grounds. We believe this study offers some of the strongest empirical jus- Results of the Study 5 tification to date for pursuing such a course.2 Study Sample and Methods We hope this issue report advances thinking about the meaning of authentic peda- Variables and Scoring Procedures gogy, supports its practice and suggests directions for further research to benefit school Findings restructuring. Links to Student Performance Who Gets Authentic Pedagogy? AUTHENTIC PEDAGOGY: THE VISION Conclusions ducators and reformers often worry that today’s students spend too much of their time simply absorbing–and then reproducing–information transmitted to them. Examples of Assessment E They fear that students aren’t learning how to make sense of what they are told. Also, Tasks, Lessons and Student Performance 9 reformers often see little connection between activities in the classroom and the world Tasks beyond school. Students can earn credits, good grades and high test scores, they say, Lessons demonstrating a kind of mastery that frequently seems trivial, contrived or meaningless Student Performance outside the school. High and Low Pedagogy: The reformers call instead for “authentic” achievement, representing accomplishments Contrasting Examples that are significant, worthwhile and meaningful.

CENTER ON ORGANIZATION AND RESTRUCTURING OF SCHOOLS 1 Table 1: Standards for Authentic Pedagogy and Student Academic Performance

Authentic Pedagogy Standard 3: Deep Knowledge: Instruction addresses A. Assessment Tasks central ideas of a topic or discipline with enough Standard 1: Organization of Information: The task asks thoroughness to explore connections and relationships students to organize, synthesize, interpret, explain, or and to produce relatively complex understandings. evaluate complex information in addressing a concept, Standard 4: Connections to the World Beyond the problem, or issue. Classroom: Students make connections between Standard 2: Consideration of Alternatives: The task asks substantive knowledge and either public problems students to consider alternative solutions, strategies, or personal experiences. perspectives, or points of view as they address a concept, problem, or issue. Authentic Academic Performance Standard 1. Analysis Standard 3: Disciplinary Content: The task asks students to show understanding and/or use of ideas, theories, or Mathematical Analysis: Student performance demonstrates perspectives considered central to an academic or and explains their thinking with mathematical content professional discipline. by organizing, synthesizing, interpreting, hypothesizing, describing patterns, making models or simulations, con- Standard 4: Disciplinary Process: The task asks students structing mathematical arguments, or inventing procedures. to use methods of inquiry, research, or communication characteristic of an academic or professional discipline. Social Studies Analysis: Student performance demon- strates higher order thinking with social studies content Standard 5: Elaborated Written Communication: The by organizing, synthesizing, interpreting, evaluating, task asks students to elaborate their understanding, and hypothesizing to produce comparisons/contrasts, explanations, or conclusions through extended writing. arguments, application of information to new contexts, Standard 6: Problem Connected to the World: The task and consideration of different ideas or points of view. asks students to address a concept, problem, or issue that is similar to one that they have encountered, or are likely Standard 2. Disciplinary Concepts to encounter, in life beyond the classroom. Mathematics: Student performance demonstrates an Standard 7: Audience Beyond the School: The task asks understanding of important mathematical ideas that students to communicate their knowledge, present a goes beyond application of algorithms by elaborating product or performance, or take some action for an audi- definitions, making connections to other mathematical ence beyond the teacher, classroom, and school building. concepts, or making connections to other disciplines. Social Studies: Student performance demonstrates an B. Classroom Instruction understanding of ideas, concepts, theories, and princi- Standard 1: Higher Order Thinking: Instruction involves ples from the social disciplines and civic life by using students in manipulating information and ideas by them to interpret and explain specific, concrete synthesizing, generalizing, explaining, hypothesizing, information or events. or arriving at conclusions that produce new meanings and understandings for them. Standard 3. Elaborated Written Communication Standard 2: Substantive Conversation: Students engage in Mathematics: Student performance demonstrates a extended conversational exchanges with the teacher concise, logical, and well articulated explanation and/or with their peers about subject matter in a way or argument that justifies mathematical work. that builds an improved and shared understanding of Social Studies: Student performance demonstrates an ideas or topics. elaborated account that is clear, coherent, and provides richness in details, qualifications and argument.

2 2 To confront this problem, schools are adopting a wide The conventional school curriculum, on the other hand, variety of active-learning techniques. In many classrooms is more likely to require students to memorize isolated facts where lectures once prevailed, students now take part in about a wide array of topics, and then use those facts to small-group discussions and cooperative learning exercises. complete short-answer tests, which don’t require deep They conduct independent studies, or make greater use of understanding or elaborate communication. computers, video recording systems and other high-tech Value Beyond School. Authentic achievement has equipment. Their assignments take them out of the class- 3aesthetic, utilitarian or personal value beyond merely room to conduct community-based projects, such as oral documenting the competence of the learner. Successful histories, surveys or service learning programs. adults engage in a wide variety of activities aimed at influ- Students exposed to such techniques often display encing an audience, producing a product or communicating greater enthusiasm and engagement. This heightened par- ideas, from writing letters to developing blueprints to ticipation can lead some observers to conclude that higher- speaking a foreign language. quality learning must be taking place. Achievements of this sort have special value that is But active learning alone offers no guarantee of high- missing from tasks, such as spelling quizzes or typical final quality student achievement. If a small group’s task is to exams, which are contrived only for the purpose of assessing solve routine math problems, for example, and one student knowledge. The oft-heard cry for “relevant” or “student- produces the answers for others to copy, little or no serious centered” curriculum is, in many cases, a less-precise expres- academic work is accomplished. Or if students survey com- sion of this desire that student accomplishments should munity residents by simply asking short-answer questions have value beyond measuring success in school. written by a teacher and recording the answers, without According to our conception, the most authentic reflecting on them, the opportunity to construct deeper achievements must meet all three of these criteria. Students meaning is lost. might, for example, tackle a calculus problem that requires Educators must ensure that new approaches to learning construction of knowledge and disciplined inquiry; but if the are aimed toward high intellectual standards. Otherwise, solution has no value except to prove that the students can students’ work, however “active,” can remain shallow and solve calculus equations, its authenticity is diminished. intellectually weak. Likewise, a student who writes a letter to the local news- paper editor commenting on welfare reform may be con- Criteria structing knowledge to produce discourse with value beyond onsider the types of mastery demonstrated by success- school. But if the student’s analysis is shallow or based on C ful adults, such as scientists, musicians, business significant errors, it doesn’t qualify as disciplined inquiry. entrepreneurs, novelists, nurses and designers. What key While our concept of authentic academic achievement characteristics of their work justify calling their accomplish- demands that all three of these standards be met, this ments authentic? And how do these accomplishments differ doesn’t mean that all instruction and assessment activities from the work that students complete in school? must always fulfill all three standards. In some cases, repeti- We believe the answer lies in three criteria: tive practice or memory drills might help students build Construction of Knowledge. The people mentioned the knowledge and skills that can later serve as the basis 1above face the challenge of constructing or producing for authentic performance. The point is not to abandon all meaning or knowledge, instead of merely reproducing mean- traditional schoolwork, but to keep authentic achievement ing or knowledge created by others. Depending on their par- clearly in view as the ultimate goal. ticular field, they may express this knowledge in different ways. For example, they may use words or symbols to write Connections to Constructivism or speak about their findings. Or they might make things, vision of learning as an active process jibes in many such as furniture or a movie, or take part in performances for Aways with the “constructivist” perspective now gain- audiences, such as dance recitals or athletic contests. ing favor among many educators. Our criteria for authentic Students taught within a conventional curriculum, on the achievement reflect both similarities to, and differences other hand, are usually asked merely to identify the work that from, constructivist ideas. others have produced. They may be drilled on the differences Constructivism includes different points of view, but between nouns and verbs, for example, or called upon to most share certain assumptions: Learning takes place as match authors with their works. students process, interpret and negotiate the meaning of Disciplined Inquiry. For achievement to be authentic, it new information. This is heavily influenced by the student’s 2must be grounded in a field of knowledge, which usually prior knowledge, and by the values, expectations, rewards includes facts, a specific vocabulary and a set of concepts and sanctions that shape the learning environment. and theories. Authentic performance in that field reflects Students’ assimilation of new information depends heavily an in-depth understanding of a particular problem or issue. on whether that information helps them explain, or mean- That understanding is expressed through elaborate forms of ingfully extend, their past experience. Even an apparently communication that make use of written, visual and/or sym- simple task, such as learning the spelling of a word, involves bolic language to express ideas, nuances and details. this complex mental process.

3 3 Under constructivism, teachers are called upon to nurture This doesn’t mean that disciplined inquiry creates a this process by leading students to engage in higher-order foolproof path to “truth.” But disciplined inquiry does offer thinking, not just rote learning of superficial information. standards that help establish some ideas as intellectually This means, in part, that teachers should offer students more worthy than others. opportunities to process information through written and The constructivist perspective is clearly consistent with oral expression, as well as other avenues such as drawing, our “value beyond school” criterion. We certainly agree building or dancing. Without expression, students’ efforts that learning is more powerful when students can draw to make and negotiate meaning will be stifled. meaningful connections between their school work and Constructivism also calls for teachers to abandon the their own experiences and situations. primary role of “dispenser of information and truth.” Instead, a teacher should strive to be a coach, guide and Authentic Pedagogy mentor who inspires students to take on the work of learn- e define pedagogy as the combination of assessment ing. Teachers should engage students in a “cognitive Wand daily teaching practices used by a teacher. If apprenticeship,” to be carried out in an atmosphere of teachers were to aim for authentic student performance mutual trust, collaboration and high expectations. according to the criteria we have described, then they Our “construction of knowledge” criterion is consistent would presumably create assessment tasks that called upon with the constructivist view of the student as a meaning- students to construct knowledge, through disciplined making person who continuously weighs new information inquiry, which addressed problems that had some meaning against prior experience. But our vision goes further. beyond showing success in school. Teachers also would Authentic performance occurs when the student reaches create lessons that helped students to develop proficiency beyond imitation or reproduction of information, and in these kinds of tasks. analyzes or interprets that information to solve a problem In our studies of authentic pedagogy in restructured that can’t be solved by information retrieval alone. schools, we developed a more specific set of standards for We also add the criterion of disciplined inquiry, which ascertaining the extent to which teachers actually used requires a student to demonstrate in-depth understanding authentic assessment tasks and taught authentic lessons. using substantial knowledge from an authoritative field. In the section that follows, we see how the standards were Constructivism, on the other hand, doesn’t necessarily used to evaluate lessons, tasks and student performance require that a student’s construction of knowledge conform collected from restructured schools across the to knowledge considered authoritative by others. United States.

Table 2

AUTHENTIC AUTHENTIC AUTHENTIC AUTHENTIC ACHIEVEMENT ASSESSMENT TASKS INSTRUCTION STUDENT PERFORMANCE

Organization of Higher Order Analysis CONSTRUCTION OF Information Thinking KNOWLEDGE Consideration of Alternatives

Content DISCIPLINED Process Deep Knowledge Disciplinary INQUIRY Concepts Elaborated Written Substantive Elaborated Written Communication Conversation Communication Problem Connections to the VALUE BEYOND World Beyond the SCHOOL Classroom Audience

This table shows how the 14 standards for authentic pedagogy and student academic performance, detailed in Table 1 on page 2, are linked across the three criteria described above.

4 4 AUTHENTIC PEDAGOGY: RESULTS OF THE STUDY

n studying the levels of authentic pedagogy, and its connection to student Iperformance in restructured schools, we addressed three central questions: 1. QUALITY AND VARIABILITY–How much authentic pedagogy, as defined by our standards, is taking place in these schools? How much variation in the delivery of authentic pedagogy is there between teachers, schools, grade levels and subjects? 2. LINKS TO STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT–To what extent does authentic pedagogy contribute to authentic student performance? 3. EQUITY–To what extent are students from certain social and academic back- grounds more likely to receive authentic pedagogy? To what extent does authen- tic pedagogy have different benefits to students from different backgrounds? How much effect do differences in background have on authentic academic performance by students?

Samples and Methods At each grade level, researchers consulting e collected data from 24 schools taking with each school selected three classes in each Wpart in the School Restructuring Study subject. At least one selected class was taught conducted by the Center on Organization and by a teacher who was clearly involved in the Restructuring of Schools. Due to incomplete school’s reform process. The classes also were data from one middle school, however, this chosen to reflect the range of student achieve- report on authentic pedagogy includes data ment within the entire grade. from only 23 schools. Center researchers made two week-long Fred M. Newmann is director of Center staff studied each school intensively visits to each school and observed each of the the Center on Organization and for a year, with the goal of learning how selected classes four times during the school Restructuring of Schools and a schools’ organizational features can contribute year. This study of authentic pedagogy professor of curriculum and to authentic pedagogy and authentic academic includes data from 504 observed lessons. instruction at the University of performance, as well as to five other valued We asked each observed teacher to submit Wisconsin-Madison. outcomes.3 at least two assessment tasks. We asked for The 24 schools–eight elementary, eight tasks that would provide valid and important Helen Marks, an associate middle and eight high schools–were chosen indicators of students’ proficiency and under- researcher at the Center, studies after a nationwide search for schools that had standing of the subject matter. the relationship of school and made substantial departures from typical school We also asked the teachers to complete a classroom organization to the organizational structures. Many of these schools short questionnaire describing the conditions engagement, academic achieve- had adopted such reforms as school-based gover- under which the task was given to students. ment, social attitudes and behavior nance councils, teacher teams with common This study examined 234 assessment tasks; of students. planning time, heterogenous ability grouping 65 percent of the teachers provided at least of students, extensive use of small groups in two tasks. Adam Gamoran is a professor of instruction, and special programs to address We also asked for a complete set of student sociology and educational policy the social and emotional needs of students. The work completed in response to the assessment studies at the University of schools were located in 22 districts in 16 states. tasks each teacher submitted. Each student Wisconsin-Madison. His research Limited resources prevented Center also was asked to complete a short question- focuses on tracking and inequality researchers from looking at every class and naire describing his or her perceptions about in school systems. In a current subject. Instead, we studied math and social the task and the work. project with the Center, he is studies classes at each school–in grades 4 and 5 We received at least two samples of work examining the ways highly restruc- for elementary schools, 7 and 8 for middle from 45 percent of the students in our study. tured schools have changed their schools and 9 and 10 for high schools. All together, this study includes data collected ability grouping practices.

5 5 from 2,128 students and 3,128 samples of - standards, some on a scale of 1 to 3, others student work. from 1 to 4. If the researcher and teacher arrived at different scores, they discussed Variables and Scoring Procedures the task and reached a consensus. sing the specific standards listed in Table The scores awarded for each of the two U1 on page 2, we devised scales for mea- tasks submitted by each teacher were aver- suring authentic pedagogy and authentic aged, resulting in a final score that could student performance.4 range from 7 to 23. Center researchers gave each observed class To create a score for authentic pedagogy, a score on each of the four standards for we combined the scores for instruction and instruction. The scale for each item ranged assessment, creating a range of possible scores from 1 to 5, so scores could range from 4 to 20. from 11 to 43. Each assessment task was scored by a To judge student performance, we used a Center researcher and a specially trained similar scale based on the three standards list- teacher currently teaching the same subject. ed in Table 1 on page 2. Teachers trained by The tasks were scored on each of the seven Center researchers gave each sample of

Table 3: Levels of Authentic Pedagogy and Student Authentic Academic Performance by Grade and Subject

ELEMENTARY MIDDLE HIGH TOTAL Pedagogy1 Performance2 Pedagogy Performance Pedagogy Performance Pedagogy Performance

MATH Mean Score 22.5 6.0 20.7 6.2 20.3 6.0 21.2 6.1 Number of Students or 22 437 21 385 21 294 64 1116 Teachers

SOCIAL Mean STUDIES Score 22.0 6.1 22.2 7.3 22.4 6.9 22.2 6.7 Number of Students or 24 531 20 403 23 348 67 1282 Teachers

TOTAL Mean Score 22.2 6.1 21.4 6.7 21.4 6.5 21.7 6.4 Number of Students or 46 968 41 788 44 642 131 2398 Teachers

ALL SCHOOLS

Pedagogy3 Performance4

Mean Score 21.4 6.3 Highest and Lowest Scores 16.7, 27.3 4.5, 8.0 Number of Schools 23 23

1 Class scores. 2 Student scores. 3 Class scores averaged for each school, math and social studies combined. 4 Student scores averaged for each school, math and social studies combined.

6 6 student work a score ranging from 1 to 4 on ful student. Also, as with teachers and schools, each of the standards, creating a range of pos- even the most successful students scored well sible scores of 3 to 12.5 below the upper end of our scale. The scores for the samples from each stu- We think these numbers suggest both good dent were averaged to determine the student’s and bad news. The good news is that some final score. For some aspects of our analysis, teachers and schools have been at least reason- we averaged individual student scores together ably successful at delivering authentic pedagogy. to create mean scores for the whole class.6 But the bad news is that overall levels of Since a student’s background can affect authentic pedagogy remain low, even in highly achievement, we also used measures of student restructured schools. Clearly, some teachers and academic and social background. The academic schools have barely begun the journey toward measure was based on tests–of basic knowledge higher quality instruction and assessment. in math, and of reading and writing for social studies–which we asked students to complete Links to Student Performance in the fall of the observation year. These tests hen we studied the factors related to were made up of items from the National Wauthentic student performance, we Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) found that authentic pedagogy appears to When we studied for the appropriate grade level. About 85 boost student performance in all three grade percent of the students completed the tests. levels and in both math and social studies. the factors related The measure of social background was We also computed the impact of different based on surveys in which students reported levels of pedagogy on different types of students: to authentic student their gender and race, whether they were of for example, a white male of average socio- performance, we Hispanic background, and their household economic status whose score on the NAEP test socioeconomic resources. Secondary students was at the mean. In a class with average peda- found that authentic also reported their parents’ levels of education. gogy, such a student would score 6.1 on our To examine the link between authentic scale of 3 to 12. By comparison, that “average” pedagogy appears pedagogy and student performance, we used a student would score 5.4 in a class with low statistical technique known as Hierarchical pedagogy, and the same student would have to boost student Linear Modeling (HLM). This allowed us to scored 6.8 in a class with high pedagogy. estimate the contribution authentic pedagogy These may seem like small improvements, performance in all made to differences in student performance but they translate to substantial improvements across the sample. The HLM estimate in students’ rankings compared to their peers. three grade levels describes the effect of authentic pedagogy Regardless of race or gender, an average and in both math beyond the influence of students’ social and student would move from the 30th to the 60th academic background, and beyond the unique, percentile if he or she received high authentic and social studies. unmeasured influences of each school. pedagogy instead of low authentic pedagogy. Figure 1 on page 8 shows similar results FINDINGS for “average” students of different gender and ll of the schools in this study had made ethnicity in classes with low, average and high Aclear progress in organizational restruc- pedagogy. This illustrates the major contribu- turing. Nevertheless, the quality of authentic tion that authentic pedagogy can make to pedagogy in these schools varied widely. Our students’ academic performance. researchers found some schools with many This point is illustrated further by the examples of high-quality work, and others examples of student work on page 12 of this with very few. issue report. Table 3 on page 6 indicates the overall levels of authentic pedagogy, and authentic Who Gets Authentic Pedagogy? student performance, we observed. These n our view, schools should promote authentic numbers show that even the most successful Istudent achievement among all students. teachers and schools scored far below the There should be no discrimination against highest level of our proposed standards. students from disadvantaged backgrounds. This Likewise, we found significant variation in means providing the same access to authentic student performance. In some grades and pedagogy for richer students and poorer students subjects, the most successful student scored alike. And all students should gain, not just four times as many points as the least success- those who already achieve at high levels.

7 7 Overall, we found that students from different social back- Conclusions grounds did have equal access to authentic pedagogy. However, students who started out with higher achievement, revious research has demonstrated the difficulty of as measured by our NAEP-based tests, were slightly more like- Pmaking U.S. schools more academically rigorous, and ly to receive authentic pedagogy. Because authentic pedagogy our study paints a similar picture. The overall level of builds on what students know and can do, there may be some authentic pedagogy we observed, even in a sample of highly tendency for teachers to use it more with higher-performing innovative schools, fell well below the upper reaches of the students. Also, while the restructured schools in the study had scoring standards we have proposed. There is good news, substantially reduced the use of ability grouping, most hadn’t however: Some teachers and students have made consider- eliminated it, which also may have influenced these results. able progress toward meeting such standards. As to the effects of authentic pedagogy on students with This study provides strong evidence that authentic peda- different backgrounds: We found that authentic pedagogy gogy pays off in improved academic achievement. The limits helps all students substantially. However, it provides an extra in the design of this study may cast some doubts on whether boost for students already performing at higher levels. In we have established a clear cause-and-effect relationship. other words, if a low-achieving student moved from a class And we have not shown that reforms that set out to emulate low in authentic pedagogy to a class high in authentic peda- these standards will boost student performance. But the gogy, that student’s performance would be enhanced signifi- robust relationship between authentic pedagogy and student cantly. But a high-performing student making the same move performance suggests that students would benefit if all would improve even more. schools worked toward these standards. We did find gaps in authentic performance between It’s uncertain whether all schools can distribute authentic students of different backgrounds: African Americans posted pedagogy as equitably as the restructured schools in our study lower scores than whites, and girls scored significantly higher have managed to do. But the study shows that significant than boys. But we found that these inequalities were no progress toward equity can be accomplished. greater, and could possibly be less, than those already evident Neither gender, race, ethnicity or socioeconomic status in traditional assessment techniques, such as the NAEP. significantly affected the impact of authentic pedagogy on Thus, while inequalities have not been eliminated, the use students. While disparities between different groups remain, of authentic measures of student performance doesn’t appear using the standards to evaluate the quality of pedagogy and to worsen this problem. At least in this sample of restructur- student performance creates no additional roadblocks to the ing schools, the use of these performance standards did not important work of closing those performance gaps. widen any gaps attributed to social background. continued on page 16

8 8 EXAMPLES OF ASSESSMENT TASKS, LESSONS AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE

s part of the study of 24 restruc- compartment. We also have 6 has such as dilapidated hous- Atured schools, staff of the Center boards that are 60” long, 2.5’ ing, traffic congestion, or a on Organization and Restructuring of wide, and 1” thick. Draw a dia- high crime rate. Schools translated the three criteria gram of what the shelf will look for authentic pedagogy into more like when finished. Using frac- Third, as a group consider specific standards for assessment tasks, tions, show how you will cut the various plans for changing instruction and student performance. boards to make compartments. and improving your neighbor- A complete list of these standards is hood. If there is a special found in Table 1 on page 2. This task scored high on problem, how will you address These standards can provide more “Organization of Information” it? What kinds of businesses, specific guidance on classroom prac- because it could not be completed if any, do you want to attract? tice, by helping educators to assess successfully unless students organized What kind of housing do you the level of authentic academic work and interpreted the information pre- want? Will there be parks and found in assessment tasks, daily sented into a new form. They had to other recreation facilities? lessons and students’ responses to take information on the number of What transportation patterns those tasks. shelves and compartments needed, do you want? Do you want to Here we present examples of the number of boards available with make the block attractive to tasks, lessons and student work that specific dimensions, and put this different groups of people received high scores on a few illustra- together in a design that would work such as senior citizens and tive standards. We have included mathematically (for example, the young people? examples in math and social studies, dimensions indicated in their book- the curricular subjects our study shelf could not exceed the length of After deciding on a plan, draw addressed. boards that were given). The teach- and label it on the overlay The examples are drawn from “A er’s grading and comments on student provided with your map. Based Guide to Authentic Instruction and work showed that she expected stu- on what you know about urban Assessment: Visions, Standards and dents not only to label the different geography, indicate in your Scoring,” by Newmann, Secada and parts of the shelves, but to show that narrative one possible plan Wehlage, which is to be published the measurements and fractional that you rejected, and say why it by the Center in June. The Guide parts added up correctly. was rejected. Indicate how your includes many more examples, as well plan will promote the neighbor- as additional information on how Social Studies Example for hood features you want. educators might pursue authentic Standard 4, Disciplinary Process: assessment and instruction. A 4th/5th grade social studies class The above task scored high on Copies of the Guide may be ordered was involved in a year-long study of “Disciplinary Process” because it using the mail-in form that follows their community that included a required students to think in some of page 12. unit on urban geography. Working the same ways as urban planners and in small groups, students were geographers. This involved collecting TASKS given the following task: data systematically through observa- Mathematics Example for Standard 1, First, select one of the neigh- tion and recording and using this data Organization of Information: borhoods marked on the city as a basis for making generalizations about patterns in human behavior Students in 4th and 5th grade were map. Second, identify its current features by doing an and the specialized uses and functions given the following task involving of space within a community. measurement, fractions, and fraction inventory of its buildings, computation: businesses, housing, and public facilities. Also, identify LESSONS We are making a bookcase to Mathematics Example for Standard 4, hold our new stereo. We need current transportation pat- terns and traffic flow. From Connections to the World Beyond to have 3 shelves. The top shelf the Classroom must contain 3 compartments; the information made avail- In a 4th grade math class, students the second shelf, 2 compart- able, identify any special were to figure the costs of running ments; and the bottom shelf, 1 problems this neighborhood

9 9 a household on a monthly budget the students to define a series of that not only would the local of $2,000. terms related to the issue. These economy lose the salaries of laid- The teacher gave students a list included “layoff,” “salary,” “fringe off workers, but the loss of fringe of typical categories for expenses benefits,” “unemployment rate,” benefits such as health insurance including rent, groceries, electrici- “unemployment compensation,” could have a major impact. One ty and telephone service. Students and “local economy.” The teacher student said, “When people don’t were to determine actual costs by provided the class with information have health insurance they don’t looking through a real estate guide about the local economy of their go to doctors and then their health for rent, choosing groceries from a community (city/county). The gets worse.” local store’s price list, etc. They teacher also provided data for two This lesson scored high on constructed budgets by examining other communities of similar size, “Higher Order Thinking” because the materials and discussing the but which had somewhat different almost all of the students took part possibilities with one another. types of businesses and employment. in analyzing information to develop There was evidence that The teacher asked the students hypotheses, generalizations and students derived personal meaning to break into small groups to exam- comparisons among the three from this lesson. For example, in ine the information they had been local economies. looking at rental guides, two boys given and to answer the question, expressed surprise to find that some “What generalizations can you state STUDENT PERFORMANCE buildings did not allow pets. “How about each of the local economies?” Math example for Standard 2, about the bus line?” one asked. After giving the students a few Disciplinary Concepts “Bus line? We don’t need a bus minutes to examine the data, the This problem was posed to a class line, we have cars,” said the other. teacher asked each group to report of 8th graders: In another group, a girl chose a their generalizations. Several noted The Tortoise and the Hare. cheaper apartment without a dish- that their own community had The hare challenged the tor- washer because she did not mind many more kinds of employment toise to the best two out of doing dishes by hand. In a third than the other communities. One three races. In each case, the group, two other girls, after decid- was characterized as a “two indus- race was to be 100 meters. ing to rent a $740 apartment, try” city–shipping and tourism. changed their minds because One was characterized as a “one Race 1: The tortoise left the they felt it was too expensive. industry city” based largely on starting line and “sprinted” This lesson scored high on the military, but with a growing at the rate of 4 meters per “Connections to the World Beyond unemployment problem. minute. Twenty-five min- the Classroom.” Students had to The teacher asked students to utes later, the Hare left the look at real costs and make priority speculate about what was happen- starting line. How fast did choices in creating their budgets. ing in that community as a result the Hare have to run in For instance, they could lower of cutbacks in military spending by order to overtake the tor- rent by finding cheaper apartments, the federal government. The class toise? Who won the race? sharing with more people, or giving agreed that generally a community up luxuries. The activities linked was better off if it was not too One student responded, mathematical content to decisions dependent on any one area for “The tortoise won because he had that students would need to make business and employment. crossed the finish line as the hare in life beyond school. After some discussion, the was just leaving the starting gate. students developed the following No way for the hare to catch him.” Social Studies Example for generalization: Layoffs mean the The student had sketched a Standard 1, Higher Order loss of salaries and that means less distance-time graph showing that Thinking spending in a community. One at 25 minutes, the tortoise had In an 8th grade social studies les- student said, “People who are buy- already gone 100 meters. The son, students were asked by the ing cars and houses might not be hare’s graph was a vertical line, teacher to consider the impact on able to make their payments even and was labeled “impossible.” a community when workers were though they are getting unemploy- laid off from work. (This issue was ment compensation. Car dealers Race 2: The hare left 8 raised in light of recent layoffs might go out of business because minutes after the tortoise. from an airplane manufacturer, a people would not have the money The hare ran at the rate of major business in the community.) to buy new cars.” 20 meters per minute. The The teacher began by helping The class also discussed the fact tortoise still “sprinted” at 4

10 10 meters per minute. Draw a Social Studies Example for silent permission to use power graph that shows the progress Standard 3, Elaborated Written against the weak.... of the race. Use the same grid Communication for both the tortoise and the This task called on 12th graders to Those who complain about hare. The horizontal axis develop a “position paper” on a con- the United States acting as a should show the time; the troversial issue. The following “police nation” would do well vertical axis should show excerpts are from one student’s some- to remember that Desert the distance. Who won what longer paper justifying U.S. Storm has been a United the second race? intervention in the Persian Gulf. Nations effort, not solely a There have been numerous U.S. effort. The U.N. Security The same student responded: instances when the world has Council condemned Iraq’s “The hare.” On the attached page, witnessed what happens when invasion and annexation of the student drew a graph plotting aggressors are not stopped. Let Kuwait, as did the Arab two straight lines with appropriate us look back to 1935 when League. The U.N. imposed slopes. She labeled each line, and Mussolini decided to invade mandatory sanctions, forbid- highlighted the 100-meter mark and annex Ethiopia. ding all member states from on the y-axis. Since the tortoise’s Ethiopia’s emperor appealed doing business with Iraq. The line crossed through the 100-meter to the League of Nations, but European Community, the mark before the hare’s line, she nothing was done. U.S. and Japan froze Kuwaiti concluded that the hare won. assets. The U.S., Britain, Soon afterwards, in 1936, France, Canada, Australia, Race 3: The hare left 5 min- Adolf Hitler re-occupied the West Germany, the utes after the tortoise. After Rhineland, thereby violating Netherlands, and Belgium the Hare ran for 3 minutes, it the Treaty of Versailles. positioned naval vessels to stopped for a 15-minute rest Again, the world ignored enforce a blockade.... Clearly, and then resumed the race. these blatant displays of hostil- the United States acted in The tortoise still “sprinted” at ity and power.... accordance with the United 4 meters per minute and the Nations and with the support hare ran at 20 meters per When Emperor Hirohito of of its many members. minute. Make another graph Japan attacked Manchuria in to show the progress of each. 1931, and then China in There is a time for peace and a Who won the race? 1937, he was simply scolded time for war. War is a horrible by the League of Nations.... situation, but it is imperative The same student responded, that countries learn to recog- “They get there at the same time, In 1938, Hitler united Austria nize when it is necessary. it’s a tie.” Once again, she had and Germany. The world Perhaps some day the world drawn a graph, clearly labeling protested, but then gave in to will be able to solve its prob- the lines corresponding to the Hitler who said he only want- lems without violence. In tortoise and the hare. By showing ed to unite the German peo- the meantime, we would how both lines crossed the 100- ple. Then, Hitler took the endanger international securi- meter mark at the same time, she Sudentenland from ty to allow people like Saddam was able to show that both animals Czechoslovakia. As before, Hussein and his terrorist goons crossed the finish line together. concessions were made to to threaten and overpower appease the aggressor.... independent countries such This student’s work scored high as Kuwait.... on “Disciplinary Concepts” because In all the examples of her explanations of why the tortoise unchecked aggression, the The paper scored high on or hare won (or tied), and her moral is the same. The school “Elaborated Written Commun- labeling of graphs that represented bully who demands lunch ication” because two main points the progress of the race in each story, money from other children were argued and supported in some demonstrated exemplary mathemati- will not stop until someone detail: Aggression should be stopped cal understanding of the relation- stands up to him. If the bully soon or it will lead to a chain of ships of the concepts of distance, is allowed to harass, intimi- abuses; and the U.S. acted with time and rate, and of how graphs can date, and steal from other international support in the be used to represent these problems. children, it is giving him Persian Gulf war.

11 11 HIGH AND LOW PEDAGOGY: CONTRASTING EXAMPLES

hese examples of student work, collected during the Example A: Low Authentic Pedagogy T study of restructured schools conducted by the Center on Organization and Restructuring of Schools, demonstrate the impact that different levels of authentic pedagogy can have on student achievement. The two examples of student work reproduced here were created by students with identical scores on our NAEP-based test of previous academic success.

Example A: A class of 5th graders was assigned to copy a set of questions about famous explorers from a work sheet, and to add the correct short-answer responses in the appro- priate spots. The class spent a total of 30 minutes on this exercise, which the teacher described as “very consistent” with what is typically emphasized in the class. Even though the student whose work is shown here received a near-perfect 99 on this assignment, little authen- tic student achievement is evident. The student is simply reproducing specific bits of information that previously were supplied by the teacher. There is no analysis or interpreta- tion of these facts, nor any elaborated communication. This task scored a 7 on our scale of authentic assessment, which ranges from a low of 7 to a high of 23. The student’s work scored 3.5 on our scale of authentic student achieve- ment, which ranges from a low of 3 to a high of 12. Example B: A class of 5th and 6th graders was assigned to research and write a paper on ecology. This assignment occupied 40 hours of class time during the 12-week grading Example B: High Authentic Pedagogy period. Each student produced several drafts of the paper, and met individually with the teacher several times to dis- cuss the drafts. Students also received 11 pages of written directions on how to research, organize and write the paper, including a step-by-step checklist for completing the assign- ment, a sample outline and sample bibliography entries. The paper counted for 75 percent of the student’s grade for the 12-week period. The student whose work is excerpted here submitted seven pages of text, including an introduction to the topic she chose–sea turtles–an overview of issues to be discussed in the paper, detailed information on sea turtle biology drawn from several sources, and information on hazards faced by sea turtles in Costa Rica. Another section entitled “What you can do to help” included a phone number to call for more information, and advice on how to write the U.S. government to push for more protection of turtles. This task scored a 19 on our scale of 7 to 23. The student’s work scored a 10 on our scale of 3 to 12.

12 12 A GUIDE TO AUTHENTIC INSTRUCTION AND ASSESSMENT: VISION, STANDARDS AND SCORING Fred M. Newmann, Walter G. Secada, Gary G. Wehlage

ince 1990, the Center on Organization and This guide is intended to stimulate teacher reflec- Restructuring of Schools has studied how school tion on standards for authentic intellectual quality, Srestructuring can promote authentic instruction with the ultimate goal of helping teachers develop and student performance. Using material from 130 more authentic instruction, assessment and student teachers and 3,000 students in mathematics and social performance. It includes scenarios and general studies from 24 “restructured” elementary, middle and guidelines for adapting the standards to the needs of high schools nationwide, the Guide presents: particular schools, grade levels and subjects. 00 • A rationale for the importance of Available June, 1995. Price: $9 in the U.S. and students constructing knowledge, through Canada. For orders to other countries, please call. disciplined inquiry, to produce discourse and performance that has value and WCER Document Service meaning beyond school. 1025 W. Johnson Street, Room 242 Madison, WI 53706 • A set of integrated standards for Telephone: (608) 263-4214

analyzing teaching, assessment practice Please send _____ copies of “A GUIDE TO AUTHENTIC and student performance according to INSTRUCTION AND ASSESSMENT: VISION, STANDARDS this rationale. AND SCORING” at $900 ea. • Examples of teachers’ lessons, teachers’ Total amount enclosed: ______assessment tasks and student Ship to: performance which succeed on the Name ______standards. Affiliation______• Specific rubrics and scoring rules for Address______applying the standards in elementary, City, State, Zip ______middle and high schools. Phone ______

13 Endnotes 1 The concepts of authentic achievement and standards for pedagogy CENTER MISSION are explained in greater detail, and illustrated with examples, in Newmann, F. M., Secada, W. G., & Wehlage, G. G. (1995). A guide he Center on Organization and Restructuring of Schools studies to authentic instruction and assessment: Vision, standards, and scoring. how organizational features of schools can be changed to increase the Madison, WI: Wisconsin Center for Education Research. This guide T may be ordered with the order blank that follows page 12 in this intellectual and social competence of students. The five-year program of issue report. research focuses on restructuring in four areas: the experiences of students in school; the professional life of teachers; the governance, management 2 The empirical findings from this study are presented in greater detail and leadership of schools; and the coordination of community resources in Newmann, F. M., Marks, H. M., & Gamoran, A. (1995). Authentic to better serve educationally disadvantaged students. pedagogy and student performance. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Center for Education Research. Copies of this paper are available through the Through syntheses of previous research, analyses of existing data WCER Document Service, 1025 W. Johnson Street, Room 242, and new empirical studies of education reform, the Center focuses on six Madison, WI 53706. Price is $6 per copy, including postage and critical issues for elementary, middle and high schools: How can schooling handling, for orders shipped to the United States and Canada. For nurture authentic forms of student achievement? How can schooling orders to other countries, please call the Document Service at (608) 263-4214. enhance educational equity? How can decentralization and local empow- erment be constructively developed? How can schools be transformed 3 The other five outcomes we studied were equity for students; empow- into communities of learning? How can change be approached through erment of teachers, parents and school administrators; sense of com- thoughtful dialogue and support rather than coercion and regulation? How munity among staff and students; reflective professional dialogue; and can the focus on student outcomes be shaped to serve these principles? accountability. Results from the full study will be available from the Center in early 1996.

4 For a detailed explanation of the scoring scales and standards, see CENTER PUBLICATIONS Newmann, Secada, & Wehlage (1995). n the fall and spring of each year, the Center publishes an issue report offering in-depth analysis of critical issues in school restructuring, 5 We are grateful to the 47 teachers from school districts in and I around Madison, Wisconsin who took part in scoring tasks and which is distributed free to everyone on the mailing list. In addition, three student work for this study. briefs targeted to special audiences are offered yearly. Our bibliography is updated each year and is distributed free on request. Occasional papers 6 About 25 percent of the rated lessons also were observed by a second reporting results of Center research are available at cost. To be placed on Center researcher who independently rated them. The overall level of agreement between the two raters is estimated as a correlation of the mailing list and receive Issues in Restructuring Schools, please contact .78. About 37 percent of the student work samples were scored a Leon Lynn, Dissemination Coordinator, Center on Organization and second time by another teacher. The two scores were the same Restructuring of Schools, University of Wisconsin–Madison, 1025 W. 54 percent of the time, and 92 percent were within one point. Johnson Street, Madison, WI 53706. Telephone: (608) 263-7575. Internet: [email protected]

Issue Report No. 8 Spring 1995 Authentic Pedagogy: Standards That Boost Student Performance

CENTER ON ORGANIZATION AND Nonprofit Organization RESTRUCTURING OF SCHOOLS US Postage PAID School of Education Madison, Wisconsin Wisconsin Center for Education Research Permit No. 1622 University of Wisconsin–Madison 1025 W. Johnson Street Madison, WI 53706

14 OTHER PUBLICATIONS

The Center on Organization and Restructuring of Schools is offering back issues of its briefs and issue reports on critical topics in school restructuring. Single copies are free. Photocopies may be substituted for some publications that are no longer in stock.

ISSUE REPORTS n No. 1–A Framework for School Restructuring–Fall 1991 n No. 2–Making Small Groups Productive–Spring 1992 n No. 3–Restructuring School Governance: The Chicago Issues in Restructuring Schools Experience–Fall 1992 n is prepared by Leon Lynn at the Center on No. 4–Standards of Authentic Instruction–Spring 1993 Organization and Restructuring of Schools, University n No. 5–Social Capital: The Foundation for Education–Fall 1993 of Wisconsin–Madison. This publication is supported n No. 6–School-Wide Professional Community–Spring 1994 by the U.S. Department of Education, Office of n No. 7–High School Restructuring and Student Achievement– Educational Research and Improvement (Grant No. Fall 1994 R117Q00005-95), and by the Wisconsin Center for BRIEFS Education Research, School of Education, University n No. 1–Introduction to School Restructuring Issues–Fall 1991 of Wisconsin–Madison. The opinions expressed here- n No. 2–Collaborative Planning Time for Teachers–Winter 1992 in are those of the authors and do not necessarily n No. 3–When School Restructuring Meets Systemic Curriculum reflect the views of the supporting agencies. This Reform–Summer 1992 publication is free on request. n No. 4–Estimating the Extent of School Restructuring–Fall 1992 n Director: Fred M. Newmann No. 5–Collegial Process versus Curricular Focus–Spring 1993 Associate Director: Gary G. Wehlage n No. 6–School Community Collaboration: Comparing Three Dissemination Coordinator: Initiatives–Fall 1993 n Leon Lynn No. 7–Opportunity to Learn–Fall 1993 Administrative Assistant: n No. 8–Building Parent Involvement–Winter 1994 Diane Randall n No. 9–School-Based Management–The View from “Down Graphic Designer: Rhonda Dix Under”–Summer 1994 n No. 10–New Directions for Principals–Winter 1994

n Information Packet–A 12-page guide to the Center’s mission and ongoing research. n 1995 Bibliography on School Restructuring

Name

Title

Affiliation

Street Address

City

State, Zip

Phone

n Please add me to your mailing list so I will receive future Center publications.

Center on Organization and Restructuring of Schools University of Wisconsin–Madison 1025 West Johnson Street Madison, WI 53706 15 in restructuring schools

Crafting Authentic Instruction

emember your favorite classes? What made them so good? It didn’t matter what subject was taught or what grade we were in. What mattered were the experiences that made us believe we could “get it” and do good work. We were challenged, R provoked. We developed our own ideas and found words to express them. We grasped the standards and managed to reach them. Instruction which engages students most of the time and gets them to use their minds well is still the key to student learning. The Center on Organization and Restructuring of Schools calls this “authentic instruction.” The concept, described in the research article (page 3), consists of five dimensions: 1) higher order thinking, 2) depth of knowledge, 3) connectedness to the world beyond the classroom, 4) substantive conversation, and 5) social support for student achievement. Why these five dimensions? At this point there is no conclusive evidence that instruc- tion which consistently meets these criteria will produce high quality achievement from all students in all subjects. However, these dimensions represent a synthesis of ideas proposed by experienced educators and documented in various studies. Does authentic instruction differ from old fashioned, good teaching? Maybe it doesn’t. However, at the Center, we predict that if school restructuring is aimed to support authentic instruction, the payoff will be enhanced academic achievement; that is, students using their minds well, both in school and out. This article illustrates examples of authentic instruction in action today. It shows students being intellectually challenged in a supportive atmosphere. The two classes show how the five dimensions are revealed in the teaching of a high school social studies and a middle school math teacher.

Coaching the Socratic Seminar ohn McDermott entered teaching through the back door of sports. A scholarship Jathlete and history major, his ambition was to coach, teaching would be a side line. ISSUE REPORT NO. 4 Twenty years later, after the fates ruled out basketball, a wiry, amiable, and high energy SPRING 1993 McDermott finds himself a coach after all—in the classroom, not on the courts. The casual start to a mid-March seminar class, at Horizon High School in Crafting Authentic Thornton, Colorado, on the relationship between Dickens’ Tale of Two Cities, Hugo’s Instruction 1 Les Miserables and the French Revolution seems to belie a perceptible undercurrent of Director’s Overview 2 enthusiasm. As students make a circle of chairs, “Mr. McDee” asks for standards. Responses from three students come quickly: Standards of Authentic •Monica: “Make your arguments logically and not from a personal standpoint.” Instruction 3 •Jen R.: “Don’t judge a person, judge their ideas.” Interview 14 •Shannon: “Be respectful. Don’t interrupt.”

CENTER ON ORGANIZATION AND RESTRUCTURING OF SCHOOLS 16 D IRECTOR’S OVERVIEW

Without missing a beat, McDermott Seminar class embodies McDermott’s chool restructuring can involve lots asks Kizzy to start by making an obser- critical principles of teaching: teenagers of changes: school site councils, vation about any of the four areas speaking respectfully, doing homework teaching teams, more heterogeneous S assigned with yesterday’s readings. She responsibly, entering class prepared to grouping of students, special support ser- compares Hugo’s hero Jean Valjean and contribute. From McDermott’s point of vices for students, interdisciplinary cur- the indigent who steals bread to survive view, depth of knowledge is gained riculum, changes in the schedule. These with Dickens’ wretched villagers who through serious attention to homework, changes make new demands on teachers, drink spilled wine mixed with mud: library research, reading current articles, administrators, students, and parents. “The people were poor, they didn’t and good books. “They have to have They call for new commitments, new have any money. It was hard to get water depth before they can reach higher competencies, and patient perseverence in or wine, so whatever they could get order thinking. The homework prepares conflict resolution. But do any of these they’d take.” them, gives them good stuff to chew on, changes improve instruction? What does Debbie develops the idea: “It’s like a like a good meal. Then you can sit back, it mean to “improve” instruction? What metaphor. Because later on blood will be go into the living room and get dessert, confidence should we have that the ardu- spilled on that street. But I think they are that’s the seminar.” ous struggle to restructure schools will going after the wine so passionately Doing homework is no more popular actually enhance student learning? because the people don’t have anything to among students at Horizon than any- If we want new structures of education lose, and they are going into the revolution where else. Says McDermott: “These to promote improved instruction and with everything they’ve got.” kids say, ‘We don’t do homework.’ ” learning, we must first make explicit a The hour-and-a-half, World Affairs And I say, ‘You are not going to pass desired vision or conception of teaching and World Literature class of 70 juniors unless you do.’ And they understand and learning. Unless school restructuring and seniors is team-taught by a social and say, ‘I’m not doing homework, and is guided by and focused on visions of stu- studies and an English teacher, and is not I know I’m going to fail.’ ” Yet his dent achievement and of instruction an advanced placement course. It enrolls expectation remains. needed to produce that achievement, students from all achievement levels: In class, the conversation moves on what’s the point of restructuring at all? learning disabled, emotionally troubled, to the metaphor of society grinding To assist in the articulation of a vision, youth in trouble with the law, and 14- young people old like a millstone. At the Center on Organization and and 15-year-old moms whose babies play least 30 of 35 students participate active- Restructuring of Schools has proposed cri- at the school’s child-care center. ly. A sampling of the dialogue follows: teria for authentic instruction, described McDermott, who holds a master’s First McDermott asks: What is the in the research article (p. 3). The first degree in gifted and talented education, millstone in this section? article offers examples of two teachers fought vigorously against tracking when Shannon: Hunger. who illustrate aspects of authentic instruc- he and a small group of educators devel- McD: Yes, excellent. Hunger. And tion. A social studies teacher emphasizes oped curriculum for Horizon; he who is getting ground down by this coaching in a socratic seminar, and a believes Horizon’s mission is to offer a millstone. mathematics teacher models mathemati- gifted and talented program to every Kelly: Society. cal thinking. The teachers observed and student. Designed to be a “restructured” Jason: The lower class. interviewed here illustrate in their prac- school, Horizon High enrolls about McD: The lower class, the poor peo- tice and their explanations of teaching an 1,500 students, 18% minority, and ple. They are being ground down until emphasis on many of the five dimensions. boasts innovations such as: block- there is nothing left. Dickens talks We leave it to the reader to consider scheduling, integrated curriculum, site- about another millstone. What does he which of the dimensions seem most based decision-making, advanced com- mean when he says this “And certainly prominent. Finally, we interview a princi- puter technology, a work-study program not in the fabulous mill which ground pal involved in school restructuring to see for at-risk youths. old people young. No, this is the mill how he supports authentic instruction. The class discussed here has been that grinds young people old.” We hope this material will help to focus split into two groups of 35. McDermott’s Dana: He’s talking about the atrophy of discussion on what ought to be the ulti- philosophy of coaching is central to the childhood that Hugo talks about. These mate targets of organizational innovation: way he supports student conversation. children aren’t able to go out and play or instruction and student learning. Each fall, McDermott devotes two whatever because they have to go out and weeks in every class to “getting-to- work, and they grow up too fast. Fred M. Newmann, Director know-you” activities. Colleagues at McD: It grinds young people old, other schools have chided him for game they never get a childhood. playing with high schoolers, but during Students continue to speculate that those weeks McDermott establishes his bottom line—respect for one another. continued on page 7

17 R ESEARCH

Standards of Authentic Instruction

By Fred M. Newmann and Gary G. Wehlage

The Problem: Innovation authentic forms of student achieve- that maximized the quality of intellec- Without Authenticity ment. We present here a framework tual work, but were not tied to any spe- for observing instruction derived from cific learning activity (e.g. lecture or hy do many proposed innova- the vision of authentic achievement. small group discussion). Indeed, the tions fail to improve the quality W The framework was created as a point was to assess the extent to which of instruction or student achieve- research tool, but it can also be used any given activity—traditional or inno- ment? In 1990, we began to explore to help teachers examine the authen- vative, in or out of school—engages this question by studying schools that ticity of their instructional activities. students in using their minds well. have tried to restructure. Unfortunately, even the most inno- vative activities—from school coun- The Need for Standards The Five Standards of cils and shared decision-making to for Instruction Authentic Instruction cooperative learning and assessment hile there has been much Instruction is complex, and quan- by portfolio—can be implemented in Wrecent attention to standards tification in education can often be as ways that undermine meaningful for curriculum and standards for assess- misleading as informative. To guard learning, unless they are guided by ment, public and professional discus- against oversimplification, we formu- substantive, worthwhile educational sion of standards for instruction tends lated several standards, rather than ends. We contend that innovations to focus on procedural and technical only one or two, and we conceptual- should aim toward a vision of authentic aspects, with little attention to more ized each standard as a continuous student achievement, and we are fundamental standards of quality.3 Is construct from “less” to “more” of a examining the extent to which achievement more likely to be authen- quality, rather than as a categorical instruction in restructured schools is tic when the length of class periods (yes or no) variable. directed toward authentic forms of stu- varies, when teachers teach in teams, We expressed each standard as a dent achievement. We use the word when students participate in hands-on dimensional construct on a five-point authentic, to distinguish between activities, or when students spend scale. Instructions for rating lessons achievement that is significant and time in cooperative groups, museums, include specific criteria for each meaningful and that which is trivial or on-the-job apprenticeships? score—1 to 5—on each standard. and useless. We were cautious not to assume Space does not permit us to present To define authentic achievement that technical processes or specific criteria for every possible rating, but more precisely, we rely on three crite- sites for learning, however innovative, for each standard we first distinguish ria that are consistent with major pro- necessarily produce experiences of between high and low scoring lessons posals in the restructuring movement:1 high intellectual quality. Even activi- and then offer examples of criteria for (1) students construct meaning and ties that place students in the role of a some specific ratings. Raters consider produce knowledge (vs reproducing more active, cooperative learner, and both the number of students to which declarative knowledge and algo- that seem to respect student voices the criteria applies and the proportion rithms); (2) students use disciplined can be implemented in ways that do of class time during which it applies.4 inquiry to construct meaning; and (3) not produce authentic achievement. The five standards are: higher order students aim their work toward pro- The challenge is not simply to adopt thinking, depth of knowledge, con- duction of discourse, products, and innovative teaching techniques or to nectedness to the world beyond the performances that have value or mean- find new locations for learning, but classroom, substantive conversation, ing beyond success in school.2 deliberately to counteract two persis- and social support for student achieve- In studying schools that have tried tent maladies that make conventional ment (see figure 1). to restructure, we decided to inquire schooling inauthentic: about the extent to which instruction 1. Often the work students do does Higher-Order Thinking in these schools was aimed toward not allow them to use their minds well. he first scale measures the degree 2. The work has no intrinsic mean- Tto which students use higher- ing or value to students beyond order thinking. This article was first published in achieving success in the school. Lower order thinking (LOT) occurs Educational Leadership, 50(7), 8-12, To face these problems head-on, we when students are asked to receive April, 1993. articulated standards for instruction or recite factual information or to

18 3 Figure 1

STANDARDS OF AUTHENTIC INSTRUCTION 3= Knowledge is treated unevenly during instruction; i.e. deep understanding of 1. Higher-Order Thinking something is countered by superficial lower-order thinking only 1...2...3...4...5 higher-order thinking is central understanding of other ideas. At least one significant idea may be presented in 2. Depth of Knowledge depth and its significance grasped, but knowledge is shallow 1...2...3...4...5 knowledge is deep in general the focus is not sustained. 3. Connectedness to the World Connectedness to the World Beyond no connection 1...2...3...4...5 connected the Classroom 4. Substantive Conversation he third scale measures the extent to which the class has value and no substantive conversation 1...2...3...4...5 high-level substantive conversation T meaning beyond the instructional 5. Social Support for Student Achievement context. In a class with little or no negative social support 1...2...3...4...5 positive social support value beyond, activities are deemed important for success only in school (now or later). Students’ work has no employ rules and algorithms through Depth of Knowledge impact on others and serves only to repetitive routines. As information rom “knowledge is shallow” (1) to certify their level of competence or receivers, students are given pre- F“knowledge is deep” (5), the next compliance with the norms and rou- specified knowledge ranging from scale assesses students’ depth of knowl- tines of formal schooling. simple facts and information to more edge and understanding. This term A lesson gains in authenticity the complex concepts. Students are in refers to the substantive character of more there is a connection to the this role when they are reciting previ- the ideas in a lesson and to the level of larger social context within which ously acquired knowledge by respond- understanding that students demon- students live. Instruction can exhibit ing to questions that require recall of strate as they consider these ideas. some degree of connectedness when pre-specified knowledge. Knowledge is thin or superficial (1) students address real world public Higher order thinking (HOT) when it does not deal with significant problems (for example, clarifying a requires students to manipulate infor- concepts or central ideas of a topic or contemporary issue by applying statis- mation and ideas in ways that trans- discipline—for example, when stu- tical analysis in a report to the city form their meaning and implications, dents have a trivial understanding of council on the homeless); or (2) stu- such as when students combine facts important concepts or when they dents use personal experiences as a and ideas in order to synthesize, gen- have only a surface acquaintance with context for applying knowledge (such eralize, explain, hypothesize, or arrive their meaning. Superficiality can be as using conflict resolution techniques at some conclusion or interpretation. due, in part, to instructional strategies in their own school). Manipulating information and ideas that emphasize coverage of large through these processes allows stu- quantities of fragmented information. Illustrative criteria for connectedness: dents to solve problems and discover Knowledge is deep or thick when it 1= Lesson topic and activities have no clear connection to issues or experience new (for them) meanings and under- concerns the central, crucial ideas of a standings. When students engage in beyond the classroom. The teacher offers topic or discipline. For students, knowl- no justification for the work beyond the HOT, an element of uncertainty is edge is deep when they make clear dis- introduced and instructional out- need to perform well in class. tinctions, develop arguments, solve 5= Students work on a problem or issue comes are not always predictable. problems, construct explanations, and that the teacher and students see as otherwise work with relatively complex connected to their personal experiences Illustrative criteria for understandings. Depth is produced, in or contemporary public situations. They higher-order thinking part, by covering fewer topics in sys- explore these connections in ways that 3= Students primarily engaged in routine tematic and connected ways. create personal meaning. Students are LOT operations a good share of the les- involved in an effort to influence an son. There is at least one significant audience beyond their classroom; for question or activity in which some stu- Illustrative criteria for depth of knowledge: example, by communicating knowledge dents perform some HOT operations. to others, advocating solutions to social 2= Knowledge remains superficial and 4= Students engaged in an at least one problems, providing assistance to peo- fragmented; while some key concepts major activity during the lesson in ple, creating performances or products and ideas are mentioned or covered, which they perform HOT operations, with utilitarian or aesthetic value. and this activity occupies a substantial only a superficial acquaintance or triv- portion of the lesson and many stu- ialized understanding of these complex dents perform HOT. ideas is evident.

4 19 Substantive Conversation . . . students may seem 5= Social support is strong; the class is characterized by high expectations, he fourth scale assesses the more engaged in activities challenging work, strong effort, mutual T extent of talking to learn and respect and assistance in achievement understand the substance of a subject. such as cooperative learn- for almost all students. Both teacher In classes with little or no substantive and students demonstrate a number of conversation, teacher-student interac- ing or long-term projects, these attitudes by soliciting and wel- tion typically consists of a lecture coming contributions from all students. with recitation in which the teacher but heightened participa- Broad student participation may indi- deviates very little from delivering a cate that low-achieving students preplanned body of information and tion or engagement alone receive social support for learning. set of questions; students routinely give very short answers. Teachers’ list is not sufficient. Using the Framework of questions, facts, and concepts tend e are now using the standards to make the discourse choppy, rather Wto estimate levels of authentic than coherent; there is often little or (that is, at least three consecutive instruction in social studies and math- interchanges), and many students no follow-up of student responses. ematics in 24 elementary, middle, and participate. Such discourse is the oral equivalent high schools which have restructured of fill-in-the-blank or short-answer in various ways. The purpose of our study questions. Social Support for Student research is not to evaluate schools or High levels of substantive conver- Achievement teachers, but to learn how authentic sation are indicated by three features: ocial support involves high expec- instruction and student achievement 1. There is considerable interac- Stations, respect, and inclusion of are facilitated or impeded by: tion about the ideas of a topic, that is, all students in the learning process. ✔ organizational features of the talk is about disciplined subject Social support is low when teacher schools (teacher workload, scheduling matter and includes higher order or student behavior, comments, and of instruction, governance structure); thinking such as making distinctions, actions tend to discourage effort, ✔ the content of particular pro- applying ideas, forming generaliza- participation, or willingness to grams aimed at curriculum, assess- tions, raising questions, and not just express one’s views. Support can also ment, or staff development; reporting experiences, facts, defini- be low if no overt acts like the above ✔ the quality of school leadership; tions, or procedures. occur, but when the overall atmo- ✔ school and community culture. 2. Sharing of ideas is evident in sphere of the class is negative as a We also examine how actions of exchanges that are not completely result of previous behavior. Token districts, states, and regional or nation- scripted or controlled, as in a teacher- acknowledgements, even praise, by al reform projects influence instruc- led recitation. Sharing is best illustrated the teacher of student actions or tion. The findings will describe the when participants explain themselves responses do not necessarily consti- conditions under which “restructuring” or ask questions in complete sentences tute evidence of social support. improves education for students and and when they respond directly to Social support is high in classes suggest implications for policy and comments of previous speakers. when the teacher conveys high practice. 3. The dialogue builds coherently expectations for all students, includ- Apart from its value as a research on participants’ ideas to promote ing that it is necessary to take risks tool, the framework should help improved collective understanding and try hard to master challenging teachers to reflect upon their teach- of a theme or topic. academic work, that all members of ing. The framework provides a set of the class can learn important knowl- standards or criteria through which to Illustrative criteria for substantive edge and skills, and that a climate of view assignments, instructional activi- conversation: mutual respect among all members of ties, and the dialogue between teacher To score 2 or above, conversation the class contributes to achievement and students and students with one must focus on subject matter as in by all. “Mutual respect” means that another. Teachers, either alone or feature (1) above. students with less skill or proficiency with peers, can use the framework to 2= Sharing (2) and/or coherent promo- in a subject are treated in ways that generate questions, clarify goals, and tion of collective understanding (3) encourage their efforts and value critique their teaching. For example, occurs briefly and involves at least one their contributions. students may seem more engaged in example of two consecutive inter- activities such as cooperative learning changes. 4= All three features of substantive con- Illustrative criteria for social support: or long-term projects, but heightened versation occur, with at least one 2= Social support is mixed. Both negative participation or engagement alone is example of sustained conversation and positive behaviors or comments not sufficient. The standards provide are observed.

20 5 further criteria for examining the 1 See Carnegie Corporation of New York Elmore, R. F., & Associates. (1990). extent to which such activities actual- (1989), Elmore & Associates (1990), and Restructuring schools: The next generation of edu- ly put students’ minds to work on Murphy (1991). cational reform. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. authentic questions. 2 See Archbald and Newmann 1988, Knapp, M. S., Shields, P. M. & Turnbull, In using the framework, either for Newmann 1991, Newmann and Archbald B. J. (1992). Academic challenge for the children of poverty: Summary report. Washington, DC: reflective critiques of teaching or for 1992, Newmann et al 1992, and Wehlage et U.S. Department of Education, Office of research, it is important to recognize its al. 1989. 3 Policy and Planning. limitations. First, the framework does For example, see the arguments for stan- dards in National Council on Education Murphy, J. (1991). Restructuring schools: not try to capture in an exhaustive way Standards and Testing (1992), and Smith & Capturing and assessing the phenomena. New all that teachers may be trying to O’Day (1991). York: Teachers College Press. accomplish with students. The stan- 4 In three semesters of data collection, cor- National Council on Education Standards dards attempt only to represent in a relations between raters were .7 or higher, and and Testing, (1992). Raising standards for quantitative sense the degree of precise agreement between raters was about American education. A report to Congress, the authentic instruction observed within 60% or higher for each of the standards. A Secretary of Education, the National discrete class periods. Numerical ratings detailed scoring manual will be available to Education Goals Panel, and the American alone cannot portray how lessons relate the public following completion of data collec- People. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, Superintendent of to one another or how multiple lessons tion in 1994. 5 The standards may be conceptually dis- Documents, Mail Stop SSOP. might accumulate into experiences Newmann, F. M. (1991). Linking restruc- more complex than the sum of individ- tinct, but initial findings indicate that they cluster together statistically as a single con- turing to authentic student achievement. Phi ual lessons. Second, the relative impor- struct. That is, lessons rated high or low on Delta Kappan, 72(6), 458-463. tance of the different standards remains some dimensions tend to be rated in the same Newmann, F.M., & Archbald, D. (1992). open for discussion. Each suggests a direction on others. The nature of authentic academic achieve- distinct ideal or standard, but it is prob- 6 Evidence for positive achievement effects ment. In H. Berlak, F. M. Newmann, E. ably not possible for most teachers to of teaching for thinking is provided in diverse Adams, D. A. Archbald, T. Burgess, J. Raven, show high performance on all standards sources such as Brown & Palinscar (1989), & T. A. Romberg, Toward a new science of in most of their lessons. Instead, it may Carpenter & Fennema (1992), Knapp, educational testing and assessment (pp. 71-84). be important to ask, “Which standards Shields, & Turnbull (1992), and Resnick Albany, NY: SUNY. Newmann, F. M., Wehlage, G. G., & should receive higher priority and (1987). However, no significant body of 5 research to date has clarified key dimensions of Lamborn, S. D. (1992). In F. M. Newmann under what circumstances?” (Ed.), Student Engagement and Achievement in Finally, although previous research instruction that produce authentic forms of student achievement as defined here. American Secondary Schools (pp. 11-30). New indicates that teaching for thinking, York: Teachers College Press. problem-solving, and understanding Resnick, L. (1987). Education and learning References often has more positive effects on stu- to think. Washington, DC: National Academy Archbald, D., & Newmann, F. M. (1988). dent achievement than traditional Press. Beyond standardized testing: Assessing authentic Smith, M. S., & O’Day, J. (1991). teaching, the effects of this specific academic achievement in the secondary school. Systemic school reform. In S. H. Fuhrman & framework for authentic instruction on Reston, VA: National Association of B. Malen (Eds.), The politics of curriculum and student achievement have not been Secondary School Principals. testing: The 1990 yearbook of the Politics of examined.6 Many educators insist that Brown, A., & Palinscar, A. (1989, March). Education Association (pp. 233-267). there are appropriate times for tradi- Coherence and causality in science readings. Philadelphia: Falmer Press. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the tional, less authentic instruction— Wehlage, G. G., Rutter, R.A., Smith, American Educational Research Association, emphasizing memorization, repetitive G.A., Lesko, N., & Fernandez, R.R. (1989). San Francisco. practice, silent study without conversa- Reducing the risk: Schools as communities of sup- Carnegie Corporation of New York. tion, and brief exposure—as well as port. Philadelphia: Falmer Press. teaching for in-depth understanding. (1989). Turning points: Preparing American youth for the 21st century. Report on the Rather than choosing rigidly and Carnegie Task Force on the Education of Fred M. Newmann is Director of the exclusively between traditional and Young Adolescents. New York: Carnegie Center on Organization and Restructuring authentic forms of instruction, it seems Council on Adolescent Development. of Schools and Professor of Curriculum more reasonable to focus on how to Carpenter, T. P. & Fennema, E., (1992). and Instruction, University of Wisconsin– move instruction toward more authen- Cognitively Guided Instruction: Building on Madison. Gary G. Wehlage is Associate is tic accomplishments for students. the knowledge of students and teachers. In W. Director of the Center on Organization Secada (Ed.), Curriculum reform: The case of Without promising to resolve all the and Restructuring of Schools and mathematics in the United States. Special issue of dilemmas faced by thoughtful teachers, Professor of Curriculum and Instruction, International Journal of Educational Research, we hope the standards will offer some University of Wisconsin–Madison. help in this venture. 457-470. Elmsford, NY: Permagon Press, Inc.

6 21 One Student’s View

Q: How do you like this combination of the continued from page 2 two subjects. Brian: I think I like it. I think these integrated classes are a lot more challenging than my old classes. Because you have to learn how to connect one class to another, and a lot of times you don’t see any connection at all. Like in my Core class in 10th grade, they would make us connect science and history and English. There are a lot more connections this year in history and literature. But I think it’s good. It keeps you focused on what’s all hap- pening at what times in history. That’s what’s good, all those connections. Q: By good do you mean you feel satisfied with your learning after you’re hit with the challenges of connections? Brian: I feel that a lot with this class. They make you write reports and essays and afte that I feel that I really did learn something. And especially if I can say it all in an essay. And usually I can. So I think I really do learn lot from this. Core is about the same way. Q: You feel good, like . . . McDermott confers with students riots in Los Angeles in some detail. Developing a connection with Brian: Like accomplishment. the mill of the wealthy grinds the current events, helping students per- Q: Does it make you feel that when you old young since they “get to play all sonalize their studies and relate them approach something else new you have dif- the time.” to their lives outside of school is a ferent skills that you might not have had. McD: You know I’m learning task McDermott says he works on in Like abstraction skills, analysis skills? with you because I don’t honestly every class. Brian: Oh definitely. Like connections, I can know what he meant by that. Well, Stacey: These problems happened make connections a lot easier, a lot better. if you are old and have enough then, a long time ago, and they are hap- Even my essay skills are a lot better. Just money, you can play all the time. pening now. When the rich were getting because we’ve done it so many times. Well, What would it be like in our society? richer and the poor were getting poorer, you know how it’s hard for some people to Relate it to today. and things are happening now as they learn history and time lines. Well, I’ve learned Kristine: Ross Perot. were in that day. And I think the how to do that now. If you learn when this McD: Why can Ross Perot be an government is a big blame. book is written and all the events that hap- old person ground young. Jason: The government can’t do pened during that time, and how these peo- John: Because he can get anything he anything without the people though. ple are thinking, it’s just easier to remember wants. He has so much money. Melanie: And I think that actually dates and times that things happen. A number of students argue that poor people can see it more than all the luxury isn’t at all bad. McDermott others. Q: You feel the information sticks with you doesn’t challenge the comments, but McD: Let me just point something Brian: Yeah. Absolutely. You aren’t going to maneuvers the conversation back on out to you. What time period is this learn everything that they say. But most of track: How does that wine casque happening? it I think I still retain. It’s a challenging class section and this section tie in with Monica: About 1780 at the beginning The most challenging class that I have this the revolution? of the book. year. Dana: Things get bottled up, and after McD: Les Miz. What time period? Q: More homework? a while they start decaying, and after a Brian G.: 1820’s, 30’s. while people start becoming scavengers. McD: What’s he describing there? Brian: Not necessarily more homework, but a Dan: They are made into savages by Chandra: Isn’t he describing the lot of reading. It just really makes you think. the times. poverty and the throw away kids? My other classes, they give me the work and McDermott shifts focus: McD: We go from this time to 50 just do it, but this class you’ve got to think. Kristen, any examples of this in years later, and what’s happening? today’s society? Kristen discusses the Students: The same thing. Brian Guerin, 12th grade student at Horizo

22 McD: We come to 1993 in LA, and what’s happening? Students: The same thing. Jeanine: It’s all different govern- ments. We have a democracy and like the Soviet Union style, and all this is dif- ferent governments. McD: So where is the message in all this? This is wonderful. Students: I don’t know. McD: I don’t blame you for saying I don’t know, but I want us all to think. What’s the message? What is going on when we see the same things in different governments? Roger: Governments have different. .. Jen R.: That it’s the people. That it’s not the government, that no matter what government it always happens. Natalie: But the people are the gov- McDermott’s seminar class ernment. Stacey: And these people that are scav- enging for the wine, before maybe these anywhere ever has or probably ever will Kristine: Every man for himself. people had pride, and wouldn’t drink wine last forever. You should expect change; Brian G.: Yeah. And the other view off the street. But they’ve been pushed to a you should expect revolution from society would be the socialist view where every- point where they’ll just do anything. And at some point. one is working together to get salary. that’s when the people revolted. They just Jen B.: Didn’t Thomas Paine think And everybody receives the same thing wanted the revolution right then. revolution was good? whether this person worked harder than Brian A.: It’s just that people are Dana: Isn’t that like the Greeks, and this person who was lazy. They both forced in certain ways, in society they three destinies will always continue to would get the same thing. aren’t forced to drink the wine, but they happen and cause people to think. Class is almost out of time. are forced to live that life. With his rakish smile, McDermott McDermott petitions: Somebody talk McD: You know the three of you interjects: And that’s exactly why they about Charles Dickens before we are bringing up some very hot issues are called classics. You read them walk out. that are discussed all the time in because they apply and they cause you Wade: He saw the government as society, that I think Hugo and to think. What you are doing right being the problem. And he saw the gov- Dickens have certain opinions now is far beyond just learning about ernment as being why the people were about. But it’s interesting today a government, learning about a revo- hungry and poverty stricken. how many people would disagree lution. You are trying to analyze why Stacey: And he’s bad on run-on with what you just said. You are these things happen. And that sentences. blaming society for poverty. And approaches the philosophical realm. Conversation excerpted here, there are many people in society Now if what everyone is saying is which used literature to understand who blame the people for poverty. true, does that mean people like not only revolution and other issues Chandra: There is only so much Rousseau, Voltaire, Montesquieu, pertinent to the relationship of gov- hunger they take, only so much blood and those who wanted to create this ernment to people, occurred virtually they can take before they are going to perfect society are fools? without pause for a full 45 minutes. take it out on the government in revenge. Monica: I don’t think they are fools. McDermott believes the heteroge- Because the government is the rich people I think everyone wants to have a real neous mix of students enhances the dis- and the ones that are getting richer. So good life. cussion. Maybe some aren’t reading or they are going to take from the rich what Mike: I don’t know if you can have a understanding every single word. “But the rich are taking from the poor. society where everyone is rich. after we do a discussion like today, they Becky: It’s human nature for people Brian G.: I just was thinking that one are getting the idea. And personally, it to rebel if they are forced to live in condi- view is like a capitalist view: whatever doesn’t matter to me if they read every tions that are inhumane. It’s human people make they should be able to keep, single word. They are sitting, intellec- nature, and there is nothing any govern- that however hard they work that’s how tualizing, and discussing. They are ment can do about it. No government much they get. exposed to a classic.”

8 23 dardized test scores as er group if they run out. Her warmth proof that students are and easygoing style offset the rigorous learning? McDermott thinking she is about to demand. contends that the “What I’d like you to do is make improvement in essays, some squares using your toothpicks. the connections they I’m going to show you what I mean,” make between subjects, she says flicking on the overhead pro- and the enhanced jector and sketching a series of five thinking skills are all connected squares. the evidence he needs. “There is a process of integrating their ideas and coming up with a product. And the prod- uct is writing a short essay or poem, or draw- “The idea is to work in pairs.” ings, or paintings, or The buzz of students regrouping them- plays, or presentations, selves and being sidetracked by tooth- or speeches, or whatev- pick pursuits ensues. Some reinvent er we ask them to do. I pick-up-sticks; some stack them in Research in the library am concentrating on piles; others test their durability. process, on how they “Other than counting, determine As effortless as this class may think and how they put another way to figure out the number appear, transforming his teaching to things together rather than how many of toothpicks in those five squares. sustain a student-centered discussion facts they know. However, I do believe Everybody take a moment and think required years of retraining and staff that giving the students challenging privately about how you might do development for McDermott. Stunned content is the essential first step. that. If you come up with one way of some years back when a principal sug- “The goal of seminar isn’t that doing that, think of another. Don’t gested that his teaching style was too they come out with one piece of verbalize at this point please,” she teacher-directed, McDermott began learning, because all of them are cautions in a soft mantra-like voice. rethinking teaching. He discovered going to come out with different A gentle quiet falls as students “wait time.” He found the patience to pieces of learning. That’s my inter- work to recreate toothpick squares. let students struggle in silence without pretation of the Socratic method. After a moment students are invited bailing them out. Still, after twenty They decide the truth.” “to share.” Carey offers a thought, years, his major classroom challenge is then goes to the overhead to sketch to make material interesting. Modeling Mathematical her visual motif. Horizon cultivates collegial help Thinking Carey (seated): I did threes. There were five of them, and then one extra. among teachers. They plan, team he banner across the back wall— teach, and evaluate one another. Manning asks: Can you show us T ”Mathematics: Don’t leave how you are seeing that Carey? And, each teacher in the school has a school without it!”—stands boldly Carey, drawing large-scale C’s, cups desk and cubby in an airy, centrally among posters, signs, and photos deco- the top, side, and bottom of the square: located room, a staff office center, rating the evergreen chalkboard and 3, 3, 3, and 3, and 3 and then one. where adult conversations on peda- pale green walls of Audrey Manning’s gogy take place continually. classroom at Roosevelt Middle School. “We’re stealing ideas all the time. It’s drizzling on the sprawling 1950’s In that open office people will say: brick and shingle building in Eugene, ‘What did you do? Tell us about that!’ Oregon, but the clear, resonant alto And we say: ‘Wait, we’re doing the voice of the teacher draws attention. Civil War unit. Give me that!’ It’s Manning, a tall, poised leader with like a whole staff development course. Manning summarizes: Okay, three stolid grace distributes baggies filled times the number of squares, and You don’t end up doing the same with toothpicks to a pre-algebra class thing twice here—ever.” then one. Is there a question as to of sixth, seventh, and eighth grade how she did that? Do you under- McDermott crafts his classes to students arranged in tables of four. support sustained conversation and stand? Does someone else have a dif- She hasn’t counted them exactly and ferent way to look at it. higher order thinking. Should the asks her pupils to borrow from anoth- public still require scores from stan- (Later in the class this formula is

24 9 developed: 3s + 1 = t, where “s” stands for sides, and “t” equals the number of toothpicks.) Ryan: You could also do it five times four, then subtract four. Manning: Can you show us how you are seeing that. Ryan circles the boxes, then cross- es out the four inside lines: Each of these (squares) could be considered four. Then you did four in the middle, then you minus four.

A student questions exactly how he figured it out. He explains that the lines in the center are subtracted Manning clarifies a point during group work because they are counted twice. Manning summarizes again: So we Seth: . . .and then add the one, and have four times five. Is that what then that would be like 37. you did? And then you subtracted David: Even with one, can’t you just four that you counted twice. (Later multiply it—and you subtract one less. this rule becomes: 4s - (s-1) = t.) Seth: But wouldn’t you have to count They note that the number of Manning: Anyone have another the middle squares or something? toothpicks in the middle is always way? Lindsey? David: No. You want to know the one more than the number of squares. Lindsey: What I did was I put 1, 2, number of squares for each one. So you Manning: Who has another way 3, 4, 5 from the top, and then 1, 2, 3, could multiply it by three or by two or by that we look at it? Did everyone look 4, 5 from the bottom, that’s five times four, which ever you chose. at it in one of these three ways? Can two, plus 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. Manning: So how would you think you think of any other way that you Manning: Circle what you are about this using your method? might of counted those? talking about. Is everybody watching? Ryan: Well using the method I No one answers. Lindsey: Here’s the five... demonstrated, it would be four times 12 That gives us a number of differ- minus 11. ent methods to work with. Can you Manning: So he’s counting them think about—without actually build- in fours. Then you subtracted. What ing these can you think about — relationship did you see? How did expanding this to 12 squares? Can you know how many to subtract. you, using one of those methods, ... and then five on the bottom, so Becky: One less than the number of maybe one you devised, can you pre- that’s five times two... squares, because that’s how many middle dict what the total will be? Can ones there are. somebody tell us how you are going Manning: How many middle ones to think about 12 squares even there are? though you’re not going to build it? Seth: Eleven, because those are used Seth explains: I would have three twice. So if there’s four squares there’s times “x” which is the number of ...and then you add in six. So that’s three in the middle, and three squares squares.... five times two plus six. (The formula there’s two in the middle, see? Manning doesn’t want to move to here is: 2s + (s + 1) = t.) Erin: You could look back at the abstract variables yet; she interjects: sample and see that that works. We have 12, 12 squares. Manning: Lindsey, what do you

10 25 Students talk after math class

Q: Can you tell me a little bit about this class and how Audrey approaches math? Carey: Well it’s a lot easier with her because she concentrates more on like your visual thinking instead of just “Tell me the answer.” She helps you see what you’re thinking. It’s hard to get used to, but you understand it more. Lindsey: Like she won’t just say, “Are you correct?” If you get an answer wrong you can see where you messed up. Carey: You always have to show your work. Ryan: Last year my teacher was like, “Tell us the answer.” Well, Audrey doesn’t care if In class you get the answer right or wrong. She just cares about how our thinking was. think about that with your method? build models, handle manipulatives, or Q: So if you make a silly mistake you don’t Lindsey: Well 12 times two that’s examine sketches. Students devise their get major points taken off? how many are on the bottom and on own, often different, rules. top, and then one more than twelve, “The emphasis is on, not getting a Carey: She doesn’t take off the final grade, so 13 in the middle. right answer, but how did you get that as long as your thinking is okay. Manning: So as this one goes on answer? How did you think about Lindsey: Well, if we show our work. But if we you’ll have more squares. So she says that? It’s very important that they get the right answer, she marks us wrong if that’s 12 on the top, 12 on the bot- work through methods of finding a we don’t show any work. tom. And then say again how the pattern on their own and describe it Q: How do you feel about working this other is? orally or in written form.” way? Lindsey: One more than 12. In this lesson, three solutions sur- Manning: So there are 13 in the faced. By way of summary, Manning Carey: It’s harder. middle. reiterates that all three methods were Lindsey and Ryan: She’s a lot harder! Her teaching strategy reflects a pat- different but they all work, as she Carey: Well, not in the long run. But like I tern: perceive, verbalize, illustrate, dis- parcels out pens and pieces of acetate spend a half an hour longer on my homework, cuss, question, think again. Manning— for the overhead. just writing out all the work when I could just, just Audrey to her class—models math- Now each group must: Give a ver- you know, do it. ematical thinking by carefully crafted bal explanation of how to determine questions that promote visualizing and the number of toothpicks no matter Q: Is it worth it? talking through problems, scaffolding how many squares you have. What Carey: Yes. Definitely. one step upon another. do you think I mean by verbal Ryan: Like if I make a mistake when I do a Manning: We could extend that description? problem in my head, and I don’t write it down. . . probably pretty easily then to 43 Joaquin: Like explain it, rather than squares, 100 squares. So for 100 giving it in a formula. Carey: . . . and if we want to know where we squares how many toothpicks would Manning: Right. Rather than have our thinking wrong, and want to go there be? giving a formula or symbolic lan- back, this way I can relearn the concept I Unison laughter: A lot. guage which we use a lot in mathe- didn’t understand. Now I can go back to Manning learned her visual matics, I’d like you to write it out where my thinking went wrong because the approach to teaching at the Math in the English language. steps are all written down. Learning Center in Portland, for whom She repeats the explanation, and she now conducts staff development the assignment. Again the explana- Three of Audrey Manning’s workshops. The approach embraces a tion; again the assignment. One stu- students stayed after class constructivist philosophy of teaching dent exclamation, “Oh I understand” and learning. Teachers use materials to is answered with, “Hang on let’s nurture “discovery,” asking students to make sure we understand.” Again

26 the explanation. Again she urges students to explain their rule using words, and not to use math formulas yet: That is of course where we are headed, but would you just write it out now and we’ll talk about it as a group. In a few minutes, Manning jingles a bell dangling from the overhead and invites children to bring their acetate explanations up front, read them aloud, and finally convert them to symbols. It’s striking how freely students speak to their peers from the overhead projector. The very process of explaining, making sense of a mathematical situa- tion, means students have to think, says Manning. Central to her instruc- tional philosophy is promoting higher order thinking. “ . . .combine facts and ideas in order to synthesize, generalize, explain, and hypothesize.’ That is exactly what I ask them to do,” she says reading the Center’s description of higher order thinking. “Telling them just does not ensure that they have understanding, Explaining a solution because real understanding comes from within each student.” Manning’s shift from traditional group described the easiest pattern: 3x and ask some of the questions to get math pedagogy came about more like + 1 = the number of toothpicks. them to elaborate on their thinking as a rude awakening than an epiphany. Joaquin comes forward to write: opposed to giving them answers.” A few years ago, while teaching at “To determine the number of toothpicks Consequently, one sees a high University of Alaska and in public in a given number of squares, you multi- degree of student-to-student interac- schools, she repeatedly saw college ply the number of squares by three then tion in Manning’s classes. But sup- math majors as well as middle school add one.” porting this kind of talk requires very math students “fail to understand To facilitate extended inquiry like deliberate strategies. what was going on. It doesn’t make this, classes at Roosevelt meet three “I try very hard to provide a risk- any difference what level they’re at. times a week, twice in 70 minute free environment. I try to keep things The problem is still the same.” blocks. Longer class periods allow flowing. No undue praise, no discour- She sought a totally different Manning to pursue her strategies more agement. I would never say: ‘That’s approach, found this one, and was fully; it expedites the kind of discus- wrong.’ When things are done incor- eager to test it when she was assigned sion that holds student interest. rectly, you have to build an environ- a class of low-achieving eighth graders. “Students listen more to each ment where you can disagree without These low achieving students discov- other than they do to me. They listen putting one another down. I try to ered they could learn: “I saw real when they are interested. And they model that with the students, and change in their interest level; they are interested in real questions, gen- most of them are pretty good. One were impressed with their own abilities. uine questions, authentic questions if reason I have groups of four is not just When they were engaged, the disci- you will. I think a lot about the kind for working together, but so they can pline problems certainly lessened. . . . of question that I ask them. I rarely bounce ideas off each other and have Having students verbalize or write ask them answers to things that I a smaller group in which to be safe. about their thinking lets them see already know. My job is to get the And the groups change every 6 weeks where they got stuck, and uncover conversation started, and to facilitate so they have a variety of people they their real understanding.” it to some extent. But I would rather hear ideas from. That gives them as At the overhead, students write out throw the ball back into their court, much interaction as possible.” and discuss various explanations, each

12 27 LEARNING

MUST BE

EXPERIENCED

I HEAR, I FORGET,

I SEE, I REMEMBER,

I DO, I UNDERSTAND Finding a pattern I can never do anything twice. It keeps it fun for me, and there is a piece of paper out. I’m going to ask always something new for the stu- you to do this individually, but I dents. If it takes three days longer don’t mind if you discuss this in your than it should, then I feel they have Integral to her strategy is the groups a little bit. learned a whole lot more and will recognition that “wait time” is impor- If you would create this figure retain it, than say covering chapters tant, although it’s a bear for teachers to using your toothpicks. This always 1-13. We assume that if you cover do. Says Manning while wiping fingers brings back to mind something I chapters 1-13 you did it well, and the smudged with overhead pen: “You used to draw, and probably you did students all understand. But we know think: Oh my gosh, the class is going too in elementary school. to go crazy if I wait. But when I let that it doesn’t work that way.” silence occur, they realize that I am The pupils check the floor for giving them an opportunity to think.” toothpicks. One clever boy piles all of Back in class, to the amazement of the broken bits under a hollow table the students, all three explanations leg so it looks like he cleaned up. His reduce to the original algorithm offered. own private battle with authority. Manning: Does it make any differ- The only corrective words come assertively: These toothpicks do cost ence which one we use if we are Manning repeats a process used me money. Please be considerate trying to figure out the number of before. She tells them to get in touch and pick up any that have dropped to toothpicks? with their own thinking first, then to the floor. No. verbally describe how many tooth- For Manning’s class, as in Absolutely not. Sometimes we picks in the five pentagons. McDermott’s, students really listen spend a lot of time in algebra simpli- Let’s call these pentagons, that’s to each other. Engaging in talk, they fying. And sometimes ask yourself what they are although they look engage their thoughts, they use their why. I often ask myself why. But kind of like houses. minds well. what if what you wrote makes per- These will be collected so she can Not every class need emphasize all fect sense? assess each child’s progress in seeing five dimensions for authentic instruc- In algebra, we have a lot of differ- the patterns. tion equally all the time. These two ent ways, formulas if you will, or How you would say it like you’re teachers frame their teaching strate- algorithms, which is a rule. All of talking on the telephone. I know gies around the different priorities, yet those words are synonymous for the you all talk on the telephone so over the course of any given week, formula that told how you were able that should be an easy thing to these instructors strive for higher to arrive at the number of tooth- think about. order thinking, depth of knowledge, picks. Once you are able to describe When the students come up to supportive environment, connections what happened, was it fairly easy to the overhead projector to share their to the world outside the classroom, write in symbol form? And now that ideas, they are hooked, interested in and substantive conversation that will you know where we got it from, you the material, and three different invest students to take ownership of could probably redo this quite nicely explanations come rapidly. their learning. Much like our “best” all by yourself. Audrey Manning says she is classes of yesterday. Then she presents a more chal- inspired by student growth: lenging problem: pentagons. “It’s probably what keeps me by Karen Prager Manning: I would like you to take teaching. Coming into the classroom,

28 13 I NTERVIEW

Jim Slemp Principal Roosevelt Middle School

im Slemp became a middle school principal by Jcareful design. After 21 years as an educator— former elementary, middle, high school teacher, university professor, educational consultant, as well as principal—Slemp decided to devote his career to middle level education, middle school kids, and Roosevelt Middle School. In the spring of 1988, when Slemp came to Roosevelt, he sought to build a collaborative model of education. The goal seemed natural since Slemp teaches “Team Building” and “Middle School Curriculum” at the University of Oregon.

see myself as a time: whether you pay people for time, buy “Ichange facilitator, them food, or move to a different setting. capitalizing on peo- Anyone who uses resources as an excuse ple’s strength, focusing isn’t playing fair. Once you take initiatives on vision, not prob- with few resources, other things fall into lems. The key for me place, and you gain access to more is to involve people in resources. building trust and rela- What conditions are needed to bring that tionships. Community professional community to focus on an is real important to issue? me—so is involving parents and kids. People see that I have You need someone, or some group, to take trust and confidence that they will come up the responsibility to do just that. Get peo- with the best decision.” ple together—which is energizing in and of itself—and then ask the question: What do Can you tell me what resources are need- we want to do for kids? It’s keeping goal- ed to develop a professional community? focussed, and facilitating the processes. I believe that in any situation the resources Sort of greasing the wheels to help those are there and available. It’s just a matter of things happen. a whole lot of hard work, energy, scroung- From the principal’s position, can you ing, begging, and cajoling to make them cite specific restructuring efforts that accessible for schools. Our first year was improve instruction? extremely low budget. We got a whole group together, they paid for their pizza From my perspective, the biggest thing dinner, we supplied the pop, went to my we’ve done is throw out all the old curricu- home, and used a parent from the commu- lum guides. We are teaching in depth, try- nity as facilitator and leader. ing to help kids understand and see con- nectedness among curriculum. That makes It’s just a matter a figuring out different a big difference. ways to find time. It all comes down to

14 29 The time structure makes a big differ- And how do you keep moving in the When we went to a program of math ence pedagogically. When you have direction you envision? three days a week, some parents just 70 minutes with 11, 12, 13, 14 year Through keeping that vision in front freaked. “My child is never going to old kids, you have to change the way of people. I hand it out constantly, learn math! They’re never going to you teach. If you are teaching for 40 talk about it constantly, keep referring college!” So we said we’d check it out. minutes, if that bell rings, you say, back to it in everything I write. Every Our first two years—and we stopped “Oh I’ll cut it there.” It’s possible to time we get groups of people together after that—we went further in the lecture for 40 minutes by force of will, I’ll hand it out again. Talk to parents curriculum than ever before, and stan- but you can’t really get into any pro- about it. Talk to kids about it. And dardized test scores went up 4% the jects or labs, because that takes time. keep asking the question: Is this going first year, 5% the second year. That When you provide that time, old to help us move in that direction? took the wind out of their sails. forms of instruction don’t work; it Any other supports? Do you have a message to policy- facilitates new forms of instruction. So makers in this issue report? you force changes in instruction by You provide an atmosphere where it is changing the structures. okay to be a risk-taker. Most teachers I think we’ve veered far too much in want to do a good job because they this country towards top-down admin- What supports do teachers need for istration. I think we get too tied up in authentic instruction? have a passion for what they are doing. A principal has to make sure nobody is education into the “you’ve-got-to-do- I think you start with a vision and slapped on the wrist if they are trying it-this-way” sort of thing. We are at a goals, and then support people to get something new. You have to set up an point where we need to break out of there. You need all parts of the com- atmosphere where messing up, having those old structures. If you take a risk munity to join in that process of set- things not as good for a while is fine, to and it’s wrong, say “Oh I made a mis- ting the vision, and ask: What is the be expected, supported, and celebrated. take, this isn’t working, but we tried.” best we can imagine for kids in this And what happens is that things turn Rather than building in hoops before community? out better than you thought. you can take the risk, because people will say: Why do it? When you get that vision, and devel- The other is—and it’s kind of con- op consensus around it, you ask: What nected—rewarding people who are Of course, you need staff development kinds of things are we now going to trying new things either verbally or and, on the front end, you have to be begin to do to get there? And then positive notes. research-based. You’ve got to have support that. As an administrator people educated to a point where that there is never enough time. So you Then, just encouraging a thoughtful is a given. say, “What kinds of activities are we environment. That is helping us become a learning community where Can you furnish an example when going to do to help us to move in that you provided knowledge and the kind of direction?” And then if some- we engage each other in new ideas. And that is the norm and not the group came up with a decision you thing isn’t going to help us move in wanted all along? that direction, then you just can’t do exception. it. You just say, “No, I’m sorry.” What accountability is built into this Well, tracking, is a good example. school? Personally I am very much opposed to When you talk about in-depth learn- tracking in schools. I think it is racist, ing, throwing out the curriculum Primarily because we have an open sexist, demeaning to people. So a moral guides, how do you know it is hap- system of choice, there’s a kind of an piece comes into play. It’s not research- pening in every class? overriding accountability system. For based, and not good academics. When I One, I’m in and out of classes a lot. teacher accountability, we have stu- came here there was tracking. I would And I give people lots of feedback. dents chose classes. They choose who ask the kids where they were and the Though it’s very rare that I do formal they study from and when. If nobody first kind of thing they would say is, observations. wants your class then you are doing “I’m a level 13.” So I started inundating something wrong. About 75% get The other thing is just taking away all people with research and information their first choices, because we don’t about tracking, and I talked about it. the barriers. I don’t think anybody in have any, or very few, loser classes. our building has any concern about Eventually people decided, “Well this state guidelines. My job is to facilitate The other piece is that if we were isn’t very good.” learning in this community, and I’ll doing awful on standardized test scores I am a real strong believer in process. get rid of any outside pressure that —I am opposed to those, but I think Too often in education we implement takes away from what we think best they are a marker—then we would change without getting everybody on meets the needs of our kids. I’ll take have a problem. Our kids happen to board. So changes are not lasting. all the heat. score very highly. Anybody can implement a change that lasts for two or three years by

30 15 force of will. But if change is to be sys- As the only school in Oregon to win out the school in many ways. Too many temic and meaningful then it takes the competitive “2020 Grant” for four times we resort to a power play, laying everybody to be involved. That does not years, you’ve had $1,000 per teacher, things on kids and telling them, “You mean I sit back and wait; that’s the per year to help chart your school Gotta!” That sets a climate. It builds a facilitator piece. If you are a leader, you improvement course. How did that different climate to say, “We trust you.” have to help people reach agreements money affect instruction? The second thing is helping teachers be and make sure things follow through. Essentially it’s gone for four different free enough not to know all the answers, Every teacher has to be on a committee. goals, all called Connections. and to empower kids to begin to develop Do you think it divides teachers’ energy “Connections with the Curriculum” their own ideas, to be in charge of some of to have to be on a school improvement provided time to develop an integrated their learning. It moves the teacher into a committee as well as work on curricu- curriculum. “Time to make facilitator role. And it’s real, real tough to lum for their classroom? Connections” looked at time in differ- have the freedom to let that happen. No, I think that’s part of the job, part ent ways. Our new block schedule pro- How do middle school students figure of the new roles and relationships for vided release time for teachers. into school improvement? “Connections with Community” looked teachers. They have to become more of Formally, informally. I spend a lot of a facilitator, more involved in leadership at teacher as facilitator, new relation- ships for teachers with the community, time just talking to the kids. One, I am positions. Now when you spread leader- out in the halls a lot. Two, I take kids to ship among everybody, you create a and parent involvement in decision making. It also provided our whole ser- lunch every week, 8-10 kids. I have dif- much higher degree of ownership and ferent advisory groups. If there is any involvement. People begin to see that vice-learning segment which involves community agencies. “Connections with chance I can get I’ll listen to kids to system-wide changes effect what hap- have a good sense of what is going on. I pens in the classroom. Technology” integrates technology with everything else we’re doing. We’re mov- think some of that relationship-building People in our building work very, very ing in that direction, but we’re not with kids helps us facilitate what needs hard. But there is a positive reward that I where we should be. to happen. And the community knows think, overall, is much more valuable that I listen to kids. than a little bit of more free time. And I How do you build a community of think produces less stress in the long run. inquiry among students? By allowing students freedom through-

Issue Report No. 4 Spring 1993 STANDARDS OF AUTHENTIC INSTRUCTION

CENTER ON ORGANIZATION AND Nonprofit Organization RESTRUCTURING OF SCHOOLS US Postage School of Education PAID Wisconsin Center for Education Research Madison, Wisconsin University of Wisconsin–Madison 1025 W. Johnson Street Permit No. 1622 Madison, WI 53706

ADDRESS CORRECTION REQUESTED

printed on recycled paper

31 CENTER MISSION he Center on Organization and TRestructuring of Schools studies how organizational features of schools can be changed to increase the intellectual and social competence of students. The five-year pro- gram of research focuses on restructuring in four areas: the experiences of students in school; the professional life of teachers; the governance, management and leadership of schools; and the coordination of community resources to better serve educationally dis- advantaged students. Issues in Restructuring Schools Through syntheses of previous research, analyses of existing data, and new empirical is prepared by Karen Prager and published studies of education reform, the Center focus- twice a year at the Center on Organization es on six critical issues for elementary, middle and Restructuring of Schools (Grant No. and high schools: How can schooling nurture R117Q000015-93), supported by the U.S. authentic forms of student achievement? How Department of Education, Office of Educa- can schooling enhance educational equity? tional Research and Improvement, and by the How can decentralization and local empower- Wisconsin Center for Education Research, ment be constructively developed? How can schools be transformed into communities of School of Education, University of Wisconsin- learning? How can change be approached Madison. The opinions expressed herein are through thoughtful dialogue and support those of the authors and do not necessarily rather than coercion and regulation? How can reflect the views of the supporting agencies. the focus on student outcomes be shaped to This publication is available free on request. serve these five principles?

Director: Fred M. Newmann C ENTER PUBLICATIONS Associate Director: Gary Wehlage n the fall and spring of each year, the Dissemination Coordinator: Karen Prager ICenter publishes a newsletter, Issues in Administrative Assistant: Diane Randall Restructuring Schools, which offers analy- Graphic Designer: Rhonda Dix ses of substantive issues. In addition, three Briefs targeted to special audiences will be offered yearly, and our 1993 Bibliography, on School Restructuring currently available, will be updated each year. Occasional papers will be available at cost. To be placed on the mailing list, please contact: Karen Prager, Dissemination Coordinator, Center on Organization and Restructuring of Schools, University of Wisconsin, 1025 W. Johnson Street, Madison, WI 53706. Telephone: (608) 263-7575.

32 17 Personal Best-New Yorker Top athletes and singers have coaches. Should you? by Atul Gawande October 3, 2011

No matter how well trained people are, few can sustain their best performance on their own. That’s where coaching comes in.

I’ve been a surgeon for eight years. For the past couple of them, my performance in the operating room has reached a plateau. I’d like to think it’s a good thing—I’ve arrived at my professional peak. But mainly it seems as if I’ve just stopped getting better.

During the first two or three years in practice, your skills seem to improve almost daily. It’s not about hand-eye coördination—you have that down halfway through your residency. As one of my professors once explained, doing surgery is no more physically difficult than writing in cursive. Surgical mastery is about familiarity and judgment. You learn the problems that can occur during a particular procedure or with a particular condition, and you learn how to either prevent or respond to those problems.

Say you’ve got a patient who needs surgery for appendicitis. These days, surgeons will typically do a laparoscopic appendectomy. You slide a small camera—a laparoscope—into the abdomen through a quarter-inch incision near the belly button, insert a long grasper through an incision beneath the waistline, and push a device for stapling and cutting through an incision in the left lower abdomen. Use the grasper to pick up the finger-size appendix, fire the stapler across its base and across the vessels feeding it, drop the severed organ into a plastic bag, and pull it out. Close up, and you’re done. That’s how you like it to go, anyway. But often it doesn’t.

33 Even before you start, you need to make some judgments. Unusual anatomy, severe obesity, or internal scars from previous abdominal surgery could make it difficult to get the camera in safely; you don’t want to poke it into a loop of intestine. You have to decide which camera- insertion method to use—there’s a range of options—or whether to abandon the high-tech approach and do the operation the traditional way, with a wide-open incision that lets you see everything directly. If you do get your camera and instruments inside, you may have trouble grasping the appendix. Infection turns it into a fat, bloody, inflamed worm that sticks to everything around it—bowel, blood vessels, an ovary, the pelvic sidewall—and to free it you have to choose from a variety of tools and techniques. You can use a long cotton-tipped instrument to try to push the surrounding attachments away. You can use electrocautery, a hook, a pair of scissors, a sharp-tip dissector, a blunt-tip dissector, a right-angle dissector, or a suction device. You can adjust the operating table so that the patient’s head is down and his feet are up, allowing gravity to pull the viscera in the right direction. Or you can just grab whatever part of the appendix is visible and pull really hard.

Once you have the little organ in view, you may find that appendicitis was the wrong diagnosis. It might be a tumor of the appendix, Crohn’s disease, or an ovarian condition that happened to have inflamed the nearby appendix. Then you’d have to decide whether you need additional equipment or personnel—maybe it’s time to enlist another surgeon.

Over time, you learn how to head off problems, and, when you can’t, you arrive at solutions with less fumbling and more assurance. After eight years, I’ve performed more than two thousand operations. Three-quarters have involved my specialty, endocrine surgery—surgery for endocrine organs such as the thyroid, the parathyroid, and the adrenal glands. The rest have involved everything from simple biopsies to colon cancer. For my specialized cases, I’ve come to know most of the serious difficulties that could arise, and have worked out solutions. For the others, I’ve gained confidence in my ability to handle a wide range of situations, and to improvise when necessary.

34 As I went along, I compared my results against national data, and I began beating the averages. My rates of complications moved steadily lower and lower. And then, a couple of years ago, they didn’t. It started to seem that the only direction things could go from here was the wrong one.

Maybe this is what happens when you turn forty-five. Surgery is, at least, a relatively late- peaking career. It’s not like mathematics or baseball or pop music, where your best work is often behind you by the time you’re thirty. Jobs that involve the complexities of people or nature seem to take the longest to master: the average age at which S. & P. 500 chief executive officers are hired is fifty-two, and the age of maximum productivity for geologists, one study estimated, is around fifty-four. Surgeons apparently fall somewhere between the extremes, requiring both physical stamina and the judgment that comes with experience. Apparently, I’d arrived at that middle point.

It wouldn’t have been the first time I’d hit a plateau. I grew up in Ohio, and when I was in high school I hoped to become a serious tennis player. But I peaked at seventeen. That was the year that Danny Trevas and I climbed to the top tier for doubles in the Ohio Valley. I qualified to play singles in a couple of national tournaments, only to be smothered in the first round both times. The kids at that level were playing a different game than I was. At Stanford, where I went to college, the tennis team ranked No. 1 in the nation, and I had no chance of being picked. That meant spending the past twenty-five years trying to slow the steady decline of my game.

I still love getting out on the court on a warm summer day, swinging a racquet strung to fifty-six pounds of tension at a two-ounce felt-covered sphere, and trying for those increasingly elusive moments when my racquet feels like an extension of my arm, and my legs are putting me exactly where the ball is going to be. But I came to accept that I’d never be remotely as good as I was when I was seventeen. In the hope of not losing my game altogether, I play when I can. I often bring my racquet on trips, for instance, and look for time to squeeze in a match.

ILLUSTRATION: Barry Blitt

35 Redefining College Readiness

David T. Conley

Prepared for the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, March 2007

720 E. th Ave., Suite 20 local –– epiconline.org Eugene, OR 70 toll free 77–7–227 [email protected] 36 37 Table of Contents

Introduction. 5

An Operational Definition of College Readiness. 5 Uses of the Expanded Conception of College Readiness. 6 How College Is Different from High School . 6

Current Means to Determine College Readiness . 8

Course Titles and Grade Point Averages. 8 Tests ...... 9 Performance in College Courses . 10

Components in a Comprehensive Definition of College Readiness . 12

Key Cognitive Strategies . 12 Academic Knowledge and Skills . 14 Academic Behaviors. 16 Contextual Skills and Awareness ...... 17

A Definition of College Readiness. 18

General Characteristics. 18 Example Performances. 19

Possible Ways to Measure the Dimensions of this Definition . 20

Key Cognitive Strategies Measurement...... 20 Key Content Knowledge Measurement . 20 Academic Behaviors Measurement. 21 Contextual Skills and Awareness Measurement . 21 Integrating the Four Sources. 22

Implications of the Definition. 23

Gauging College Prep Programs . 23 Gauging Effects in College . 23

What Schools and Students Can Do to Foster College Readiness . 25

Create a Culture Focused on Intellectual Development . 25 Specify Core Knowledge and Skills. 26 Provide Necessary Supports to Students ...... 26 Provide Necessary Supports to Teachers . 27

What Students Can Do to Develop Their College Readiness. 28

References . 30

To cite this report: Conley, D. T. (2007). Redefining college readiness. Eugene, OR: Educational Policy Improvement Center.

© 2007 David T. Conley

38 39 Introduction

The purpose of this paper is to provide an Finally, an increasing number of studies operational definition of college readiness have highlighted the importance of the that differs from current representations of contextual knowledge that a student must this concept primarily in its scope. The paper possess to be ready for college. These suggests that, while much has been learned studies describe the need for students to about this phenomenon, particularly during understand how to apply to college, how to the past 20 years, few systematic attempts manage financial aid issues, and, perhaps have been made to integrate the various most importantly, how to adjust to college aspects or components of college readiness once they arrive. The transition to college has that have been investigated in some depth a component of culture shock for students, during this period of time. As a result, college one that is more severe for students from readiness continues to be defined primarily some communities than others. Information in terms of high school courses taken and about the culture of college helps students grades received along with scores on national understand how to interact with professors and tests as its primary metrics. peers in college and how to navigate college as a social system and learning environment. Recent research has shed light on several key elements of college success. Most important for this paper is the realization that a range of An Operational cognitive and metacognitive capabilities, often Definition of College Readiness described as “key cognitive strategies,” have been consistently and emphatically identified College readiness can be defined by those who teach entry-level college courses operationally as the level of preparation a as being as important or more important than student needs in order to enroll and succeed— any specific content knowledge taught in high without remediation—in a credit-bearing school. Examples of key key cognitive strategies general education course at a postsecondary include analysis, interpretation, precision and institution that offers a baccalaureate degree accuracy, problem solving, and reasoning. or transfer to a baccalaureate program. “Succeed” is defined as completing entry- Close behind in importance is knowledge level courses at a level of understanding and of specific types of content knowledge. Several proficiency that makes it possible for the studies have led to college readiness standards student to consider taking the next course in that specify key content knowledge associated the sequence or the next level of course in with college success. Writing may be by far the the subject area. This conception is calibrated single academic skill most closely associated against what our recent research has come to with college success, but the “big ideas” of define as “best practices” entry-level courses each content area are also very important as opposed to the stereotypical freshman building blocks. course (Conley, Aspengren, Gallagher, & Nies, 2006a, 2006b; Conley, Aspengren, Stout, & Similarly important are the attitudes and Veach, 2006c). If students are prepared to behavioral attributes that students who succeed succeed in best practices courses, they will in college must demonstrate. Among these are be able to cope with the full range of college study skills, time management, awareness of courses they are likely to encounter. one’s performance, persistence, and the ability to utilize study groups. These are both specific The college-ready student envisioned by skills and more general attitudes, but all of this definition is able to understand what is them require high degrees of self-awareness expected in a college course, can cope with the and intentionality on the part of students as content knowledge that is presented, and can they enter college. take away from the course the key intellectual

Redefining College Readiness  40 lessons and dispositions the course was large children. Almost all of the rules of the designed to convey and develop. In addition, game that students have so carefully learned the student is prepared to get the most out and mastered over the preceding 13 years of of the college experience by understanding schooling are either discarded or modified the culture and structure of postsecondary drastically. The pupil-teacher relationship education and the ways of knowing and changes dramatically as do expectations for intellectual norms of this academic and engagement, independent work, motivation, social environment. The student has both the and intellectual development. All of this mindset and disposition necessary to enable occurs at a time when many young people this to happen. are experiencing significant independence from family and from the role of child for the first time. No wonder that the transition from Uses of the Expanded Conception high school to college is one of the most of College Readiness difficult that many people experience during a lifetime. This definition can facilitate several important actions. First and foremost, it can Because college is truly different be used to judge the current system widely in from high school, college readiness is place to gauge college readiness. The paper will fundamentally different than high school conclude that although measures exist currently competence. Detailed analyses of college or are in the process of being developed to courses reveal that although a college course generate high quality information in all of the may have the same name as a high school component areas of the definition, no system course, college instructors pace their courses exists or is being developed to integrate the more rapidly, emphasize different aspects information and, more importantly, shape high of material taught, and have very different school preparation programs so that they do a goals for their courses than do high school better and more intentional job of developing instructors (Conley et al., 2006c). Students student capabilities in all of these areas. fresh out of high school may think a college course is very much like a similarly named The pursuit of such a goal should lead to the high school class taken previously only to consideration of new or refined measures and find out that expectations are fundamentally metrics to gauge college readiness with greater different. The college instructor is more precision and across a wider range of variables likely to emphasize a series of key thinking and learning contexts and to provide better skills that students, for the most part, do information to high school students about not develop extensively in high school. They their college readiness at key points in high expect students to make inferences, interpret school. Ideally and in addition, the definition results, analyze conflicting explanations can also be used as a conceptual framework to of phenomena, support arguments with design observational tools to assess the degree evidence, solve complex problems that have to which any particular high school program of no obvious answer, reach conclusions, offer instruction contains all the necessary elements explanations, conduct research, engage in to prepare students for college. In short, a more the give-and-take of ideas, and generally robust, inclusive definition of college readiness think deeply about what they are being can help shape student behaviors and high taught (National Research Council, 2002). school practices in ways that lead to more students entering college ready to succeed. Research findings describe college courses that require students to read eight to ten How College Is books in the same time that a high school class requires only one or two (Standards for Success, Different from High School 2003). In these college classes, students write College is different from high school in multiple papers in short periods of time. These many important ways, some obvious, some papers must be well reasoned, well organized, not so obvious. College is the first place where and well documented with evidence from we expect young people to be adults, not credible sources (National Survey of Student

 Redefining College Readiness 41 Engagement, 2003, 2004, 2006). By contrast, faculty is the first-term freshman who is high school students may write one or two failing the course, shows up at office hours research papers, at the most, during high near the end of the term, and requests “extra school, and may take weeks or months to do so. credit” in order to be able to pass. College Increasingly, college courses in all subject areas instructors are often mystified by such require well developed writing skills, research requests. The students are equally mystified by capabilities, and what have been commonly the instructor reaction, since this strategy has described as thinking skills. worked very well for the student throughout high school. In other words, the cultural According to the National Survey of and social expectations about learning and Student Engagement (2006) the vast majority performance that students encounter tend to of first-year college students are actively be vastly different as well. engaged in small groups and are expected to work with others inside and outside class In short, the differences in expectations on complex problems and projects. They between high school and college are manifold are then expected to make presentations and significant. Students must be prepared to and to explain what they have learned. In use quite a different array of learning strategies these courses, students are expected to and coping skills to be successful in college be independent, self-reliant learners who than those developed and honed in high recognize when they are having problems school. Current measures of college readiness and know when and how to seek help from do not necessarily capture well these many professors, students, or other sources. dimensions of readiness. At the same time, college faculty An important question to ask, based on consistently report that freshman students this assessment of the nature of college, need to be spending nearly twice the time is: How well do current measures gauge they indicate spending currently to prepare for student readiness along these and other class (National Survey of Student Engagement, related important dimensions necessary for 2006). These students do not enter college with college success? The next section describes a work ethic that prepares them for instructor the current means of determining college expectations or course requirements. College readiness and some of the limitations of those freshmen who are most successful are those approaches. This is followed by a section who come prepared to work at the levels that first defines a more comprehensive faculty members expect. Those who do not are notion of what it means to be college-ready much less likely to progress beyond entry-level and then details each of its facets. Next, the courses, as witnessed by the high failure rates paper presents briefly some ways in which

“The nature and quality of the courses students take are ultimately what matters and few real measures of course quality exist currently.”

in these courses and the significant proportion these facets might be measured and how of college students who drop out during the a more integrated approach to measuring freshman year. college readiness might benefit students. Finally, the paper considers the changes Finally, the relationship between teacher necessary from high schools, colleges, and and student can be much different than in students for this new approach to be put high school. An oft-cited example by college into practice.

Redefining College Readiness  42 Current Means to Determine College Readiness

While it is beyond the scope of this paper to curriculum is the greatest pre-collegiate present a full critique of current conceptions and indicator of bachelor’s degree completion, constructions of college readiness, it is worthwhile and the impact is even greater for black to consider briefly some of the limitations of the and Hispanic students than white students. current key measures, most notably among them This, however, leads toward a course title course titles, grade-point averages, and tests, as based definition of college readiness. well as a related measure, performance in entry- Simply increasing the prescribed courses level general education courses subsequent students take may not be sufficient, to admission. This brief overview is presented particularly for students who attend high to accentuate the need for a more robust and schools with low academic standards and comprehensive definition of college readiness, expectations. The nature and quality of one that leads to new tools, methods, and indices the courses students take are ultimately that will help students understand how ready what matters (ACT, 2005b), and few real for college they are and will help high schools measures of course quality exist currently. make systematic improvements to increase the A key necessary component that could number of college-ready students who graduate address issues of course quality would be a each year. Each of the major measures and their set of criteria that specify the performances limitations is discussed briefly in turn. necessary to receive a high school diploma. Since the 1980s, states have centered their reform efforts around the development of Course Titles and statewide standards and assessments. Yet Grade Point Averages most of these standards setting activities end at the 10th grade. Few states have The most common approach is to define undertaken to define 12th grade high school college readiness in terms of high school course standards and the curriculum necessary to taking patterns, including the titles, perceived attain those standards. challenge level, and the number of units required for graduation, combined with the While course requirements for the high grades students receive in those courses. What school diploma have increased in a number this widely held definition assumes or presumes of states, they have yet to produce significant is that the number of courses that high school improvements in student performance in students take, and the units and names assigned college (Achieve, 2004). For instance, since 1987 to them, are accurate, comprehensive proxies many states have increased their mathematics for college-level success (Callan, Finney, Kirst, and science requirements (National Science Usdan, & Venezia, 2006). Generally, these course Board, 2004), but measures of college titles must be approved by college admissions graduation have not shown increases (ACT, offices, in an uneasy but highly choreographed 2002, 2005a; Callan et al., 2006), nor have NAEP interplay between high schools and colleges. The scores improved significantly (National Center net effect is to produce course titles that appear for Educational Statistics, 2007). This lack of standardized on transcripts, but that promote improved college success rates, even in the a lack of “alignment between what is required face of increasingly demanding high school to get into college vs. what’s needed to stay in graduation requirements, demonstrates how college and succeed as an adult.” (Wagner, 2006) difficult it will be to achieve greater college success by simply having students take more Adelman (2006) employed transcript prescribed courses without understanding analysis to reach the conclusion that what is being learned in those courses. completing a challenging high school

 Redefining College Readiness 43 In fact, the mean grade point average of tests define college readiness by establishing high school students has steadily increased even benchmarks empirically or through “cut scores.” as measures of college success have fluctuated For example, ACT has defined college readiness or worsened (Woodruff, 2004). A study of high by establishing College Readiness Benchmarks school transcripts undertaken by ACT researchers representing the minimum ACT test scores (Ziomek & Svec, 1995) found compelling evidence required for students to have a high probability of grade inflation. More recently, data from of success in corresponding credit-bearing first- transcript analyses performed as a component of year college courses. The Benchmarks reflect the National Assessment of Educational Progress the ACT scores students need to earn to have (NAEP) determined that 2005 high school at least a 75% or greater chance of obtaining a graduates had an overall grade point average of course grade of “C” or better (ACT, 2005a). This 2.98. This represented a .30 GPA increase, from is not a direct measure of necessary content 2.68 in 1990 (Ziomek & Svec, 1995). In other words, knowledge and thinking skills, but a gauge of a “B” average in high school now may reflect probability. knowledge and skills equivalent to something more like a “C” average thirty years ago. This is All states have adopted some form of particularly problematic because many colleges high school examination in English, math have raised their GPA requirements over the and science for a variety of reasons including same period of time (Breland et al., 2000). requirements in the federal No Child Left Behind Act. Research conducted by Standards Rather than leading to an improvement for Success, published in the 2003 report in student readiness for college, this appears Mixed Messages (Conley, 2003), found that simply to have resulted in the compression of most state standards-based high school tests grades at the upper end of the scale. This has were not well aligned with postsecondary led to any number of attempts to compensate learning. These tests are perhaps good for the compression, primarily through the measures of basic academic skills, but not weighting of particular courses. The UC system, necessarily of the knowledge and capabilities for example, weights Advanced Placement® needed for college success. (AP®) and honors courses, so that many UC applicants now demonstrate GPAs that exceed As a result, the scores students receive 4.0. Individual high schools adopt their own on state tests may not be good indicators of weighting criteria, leading to myriad ways to college readiness, but students may believe compute a grade point average. According to that passage of the state test is just such Hawkins & Clinedinst (2006) many colleges are an indicator. Recent data from the National weighting high school GPAs to combat this Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) problem. It’s not just the UC system that gives suggest a fundamental disconnect between higher weight to college prep courses; 49% of trends and scores on state tests and on NAEP colleges and universities are doing it. Many less tests, which has triggered a federal study of selective colleges and universities are choosing state definitions of “proficiency” (Cavanagh, this weighting strategy over increasing GPA 2006). When performance on state tests is requirements. Breland et al. (2000) found that compared to NAEP performance, significant GPA requirements have increased more in differences exist from state to state, and private than public colleges over the last 10 students can show improvement on state years, which accounts for most of the effect tests and not corresponding improvement they saw in increased GPA requirements in on NAEP. In other words, it is very difficult to higher education institutions. know what successful performance on a state test really means. Tests This creates serious problems when high schools focus on getting students to pass Beyond using high school course titles to state tests. When students do finally pass the define college readiness, a more direct approach state exam, their program of study may be is to test a set of knowledge that students hopelessly out of sequence with what it takes are presumed to need to know to succeed to be college eligible. One possible means to in college entry-level courses. Admissions help address this disconnect would be second-

Redefining College Readiness  44 generation assessment systems that connect indicate that 40% of admitted and enrolled high school tests with outcomes beyond high students take at least one remedial course (National school (Conley, 2006) and, in the process, Center for Education Statistics, 2004), reducing provide students with solid information on dramatically their probability of graduating and how ready they were and what they needed costing up to an estimated $1 billion per year (ACT, to do to be college-ready based on their state 2005b). The California State University system, high school exam score. which draws its students from the top third of high school graduates in the state and which tracks Colleges also rely on Advanced Placement remediation rates more precisely, finds that 46% of test scores as a potential measure of college all first-year students require remedial education readiness because these courses are one of the in both English and mathematics (Ali & Jenkins, few places in the high school curriculum where 2002). The rates at community colleges are likely some assumptions might be made about what much higher, leading to multi-tier remediation a student who takes a class has learned. This is programs at some institutions where student skill because each AP course has a set of curricular levels are so low they must take more than one and resource requirements and, often more remedial course in a subject area before reaching a importantly, because many students take the credit-bearing course. corresponding AP exams after they take the course. This causes teachers to align course content with Having to enroll in remedial courses the curricular and exam specifications. increases the time it takes students to complete their degrees and is associated with a decrease Even AP courses are being questioned by in the likelihood they will graduate (Adelman, some colleges and universities. Although the 1999; National Center for Education Statistics, reasons why colleges question AP are complex, 2004). Nationally, only 17% of those students one contributing issue is that some high schools who must take a remedial reading class receive have adopted the practice of offering an AP a bachelor’s degree or higher; of those taking course in which none of the students take the two remedial classes (other than reading), only AP exam, while others have taken to posting AP 20% receive such a degree or higher (National courses to student transcripts in subject areas Center for Education Statistics, 2004). for which no AP exam, and therefore, no true AP course exists. These issues with AP courses Children from low-income families are demonstrate how even an externally-referenced particularly vulnerable to a system that does program such as AP can be co-opted to serve the not send clear signals to students on how purpose of inflating the academic credentials ready they are for college. They are the most of students without necessarily contributing to dependent on the schools to prepare them the students’ college readiness. properly for college success because they are often the first in their families to attend college. These families can only gauge how ready for Performance in College Courses college success their children are based on An obvious but frequently overlooked fact the measures used by the schools. They are is that the final arbiter of college readiness among the most likely to end up in remedial is student performance in college courses. education. Students who must enroll in remedial courses Only 60% of these youth can expect to or who fail entry-level courses find it much graduate from high school, only one in three will more difficult to graduate from college. enroll in college, and only one in seven will earn a bachelor’s degree (Bedsworth, Colby, & Doctor, Remedial Education 2006; Conley, 2005). Those students who do succeed in earning a college degree are taking The high proportion of students who are longer to do so now than 20 years ago (ACT, 2002). identified as needing remedial or developmental These figures suggest a circuitous path to attaining education is frequently cited as evidence of the a degree, and that many, perhaps most, of those limitations of current admissions measures. who go on to college are not fully prepared for While the precise number of students requiring what will be expected of them, particularly in the remediation is difficult to ascertain, federal statistics area of how colleges operate (Adelman, 1999;

 Redefining College Readiness 45 “While the precise number of students requiring remediation is difficult to ascertain, federal statistics indicate that 40% of admitted and enrolled students take at least one remedial course, reducing dramatically their probability of graduating and costing up to an estimated $1 billion per year.”

Horn, 2004; Venezia, Kirst, & Antonio, 2004). Just some of these courses approach 50 percent, and as important, this suggests that the high school while some argue this is the fault of poor college program of preparation is not adequately geared teaching, others argue that this failure rate can toward expecting these students to be prepared be explained equally by poor study habits, a for college admission or success. These students lack of understanding of the expectations of are subjected to considerably lower expectations college instructors, and deficiencies in content and demands in courses with titles that satisfy the knowledge and thinking skills. needs of college admissions offices but do little to align with the actual content knowledge and Defining what it takes to succeed in these intellectual skill levels freshman college students entry-level courses is a key component in need to survive in the general education courses determining what it means to be college- that they normally take first (Achieve, 2004; ready. “College readiness standards” can send Adelman, 1999). clearer messages to high schools regarding course content and to states about their high Remediation statistics reveal the tip of school level standards and assessments. These the iceberg. Many institutions allow students standards are not geared to what should or to choose not to take remedial courses even does occur in high schools as much as to what if the student is identified as needing such a will be expected of students in college. course. Placement methods vary tremendously from institution to institution and are often No less than a half-dozen such sets of rudimentary in nature, identifying only those standards exist currently at the national and students with the most serious deficiencies. state levels. They largely concur on what These factors in combination result in many students need to know and be able to do to be students, particularly students from low- ready for college. All are focused expectations income families and firstgeneration college attendant with entry-level college courses. attendees, struggling during the first year The Standards for Success project, sponsored of college, resulting for many students in by the Association of American Universities, an increase in time-to-degree-completion. developed a comprehensive set of readiness According to federal statistics, just over half of standards in six subject areas (Conley, 2003a). students seeking bachelor’s degrees beginning These statements outline the knowledge, skill, in 1995-96 had attained that degree from that and key cognitive strategies necessary for success institution six years later (National Center for in research universities. Washington, D.C.-based Education Statistics, 2003). Achieve, Inc., sponsored by state governors, organized the American Diploma Project. Its goal General Education was to develop standards that reflected both college and work readiness in mathematics and Student performance in general education English (Achieve, 2004). Both the College Board courses has long been an issue in postsecondary and ACT have published their own versions education, where these courses come to serve as of college readiness standards and criteria. In the real arbiter of admission. These “gateway” addition, several states, most notable among courses restrict access to majors and also tend them Washington state, have published or are in to “weed out” students who are incapable of the process of developing sets of college readiness succeeding in them. When students struggle standards or “definitions” that connect to state in entry-level courses, it extends their time to high school academic standards (Transition Math degree completion, a hidden cost of inadequate Project, 2005). or inappropriate preparation. Failure rates in

Redefining College Readiness  46 Components in a Comprehensive Definition of College Readiness

College readiness is a multi-faceted What the model argues for is a more concept comprising numerous variables that comprehensive look at what it means to be include factors both internal and external to college-ready, a perspective that emphasizes the school environment. In order to provide the interconnectedness of all of the facets a functional representation of the key facets contained in the model. This is the key point of college readiness, the model presented of this definition, that all facets of college below organizes the key areas necessary readiness must be identified and eventually for college readiness into four concentric measured if more students are to be made levels. These four areas of college readiness college-ready. knowledge and skills emerge from a review of the literature and are those that can be most directly influenced by schools. Key Cognitive Strategies In practice, these various facets are not The success of a well-prepared college mutually exclusive or perfectly nested as student is built upon a foundation of key key portrayed in the model. They interact with cognitive strategies that enable students to one another extensively. For example, a lack of learn content from a range of disciplines. college knowledge often affects the decisions Unfortunately, the development of key key students make regarding the specific content cognitive strategies in high school is often knowledge they choose to study and master. overshadowed by an instructional focus on Or a lack of attention to academic behaviors is de-contextualized content and facts necessary one of the most frequent causes of problems to pass exit examinations or simply to keep for first-year students, whether they possess students busy and classrooms quiet. the necessary content knowledge and key For the most part, state high-stakes cognitive strategies. standardized tests require students to recall or recognize fragmented and isolated Figure 1: Facets of College Readiness bits of information. Those that do contain performance tasks are severely limited in the time the tasks can take and their breadth or depth. The tests rarely require students to apply their learning and almost never require students to exhibit proficiency in higher forms of cognition (Marzano, Pickering, & McTighe, 1993). Several studies of college faculty members nationwide, regardless of the selectivity of the university, expressed near-universal agreement that most students arrive unprepared for the intellectual demands and expectations of postsecondary (Conley, 2003a). For example, one study found that faculty reported that the primary areas in which first-year students needed further development were critical thinking and problem solving (Lundell, Higbee, Hipp, & Copeland, 2004).

 Redefining College Readiness 47 The term “key cognitive strategies” is presented or conclusion that is reached, was selected for this model to describe the but asks why things are so. intelligent behaviors necessary for college readiness and to emphasize that these Analysis: The student identifies and evaluates behaviors need to be developed over a period data, material, and sources for quality of of time such that they become ways of thinking, content, validity, credibility, and relevance. habits in how intellectual activities are pursued. The student compares and contrasts sources In other words, key cognitive strategies are and findings and generates summaries and patterns of intellectual behavior that lead to explanations of source materials. the development of cognitive strategies and Reasoning, argumentation, proof: The student capabilities necessary for college-level work. constructs well-reasoned arguments or The term key cognitive strategies invokes a proofs to explain phenomena or issues; more disciplined approach to thinking than utilizes recognized forms of reasoning to terms such as “dispositions” or “thinking construct an argument and defend a point skills.” The term indicates intentional and of view or conclusion; accepts critiques of practiced behaviors that become a habitual or challenges to assertions; and addresses way of working toward more thoughtful and critiques and challenges by providing intelligent action (Costa & Kallick, 2000). a logical explanation or refutation, or

“Understanding and mastering key content knowledge is achieved through the exercise of broader cognitive skills embodied within the key cognitive strategies.”

The specific key cognitive strategies by acknowledging the accuracy of the referenced in this paper are those shown to critique or challenge. be closely related to college success. They Interpretation: The student analyzes include the following as the most important competing and conflicting descriptions manifestations of this way of thinking: of an event or issue to determine the Intellectual openness: The student possesses strengths and flaws in each description curiosity and a thirst for deeper and any commonalities among or understanding, questions the views of distinctions between them; synthesizes others when those views are not logically the results of an analysis of competing supported, accepts constructive criticism, or conflicting descriptions of an event and changes personal views if warranted or issue or phenomenon into a coherent by the evidence. Such openmindedness explanation; states the interpretation that helps students understand the ways in is most likely correct or is most reasonable, which knowledge is constructed, broadens based on the available evidence; and personal perspectives and helps students presents orally or in writing an extended deal with the novelty and ambiguity often description, summary, and evaluation of encountered in the study of new subjects varied perspectives and conflicting points and new materials. of view on a topic or issue.

Inquisitiveness: The student engages in active Precision and accuracy: The student knows inquiry and dialogue about subject matter what type of precision is appropriate to and research questions and seeks evidence the task and the subject area, is able to to defend arguments, explanations, or increase precision and accuracy through lines of reasoning. The student does not successive approximations generated simply accept as given any assertion that from a task or process that is repeated,

Redefining College Readiness  48 and uses precision appropriately to reach A more complete exposition is contained in correct conclusions in the context of the Understanding University Success, produced task or subject area at hand. by Standards for Success through a three-year study in which more than 400 faculty and Problem solving: The student develops and staff members from 20 research universities applies multiple strategies to solve routine participated in extensive meetings and reviews problems, generate strategies to solve non- to identify what students must do to succeed in routine problems, and applies methods entry-level courses at their institutions (Conley, of problem solving to complex problems 2003a). These findings have been confirmed in requiring method-based problem solving. subsequent studies. These key cognitive strategies are broadly representative of the foundational elements This overview begins with two academic that underlie various “ways of knowing.” skill areas that have repeatedly been identified as being centrally important to college success: These are at the heart of the intellectual writing and research. This is followed by brief endeavor of the university. They are necessary narrative descriptions of content from a number to discern truth and meaning as well as to of core academic areas. pursue them. They are at the heart of how postsecondary faculty members think, and how they think about their subject areas. Without the Overarching Academic Skills capability to think in these ways, the entering Writing: Writing is the means by which college student either struggles mightily until students are evaluated at least to some these habits begin to develop or misses out on degree in nearly every postsecondary the largest portion of what college has to offer, course. Expository, descriptive, and which is how to think about the world. persuasive writing are particularly important types of writing in college. Academic Knowledge and Skills Students are expected to write a lot in college and to do so in relatively short Successful academic preparation for periods of time. Students need to know college is grounded in two important how to pre-write, how to edit, and how dimensions—key cognitive strategies to re-write a piece before it is submitted and content knowledge. Understanding and, often, after it has been submitted and mastering key content knowledge is once and feedback has been provided. achieved through the exercise of broader College writing requires students to cognitive skills embodied within the key present arguments clearly, substantiate cognitive strategies. With this relationship in each point, and utilize the basics of a mind, it is entirely proper and worthwhile to style manual when constructing a paper. consider some of the general areas in which College-level writing is largely free of students need strong grounding in content grammatical, spelling, and usage errors. that is foundational to the understanding of academic disciplines. The case for the Research: College courses increasingly require importance of challenging content as the students to be able to identify and utilize framework for developing thinking skills appropriate strategies and methodologies and key cognitive strategies has been made to explore and answer problems and to elsewhere and will not be repeated in depth conduct research on a range of questions. here (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000). To do so, students must be able to evaluate the appropriateness of a variety In order to illustrate the academic of source material and then synthesize knowledge and skills necessary for college and incorporate the material into a paper success, a brief discussion of the key structures, or report. They must also be able to concepts, and knowledge of core academic access a variety of types of information subjects is presented below. This presentation from a range of locations, formats, and is not a substitute for a comprehensive listing source environments. of essential academic knowledge and skills.

 Redefining College Readiness 49 Core Academic Subjects Knowledge and addition to utilizing all the steps in the Skills scientific method, students learn what it means to think like a scientist. This includes English: The knowledge and skills developed in the communication conventions followed by entry-level English courses enable students scientists, the way that empirical evidence to engage texts critically and create well is used to draw conclusions, and how such written, organized, and supported work conclusions are then subject to challenge and products in both oral and written formats. interpretation. Students come to appreciate The foundations of English include reading that scientific knowledge is both constant comprehension and literature, writing and changing at any given moment, and and editing, information gathering, and that the evolution of scientific knowledge analysis, critiques and connections. To be does not mean that previous knowledge ready to succeed in such courses, students was necessarily “wrong.” Students grasp need to build vocabulary and word analysis that scientists think in terms of models and skills, including roots and derivations. systems as ways to comprehend complex These are the building blocks of advanced phenomena. This helps them make sense literacy. Similarly, students need to utilize out of the flow of ideas and concepts they techniques such as strategic reading that encounter in entry-level college courses will help them read and understand a wide and the overall structure of the scientific range of non-fiction and technical texts. discipline they are studying. In their Knowing how to slow down to understand science courses, students master core key points, when to re-read a passage, and concepts, principles, laws, and vocabulary how to underline key terms and concepts of the scientific discipline being studied. strategically so that only the most important Laboratory settings are the environments points are highlighted are examples of where content knowledge and scientific strategies that aid comprehension and key cognitive strategies converge to help retention of key content. students think scientifically and integrate Math: Most important for success in college learned content knowledge. math is a thorough understanding of the Social Studies: The social sciences entail a basic concepts, principles, and techniques range of subject areas, each with its own of algebra. This is different than simply content base and analytic techniques and having been exposed to these ideas. Much conventions. The courses an entry-level of the subsequent mathematics they will college student most typically takes are in encounter draw upon or utilize these geography, political science, economics, principles. In addition, having learned psychology, sociology, history, and the these elements of mathematical thinking humanities. The scientific methods that at a deep level, they understand what are common across the social studies it means to understand mathematical emphasize the skills of interpreting sources, concepts deeply and are more likely to do evaluating evidence and competing claims, so in subsequent areas of mathematical and understanding themes and the overall study. College-ready students possess flow of events within larger frameworks or more than a formulaic understanding organizing structures. Helping students to of mathematics. They have the ability to be aware that the social sciences consist of apply conceptual understandings in order certain “big ideas” (theories and concepts) to extract a problem from a context, use that are used to order and structure all of mathematics to solve the problem, and the detail that often overwhelms them then interpret the solution back into the can help build mental scaffolds that lead context. They know when and how to toward thinking like a social scientist. estimate to determine the reasonableness of answers and can use a calculator World Languages: The goal of second language appropriately as a tool, not a crutch. study is to communicate effectively with and receive communication from speakers Science: College science courses emphasize of another language in authentic cultural scientific thinking in all their facets. In

Redefining College Readiness  50 contexts through the skills of listening, These are distinguished from key cognitive speaking, reading, and writing. Learning strategies by the fact that they tend to be more another language involves much more than completely independent of a particular content memorizing a system of grammatical rules. area, whereas the key cognitive strategies are It requires the learner to understand the always developed within the ways of knowing cultures from which the language arises a particular content area. The key academic and in which it resides, use the language behaviors consist largely of self-monitoring to communicate accurately, and use the skills and study skills. learner’s first language and culture as a model for comparison with the language Self-monitoring is a form of metacognition, and culture being learned. Second language the ability to think about how one is thinking. proficiency can improve learning in other Examples of metacognitive skills include: disciplines, such as English, history and art, awareness of one’s current level of mastery and expand professional, personal, and and understanding of a subject, including key social opportunities. Language learners misunderstandings and blind spots; the ability need to understand the structure and to reflect on what worked and what needed conventions of a language, but not through improvement in any particular academic task; word-for-word translation or memorization the tendency to persist when presented with a of de-contextualized grammatical rules. novel, difficult, or ambiguous task; the tendency Instead, students of a language need to to identify and systematically select among and master meaning in more holistic ways and employ a range of learning strategies; and the in context. capability to transfer learning and strategies from familiar settings and situations to new The Arts: The arts refer to college subject ones (Bransford et al., 2000). Research on the areas including art history, dance, music, thinking of effective learners has shown that theater, and visual arts. Students ready for these individuals tend to monitor actively, college-level work in the arts possess an regulate, evaluate, and direct their own understanding of and appreciation for the thinking (Ritchhart, 2002). contributions made by the most innovative creators in the field. Students come to understand themselves as instruments of communication and expression who demonstrate mastery of basic oral and Key academic physical expression through sound, movement, and visual representations. behaviors They understand the role of the arts as an instrument of social and political consist largely of expression. They formulate and present difficult questions through their personal self-monitoring and artistic visions. They are able to justify their aesthetic decisions when creating or study skills. performing a piece of work and know how to make decisions regarding the proper venue for performing or exhibiting any creative product. Another important area of college readiness is student mastery of the study skills necessary Academic Behaviors for college success. The underlying premise is simple: academic success requires the mastery This facet of college readiness encompasses of key skills necessary to comprehend material a range of behaviors that reflect greater and complete academic tasks successfully, and student self-awareness, self-monitoring, the nature of college learning in particular and self-control of a series of processes and requires that significant amounts of time be behaviors necessary for academic success. devoted to learning outside of class for success

 Redefining College Readiness 51 to be achieved in class. Study skills encompass cross-section of academicians and peers. These a range of active learning strategies that go skills include the ability to collaborate and work in far beyond reading the text and answering a team; understand the norms of the “academic” the homework questions. Typical study- culture and how one interacts with professors skill behaviors include time management, and others in that environment; interact with preparing for and taking examinations, people from different backgrounds and cultures; using information resources, taking class communicate informally; and demonstrate notes, and communicating with teachers and leadership skills in a variety of settings. advisors (Robbins, Lauver, Le, Davis, Langley, & Carlstrom, 2004). An additional critical Another important area of contextual set of study skills is the ability to participate awareness is known as “college knowledge.” This successfully in a study group and recognize the is information, formal and informal, stated and critical importance of study groups to success unstated, necessary for both gaining admission in specific subjects. Examples of specific time to and navigating within the postsecondary management techniques and habits include: system. College knowledge includes an accurately estimating how much time it takes understanding of the following processes: to complete all outstanding and anticipated college admissions including curricular, testing, tasks and allocating sufficient time to complete and application requirements; college options the tasks; using calendars and creating “to and choices, including the tiered nature of do” lists to organize studying into productive postsecondary education; tuition costs and the chunks of time; locating and utilizing settings financial aid system; placement requirements, conducive to proper study; and prioritizing testing, and standards; the culture of college; study time in relation to competing demands and the challenge level of college courses, such as work and socializing. including increasing expectations of higher education (Lundell et al., 2004). Contextual Skills and Awareness Admissions requirements, and timelines in particular, are extremely complicated, and The importance of this broad category has students often do not know or understand only recently been highlighted as an ever-wider the importance of either until it is too late. range of students apply to college. Contextual Specific institutions have additional special factors encompass primarily the privileged requirements and exceptions that are not information necessary to understand how immediately evident. Financial aid options are college operates as a system and culture. It is this largely unknown or substantially misunderstood lack of understanding of the context of college by many students most in need of such support. that causes many students to become alienated, The economically well-off are more likely frustrated, and even humiliated during the to have this knowledge than working-class freshman year and decide that college is not the families or families whose children are the first place for them. Examples of key context skills and generation to attend college (Conley, 2005; awareness include a systemic understanding of Robbins et al., 2004; Venezia et al., 2004). the postsecondary educational system combined with specific knowledge of the norms, values, and The next section provides an operational conventions of interactions in the college context, definition of college readiness that the and the human relations skills necessary to cope conceptual model helps to delineate. The within this system even if it is very different from section seeks to include specific statements the community the student has just left. across all of the dimensions of college readiness. These statements are presented in This does not necessarily mean that students a form that allows them to be measured or need to disown their cultural backgrounds, gauged. The net result would be a profile of heritage, and traditions, only that they need college readiness that would help students to understand the relationship between their know the degree to which they were college- cultural assumptions and those operating in ready, and could eventually help high schools college. Success in college is enhanced for in particular to know how well their programs students who possess interpersonal and social of study are preparing students to be ready for skills that enable them to interact with a diverse college success.

Redefining College Readiness  52 A Definition of College Readiness

It is possible to compile very lengthy and understanding of how experts in the subject detailed lists of the content knowledge students area think. must know and the key cognitive strategies they must possess to be college-ready. In 4. Facility with a range of key intellectual and fact, a variety of such compilations have been cognitive skills and capabilities that can be broadly generalized as the ability to think. produced lately (Achieve, The Education Trust, & Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, 2004; 5. Reading and writing skills and strategies Conley, 2003, 2003a, 2004). In addition, others sufficient to process the full range of textual have identified the academic behaviors and materials commonly encountered in entry-level context knowledge students need. college courses, and to respond successfully to the written assignments commonly required Rather than repeat each of these previous in such courses. lists in detail, it may be more useful to consider a highly representative list of knowledge, skills, 6. Mastery of key concepts and ways of and attributes a student should possess to be thinking found in one or more scientific ready to succeed in entry-level college courses disciplines sufficient to succeed in at least across a range of subjects and disciplines. Such one introductory-level college course that a list attempts to capture “keystone” skills, could conceivably lead toward a major that ones that can only be demonstrated if a set of requires additional scientific knowledge subordinate and prerequisite knowledge and and expertise. skills are in place. The list is not intended to be all- 7. Comfort with a range of numeric concepts inclusive, but to suggest to the informed reader and principles sufficient to take at least one the types of indicators that would be necessary introductory level college course that could to gauge the more comprehensive notion of conceivably lead toward a major that requires college readiness presented in this paper. additional proficiency in mathematics.

8. Ability to accept critical feedback including General Characteristics critiques of written work submitted or an argument presented in class. Students who possess sufficient mastery of key cognitive strategies, key content 9. Ability to assess objectively one’s level of knowledge, academic behaviors, and competence in a subject and to devise plans contextual knowledge would be defined as to complete course requirements in a timely being college-ready to the degree to which fashion and with a high degree of quality. they could demonstrate the following: 10. Ability to study independently and with a 1. Consistent intellectual growth and study group on a complex assignment requiring development over four years of high school extensive out-of-class preparation that extends resulting from the study of increasingly over a reasonably long period of time. challenging, engaging, coherent academic content. 11. Ability to interact successfully with a wide range of faculty, staff, and students, including 2. Deep understanding of and facility applying among them many who come from different key foundational ideas and concepts from the backgrounds and hold points of view different core academic subjects. from the student’s.

3. A strong grounding in the knowledge base 12. Understanding of the values and norms that underlies the key concepts of the core of colleges, and within them, disciplinary academic disciplines as evidenced by the ability subjects as the organizing structures for to use the knowledge to solve novel problems intellectual communities that pursue within a subject area, and to demonstrate an common understandings and fundamental

 Redefining College Readiness 53 explanations of natural phenomena and key organize and summarize the results from aspects of the human condition. the search, and synthesize the findings in a coherent fashion relevant to the larger question being investigated. Example Performances • Interpret two conflicting explanations The general characteristics listed above are of the same event or phenomenon, taking suggestive or descriptive of tasks that students into account each author’s perspective, the will have to be able to complete in college cultural context of each source, the quality of courses. The following examples, while far the argument, its underlying value positions, from all-inclusive, illustrate what a student who and any potential conflict of interest an has sufficient competence in the general areas author might have in presenting a particular listed above would be able to do in a college point of view. course. Any student who can do the following with proficiency will likely be ready for a range • Communicate in a second language, using of postsecondary learning experiences. the language in a culturally appropriate fashion for common daily tasks and interactions, • Write a 3- to 5-page research paper that is without resorting to literal translation except structured around a cogent, coherent line of for certain specific words. reasoning, incorporate references from several credible and appropriate citations; is relatively • Punctually attend a study group outside of free from spelling, grammatical, and usage class with students who represent a continuum errors; and is clear and easily understood by of academic abilities and cultural backgrounds, the reader. incorporating the strengths of group members to complete the assignment or project at • Read with understanding a range of hand or prepare successfully for the exam or non-fiction publications and technical presentation in question. materials, utilizing appropriate decoding • Complete successfully a problem or and comprehension strategies to identify key assignment that requires about two weeks of points; note areas of question or confusion, independent work and extensive research, remember key terminology, and understand utilizing periodic feedback from teachers and the basic conclusions reached and points of other pertinent resources along the way to view expressed. revise and improve the final product. • Employ fundamentals of algebra to solve • Create and maintain a personal schedule multi-step problems, including problems that includes a to-do list with prioritized tasks without one obvious solution and problems and appointments. requiring additional math beyond algebra; do so with a high degree of accuracy, precision • Utilize key technological tools including and attention to detail, and be able to explain appropriate computer software to complete the rationale for the strategies pursued and the academic tasks such as conducting research, methods utilized. analyzing data sets, writing papers, preparing • Conduct basic scientific experiments or presentations, and recording data. analyses that require the following: use of the • Locate websites that contain information on scientific method; an inquisitive perspective on colleges, the admissions process, and financial the process; interpretation of data or observations aid, and navigate such websites successfully, in relation to an initial hypothesis; possible or comparing the programs and requirements plausible explanation of unanticipated results; of several colleges and assessing the financial and presentation of findings to a critical audience requirements and feasibility of attending each. using the language of science, including models, systems, and theories. • Present an accurate self-assessment of readiness for college by analyzing and citing • Conduct research on a topic and be able evidence from classroom work and assignments, to identify successfully a series of source grades, courses taken, national and state exams materials that are important and appropriate taken, and a personal assessment of maturity to explain the question being researched; and self-discipline.

Redefining College Readiness  54 Possible Ways to Measure the Dimensions of this Definition

Each of the four major components of and abroad for college readiness purposes. college readiness needs to be measured in Several states in Australia use variations on a somewhat different but complimentary a collection of evidence to judge student fashion. While a technical discussion of these work produced purposely for an external potential methods is beyond the scope of the review process (Gipps, 1994; Masters & paper, a brief description of how each might be McBryde, 1994; Sadler, 1992). In the US, measured is offered. the Proficiency-based Admission Standards System (PASS) has utilized collections of evidence as an optional method to determine Key Cognitive Strategies college admissions for students applying to Measurement the Oregon University System for the past seven years (Conley, 2004). More recently, The key cognitive strategies are the Office of the Superintendent of Public demonstrated primarily through learning Instruction adopted a collection of evidence- activities and tasks that are deeply embedded based method as an alternative means for in a course or courses. These strategies should students who had not passed the state high be expected to develop over time, implying school exit exam in Washington state as part a continuous measurement system that is of the graduation requirements (Conley, sensitive to increasing sophistication and O’Shaughnessy, & Langan, 2006d). Currently, elaboration of capabilities and not just the Educational Policy Improvement Center counting the presence or absence of is developing a formative assessment system particular elements. with 20 New York City “empowerment zone” The best means currently available to high schools that will gauge the development accomplish this goal is probably the collection of key cognitive strategies along five key of classroom evidence. This approach has dimensions: reasoning, argumentation, and been used in a number of settings with some proof; interpretation; precision and accuracy; success, including a range of relatively high problem solving; and research (Conley, stakes decisions. While the measurement of McGaughy, O’Shaughnessy, & Rivinus, 2007). key cognitive strategies envisioned in this paper is primarily for formative purposes, it is Key Content Knowledge not beyond the realm of possibility that these Measurement measurements might someday contribute to higher stakes decisions. Although admissions tests have for a long time done a good job identifying students A collection of evidence is, as its name implies, who are potentially college-ready based only student work collected over a period of time to on a short test of general reading and math demonstrate some specific set of capabilities abilities, advances in the understanding of the or skills. The collection is different from the key knowledge necessary to succeed in college more familiar “portfolio” in that it is focused courses suggest a potentially different, or at least on a particular set of criteria and its contents additional, measure of content knowledge. That must meet both sufficiency and proficiency measure is the end-of-course exam. requirements. Collections of evidence are more structured than portfolios and are scored using The advantage of these tests is that they more rigorous methods and instruments. can be carefully geared to identified standards and expectations for what will be taught in the Collections of evidence have been college course. This helps enhance alignment employed in a variety of settings in the US

 Redefining College Readiness 55 between the high school and college programs between student behavior and identified of study. If the tests are carefully geared to successful strategies in a series of areas. cover key concepts that are foundational to Most of these imply some sort of student the subject area, they can provide very useful survey and inventory where students list information on student readiness to the student their methods, tools, and strategies in areas and, potentially, to postsecondary institutions. such as study skills, time management, and selfmanagement. Other possible measures End-of-course exams have gained popularity relate to self assessment of competence during the past ten years, particularly, relative to a range of academic skills, which although not exclusively, in southern states. would be facilitated if measures were in place Texas is considering replacing its current as described for key cognitive strategies and state high school examination system, the key content knowledge. Academic behavior Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills, management is an area that would also with specific end-of-course exams. California lend itself to discussions between teachers has also added end-of-course exams to their (or advisors) and students to assess better standardized state exam. behavior in practice versus espoused behavior. Such discussions could also take High schools are not unfamiliar with the form of advising on how to improve. end-of-course exams for college preparation However, progress could be gauged in purposes. Most notably, Advanced Placement relation to a scale or other set of objective and International Baccalaureate exams have measures of competence. been given at the end of a wide range of specific high school courses for many years (although Considerable work is ongoing in this area, on the AP course is designed to be a college course the topics of study skills and time management taught in high school). The results from these particularly, and student self management more exams, however, are rarely combined with other generally. It is likely that a number of major measures of college readiness while students tools will be available to students and schools are in high school. Instead, the results from in the near future that will be designed to these tests are taken into account by admissions gauge student competence in these areas with offices as one element among many in the greater precision. The only potential issue is complex calculus of admissions decisions. that these systems are not necessarily designed to connect with information about intellectual A college readiness assessment system that development and content knowledge mastery. consisted of a series of end-of-course exams While a relationship can be assumed to exist would yield much more detailed, fine-grained among the three, a measurement system that information on student knowledge and connected all measures would be preferable to skills relative to college readiness standards. one that reported each separately. Although clearly more expensive to construct and maintain than current admissions tests, the exams have the advantage of eventually Contextual Skills and Awareness becoming an integral component of the courses Measurement associated with them and something for which teachers can prepare students without the Student contextual knowledge of the label of “teaching to the test” being a negative entire process of college admissions, financial characterization. These exams can also contain aid, and successful functioning in college complex problems and writing that are not can be gauged relatively simply through currently available to admissions tests. questionnaires. However, the larger issue is how this information is used. The most important use for the information is as a more general Academic Behaviors Measurement indicator of the quality of the preparation Academic behaviors can be measured in program itself. While information on individual relatively straightforward ways if the means students is quite useful in a diagnostic fashion to measure them is defined largely in terms to identify areas where additional information of their presence and the degree of fidelity is necessary, the overall profile of student

Redefining College Readiness  56 contextual skill and awareness suggests very clearly the changes that high school programs need to make to improve student competence and confidence in this area.

Integrating the Four Sources As noted, much of this information currently is collected in one fashion or another, but rarely, if ever, is the information combined into a comprehensive profile for the student to gauge personal college readiness and for the preparing institution to gauge the adequacy of its preparation program. The “holy grail” of college readiness would be an integrated system that provides all of this information to students in a progressive, developmentally appropriate fashion so that they have a continuous feel for how well they are being prepared and preparing themselves for college. As mentioned throughout this section, much if not all the basic instrumentation necessary to create an integrated college readiness data system probably exists already or is under development. Numerous organizations vie to provide these services and tools to schools and students. However, few schools utilize these services and tools in ways that result in a comprehensive system within the school that addresses all facets of college readiness. This more comprehensive and inclusive definition of college readiness is a conceptual framework within which some of the most important measurements of student capabilities to undertake postsecondary work can be included and combined. The ultimate result would be one set of scores or indicators across multiple dimensions and measures that could be tracked over time from perhaps sixth grade through high school that would allow everyone involved to know where a student stood relative to the various dimensions of college readiness at any given time.

 Redefining College Readiness 57 Implications of the Definition

The definition of college readiness has a can be designed to build upon the elements series of implications and issues associated of the definition and not to reproduce high with it that will be touched upon briefly in this school–level expectations that lead college paper. Clearly, if this sort of definition were freshmen to believe college is just like high adopted at a policy level, the effects would be school, a perception that leads them to adopt significant because it would make clearer the work habits that quickly become problematic. gap that exists between those who are admitted Admissions and placement testing methods and those who have the capabilities necessary need to evolve to capture more information to succeed in postsecondary education. Its about student proficiency on all the aspects of purpose at this point is not to suggest that the definition. numerous students should be denied entrance to college, but to highlight the gaps between the current implied or de facto definitions of Gauging Effects in College college readiness and a more comprehensive, A student who meets all aspects of the systematic approach to the issue. In this context, college readiness definition would gain in the definition is offered more as a statement several ways. First, the student would be of probability: the more of the elements of comfortable in essentially any entry-level the definition the student has mastered, the general education course. This is an important greater the likelihood the student will succeed level to attain because failure to succeed in one in entry-level general education courses. Given or more general education courses during the this more generous interpretation, the task of first year is closely associated with failure to implementing such an expanded definition continue in college (Choy, 2001; Choy, Horn, seems more manageable and incremental. Nunez, & Chen, 2000). Second, the student could keep open the Gauging College Prep Programs option to pursue a wide variety of majors, A reasonable initial goal might be not to use including those requiring math or science. a more comprehensive measure to determine Currently, many students who complete math college admissions, but to ascertain how well and science requirements for college admission each high school was preparing students to be are not really prepared to take college-level ready for college. Entry-level college programs courses in these areas, and they assiduously could also be assessed to ascertain the types avoid them. These students essentially of readiness they demand of students. Such eliminate from the realm of possibility any information can be a useful starting point for major that requires math or science. program redesign to improve alignment by Given the increasing importance of math providing information on the specific areas and science as components of many majors that where changes are needed to enhance student previously did not include them, deficiencies college readiness and success. in these subject areas have an even greater High schools in particular need to be effect on the choice of majors available to organized to develop more systematically each students. Mathematics is found in a range of of the elements contained in the definition. majors from business to the social sciences. Students should be exposed to the definition Scientific knowledge is necessary for access and provided tools to self-assess what they are to whole fields such as human physiology, going to need to do to make themselves ready. physical therapy, nursing, and other health Admissions offices need to emphasize in their care related fields for which rapid job growth communications with prospective applicants is predicted. Needless to say, lack of skill or the importance of achieving all the components confidence in math or science completely of the definition. Entry-level college courses rules out all forms of engineering, an area of

Redefining College Readiness  58 critical concern in terms of national economic and how one behaves in college in order to priorities as well as another area of rapid job gain the most benefit from the experience, growth and economic opportunity. they will be more likely to remain. Third, and often overlooked, students On another level, this is a problem for who lack facility in the areas outlined in the the institution because more states and other definition will simply not get as much out of organizations are calling on colleges to be college, particularly if they fail to develop the accountable for the “value added” that the key cognitive strategies. On one level, the college experience imparts to the student in intrinsic value and sense of accomplishment return for the ever-increasing tuition expenses the student derives from college will be incurred. Unfortunately, students who enter lessened if the student expends significant poorly prepared and not thinking in ways energy simply to survive and does not consistent with the culture and structure of pursue challenges, which is what occurs postsecondary education often find ways to when students feel overwhelmed because navigate the system without really getting a what they encounter during the freshman lot out of it. Some evidence exists to suggest year is unfamiliar and disorienting. College that some students can complete a bachelor’s just won’t be as stimulating and interesting degree and be less proficient at writing, for for students who don’t really “get” what example, than when they entered (Bok, 2006). college is about. A more comprehensive conception of For students from under-represented college readiness can create expectations that groups the problem is more serious. These students understand the purposes of college students enter college with far less awareness and work to take advantage of all options and of what it takes to fit in and to cope with opportunities available to them. They would be the system. When this is compounded by a prepared to add value to their education and not lack of content knowledge or learning skills, simply navigate the system. This would set the there is little about the experience that is stage for postsecondary institutions to assess positive for them, and many leave during the the value added of a baccalaureate degree in freshman year. If these students understand more comprehensive and consistent ways. more fully all of what college has to offer

 Redefining College Readiness 59 What Schools and Students Can Do to Foster College Readiness

If schools and students understand information as described previously, it is then college readiness in a more expansive and possible to use this structure of challenging comprehensive way, they can do more to and appropriate content as a framework develop the full range of capabilities and skills for developing key thinking and reasoning needed to succeed in college. Indeed, at the skills and other supporting cognitive habits heart of this definition is the notion that those that will affect success in college as much or most interested in college success will change perhaps even more than any specific content their behaviors based on the greater guidance knowledge students acquire. the definition offers on how to be college- ready. The following section discusses some of Third, the academic program should be the changes that could occur in high schools structured to cause students to demonstrate and on the part of students to achieve better progressively more control and responsibility and more complete readiness for college. for their learning as they approach the college level. This does not necessarily mean students have more choices over what they learn, but Create a Culture Focused on rather they are expected to work independently Intellectual Development and semi-independently outside of class on progressively larger, more complex pieces Using these criteria, the most important of work. For example, students need to thing a high school can do is create a culture become better at critiquing their own work focused on intellectual development of and then rewriting or modifying that work all students. Intellectual development has so that it conforms more closely to expected several elements. performance and output. The first element involves students The reason the intellectual climate of interacting with appropriately important and the school is a central element in college challenging academic content. For students readiness is because the school can control this to do so requires that the school have an variable directly and relatively completely if its intellectually coherent program of study that teachers and administrators choose to do so. is systematically designed to focus on what Furthermore, this is an area that teachers and Wiggins and McTeague (1998) describe as administrators often fail to address consciously, the “big ideas” of each subject area taught. instead allowing students to dictate the They then teach those big ideas by exposing intellectual tone and tenor of the school. In students to a series of “enduring” and such environments, little thought is given to “supporting understandings” that create an how students are developing intellectually overall intellectual and cognitive structure for from course to course or year to year, or what the content, a structure that can span multiple is happening in any given course to cause such courses and grade levels but that is revisited development to occur. by students each time a new course within that area is taught. The result is that students often enter their senior year of high school believing they are Second, key key cognitive strategies ready for college because they have completed should be developed over a sequentially more required courses. This leads to the development challenging progression throughout four years of particularly bad study habits and skills of high school. If the content of the program of during the senior year (Conley, 2001; Kirst, study is carefully organized around the kinds 2000; National Commission on the High School of key organizing and supporting concepts and Senior Year, 2001). In this fashion, the lack of a

Redefining College Readiness  60 coherent, developmentally sequenced program the decentralized nature of US postsecondary of study also contributes to deficiencies in education, high schools are the only place other key areas, including study skills and time where all students have the opportunity to management. In fact, it is difficult to imagine come into contact with information on the a preparation program that emphasizes time complexities of college preparation and management and study skills but does not application. High schools are responsible sequence challenge levels that develop these to make this information available to all skills progressively from year to year. students, not just those who seek it out. This means incorporating college readiness activities into the routines and requirements Specify Core Knowledge and Skills of the school. As noted above, the school must organize For example, students need to know its curriculum in each subject area around about college requirements and financial a set of core concepts and supporting aid options. They need to understand the information. The goal is to have students application process. In fact, an increasing develop an understanding of the structure of number of high schools that serve high the discipline and to retain specific content proportions of students who would be knowledge within this structure. To facilitate first generation college attenders are this organization of knowledge, the school requiring all students to apply to at least must be prepared to adopt a formal set of exit one college during the fall semester of standards that specify what students will know their senior year. Students need experience and be able to do in each of the core academic preparing a resume or other summary areas. These standards need not be detailed document that profiles their activities and to the level of stating each and every piece accomplishments. They need familiarity with of knowledge that a student has mastered, the financial aid system and its attendant but should be comprehensive enough timelines and documentation requirements. to identify the big ideas and supporting They need to understand the tiered nature knowledge necessary to comprehend each of postsecondary education in the US and big idea fully and completely. These standards how some institutions are more demanding can be considered “keystone” expectations and selective in their admissions processes, that clearly infer the mastery of significant while others are more open and accept subordinate skills and knowledge necessary essentially all applicants. They need to to achieve them. understand that different kinds of colleges This sort of a structure facilitates a more appeal to different kinds of learning styles logical progression and development of and interests and that the majors a college knowledge mastery over four years of high offers is an important element in picking a school in place of the isolated course-based college. They need to know all of the various model that currently exists. At the same time, deadlines and required paperwork, such as the exit standards do not necessarily mandate letters of recommendation or transcripts. or require any particular organizational Finally, they need to understand the role of structure or instructional strategy. Schools admissions tests, such as the SAT and ACT, remain free to organize the instructional as well as AP, IB, and others, along with any program in the way they see fit to ensure dual enrollment options the state and school student mastery of the keystone knowledge. may make available. All of this information is necessary for Provide Necessary Supports students to make good decisions about college to Students preparation and to demystify the process. Many students give up simply because they In addition to key cognitive strategies feel intimidated or overwhelmed by all of and important content knowledge, students the requirements and activities associated need specialized information in order to with applying to college. Others may lack access the college admission system. Given the maturity necessary to see as far into

 Redefining College Readiness 61 the future as the college preparation and of potential student assignments, and reviews application process requires. Activities to of student writing and a consideration of break this process down into manageable strategies to improve writing. pieces that students master automatically as they move through high school will help These activities need not be didactic increase the number of applicants and their in nature, with the postsecondary faculty subsequent success getting admitted to and possessing all the answers and the high succeeding in college. school faculty viewed as being in need of enlightenment. Instead, these sessions can be While these activities are not very effective collaborative and collegial in nature. While if conducted in isolation from the academic such sessions ideally begin with face-to- program, they are an important component face interactions, they can be sustained and of an overall environment in which students continued through the use of online discussion develop the full set of knowledge and skills boards and other electronic means that help necessary for college success, including faculty build and strengthen connections across intellectual capabilities and thinking the system boundaries. skills, complex and appropriate content, and knowledge of the system of college While every high school teacher may not preparation, application, and admission. necessarily participate in such activities, a critical mass will have a transformative effect on the academic culture and norms of the Provide Necessary Supports to high school. Expectations for what constitutes Teachers current teacher knowledge of the subject will be transformed along with the level of To teach an intellectually challenging challenge and rigor in courses. In the past, class, teachers must be properly prepared the Advanced Placement program attempted and equipped with the understandings of to achieve this goal through sessions that did their subject area necessary to evoke in very much what was described previously. This students the desired responses to material, worked well when the AP community was small responses designed to deepen their and close knit. The recent rapid expansion of engagement with and understanding of AP has stretched the fabric of this community key course concepts and to expand their to some degree and made it more difficult to repertoire of thinking skills and strategies. sustain the type of intellectual interaction that Teachers must have a reference point for is needed. college readiness that extends beyond their own previous experiences in college or self Additionally, AP teachers often did not reports from the few students who return share their experiences with other high school to share their post-high school experiences faculty, which resulted in AP courses having in college. a different tenor to them than the rest of the curriculum. This now needs to change so that The necessary support ideally takes the the new and expanded AP offerings at many form of professional development activities in school can serve as a reference point for an which teachers learn to focus their curricula infusion of ideas and techniques that better on key ideas and supporting concepts and to prepare all students for college, whether they teach these through techniques, activities, and take an actual AP course. assignments that require students to develop the key cognitive strategies necessary for college success. Such activities are often best undertaken in partnership with colleagues from postsecondary institutions. They can include seminars on recent developments in the academic field, debate and discussions of controversial ideas in the subject area, critiques

Redefining College Readiness  62 What Students Can Do to Develop Their College Readiness

A definition of college readiness must also A number of states have instituted what address the issue of how students combine they call “default” high school programs of the various facets of college readiness. For study into which all students are enrolled students, the combination is more complex unless their parents specifically exempt them because it includes the elements under the from the program. The programs of study are school’s control along with those that are not. designed to meet the entrance requirements of the state university system. This is a first step in In particular, students need to understand the direction of ensuring that students do not what it really means to be college-ready. They make bad decisions in high school, decisions need to understand what they must do as well they quickly come to regret when they are faced as what the system requires or expects of them. with the prospect of life after high school. They must, first and foremost, understand that college admission is a reasonable and realistic Students need to take the responsibility to goal that can be attained through planning and utilize the information presented to them on diligent attention to necessary tasks. college academic and financial requirements and to discuss this information with adults in Because colleges judge students based their lives who may be able to help them. Not all on the sum total of their performance in high students have supportive family environments, school (although many omit the freshman but support can come from other quarters year and some functionally ignore the second as well, and students need to be encouraged semester of senior year), it is critical that to reach out to and interact with adults who students begin their journey toward college can help them navigate the college readiness readiness immediately before they arrive in gauntlet, whether these adults are relatives, high school. While this paper will not explore community service staff, or adults at the school the role of the middle school in making students who may be paid staff or volunteers. Young college-ready, it is worth noting that, at the people need personal contact and guidance least, the connection between middle school to know how to become, and believe they are and high school math and English programs is capable of being, college-ready. worth careful scrutiny. Students, for their part, need to be making the right decision as they Given the knowledge-intensive system prepare their very first high school schedule of college readiness, admission, and as incoming ninth graders. A wrong decision financial aid that the US has developed, this at this point can have ramifications throughout component of personal support and student high school and beyond. initiative cannot be overlooked in the college readiness equation. Similarly, they need to construct an overall plan for college preparation that ensures they will develop the necessary skills in a progressively more complex fashion over four years. Ideally, the school’s program of study will be designed so that students cannot make bad decisions. The element of individual student planning is important in the US educational system, where high school and college are not closely or directly connected.

 Redefining College Readiness 63 References

Achieve, Inc. (2004). The expectations gap: A 50-state review of high school graduation requirements. Washington, DC: Achieve, Inc. Achieve, Inc., The Education Trust, & Thomas B. Fordham Foundation. (2004). The american diploma project: Ready or not: Creating a high school diploma that counts. Washington, DC: Achieve, Inc. ACT. (2002, November 15, 2002). College graduation rates steady despite increase in enrollment. Retrieved January 18, 2007, from http://www.act.org/news/releases/2002/11-15-02.html ACT. (2005a). Average national ACT score unchanged in 2005: Students graduate from high school ready or not. Iowa City, IA: ACT, Inc. ACT. (2005b). Crisis at the core: Preparing all students for college and work access. Iowa City, IA: ACT, Inc. Adelman, C. (1999). Answers in the tool box: Academic intensity, attendance patterns, and bachelor’s degree attainment. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Adelman, C. (2006). The toolbox revisited: Paths to degree completion from high school through college. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Ali, R., & Jenkins, G. (2002). The high school diploma: Making it more than an empty promise. Oakland, CA: Education Trust West. Bedsworth, W., Colby, S., & Doctor, J. (2006). Reclaiming the American Dream. Boston, MA: Bridgespan.

Bok, D. (2006). Our underachieving colleges: A candid look at how much students learn and why they should be learning more. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences. Callan, P. M., Finney, J. E., Kirst, M. W., Usdan, M. D., & Venezia, A. (2006). Claiming common ground: State policymaking for improving college readiness and success. San Jose, CA: National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education. Cavanagh, S. (2006). Statistics agency gauging state ‘proficiency’ thresholds. Education Week,26(13), 13. Choy, S. P. (2001). Students whose parents did not go to college: Post-secondary access, persistence, and attainment. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Choy, S. P., Horn, L. J., Nunez, A.-M., & Chen, X. (2000). Transition to college: What helps at-risk students and students whose parents did not attend college. New Directions for Institutional Research, 27(3), 45-63. Conley, D. T. (2001). Rethinking the senior year. NASSP Bulletin, 85(625), 17-25. Conley, D. T. (2003). Mixed messages: What state high school tests communicate about student readiness for college. Eugene, OR: Center for Educational Policy Research, University of Oregon. Conley, D. T. (2003a). Understanding university success. Eugene, OR: Center for Educational Policy Research, University of Oregon.

 Redefining College Readiness 64 Conley, D. T. (2004). Proficiency-based admissions. In W. J. Camara & E. W. Kimmel (Eds.), Choosing students: Higher education tools for the 21st century. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Conley, D. T. (2005). College knowledge: What it really takes for students to succeed and what we can do to get them ready. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Conley, D. T. (2006). What we must do to create a system that prepares students for college success. San Francisco: WestEd. Conley, D. T., Aspengren, K., Gallagher, K., & Nies, K. (2006a, April 8). College Board validity study for math. Paper presented at the the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco. Conley, D. T., Aspengren, K., Gallagher, K., & Nies, K. (2006b). College Board validity study for science. Eugene, OR: Center for Educational Policy Research, University of Oregon.

Conley, D. T., Aspengren, K., Stout, O., & Veach, D. (2006c). College Board Advanced Placement best practices course study report. Eugene, OR: Educational Policy Improvement Center. Conley, D. T., McGaughy, C., O’Shaughnessy, T., & Rivinus, E. (2007). Criterion-referenced assessment task system (cats) conceptual model. Eugene, OR: Educational Policy Improvement Center. Conley, D. T., O’Shaughnessy, T., & Langan, H. (2006d). Alternative assessment pilot project. Eugene, OR: Educational Policy Improvement Center, University of Oregon. Costa, A. L. E., & Kallick, B. E. (2000). Discovering and exploring key cognitive strategies: A developmental series, book 1 (No. ED439101). Alexandria VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Gipps, C. V. (1994). Beyond testing: Towards a theory of educational assessment. London: Falmer Press. Horn, L., Berger, R., & Carroll, C. D. (2004). College persistence on the rise? Changes in 5-year degree completion and post-secondary persistence rates between 1994 and 2000. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Kirst, M. (2000). Overcoming the high school senior slump: New education policies. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University. Lundell, D. B., Higbee, J. L., Hipp, S., & Copeland, R. E. (2004). Building bridges for access and success from high school to college: Proceedings of the metropolitan higher education consortium’s developmental education initiative. Minneapolis, MN: Center for Research on Developmental Education and Urban Literacy, University of Minnesota. Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D., & McTighe, J. (1993). Assessing student outcomes: Performance assessment using the dimensions of learning model. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Masters, G. N., & McBryde, B. (1994). An investigation of the comparability of teachers’ assessments of students’ folios. Brisbane, Queensland, Australia: Tertiary Entrance Procedures Authority. National Center for Education Statistics. (2003). Conditions of education 2003. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. (2004). Conditions of education 2004. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Education.

Redefining College Readiness  65 National Center for Educational Statistics. (2007). America’s high school graduates: Results from the 2005 NAEP high school transcript study. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. National Commission on the High School Senior Year. (2001). The lost opportunity of the senior year: Finding a better way. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. National Research Council. (2002). Learning and understanding: Improving advanced study of mathematics and science in U.S. High schools. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. National Science Board. (2004). Science and engineering indicators, 2004. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation. National Survey of Student Engagement. (2003). Converting data into action: Expanding the boundaries of institutional improvement. Retrieved October 19, 2004, from http://www.indiana. edu/~nsse/2003_annual_report/index.htm National Survey of Student Engagement. (2004). Student engagement: Pathways to student success. Retrieved January 18, 2005, from http://www.indiana.edu/~nsse/2003_annual_ report/index.htm National Survey of Student Engagement. (2006). Engaged learning: Fostering success for all students. Bloomington, IN: Author. Ritchhart, R. (2002). Intellectual character: What it is, why it matters, and how to get it. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Robbins, S. B., Lauver, K., Le, H., Davis, D., Langley, R., & Carlstrom, A. (2004). Do psychosocial and study skill factors predict college outcomes? A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 130(2), 261-288. Sadler, D. R. (1992). Expert review and educational reform: The case of student assessment in Queensland secondary schools. Australian Journal of Education, 36 (November 1992), 301-318. Standards for Success. (2003). An introduction to work samples and their uses. Eugene, OR: Center for Educational Policy Research, University of Oregon. Transition Math Project. (2005). Transition math project. Retrieved July 28, 2005 Venezia, A., Kirst, M., & Antonio, A. (2004). Betraying the college dream: How disconnected K-12 and post-secondary systems undermine student aspirations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Wagner, T. (2006). Rigor on trial. Education Week, 25(18), 28-29.

Wiggins, G. J. M. (1998). Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Woodruff, D. J. Z., R. L. (2004). High school grade inflation from 1991 to 2003. Iowa City, IA: ACT, Inc. Ziomek, R. L., & Svec, J. C. (1995). High school grades and achievement: Evidence of grade inflation (Research Report Series). Iowa City, IA: American College Testing Program.

 Redefining College Readiness 66 ALBERT SHANKER INSTITUTE BY For SchoolLeadership Building aNew Structure R ICHARD .E F. LMORE 67 Building a New Structure For School Leadership

BY R ICHARD F. E LMORE Professor, Graduate School of Education Harvard University and Senior Research Fellow, Consortium for Policy Research in Education

© WINTER 2000 THE ALBERT SHANKER INSTITUTE

THE VIEWS EXPRESSED ARE THOSE OF THE AUTHOR AND NOT NECESSARILY THOSE OF THE ALBERT SHANKER INSTITUTE OR THE CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH IN EDUCATION, OR ITS INSTITUTIONAL MEMBERS.

68 2 BUILDING A NEW STRUCTURE FOR SCHOOL LEADERSHIP

Foreword

UBLIC SCHOOLS AND SCHOOL SYSTEMS, as they are presently constituted, are simply not led in ways that enable them to respond to the increasing demands they face under standards- based reform. Further, if schools, school systems, and their leaders respond to standards- based reforms the way they have responded to other attempts at broad scale reform of pub- Plic education over the past century, they will fail massively and visibly, with an attendant loss of public confidence and serious consequences for public education. The way out of this problem is through the large scale improvement of instruction, something public education has been unable to do to date, but which is possible with dramatic changes in the way public schools define and practice leadership.

Contrary to the myth of visionary leadership that pervades American culture, most leaders in all sec- tors of society are creatures of the organizations they lead. Nowhere is this more true than in public education, where principals and district superintendents are recruited almost exclusively from the ranks of practice. As in the military and the church, one does not get to lead in education without being well socialized to the norms, values, predispositions, and routines of the organization one is leading.

Consequently, current education leaders are no better equipped than the organizations they lead to meet the challenges posed by standards-based reform. (Lortie 1987) So relying on leaders to solve the problem of systemic reform in schools is, to put it bluntly, asking people to do something they don’t know how to do and have had no occasion to learn in the course of their careers. There are, of course, a few gifted and visionary leaders who are busy inventing solutions to the problems of sys- temic reform, just as there are a few gifted and visionary leaders at any moment of history in Ameri- can education. These exceptions prove the rule. Few visionary leaders have had any effect on the dominant institutional patterns of American education.

Here, then, is the seeming conundrum: Schools are being asked by elected officials—policy leaders, if you will—to do things they are largely unequipped to do. School leaders are being asked to assume responsibilities they are largely unequipped to assume, and the risks and consequences of failure are high for everyone, but especially high for children. This paper attempts to chart a way out of this conundrum through an understanding of large scale instructional improvement.

69 BUILDING A NEW STRUCTURE FOR SCHOOL LEADERSHIP 3

This paper looks outward—focusing on the imperatives of public school leadership and the demands standards-based accountability place upon it—rather than inward. It does not, in other words, focus on understanding how people in existing leadership positions define and do their work. I take this perspective because I don’t think there is much in current conceptions of leader- ship in public schools that extends comfortably to the new conceptions. The logic of large scale instructional improvement leads to differences in kind, rather than differences in degree. If public schools survive, leaders will look very different from the way they presently look, both in who leads and in what these leaders do.

This paper was prepared for, and supported by, the Albert Shanker Institute. I am indebted to Euge- nia Kemble, Executive Director of the Institute, for her guidance in thinking about these issues.

70 4 BUILDING A NEW STRUCTURE FOR SCHOOL LEADERSHIP

The Logic of Standards-Based Reform and the Institution of Public Education

TANDARDS-BASED REFORM has a deceptively simple logic: schools and school systems should be held accountable for their contributions to student learning. Society should communi- cate its expectations for what students should know and be able to do in the form of stan- dards, both for what should be taught and for what students should be able to demonstrate Sabout their learning. School administrators and policy makers, at the state, district, and school level, should regularly evaluate whether teachers are teaching what they are expected to teach and whether students can demonstrate what they are expected to learn. The fundamental unit of accountability should be the school, because that is the organizational unit where teaching and learning actually occurs. Evidence from evaluations of teaching and student performance should be used to improve teaching and learning and, ultimately, to allocate rewards and sanctions. (Elmore, Abelmann et al. 1996)

This logic of standards-based reform has become, over the past fifteen years, a fundamental part of the architecture of policy and governance in American education. Virtually all states have adopted some form of content and/or performance standards. Most states are moving, in at least a rudimen- tary way, toward accountability systems that evaluate schools based on student performance. While the design of these policies leaves a great deal to be desired, both in specificity and internal logic, the politics that surround these policies are very energetic and visible. We may get the version of stan- dards-based reform that advocates envision or we may get a corrupted and poorly thoughtout evil twin. But we will almost surely get some version of standards-based reform in virtually every juris- diction over the next decade.

When historians of education look back at the late twentieth century, they will almost certainly describe it as a critical period of changing policy perspectives on public education in the U.S. What they will describe by way of practices is considerably less certain. Like it or not, standards-based reform represents a fundamental shift in the relationship between policy and institutional practice. In terms of policy it is a direct attack on the most fundamental premises by which public education has been governed since its current structure emerged in the late nineteenth century. It is possible that the practice of public schooling will respond to standards-based reform in the same way it has responded to virtually every other large scale reform in the twentieth century. It may, in other words, try to bend the logic of the policy to the logic of how the existing institutions function, mak- ing the policy unrecognizable upon its arrival in the classroom. If this is the case, the consequences for public education will be severe; the institutions that emerge will look nothing like the present

71 BUILDING A NEW STRUCTURE FOR SCHOOL LEADERSHIP 5 ones, and the idea of a strong basic education system for all children will be lost in all but a rhetorical sense. It is also possible that public schools will find a way to incorporate the logic of standards- based reform into their practice of schooling, in which case the institutions that emerge will proba- bly be very different from what exists today but will perpetuate a strong basic education system for all children. If public schools can adapt to the demands of standards-based reform they will have a better chance of survival.

How Did We Get Here—the Bane of “Loose-Coupling”

Early in the development of public schooling the United States, through local elites and national opinion leaders, opted for a form of organization based on locally centralized school bureaucracy, governed by elected boards, with relatively low status (mostly female) teachers working in relative isolation from each other under the supervision of (mostly male) administrators whose expertise was thought to lie mainly in their mastery of administrative rather than pedagogical skills. (Tyack 1974, Tyack and Hansot 1982)

As the scale of the enterprise grew, the institutional structure grew more elaborate and rigid. School districts expanded to include more schools, schools grew in size and complexity, and the extension of compulsory attendance through the secondary grades resulted in larger, more highly differenti- ated schools to deal with the diverse populations of previously uneducated students. (Powell, Farrar et al. 1985) All this was done, again by local elites and national opinion leaders, in the name of solid progressive principles: providing universal access to learning; providing local communities with direct control over their schools through elected boards; assuring that the overall administrative guidance of locally centralized systems was safely lodged in the hands of administrative experts; pro- viding local economies with a supply of reasonably qualified labor; holding a large proportion of the youth population out of the labor force; and providing a credentialling system to allocate access to higher education.

The byproducts of this institutional form have been, among other things: relatively weak profession- alization among teachers, since teaching was thought not to require expertise on a level with other, “real” professions and conditions of work were not conducive to the formation of strong profes- sional associations among teachers; a relatively elaborate system of administrative overhead at the district and school level, thought to be necessary for adequate supervision of the relatively low-skill teacher force; and relatively large schools, thought to be a logical extension of principles of scientific management requiring economies of scale to produce efficiencies.

By the 1960s and early 1970s, analysts of this institutional structure had converged on a model that came to be called “loose-coupling.” (Weick 1976; Rowan 1990; Meyer and Rowan 1992) Derived from institutional sociology, this view, in brief, posits that the “technical core” of education— detailed decisions about what should be taught at any given time, how it should be taught, what stu- dents should be expected to learn at any given time, how they should be grouped within classrooms for purposes of instruction, what they should be required to do to demonstrate their knowledge, and, perhaps most importantly, how their learning should be evaluated—resides in individual class-

72 6 BUILDING A NEW STRUCTURE FOR SCHOOL LEADERSHIP

rooms, not in the organizations that surround them.

Furthermore, the model posited that knowledge at the technical core is weak and uncertain. (Bid- well 1965; Lortie 1975) It cannot be clearly translated into reproducible behaviors, it requires a high degree of individual judgment, and it is not susceptible to reliable external evaluation. Therefore, the loose-coupling argument continues, the administrative superstructure of the organization – principals, board members, and administrators—exists to “buffer” the weak technical core of teach- ing from outside inspection, interference, or disruption.

Administration in education, then, has come to mean not the management of instruction but the management of the structures and processes around instruction. That which cannot be directly managed must, in this view, be protected from external scrutiny. Buffering consists of creating struc- tures and procedures around the technical core of teaching that, at the same time, (1) protect teach- ers from outside intrusions in their highly uncertain and murky work, and (2) create the appearance of rational management of the technical core, so as to allay the uncertainties of the public about the actual quality or legitimacy of what is happening in the technical core. This buffering creates what institutional theorists call a “logic of confidence” between public schools and their constituents. Local board members, system-level administrators, and school administrators perform the ritualistic tasks of organizing, budgeting, managing, and dealing with disruptions inside and outside the sys- tem, all in the name of creating and maintaining public confidence in the institutions of public edu- cation. Teachers, working in isolated classrooms, under highly uncertain conditions, manage the technical core. This division of labor has been amazingly constant over the past century.

The institutional theory of loose-coupling explains a great deal about the strengths and pathologies of the existing structure of public education. It explains why, for example, most innovation in schools, and the most durable innovations, occur in the structures that surround teaching and learn- ing, and only weakly and idiosyncratically in the actual processes of teaching and learning. Most innovation is about maintaining the logic of confidence between the public and the schools, not about changing the conditions of teaching and learning for actual teachers and students. The theory of loose-coupling explains why schools continue to promote structures and to engage in practices that research and experience suggest are manifestly not productive for the learning of certain stu- dents. They include extraordinarily large high schools that create anonymous and disengaging envi- ronments for learning; rigid tracking systems that exclude large numbers of students from serious academic work; athletic programs that keep large numbers of students from participation in extracurricular activities; grouping practices in elementary school classrooms that provide less stim- ulation for struggling learners; special programs that remove students from regular instruction in the name of remediation, instructional aide programs that are sometimes little more than public employment programs for community members; and site-based governance structures that engage in decision making about everything except the conditions of teaching and learning.

Loose-coupling also explains why manifestly successful instructional practices that grow out of research or exemplary practice never take root in more than a small proportion of classrooms and schools. (Cuban 1984; Cuban 1990; Tyack and Cuban 1995; Elmore 1996) Because the administra-

73 BUILDING A NEW STRUCTURE FOR SCHOOL LEADERSHIP 7 tive structure of schools exists to buffer the instructional core from disruptions and improvements, and because teaching is isolated work, instructional improvements occur most frequently as a conse- quence of purely voluntary acts among consenting adults. The educational change literature is full of injunctions to respect the autonomy of teaching and the mystery of its fundamental practices— hence the inviolability of individual teachers’ choices about what to teach and how. This normative environment is a direct result of an institutional structure that is deliberately and calculatedly incompetent at influencing its core functions. Volunteerism is the only way to improve practice in an organization in which administrators do not purport to manage the core. Volunteerism leads to (1) innovations that are highly correlated with the personal values and predispositions of individual teachers and hence tend to be adopted only by a small proportion of receptive teachers at any given time; and (2) innovations that are largely disconnected from any collective goal or purpose of the school or the school system. Schools are consequently almost always aboil with some kind of “change,” but they are only rarely involved in any deliberate process of improvement, where progress is measured against a clearly specified instructional goal.

Loose-coupling explains the elusive and largely unsuccessful quest over the past century for school administrators who are “instructional leaders.” Instructional leadership is the equivalent of the holy grail in educational administration. Most credentialling programs for superintendents and princi- pals purport, at least in part, to be in the business of preparing the next generation of instructional leaders. Most professional development for educational leaders makes at least symbolic reference to the centrality of instructional leadership to the work. Insofar as there is any empirical evidence on the frequency of actual instructional leadership in the work of school administrators, it points to a consistent pattern: direct involvement in instruction is among the least frequent activities per- formed by administrators of any kind at any level, and those who do engage in instructional leader- ship activities on a consistent basis are a relatively small proportion of the total administrative force. (Murphy 1990; Cuban 1988) School leaders are hired and retained based largely on their capacity to buffer teachers from outside interference and their capacity to support the prevailing logic of confi- dence between a school system and its constituencies. Again, the ethic of volunteerism prevails. Principals who develop the skills and knowledge required to actually do instructional leadership in a serious way do so because of their personal preferences and values, often at some personal cost to their own careers, not because they are expected to do so as a condition of their work. Overall we get about the proportion of instructional leaders in the administrative ranks that corresponds to the proportion of people in the population who are inclined to do that sort of work. The institutional structure does not promote, or select for, knowledge and skill related to instructional leadership; at best, it tolerates some proportion of the population who indulge in it out of personal commitment and taste.

Loose-coupling explains the nervous, febrile, and unstable condition of politics and leadership around most school systems of any size. The governance structure is designed to support the logic of confidence in the institutional structure of public schools, not to provide stability, guidance, or direction for the long-term improvement of school performance. Local politics is usually driven by pluralist imperatives; local factions mobilize by neighborhood, by racial or ethnic group, or by moral principle, they galvanize electoral support, and they reproduce, not surprisingly, the same political

74 8 BUILDING A NEW STRUCTURE FOR SCHOOL LEADERSHIP

divisions on school boards as exist in the community at large. Since politics is not about the instruc- tional core, but about the logic of confidence between the schools and the community, all policy decisions are essentially about the symbolism of mobilizing and consolidating political constituen- cies. A smart board member, in this world, is one who spends most of his or her time using issues to consolidate political support. A smart superintendent is one who can count the number of board members, divide by two and, if necessary, add one. Superintendents come and go based on their capacity to maintain a working majority on a relatively unstable elected board, rather than on their capacity to focus the institution on its core functions and make steady improvements over time.

Finally, loose-coupling explains the attachment of educators and the public to what I will call “trait theories” of competence in instructional practice and leadership. Good teachers, good principals, and good superintendents are thought to be so, under trait theories, because they have the necessary personal qualities for the work, not because they have mastered some body of professional knowl- edge or because they work in an organizational environment in which they are expected to be com- petent at what they do as a condition of employment. Hence, many prescriptions for improving schools focus on recruiting and retaining “better” people, meaning people who are naturally predis- posed to do whatever we want them to do.

An organization that purports to have little or no influence over its core functions is one that can be expected to subscribe to trait theories of competence. If the organization cannot influence what goes on in its core through how it is organized and managed, then it can only influence the core by selec- tions based on the personal attributes of whom it recruits and retains. Hence, the success of the organization depends more on who gets in and who stays than on what happens to them while they are actually working in the organization.

The idea that people should acquire additional competencies over the course of their careers, that the organization should systematically invest in the improvement of these competencies, or, more controversially, that people should be expected to meet higher expectations for competence over the course of their careers—these expectations don’t exist, or exist only weakly and idiosyncratically, in organizations that purport not to be able to manage their core functions.

Enter Standards-Based Reform

With this overview of loose-coupling as background, it is not hard to identify why standards-based reform creates certain fundamental problems for public schooling—problems that probably can’t be solved by tinkering with the existing institutional structure—and why standards-based reform is often greeted with dismay and disbelief by experienced educators, who are battle worn veterans of past educational reform campaigns. The logic of standards-based reform is fundamentally at odds with the logic of loose-coupling, and this difference is not likely to be resolved in the usual way, by simply bending and assimilating the new policy into the existing institutional structure.

First and most surprisingly, standards-based reform violates the fundamental premise of loose cou- pling—buffering the technical core from interference by external forces. With standards-based

75 BUILDING A NEW STRUCTURE FOR SCHOOL LEADERSHIP 9 reform, policy reaches, at least in theory, directly into the instructional core of schools, making what actually gets taught, a matter of public policy and open political discourse. Content standards, even in their current somewhat clumsy and overspecified form, carry the explicit message that students should receive and absorb instruction in certain subject areas and on certain topics. Performance standards are even more threatening to the technical core because they assert that schools are accountable for what students learn, meaning that someone should manage the conditions of learn- ing in schools so as to produce a given result.

Not surprisingly, teachers and administrators who have fully assimilated the norms and values of loose-coupling find these intrusions into the technical core to be both disconcerting and threaten- ing. They often respond with well-known arguments that conjure up the mystery and inviolability of the unique relationship between each student and teacher and its need for distance from bureau- cratic or policy controls. What’s remarkable in the present political climate is how little weight these arguments now carry in policy discussions. The course of standards-based reform seems largely immune to these traditional arguments.

Second, standards-based reform hits at a critical weakness of the existing institutional structure, namely its inability to account for why certain students master academic content and can demon- strate academic performance while others do not. When the core technology of schools is buried in the individual decisions of classroom teachers and buffered from external scrutiny, outcomes are the consequence of mysterious processes that no one understands at the collective, institutional level. Therefore, school people and the public at large are free to assign causality to whatever their favorite theory suggests: weak family structures, poverty, discrimination, lack of aptitude, peer pressure, diet, television, etc.

Standards-based reform explicitly localizes accountability for student learning with the school and the people who work in it, and it carries the increasingly explicit message that students learn largely as a consequence of what goes on inside schools. Hence, schools are being asked to account for what students are actually taught and what they learn as a consequence of that teaching. And, whatever one may think about this theory—that students generally learn what they are taught, if they are taught with skill and understanding—it has a strong political, economic, and social appeal.

Third, standards-based reform undermines a basic premise of local governance of education because it identifies schools, not school districts, as the primary unit of accountability in virtually all state accountability systems. Governors and state legislators are typically polite and indirect about this issue, carefully constructing ways of including local school boards and superintendents in any description of how school accountability works. But the stark reality is that little more than a decade ago most states did not have the capacity to collect, analyze, and report data on individual schools. Now most do, thanks largely to the political imperatives elected officials feel to account for state education expenditures and to the miracles of modern information technology. When states have the capacity to collect data on individual schools, the individual school becomes the unit of account- ability, and the remedies and sanctions that apply to low performance apply to schools. Districts may find a productive role to play in this system of accountability, if they try, but the institutional

76 10 BUILDING A NEW STRUCTURE FOR SCHOOL LEADERSHIP

drift of the system will create increasingly direct relationships between states and schools. The plu- ralist politics of local boards and administrators will increasingly be played out under a large, dark umbrella of state performance accountability requirements. Over time, it will become increasingly difficult to defend dysfunctional local politics in the face of increasing public scrutiny of individual school performance. Putting schools at the center of the accountability problem, in other words, has the effect of calling into question the purpose of locally centralized governance and administration.

These conflicts between the logic of standards-based reform and the logic of the traditional institu- tional structure of public education challenge both public schools and the people who work in them. The traditional arguments that have been used to defend the existing loosely-coupled institu- tional structure—the mystery and inviolability of teaching and learning, the sanctity of local prefer- ences in the governance of schools, the generally positive support of local schools by their elites, etc.—will probably become weaker and less persuasive as evidence about the performance of schools accumulates over time. The usual process by which public schools deal with these external threats is to bend the new policy requirements to the logic of the existing institutional structure. In this case, the response would mean that policy makers and the public would, over time, accept educators’ arguments that the core technology of education is highly uncertain and unspecifiable, and that most matters of instructional quality and performance in education are matters of personal prefer- ence and taste, for both educators and their clients. The idea that schools should meet certain speci- fied standards of quality and performance would then recede into the mists of policy history. The problem with this scenario, of course, is that the imperative for school accountability will not go away, even if standards-based reform does, because policy makers are still left with the problem of how to account for the public expenditures they are making and what to do about the governance structure of public education.

Taking it to the Next Level: Challenges from the Market Model ______1 Notice also that vouch- The hallmark of standards-based reform is school-site accountability for common measures of stu- ers, capitation grants, and dent performance. The standard critique of this model is that it ignores the complexity and idiosyn- charters are quintessential structural changes, in that crasy of teaching and learning and the necessary variability of local and school-site tastes and prefer- they imply absolutely ences. Within the current educational reform debate, the governance structure that best fits the nothing about either the view that all matters of quality and performance in education are matters of personal taste, prefer- content or the quality of instruction, except insofar ence, and judgment is, in fact, a market model. The most efficient way to allocate resources around as quality can be defined as matters of personal taste is to give public money directly to consumers to purchase education based the satisfaction of con- on their own preferences (vouchers), or, in a slightly more domesticated version, to give money sumer preferences (a tau- tology). So a major part of directly to schools based on the number of students they attract (capitation grants), or, in an even the political appeal of more domesticated version, to allow educators and their clients to escape the gravitational pull of these policies, to both edu- cators and policymakers, is the existing institutional structure by forming publicly supported schools that operate under inde- that they don’t require any pendent charters (charter schools). Under each of these systems, the existing superstructure of local commitment as to what administration and governance in education becomes increasingly weak, unstable, and irrelevant to will actually happen inside 1 the structure, hence repro- many educators and their clients. Active choosers in each of these systems—on both the supply ducing, in another form, side and the demand side—have very strong incentives to escape the gravitational pull of locally cen- the buffering of the tech- tralized governance and administration. Entrepreneurial schools have little incentive to operate nical core.

77 BUILDING A NEW STRUCTURE FOR SCHOOL LEADERSHIP 11 under local governance systems if they can function successfully, by the standards of consumer demand, as free agents. Parents and students with strong tastes and preferences, and the wherewithal to act on them, have little incentive to affiliate with centrally administered schools when they can express their preferences more directly through individual schools. Increasingly, then, the domain of centrally administered and governed public schools, under vouchers, capitation grants, or char- ters, becomes the domain of the non-choosers and the unchosen. I frequently tell my students that, if they want to see a possible future for the public schools, they should visit the public hospital sys- tem—a subsystem, in a largely capitation-based health care market, that specializes in clients no one else wants to serve, a subsystem that is also chronically underfinanced, and one in which the costs of serving clients bear little or no relationship to the reimbursements the hospitals receive through the capitation grant system. Such systems exist to catch the overflow of the unchosen from market- based capitation systems that work pretty well for active choosers.

So if public educators insist on pressing the inviolability of the instructional core of schools, and the durability of the institutional structure that supports that view, they are inviting policy makers sim- ply to agree. They are also inviting them to then begin to shift the structure of public education by degrees into one based entirely on personal taste, preference and judgment. The stakes for the exist- ing institutional structure of public education, and for the public at large, if this shift occurs, are extremely high. The shift, in essence, will mean that public responsibility toward education will be discharged when the available money is fully allocated to individual families or schools; what hap- pens after the money has been allocated is the responsibility of the individuals and schools, not of the state. Any residual collective responsibility for whether students are exposed to high quality teaching and learning as a consequence of public expenditures, for whether the differentials in expo- sure to high quality teaching and learning are a matter of public concern, for what students know as a consequence of the teaching they have received, and for whether certain students routinely have access to more powerful knowledge than others—all these concerns become matters of individual taste, preference, and judgment, rather than matters of public policy discourse and debate.

So there are some reasons why public educators should be measured in their criticisms of standards- based reforms. The only thing that could be worse than opening up the instructional core of public schooling to external scrutiny and debate might be not doing so, and watching the public purposes of public education drift away into matters of individual taste and preference.

78 12 BUILDING A NEW STRUCTURE FOR SCHOOL LEADERSHIP

Leadership and the Imperative of Large Scale Improvement

TANDARDS-BASED REFORM has a deceptively simple logic: schools, and school systems, should be held accountable for their contributions to student learning. The rationale for maintaining local governance and administration of education in the U.S. lies principally in the possibility of using the institutional structure for large-scale improvement of instruc- Stional practice and student performance based on standards. In the language of economics, large scale improvement will increasingly be the main comparative advantage of local school districts in the competitive market for clients that will arise as schools and parents increasingly attempt to escape the gravitational pull of local school bureaucracy. Individual schools, operating largely as individual firms, have difficulty generating surplus resources for use in improving the skills and knowledge of their teachers and administrators. Individual schools that are part of larger corpora- tions also have incentives, in markets largely defined by taste and preference, to underinvest in skill and knowledge, since they market their reputations for quality rather than any specific service or result. Most public school systems still have access to resources—largely now spent on non-instruc- tional administrative overhead—that they can capture and invest in improvements in the skills and knowledge of principals and teachers. In the present structure, these issues of instructional practice and performance are typically left to individuals to decide. Principals and teachers declare whether a given change has worked based on whether they individually think they have altered their practice in useful ways and whether they think students know and can do things they haven’t known or done before. Not surprisingly, this situation produces lots of change and not much improvement.

Now add the problem of scale, a key weakness of the existing institutional structure. Improvement implies not just that any given unit in a system is improving (classroom, grade level, school, etc.) but that all units are improving at some rate. In the language of statistics, the mean, or average, of qual- ity and performance in all units is increasing over time, while the variation among units in quality and performance is decreasing.

Next add the problem of context. The problems of the educational system are the problems of the smallest units in that system, and each unit faces a different version of the overall problem of the sys- tem. If the overall problem of the system is student performance on higher order cognitive tasks (explaining, for example, why a change in temperature of a few degrees in an ecosystem could pro- duce a large change in the plant or animal life in that system; why 3/5 and 18/30 are equivalent frac- tions; or why Richard Wright and James Baldwin disagreed on the nature of blackness), this prob- lem will be present in very different forms in every classroom where it occurs. Different groups of

79 BUILDING A NEW STRUCTURE FOR SCHOOL LEADERSHIP 13 students will have different prior knowledge of the basic concepts and different attitudes toward the importance of knowing them. Different groups of students will bring different cultural, linguistic, and cognitive understandings to bear on the problem. At the school level, differences at the class- room level aggregate into differences in the overall culture of expectations for learning, order, and engagement, into the structure of opportunities that determine whether students get access to the content and teaching at all, and into whether they get it in a form that engages them. So the prob- lem of improvement at each location in a system has to be solved in a way that produces results that are roughly consistent across many highly varied contexts.

Next add the problem of feedback. Most of what happens in organizations engaged in large scale improvement is collective problem-solving, structured by a common set of expectations about what constitutes a good result. A major source of learning in such situations is analysis and discussion of successes and failures, and feedback about this into the larger pool of knowledge and skill in the organization. Improvement seldom, if ever, occurs on a straight trajectory; it typically involves bumps and slides, as well as gratifying leaps. Learning about improvement occurs in the growth and development of common understandings about why things happen the way they do. Notice also that learning depends, to a very large degree, on the existence of some variation in the overall system. If everyone is doing exactly the same thing in exactly the same way (a highly unlikely event in a situ- ation where contexts vary dramatically by school and classroom), then we have no internal evidence on which to base judgments about how it might be done better.

Finally, add the problem of benchmarks or standards. Someone usually knows how to do something better than you do, no matter how well you may think you know how to do it. Using variation in practice and performance for purposes of improvement means exploiting situations in which some- one, inside or outside the organization, knows more than you do about what works. Often the knowledge gleaned from other contexts is woefully incomplete; it comes with blank spaces in critical places. So the task of learning from other people in other contexts is an active one of analyzing simi- larities and differences, adapting what makes sense, and leaving behind what doesn’t. The essential problem here, though, is that the knowledge we need to solve problems often doesn’t reside close at hand; it has to be found through active inquiry and analysis.

Improvement, then, is change with direction, sustained over time, that moves entire systems, raising the average level of quality and performance while at the same time decreasing the variation among units, and engaging people in analysis and understanding of why some actions seem to work and others don’t.

De-Romanticizing Leadership

Leadership is the guidance and direction of instructional improvement. This is a deliberately dero- manticized, focused, and instrumental definition. Leadership tends to be romanticized in American culture, especially in the culture of schooling, both because we subscribe heavily to trait theories of success—people succeed because of their personal characteristics, more than because of effort, skill, and knowledge—and because we like our heroes to have qualities that we think we don’t have. The

80 14 BUILDING A NEW STRUCTURE FOR SCHOOL LEADERSHIP

problem with this romanticized theory of leadership is that the supply of character traits we associate with “good” leaders is, by definition, limited, or we wouldn’t envy and admire them so much in other people. Also, character traits are much less amenable to influence by education, training, and practice than are knowledge and skill. Deromanticizing leadership would have a very positive effect on the quality of schools.

A definition of leadership in terms of instruction is also far more focused than most conceptions of leadership in education. Reading the literature on the principalship can be overwhelming, because it suggests that principals should embody all the traits and skills that remedy all the defects of the schools in which they work. They should be in close touch with their communities, inside and out- side the school; they should, above all, be masters of human relations, attending to all the conflicts and disagreements that might arise among students, among teachers, and among anyone else who chooses to create conflict in the school; they should be both respectful of the authority of district administrators and crafty at deflecting administrative intrusions that disrupt the autonomy of teach- ers; they should keep an orderly school; and so on.

Somewhere on the list one usually finds a reference to instruction, couched in strategically vague language, so as to include both those who are genuinely knowledgeable about and interested in instruction and those who regard it as a distraction from the main work of administration. But why not focus leadership on instructional improvement, and define everything else as instrumental to it? The skills and knowledge that matter in leadership, under this definition, are those that can be con- nected to, or lead directly to, the improvement of instruction and student performance. Standards- based reform forces this question. It makes leadership instrumental to improvement.

The leadership envisioned here differs from that typically described in the literature on manage- ment—leaders, or higher level managers, who exercise “control” over certain functions in the organ- ization. There are, to be sure, certain routine organizational functions that require control—bus schedules, payroll, accounting, etc. But the term “control” applied to school improvement is a dubi- ous concept because one does not “control” improvement processes so much as one guides them and provides direction for them, since most of the knowledge required for improvement must inevitably reside in the people who deliver instruction, not in the people who manage them. Control implies that the controller knows exactly what the controllee (if you will) should do, whereas guidance and direction imply some degree of shared expertise and some degree of difference in the level and kind of expertise among individuals. It is this problem of the distribution of knowledge required for large scale improvement that creates the imperative for the development of models of distributed leader- ship.

______The basic idea of distributed leadership 2 is not very complicated. In any organized system, people 2 For a more extensive typically specialize, or develop particular competencies, that are related to their predispositions, treatment of the theoreti- cal underpinnings of the interests, aptitudes, prior knowledge, skills, and specialized roles. Furthermore, in any organized sys- idea of distributed leader- tem, competency varies considerably among people in similar roles; some principals and teachers, ship, see (Spillane, Halver- for example, are simply better at doing some things than others, either as a function of their personal son et al. 1999) preferences, their experience, or their knowledge. Organizing these diverse competencies into a

81 BUILDING A NEW STRUCTURE FOR SCHOOL LEADERSHIP 15 coherent whole requires understanding how individuals vary, how the particular knowledge and skill of one person can be made to complement that of another, and how the competencies of some can be shared with others. In addition, organizing diverse competencies requires understanding when the knowledge and skill possessed by the people within the organization is not equal to the problem they are trying to solve, searching outside the organization for new knowledge and skill, and bringing it into the organization.

In a knowledge-intensive enterprise like teaching and learning, there is no way to perform these complex tasks without widely distributing the responsibility for leadership (again, guidance and direction) among roles in the organization, and without working hard at creating a common cul- ture, or set of values, symbols, and rituals. Distributed leadership, then, means multiple sources of guidance and direction, following the contours of expertise in an organization, made coherent through a common culture. It is the “glue” of a common task or goal—improvement of instruc- tion—and a common frame of values for how to approach that task—culture—that keeps distrib- uted leadership from becoming another version of loose coupling.

To be sure, performance-based accountability in schools, and good management practice generally, require that certain people be held responsible for the overall guidance and direction of the organiza- tion, and ultimately for its performance. Distributed leadership does not mean that no one is responsible for the overall performance of the organization. It means, rather, that the job of admin- istrative leaders is primarily about enhancing the skills and knowledge of people in the organization, creating a common culture of expectations around the use of those skills and knowledge, holding the various pieces of the organization together in a productive relationship with each other, and holding individuals accountable for their contributions to the collective result.

Since this view of leadership draws on several strands of research on school improvement, it is worth pausing here to take a brief inventory of how the idea emerges from the existing base of knowledge. Some time ago Susan Rosenholtz observed, based on an empirical study of variations in school effec- tiveness, that there were two distinctively different types of school cultures or climates. One kind of normative climate, characterized by an emphasis on collaboration and continuous improvement, develops in schools where teacher effort, through a variety of principal actions, is focused on skill acquisition to achieve specific goals. In such schools, experimentation and occasional failure are expected and acceptable in the process of teacher learning. Further, seeking or giving collegial advice is not a gauge of relative competence, but rather a professional action viewed as desirable, necessary, and legitimate in the acquisition of new skills.

In schools characterized by norms of autonomy, on the other hand, there are ambiguous goals and no attempt to develop a shared teaching technology. There is no agreement among teachers and principals about the outcomes they seek and the means for reaching them. In such settings, there- fore, definitions of teaching success and the manner in which it is attained are highly individualistic. Without these commonly held definitions, collegial and principal assistance serves no useful pur- pose. (Rosenholtz 1986, 101) These two cultures, she continues, result in “profoundly different opportunities for teachers’ skill acquisition.” (ibid.)

82 16 BUILDING A NEW STRUCTURE FOR SCHOOL LEADERSHIP

Rosenholtz argues that collegial support and professional development in schools are unlikely to have any effect on improvement of practice and performance if they are not connected to a coherent set of goals that give direction and meaning to learning and collegiality. Effective schools, she argues, have “tighter congruence between values, norms, and behaviors of principals and teachers, and the activities that occur at the managerial level are aligned closely with, and facilitative of, the activities that occur at the technical level. There is an organizational basis for directing behavior, for motivat- ing behavior, for justifying behavior, and for evaluating behavior.” (Rosenholtz 1985, 360) Signifi- cantly, she found that principals’ collegiality with teachers had no direct effect on school perform- ance, but it did have an indirect effect when mediated by school-level goal setting, as well as teacher recruitment, socialization, and evaluation. In other words, principal collegiality with teachers affects school performance only when it is connected to activities that focus the school’s purposes and that translate those purposes into tangible activities related to teaching. (Rosenholtz 1986, 100)

In addition, Rosenholtz draws a direct relationship between teachers’ uncertainty about the techni- cal core of their work and the normative environment in which they work. Schools with a strong normative environment focused on instructional goals promote a view of teaching as a body of skill and knowledge that can be learned and developed over time, rather than as an idiosyncratic and mysterious process that varies with each teacher.

The issues of uncertainty also extend to principals. Principals who attributed a high level of uncer- tainty to teaching practice tended to be “turf minded” and were unwilling to relinquish control in order that teacher colleagues may render mutual assistance. “By contrast,” she observes, “more cer- tain principals seem able to galvanize their faculties for specific, goal-directed endeavors, increasing teachers’ clarity about what to pursue.” (Rosenholtz 1989, 69)

Similarly, in a broadscale study of a national sample of high schools, Newmann, et al. found that teachers’ knowledge of each others’ courses and a focus on improved practice were, in addition to orderly student behavior, the cultural variables in schools that had the strongest relationship to teachers’ sense of efficacy. They also found that the responsiveness of administrators to problems of practice—with help, support, and recognition—was most strongly related to teachers’ perceptions of community within a school. Interestingly, they found no independent effect of teachers’ percep- tions of principals’ leadership, teachers’ participation in professional development, or teachers’ par- ticipation in organizational decisions on either teachers’ sense of efficacy or community. This latter finding is interesting not so much because of what it says about principal leadership and professional development, per se, because the schools in the sample represented the full array of practice in this regard. It is interesting because it suggests that principal leadership, professional development, and participation in decision-making by teachers have no effect on teachers’ sense of efficacy and com- munity unless they are deliberately connected to tangible and immediate problems of practice. (Newmann, Rutter et al. 1989, 360)

Rowan found in his review of research on school improvement that participation of teachers in extended roles—that is, roles that require them to acquire knowledge and solve problems in groups and networks as opposed to individually—“fosters higher levels of commitment and satisfaction.”

83 BUILDING A NEW STRUCTURE FOR SCHOOL LEADERSHIP 17

(Rowan 1990, 373)[See also, Little, 1982 #51] He also observed, though, that studies of teacher col- legiality under naturally occurring conditions suggest that teachers focus the bulk of their interac- tions on relatively narrow issues of materials, discipline, and the problems of individual students, rather than on the acquisition of new knowledge and skill. “Teachers reasoned that they talked less about these issues because they already knew much about these subjects and because teacher behav- ior is personal, private, idiosyncratic, and intuitive. Few thought that time and opportunity prevent exchanges of information about teaching behaviors.” (Rowan 1990, 375) In other words, participa- tion in collaborative work increases commitment and satisfaction among teachers, but it is unlikely to result in changes in teachers’ practice, skill, or knowledge in the absence of a clear organizational focus on those issues.

Recent international research from the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) corroborates the idea that a focus on concrete instructional practice results in increased student learning. Countries in TIMSS that scored well in mathematics and science tended to have less complex curricula, greater coherence of curriculum across age levels, and greater emphasis on narrowing the range of quality in the curriculum actually delivered in the classroom. Hence, when school organization and policy reinforce a focus on curriculum and embody clear expectations about the range of acceptable quality in the delivered curriculum, a broader range of students learn at higher levels. (Schmidt, et al. 1997; Stigler and Heibert 1999)

These studies dovetail well with the line of work I have been pursuing with my colleagues on school restructuring and accountability. In our study of schools involved in significant, self-initiated restructuring activities, we found that these activities, all of which involved high levels of collegial interaction among teachers, did not result in classroom practice that reflected the rhetoric of reform, except in a school where the principal and teachers explicitly created a normative environment around a specific approach to instruction. (Elmore, Peterson et al. 1996) Similarly, we found in our work on how schools construct their ideas about accountability that schools that lacked a strong internal normative environment—characterized by clear and binding expectations among teachers, among students and teachers, and among principals and teachers—were inclined to defer all judg- ments about what students could and should learn, and all decisions about to whom the school is collectively accountable for what, to individual teachers operating in isolation from each other. (Abelmann and Elmore 1999) For example, teachers in most schools in our study were unable to provide specific evidence about ways in which their daily decisions about instruction and their expectations for student learning were influenced by administrators in their schools or by their col- leagues. Hence, when asked to whom they were accountable, they would reply either to no one or to themselves. In a small proportion of schools in our study, teachers were able to cite specific exam- ples of how their practice and their expectations for student learning were influenced by their col- leagues, by administrators, or by external networks of colleagues outside their schools. These latter schools tended to have a clearer idea of their purposes, stated in terms of expectations for student learning, and to manifest these purposes in detailed decisions about classroom instruction.

Organizational coherence on basic aims and values, then, is a precondition for the exercise of any effective leadership around instructional improvement. Collaboration and collegiality among teach-

84 18 BUILDING A NEW STRUCTURE FOR SCHOOL LEADERSHIP

ers, and among teachers and principals, is a necessary but not sufficient condition for improvement. Distributed leadership poses the challenge of how to distribute responsibility and authority for guid- ance and direction of instruction, and learning about instruction, so as to increase the likelihood that the decisions of individual teachers and principals about what to do, and what to learn how to do, aggregate into collective benefits for student learning. I will discuss the practical implications of this challenge in a moment.

Before I advance, I would like to take a brief detour into the problem of learning and policy. David Cohen and Carol Barnes have suggested that we think about the pedagogical functions of policy, in addition to the institutional and political functions. They argue that, while policy—say, in the form of content and performance standards—is usually intended to convey information and intentions to teachers and administrators, the policies themselves seldom pay much attention to what teachers and administrators would actually have to learn and what their activities should be to behave consis- tently with the policy. They conclude a review of reform policies with the observation that:

The pedagogy of educational policy has been didactic and inconsistent. Policy makers have told teachers to do many different, hugely important things in a short time. And in each case policy makers have acted as though their assignment was to dispense answers, not to provoke thought, ask questions, or generate discus- sion. The pedagogy of policy has been teacher-centered. As policy makers taught, they created few opportu- nities to listen as teachers and other educators tried to make sense of new demands. Nor have policy makers cast policy as something that might be revised in light of what they learned from teachers’ experience. (Cohen and Barnes 1993, 2267)

In other words, the same argument about distributed leadership that applies within schools and school systems applies between policy makers and the organizations they attempt to influence. Pol- icy itself, in its design and implementation, is unlikely to augment or stimulate improvement in practice and performance if it doesn’t explicitly acknowledge the problems of expertise and learning embedded in its goals. Furthermore, policy is unlikely to result in improvement if it doesn’t focus and deliver a coherent message about purposes and the practices that exemplify them, in the same sense that organizational coherence on purpose and practice is an important precondition for the success of school improvement.

There is, of course, strong evidence that asking policy makers to bring coherence and stability to education policy at the state and local level is akin to trying to change the laws of gravity. Instability and incoherence, in the form of pluralist politics, are the rule; coherence and stability, the exception. Pluralism—organized factions mobilizing and using political institutions as a means for legitimizing their particular interests in public policy—is hardwired into the culture and institutional structure of American politics. James Madison, in Federalist #10 puts the matter succinctly: institutions of government exist to play the interests of competing factions against each other, so as to prevent the tyranny of one faction over all others.

In his exhaustive survey of midsized urban school districts in the U.S., Frederick Hess paints a deeply pessimistic picture for those, like myself, who see the future of urban school systems as lying in large scale improvement of the instructional core. Hess found that local school boards and super- intendents consistently engage in a kind of hyperactive policy dance—a phenomenon he calls “pol-

85 BUILDING A NEW STRUCTURE FOR SCHOOL LEADERSHIP 19 icy churn”—in which relatively unstable political factions advance new “reforms” as ways of satisfying their electoral constituencies, pausing only long enough to take credit for having acted, and quickly moving on to new reforms, with no attention to the institutionalization or implementation of previous reforms. The political rewards in the pluralist structure, Hess argues, are in the symbolism of initiation and enactment of reform, not in its implementation. Among the pathologies the incentive structure creates is high turnover of leadership, both political and administrative. The average tenure of superin- tendents in Hess’s sample was about two and one-half years. Factions are fickle, political opportunists abound. Board majorities hold onto school superintendents just long enough for them to advance their reform proposals (skillfully tailored to attaining their next job; after all, they are rational actors too), and at the first sign of opposition, move onto the next superintendent. (Hess 1999).

Fuhrman, while somewhat more sanguine about the prospects of coherent and stable reforms, iden- tifies clear tendencies working against coherence in the recent drift of American politics toward term limitations for legislative and gubernatorial offices. This, coupled with a tendency for elected offi- cials not to specialize in substantive policy areas long enough to develop understanding and expert- ise, leads to strong incentives for superficiality and instability. (Fuhrman 1993; Fuhrman 1994; Fuhrman and Elmore 1994)

Notice the compatibility of this pattern of politics with the institutional theory of loose-coupling outlined in the first section of this paper. While the pace and intensity of policy churn may have picked up in recent years, owing, in large part, to the growth of new electoral factions in urban areas and the introduction of electoral reforms designed to increase turnover in political office, the phe- nomenon of policy churn has a deep history in American educational policy. The metaphor that Larry Cuban uses to describe the relationship between reform policy and teaching practice from the late nineteenth century through the final decades of the twentieth, is the ocean in a severe storm: “The surface is agitated and turbulent, while the ocean floor is calm and serene (if a bit murky). Pol- icy churns dramatically, creating the appearance of major changes, calculated to reinforce the sym- bolic rewards of action for policy makers and to cement the logic of confidence in the institutions, while deep below the surface, life goes on largely uninterrupted.” (Cuban 1984)

So whatever problems of leadership might lie in the administration of schools and school systems, these problems are reflected and amplified in policy leadership. Administrative and policy leaders are joined in a codependent, largely dysfunctional relationship, and as in most such relationships, the bond is strengthened by its pathology. We transform dysfunctional relationships into functional ones, not by continuing to do what we already know how to do more intensively and with greater enthusiasm, but by learning how to do new things and, perhaps more importantly, learning how to attach positive value to the learning and the doing of new things. Therein lies the challenge of harness- ing leadership to the problem of large scale improvement.

Creating a new model of distributed leadership consists of two main tasks: 1) describing the ground rules which leaders of various kinds would have to follow in order to engage in large scale improve- ment; and 2) describing how leaders of various kinds in various roles and positions would share responsibility in a system of large scale improvement. It should go without saying that this model is

86 20 BUILDING A NEW STRUCTURE FOR SCHOOL LEADERSHIP

necessarily provisional and tentative since it is a considerable departure from the status quo and its basic premise is that improvement involves both learning the ground rules and sharing responsibil- ity for implementing them over time. It is impossible to say at the outset exactly what will be required at later stages.

Here, then, are five principles that lay the foundation for a model of distributed leadership focused on large scale improvement:

The purpose of leadership is the improvement of instructional practice and performance, regardless of role: Institutional theories of leadership, in the loose-coupling mode, stress the role of leaders as buffers of outside interference and as brokers between the institutions of public schooling and their clients. Political theories of group leadership stress the role of leaders as coalition-builders and bro- kers among diverse interests. Managerial theories of leadership stress the role of leaders as custodians of the institutions they lead—paterfamilias—and sources of managerial control. Cultural theories of leadership stress the role of leaders as manipulators of symbols around which individuals with diverse needs can rally. None of these theories captures the imperative for large scale improvement, since none of them posits a direct relationship between the work that leaders should be doing and the core functions of the organization. One can be adept at any of these types of leadership and never touch the instructional core of schooling. If we put improvement of practice and performance at the center of our theory of leadership, then these other theories of leadership role must shift to theories about the possible skills and knowledge that leaders would have to possess to operate as agents of large scale instructional improvement. If the purpose of leadership is the improvement of teaching practice and performance, then the skills and knowledge that matter are those that bear on the creation of settings for learning focused on clear expectations for instruction. All other skills are instrumental. Hence,

Instructional improvement requires continuous learning: Learning is both an individual and a social activity. Therefore, collective learning demands an environment that guides and directs the acquisi- tion of new knowledge about instruction. The existing institutional structure of public education does one thing very well: It creates a normative environment that values idiosyncratic, isolated, and individualistic learning at the expense of collective learning. This phenomenon holds at all levels: individual teachers invent their own practice in isolated classrooms, small knots of like-minded practitioners operate in isolation from their colleagues within a given school, or schools operate as exclusive enclaves of practice in isolation from other schools. In none of these instances is there any expectation that individuals or groups are obliged to pursue knowledge as both an individual and a collective good. Unfortunately the existing system doesn’t value continuous learning as a collective good and does not make this learning the individual and social responsibility of every member of the system. Leadership must create conditions that value learning as both an individual and collective good. Leaders must create environments in which individuals expect to have their personal ideas and practices subjected to the scrutiny of their colleagues, and in which groups expect to have their shared conceptions of practice subjected to the scrutiny of individuals. Privacy of practice produces isolation; isolation is the enemy of improvement.

87 BUILDING A NEW STRUCTURE FOR SCHOOL LEADERSHIP 21

Learning requires modeling: Leaders must lead by modeling the values and behavior that represent collective goods. Role-based theories of leadership wrongly envision leaders who are empowered to ask or require others to do things they may not be willing or able to do. But if learning, individual and collective, is the central responsibility of leaders, then they must be able to model the learning they expect of others. Leaders should be doing, and should be seen to be doing, that which they expect or require others to do. Likewise, leaders should expect to have their own practice subjected to the same scrutiny as they exercise toward others.

The roles and activities of leadership flow from the expertise required for learning and improvement, not from the formal dictates of the institution. As we shall see shortly, large scale improvement requires a relatively complex kind of cooperation among people in diverse roles performing diverse func- tions. This kind of cooperation requires understanding that learning grows out of differences in expertise rather than differences in formal authority. If collective learning is the goal, my authority to command you to do something doesn’t mean much if it is not complemented by some level of knowledge and skill which, when joined with yours, makes us both more effective. Similarly, if we have the same roles, I have little incentive to cooperate with you unless we can jointly produce some- thing that we could not produce individually. In both instances the value of direction, guidance, and cooperation stems from acknowledging and making use of differences in expertise.

The exercise of authority requires reciprocity of accountability and capacity: If the formal authority of my role requires that I hold you accountable for some action or outcome, then I have an equal and complementary responsibility to assure that you have the capacity to do what I am asking you to do. (Elmore 1997) All accountability relationships are necessarily reciprocal—unfortunately, often only implicitly. Policy usually states the side of accountability in which a person with formal authority requires another to do something he or she might not otherwise do except in the presence of such a requirement. Many educational professionals perceive standards in this way—as a set of require- ments carrying formal legal authority, without attending to the circumstances that make doing the work possible. Furthermore, policy makers typically fail to acknowledge their own learning curve and to model it for others. This creates expectations that everyone should know what they don’t know and without any preparation. The chief policy leaders—elected officials—are finally account- able to the public for providing the resources and authority necessary for improvement. The chief administrative leaders—superintendents and principals—are accountable for using these resources and authority to guide improvement. Both types of leaders are responsible for explicitly modeling in their own behavior the learning they expect of others. And leaders of practice—teachers and pro- fessional developers—are accountable for developing the new knowledge and skill required for the demands of broad-scale improvement. Distributed leadership makes the reciprocal nature of these accountability relationships explicit. My authority to require you to do something you might not otherwise do depends on my capacity to create the opportunity for you to learn how to do it, and to educate me on the process of learning how to do it, so that I become better at enabling you to do it the next time.

The practical side of a theory of distributed leadership describes how leadership roles would be defined if these principles were to work. The table on the following page (TABLE 1) describes one

88 10430-AFT.p.12,15,26,29 1/15/01 5:12 PM Page 22

22 BUILDING A NEW STRUCTURE FOR SCHOOL LEADERSHIP

TABLE 1

89 BUILDING A NEW STRUCTURE FOR SCHOOL LEADERSHIP 23 possible way of defining leadership roles. The table makes little sense, however, without first describ- ing some underlying assumptions about the nature of the work involved in large scale improvement and how it translates into leadership roles. The first assumption has to do with distribution of expertise around the problem of improvement. There is a principle of comparative advantage, embedded in the table, which essentially says that people should engage in activities that are consis- tent with the comparative expertise of their roles and avoid activities that are beyond their expertise. Policy makers (state and local board members and state legislators, for example) should, as elected officials, have a comparative advantage in adjudicating conflicts among competing interests, win- nowing these interests down into goals and standards on what should be taught, setting the legal mandate within which rewards and sanctions are administered, and translating the feedback from various quarters into new guidance. Policy makers do not have a comparative advantage on issues relating to the specific content of standards or of practices that lead to student performance of a cer- tain kind, no matter how well they do their jobs, no matter what their expertise has been in the past, no matter how much effort they invest in learning about standards and practice. They don’t have a comparative advantage in these domains because the nature of their work does not permit them to develop it; in fact, the better they are at their work, the more they should recognize the limits of their expertise. The content of standards and instructional practice lie in the domain of professional knowledge, broadly defined as the intersection between instructional practice in classrooms and schools and systematic inquiry and evaluation of practice. To the extent that professional knowledge exists, it cuts across the specific community contexts in which it has to be used. Hence, the “profes- sional community” might say that a particular kind of standard represents the best current concep- tion of what should be taught, and the standard could be effectively enacted using a variety of instructional practices, but specific decisions about what a standard looks like when it is enacted in a given classroom, school, or school system would require expertise in both the practice and the con- text. This leads to a dependency across the professional community and leaders at the system, school, and classroom levels. So the functions described in Table I reflect the comparative advan- tages of different leadership roles in different positions, as well as their dependencies on each other.

I have used the language of “comparative advantage” here because I want to emphasize the degree to which large scale improvement requires deference to and respect for expertise, coupled with reci- procity of accountability. I have selfconsciously avoided using terms like “division of labor” or “divi- sion of responsibility” because I think it connotes a kind of balkanization that is more typical of loose-coupling than of distributed leadership. Spillane, in his important piece on distributed leader- ship, borrows from the language of distributed cognition and speaks of expertise and responsibilities as being “stretched over” people in different roles rather than neatly divided among them. (Spillane, Halverson et al. 1999) The language fails us here, because the terminology that comes most readily to the surface in discussions of policy and management is the language of control rather than the language of reciprocity and mutual dependency.

Another aspect of Table I that might strike readers as unfamiliar is the addition of “professional” and “practice” roles to the conventional inventory of policy, system, and school level leaders. This is an explicit acknowledgement of the importance of instructional expertise, at both the general, profes- sional, level and at the level of schools and classrooms. Since this is the task of large-scale improve- ment and improvement is about the development and distribution of knowledge, leadership func-

90 24 BUILDING A NEW STRUCTURE FOR SCHOOL LEADERSHIP

tions engaged in improvement have to include those that explicitly create and engage people in learning new forms of practice. These roles must develop in systems that are engaged in large-scale improvement. Where they don’t exist, they will have to be created or redefined from existing roles.

Notice also that there is a role for leaders in moving non-instructional issues out of the way to pre- vent them from creating confusions and distraction in school systems, schools, and classrooms. The principle of buffering here is the inverse of the principle of buffering under loose-coupling. In a loosely-coupled system administrators buffer instructional practice from outside interference. In a distributed leadership system the job of leaders is to buffer teachers from extraneous and distracting non-instructional issues so as to create an active arena for engaging and using quality interventions on instructional issues.

Overall, then, Table I presents a model of how one might go about reconstructing roles and func- tions around the idea of distributed leadership in the service of large scale instructional improve- ment. The exact design of roles and functions is less important than the underlying principles of dis- tributed expertise, mutual dependence, reciprocity of accountability and capacity, and the centrality of instructional practice to the definition of leadership roles. Policy leadership, in this model, focuses on translating diverse political interests into coherent standards of content and performance, adjudicating conflicts around the nature of goals, exercising discipline in the design and redesign of accountability systems, and keeping the system focused on its core functions and their consequences for students. Professional leadership—stemming from the research community, professional associa- tions, and knowledgeable experts in content, pedagogy, and professional development—focuses on creating external benchmarks for content and pedagogy that represent the best available knowledge at any given time. Administrative leadership, at the system and school levels, designs strategies of improvement that aligns these with practice using resource allocation, hiring, evaluation, retention, and accountability measures. The job of leaders of instructional practice is to extend professional leadership into schools and school systems, drawing upon the differential expertise of educators at each level. Those who have a higher degree of knowledge, skill, and competence should be expected to spend some portion of their work engaged in the improvement of practice across schools and classrooms. The success of such a framework depends as much on the transactions across roles—the creation of mutual dependency and reciprocity—as it does on defining the core responsibilities of the roles themselves.

It is also worth emphasizing again that this model of distributed leadership is very far from the dom- inant institutional structure of most public schools and school systems. It confronts the impulses for privacy and for idiosyncratic instructional practice. It challenges the conventional roles of policy and administrative leaders in buffering that practice from outside interference. It posits instead a model in which instructional practice is a collective good—a common concern of the whole the institution—as well as a private and individual concern. It posits a theory of leadership that, while respecting, acknowledging, and capitalizing on differences in expertise, predicts failure in the social isolation of practice and predicts success in the creation of interdependencies that stretch over these differences.

91 BUILDING A NEW STRUCTURE FOR SCHOOL LEADERSHIP 25

Learning to do the Right Things: Issues of Institutional Design and Practice

ANY WELL-INTENTIONED REFORMERS argue that large scale improvement of schools can be accomplished by recruiting, rewarding, and retaining good people and releasing them from the bonds of bureaucracy to do what they know how to do. Schools get better, in this view, by attracting and empowering good people. It’s not Mhard to see why this view is so widely held among educators. It accords well with the existing institu- tional structure. The properties of system inhere in the personal qualities of the people in it, not in the system itself. To the minds of these reformers the job of the system is to stay out of the business of the gifted practitioners who work in it and to keep the outside world at bay. The problem with this view, of course, is that it produces “good” practice and performance only from those people who already embody the personal attributes and characteristics that make good practice and performance possible. We know that this proportion seldom grows larger than about one quarter or one third of the total population of classrooms, schools, or systems.

What’s missing in this view is any recognition that improvement is more a function of learning to do the right things in the setting where you work than it is of what you know when you start to do the work. Improvement at scale is largely a property of organizations, not of the pre-existing traits of the individuals who work in them. Organizations that improve do so because they create and nurture agreement on what is worth achieving, and they set in motion the internal processes by which peo- ple progressively learn how to do what they need to do in order to achieve what is worthwhile. Importantly, such organizations select, reward, and retain people based on their willingness to engage the purposes of the organization and to acquire the learning that is required to achieve those purposes. Improvement occurs through organized social learning, not through the idiosyncratic experimentation and discovery of variously talented individuals. Experimentation and discovery can be harnessed to social learning by connecting people with new ideas to each other in an environ- ment in which the ideas are subjected to scrutiny, measured against the collective purposes of the organization, and tested by the history of what has already been learned and is known.

The idea of learning to do the right thing—collectively, progressively, cumulatively over time—is at the core of the theory of standards-based reform. Such reforms must set content and performance targets, open school performance up to public scrutiny and discourse, and, over time, calibrate rewards and sanctions based on the degree to which schools and school systems engage in sustained improvement. There are, to be sure, major problems with the design of most state standards and accountability systems, problems of the sort one would expect with new policies that are discontinu-

92 26 BUILDING A NEW STRUCTURE FOR SCHOOL LEADERSHIP

ous with past policies and that deal with inherently complex processes and institutions. As noted in the previous section, the success of these policies will depend, in large part, on the willingness of pol- icy makers to model the kind of learning they are expecting from educators—to scrutinize their own actions and consequences and to modify policies based on their impact on practice and performance.

As important as the problems of policy design and implementation are, the problems of institu- tional design and educational practice embedded in standards-based reform are much, much larger. One can “make” policy by stitching together coalitions of political interests. Redesigning institu- tions and improving educational practice are massively more complex. As noted earlier, they involve changes of the most fundamental kind in the norms and values that shape work in schools, in the way the resources of the system get used, in the skills and knowledge that people bring to their work, and in how people relate to each other around the work of the organization. If the theory of distrib- uted leadership outlined in the previous section is correct, these problems of institutional design and practice cannot be solved through policymaking alone. Policy can set the initial expectations and conditions within which large scale improvement will occur, it can set targets for practice and per- formance, it can open and stimulate public discussion about content and performance in schools, and it can alter the incentives under which schools and school systems work. The closer policy gets to the instructional core—how teachers and students interact around content—the more policy makers lose their comparative advantage of knowledge and skill, and the more they become dependent on the knowledge and skill of practitioners to mold and shape the instructional core; the more—again, in the words of distributed cognition—knowledge of policy and practice have to be “stretched over” each other in order to be complementary.

Issues of institutional design and practice in large scale improvement are the domains where our col- lective, public knowledge is weakest. There is strong suggestive evidence, both in early research on effective schools and districts and in recent research on the effects of standards-based reform, that some schools and districts are systematically better at the tasks of large scale improvement of instruc- tion and performance than others. Murphy and Hallinger, in a study of instructionally effective school districts in California—school districts that showed high performance on student achieve- ment measures relative to others, controlling for student composition—found evidence of common strategic elements in the way these districts managed themselves.

Their superintendents were knowledgeable about, and the key initiators of, changes in curriculum and teaching strategies. Superintendents and system-level staff were active in monitoring curriculum and instruction in classrooms and schools, as well as active in the supervision, evaluation, and men- toring of principals. Superintendents in high-performing districts were also more likely to dismiss principals on the basis of their performance. These districts showed a much greater clarity of pur- pose, a much greater willingness to exercise tighter controls over decisions about what would be taught and what would be monitored as evidence of performance, and a greater looseness and dele- gation to the school level of specific decisions about how to carry out an instructional program. Despite strong leadership, these districts were less bureaucratic than their counterparts. They tended to rely more on a common culture of values to shape collective action than on bureaucratic rules and controls. The shared values typically focused on improvement of student learning as the central goal,

93 BUILDING A NEW STRUCTURE FOR SCHOOL LEADERSHIP 27 evidence of steady, sustained improvement, a positive approach to problem-solving in the face of unforeseen difficulties, a view of structures, processes, and data as instruments for improvement rather than as ends in themselves, and a heavy internal focus by administrators on the demands of instruction, rather than a focus on events in the external environment. (Murphy, Hallinger et al. 1987; Murphy and Hallinger 1988) [see also, Peterson, 1987 #471]

Spillane’s more recent work on the district role in the implementation of reform in mathematics instruction points to the pivotal role that district personnel, including administrative leaders, play in shaping discourse about the purpose of changes in instruction, in setting expectations about what will happen in classrooms, and in modeling the active construction of new knowledge, both about the teaching of mathematics and about the learning of new conceptions of content and pedagogy. Spillane’s theory focuses on the parallel processes of cognitive change that must occur across levels of the district in order for new ideas to reach into the instructional core, again pointing to the impor- tance of a common normative frame in shaping instructional change on a large scale. (Spillane n.d.) [See also, Spillane, 1999 #17]

Knapp and his colleagues, in their study of high-quality instruction in high-poverty classrooms, found that the modal pattern of district involvement in instructional improvement was either nega- tively associated with high-quality practice (pushing teachers toward less ambitious, lower level, more structured practice) or, more commonly, chaotic and incoherent. “Most teachers,” they con- clude, “received mixed signals [from the district] about what to teach.” Furthermore, they found that the instruments that most districts use to influence instruction—guidelines, textbook adop- tions, testing and assessment, scope-and-sequence requirements by grade level, etc.—were almost entirely disconnected from the learning that teachers had to do in order to master more ambitious instructional practices. Districts were, in their words, long on pressure and short on support (know- ing what support to offer takes instructional sophistication), with the predictable effect that much of the learning that did occur around ambitious instructional practice was idiosyncratic by school and classroom. (Knapp, Shields et al. 1995) This research tracks with earlier work on the determi- nants of content and pedagogy in a large sample of schools which concluded that, for the most part, district influences on instructional practice were diffuse and ineffectual, usually not reaching deeply into teachers’ decisions about what to teach or how. (Floden, Porter et al. 1988)

With an explicit focus on standards-based reform, Grissmer and Flanagan have attempted to explain the reason for larger than expected gains in achievement on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) and on state-administered performance measures in Texas and North Carolina, two states with very diverse student populations and with relatively well developed standards-based reform policies in place. They demonstrate that the achievement gains are, in fact, larger than one would predict based on performance of similar students in other states, and that the achievement gains seem to be occurring disproportionately among traditionally low-performing students. They offer as explanations for these gains a number of factors, including clearly stated content and per- formance standards, an incentive structure that focuses on the performance of all students, not just on average school performance, consistency and continuity of focus among political leaders, clear accountability processes, and a willingness to give flexibility to administrators and teachers in craft-

94 28 BUILDING A NEW STRUCTURE FOR SCHOOL LEADERSHIP

ing responses to the accountability system. They also observe that “both states have built a substan- tial infrastructure for supporting a process of continual improvement. . ., jointly funded through the public and private sectors” that uses research and technical assistance around research on effective practice and professional development. (Grissmer and Flanagan November 1998)

______A parallel study, conducted by the Dana Center in Texas, examined high-performing Texas school 3 The study includes ten districts3 with diverse student populations. The study found that superintendents in these districts districts in which at least used their positions to create a sense of urgency in their communities that translated into expecta- 50 percent of the students are low income and at least tions that students could meet demanding new standards. They used data on student performance one third of the schools in to focus attention on problems and successes, they built district accountability systems that comple- each district received mented the state’s system, and they forged strong relationships with their boards around improve- either of the highest two ratings in the state’s ment goals. They created a normative climate in which teachers and principals were collectively accountability system, responsible for student learning and in which the improvement of instruction and performance was putting these schools in the central task and other distractions were reduced. Accountability systems in these districts the top 40 percent of schools in the state. rewarded higher performance with greater discretion and challenged school personnel to develop (Ragland, Asera et al. better solutions to the problems faced by the districts. Superintendents realigned district offices in 1999) these systems to focus on direct relationships with schools around instructional issues, and they

______focused more energy and resources on professional development, much of it delivered in classrooms 4 This study also found and schools rather than in offsite locations.4 (Ragland, Asera et al. 1999) suggestive, but not con- clusive, evidence that sta- bility of leadership and My own work on instructional improvement in Community School District #2, New York City, good relations between reinforces many of the themes in these studies. District #2 is, by any standard, one of the highest- superintendents and performing urban school systems in the country with, overall, fewer than 12 percent of its stu- boards around core issues of instruction were a key dents—60 percent of whom are low income—scoring in the lowest quartile of nationally standard- factor. ized reading tests. A comparable figure for most urban districts in the 40–50% range.

The District #2 story is a complex one, as are, I suspect, the stories of all improving school districts. But the main themes of the story are continuity of focus on core instruction, first in literacy and then on mathematics; heavy investments in highly targeted professional development for teachers and princi- pals in the fundamentals of strong classroom instruction; strong and explicit accountability by princi- pals and teachers for the quality of practice and the level of student performance, backed by direct oversight of classroom practice by principals and district personnel; and a normative climate in which adults take responsibility for their own, their colleagues, and their students’ learning. At all levels of the system, isolation is seen as the enemy of improvement, so most management and professional devel- opment activities are specifically designed to connect teachers, principals, professional developers, and district administrators with each other and with outside experts around specific problems of practice.

Principals in District #2 are directly and explicitly accountable for the quality of instruction and per- formance in their schools, which means that principals and teachers hold their jobs based on their capacity to learn how to practice at progressively higher levels of accomplishment. Schools operate in very distinct and different communities, they embody very different problems of practice, they include very different student populations, and they are at very different places in their improve-

95 BUILDING A NEW STRUCTURE FOR SCHOOL LEADERSHIP 29 ment processes. The district applies a strategy of differential treatment to these variations, concen- trating more oversight, direction, and professional development on those schools with the lowest- performing students, adapting professional development plans for every school to the particular ______instructional progress of specific teachers in those schools, and granting high-performing schools 5 In my own attempts to more discretion than low-performing schools in both practice and professional development. Prin- explain my work in District cipals are the lynchpins of instructional improvement in District #2. They are recruited, evaluated, #2 to practitioners from other districts, I have heard and retained or dismissed based on their ability to understand, model, and develop instructional what I think must be every practice among teachers and ultimately, on their ability to improve student performance. possible explanation of why the District #2 experience could not be useful in other District #2 has also been characterized by an extraordinary level of stability in leadership. Anthony settings: District #2 is a Alvarado, the superintendent who initiated the strategy, was in the district for eight years, and his small district, therefore its lessons don't transfer to former deputy, Elaine Fink, who served as the main source of instructional guidance and oversight large districts. Actually, at in the district during Alvarado’s whole term, is now superintendent. Similarly, the community 23,000 students, the dis- trict is larger than the aver- school board, which is quite diverse and represents many segments of a very diverse community, has age school district and been relatively stable and has served as a stable source of guidance and support for administrative about the same size as many districts with high propor- leadership. (Elmore and Burney 1997; Elmore and Burney 1997; Elmore and Burney 1998) tions of low-income chil- dren. District #2 has excep- Considering the magnitude of the task posed by standards-based reform for local school districts tional teachers (one of my favorites), therefore one and schools, there is shockingly little research and documentation of institutional design and prac- can't expect "ordinary tice in exceptionally high-performing school districts. The available work does point to common teachers" to do what teach- ers in District #2 do. Actu- themes, which I will treat in a moment. But the knowledge base on which to base advice to local dis- ally, District #2 has tricts on the design of large scale improvement processes is very narrow. attracted exceptional teach- ers by being good at what it does. District #2 must have Educators are fond of responding to any piece of research that demonstrates a promising approach, a different union contract or any seemingly successful example from practice, with a host of reasons why “it”—whatever it is— than the one in my district in order to get teachers to would never work in their setting. Their students are much different from those in the example, participate in so many pro- their communities would never tolerate such practices, their union contract contains very different fessional development provisions that would never permit such actions, their teachers are much too sophisticated (or unso- activities. Actually, District #2 operates under the same phisticated) to deal with such improvements, etc., etc., etc. The institutional environment of public union contract as all other education is, in the default mode, astonishingly, perversely, and ferociously parochial and particular- community districts in New York City, it has devel- istic; all significant problems are problems that can only be understood in the context of a particular oped exceptionally strong school or community; no knowledge of any value transfers or adapts from one setting to another. 5 working relations with the union, and it has its share of union/management The most effective response to this parochialism, which is a direct outgrowth of the isolation of issues. District #2 must teaching as a vocation, is to surround practitioners with dozens, perhaps hundreds, of examples of spend an inordinate amount of time "teaching systems that have managed to design their institutional structures around large scale improvement. to the test" to get such high The way to get those examples is both to substantially increase the research and documentation of scores. In fact, teachers high-performing systems with high proportions of low-income students and to use policy to stimu- spend very little time preparing students to take late demand for such knowledge, by investing in inspection activities among high and low-perform- standardized tests; the per- ing districts. The states that seem to be stimulating higher proportions of high-performing districts formance gains are mostly produced by high quality seem to be the ones that have invested the creation of an infrastructure to capture, examine, and dis- instruction. After a while, seminate successes of large scale improvement. (O’Day, Goertz et al. 1995; Grissmer and Flanagan one begins to think that the November 1998) Still, in the short term, the fundamental problem is a relative lack of knowledge source of questions is not curiosity but its opposite.

96 10430-AFT.p.12,15,26,29 1/15/01 5:13 PM Page 30

30 BUILDING A NEW STRUCTURE FOR SCHOOL LEADERSHIP

TABLE 2 97 BUILDING A NEW STRUCTURE FOR SCHOOL LEADERSHIP 31 about the practical issues of institutional design in the face of problems, stimulated by standards- based reform, that require knowledge-intensive solutions.

Based on existing work, however, it is possible to state a few initial guiding principles that can be used to design institutional structures and to stimulate practices that result in large scale improve- ment. Table 2, at left, states these principles. Again, the exact form or wording of the principles is less important than the fact that they are an attempt to derive general guidance from practice and research in a form that can be tried in multiple settings and revised and elaborated with experience.

A major design principle is to organize everyone’s actions, at all levels of the system, around an instructional focus that is stable over time. Most low-performing schools and systems start, for example, with a single instructional area—literacy, in most cases—and focus on that area until prac- tice begins to approach a relatively high standard in most classrooms and performance begins to move decisively upward. They then add another instructional area—typically mathematics—and increase the level of complexity they expect of teachers and principals in practice and learning. Even relatively high-performing schools and districts could benefit from this approach, since the purpose of focus is not just to improve practice and performance but to teach people in the organization how to think and act around learning for continuous improvement. Presumably, many nominally high-per- forming schools and districts do well because of the backgrounds of their students and may be just as lacking in organizational resources for learning as low-performing schools. Focus also has to be accompanied by stability—in leadership, in the language that high-level administrators and board members use to describe the goals and purposes of the organization, and in the commitment to monitoring and redesigning policies and structures that are supposed to enable improvement. Most importantly, the principle of tight focus and stability in message should apply to everyone. Superin- tendents and board members should be just as subject to criticism for straying off message as princi- pals and teachers.

Another major design principle has to do with the development and conduct of accountability rela- tionships in schools and school systems. It appears from early research that school systems that improve are those that have succeeded in getting people to internalize the expectations of standards- based accountability systems, and that they have managed this internalization largely through mod- eling commitment and focus using face to face relationships, not bureaucratic controls. The basic process at work here is unlearning the behaviors and normative codes that accompany loose-cou- pling, and learning new behaviors and values that are associated with collective responsibility for teaching practice and student learning.

People make these fundamental transitions, by having many opportunities to be exposed to the ideas, to argue them into their own normative belief systems, to practice the behaviors that go with these values, to observe others practicing those behaviors, and, most importantly, to be successful at practicing in the presence of others (that is, to be seen to be successful). In the panoply of rewards and sanctions that attach to accountability systems, the most powerful incentives reside in the face to face relationships among people in the organization, not in external systems. It is the dailiness of life in schools and school systems that sustains loose-coupling. Unless new values and behaviors

98 32 BUILDING A NEW STRUCTURE FOR SCHOOL LEADERSHIP

reach into the dailiness of schools, there will be no change in business as usual.

The early evidence also suggests that low-capacity schools and school systems—schools and systems with weak collective values and atomized organizations—tend to try to find the easiest possible way of solving accountability problems with the knowledge they already have. (Abelmann and Elmore 1999) Schools tend to teach to the test because they have no better ideas about how to improve con- tent and pedagogy. They tend to focus on students who are closest to meeting standards rather than those who are furthest away. They tend to give vague and general guidance about instruction rather than working collectively on learning new instructional practices, etc. Improving school systems override these practices by insisting that the expectations and standards apply to all students, which translates into examining assessment data on individual students in all classrooms and schools, focusing on the particular problems of low-performing students, and avoiding judgments about school performance based on school or grade level averages.

A corollary of this focus on all students is that adults in the organization all frame their responsibili- ties in terms of their contribution to enhancing someone else’s capacity and performance. System- level administrators are judged on the basis of how well they contribute to principals’ capacities to work with teachers, principals are judged by how well they contribute to teachers, and teachers are judged for their contributions to students. In very well developed improvement systems, one could imagine the evaluation working the other way too—students being evaluated, in part, on their con- tribution to improving their teachers’ capacities, teachers for principals, principals for superintend- ents, etc.

One thing is clear: schools and systems that are improving directly and explicitly confront the issue of isolation embedded in loose-coupling. Administrators—both system-level and school-level—are routinely engaged in direct observation of practice in schools and classrooms; they have mastered ways of talking about practice that allow for non-threatening support, criticism, and judgment. Such systems also create multiple avenues of interaction among classrooms and schools, as well as between schools and their broader environment, always focusing on the acquisition of new skills and knowledge. They adjust and adapt the routines of the workplace—teaching schedules, prepara- tion periods, substitute teacher allocations—with the primary purpose of creating settings where teachers, administrators, and outside experts can interact around common problems of practice. In the words of Anthony Alvarado, former superintendent of District #2, all discussions are about “the work” and all nonclassroom personnel are expected to learn and model the practices they want to see in the classroom in their own interactions with other people in the organization. Inquiry-oriented classrooms, working toward high standards of performance, require inquiry-oriented administrators and support staff who not only know what a good classroom looks like, but who consistently use the precepts of instructional practice in their own interactions with others. A corollary of this principle is that if anyone’s practice is subject to observation, analysis, and critique, then everyone’s practice should be. Supervisors should be just as subject to evaluation as those they supervise. The principle of reciprocity applies to all accountability relationships; there can be no demands without attention to the capacity that exists to deliver them. Such reciprocity makes the purpose of getting better at work the common currency of exchange in all relationships.

99 BUILDING A NEW STRUCTURE FOR SCHOOL LEADERSHIP 33

Improving school systems appear not to have been captured by age-old, largely pointless debate about centralization versus decentralization. Rather they seem to have developed ways of tailoring systemwide strategies of improvement to differences in communities, schools, and classrooms, with- out losing the overall coherence of systemwide standards for content and performance. I call this phenomenon differential treatment. Research on school-based management has said for a long time—more than ten years now—that there is no systematic relationship between the degree of cen- tralization in school systems and their overall performance. (Malen, Ogawa et al. 1990; Elmore 1993; Drury 1999) This should not be a particularly mysterious finding, since decentralization tends to be toward the top of the list of symbolic reforms that most relatively large districts under- take to create the appearance that they are governing schools, even as they seldom, if ever, deal directly with instruction or student performance. And, one might add, these schemes are almost never fully implemented before they are overturned in favor of some other innovation. (Hess 1999) Indeed, one could argue that certain school-based management reforms are explicitly designed to push instructional decisions off the policy agenda altogether and focus debate instead on the repre- sentation of key constituencies in school governance.

It seems clear that administrators in the districts that are improving avoid pointless and distracting debates about centralization and decentralization. Instead, they spend a lot of time building a sense of urgency and support in specific schools and communities around issues of standards and perform- ance. It also seems clear that if they communicate that urgency to principals and teachers, as well as to schools collectively, they will have to accept a high degree of responsibility for the detailed decisions required in managing improvement. In so doing they may need to engage in differential treatment of high- and low-performing schools, varying both the content of their oversight and professional devel- opment and the process by which they deal with schools, depending on how well a given school is doing on instructional quality and performance. Burney and I have documented this process in some detail in District #2. It is less well documented in other settings. (Elmore and Burney 1997)

It seems that discretion in decision-making about core issues should, in some fundamental sense, be a function of demonstrated capacity and performance in managing an improvement process at the school level. This is the final design principle I would offer. Elsewhere, I have called this the issue of “what’s loose and what’s tight.” (Elmore 1993) That is, strategic administrators seem to have differ- ent standards for how much discretion they grant to various units in their systems, based on judg- ments about how well those units can manage their resources in an improvement process. While high-performance organizations might require high levels of discretion in their operating units, most large school systems are confronted with schools that are either at widely different levels of quality and performance or at uniformly low levels of quality and performance. Starting with a broad scale grant of discretion to all schools in either of these situations virtually guarantees that those who know what to do will get better and those who don’t will stay the same or get worse. So some form of differential treatment, based on judgments of quality and performance, seems to be a requirement of large scale improvement. Yet differential treatment only makes sense, as an adminis- trative strategy, when it is embedded in a set of clear expectations and standards of learning that apply to all schools, teachers, and students. Differential treatment is, in other words, not an invita-

100 34 BUILDING A NEW STRUCTURE FOR SCHOOL LEADERSHIP

tion to return to loose-coupling; it requires careful scrutiny of instructional practice and student performance in schools, as well as detailed knowledge of the conditions that distinguish one school from another in responding to common expectations.

Also, it should go without saying that volunteerism is not a strategy of differential treatment. In sys- temwide improvement, schools don’t get to choose whether they participate or not. Participation is condition of being in the system. Different schools might get to choose how they will participate. Some systems have allowed schools to enter various phases of an improvement process at different times. Some systems allow schools to choose among an array of instructional approaches as the focus for improvement. There are a variety of ways of introducing choice at the front end of an improve- ment process. But allowing schools to choose whether they participate is tantamount to returning to the old principles of loose-coupling, in which improvement occurs in small pockets captured by faithful adherents to some instructional approach and never influences the rest of the system. It is not coincidental, I think, that most of the current examples of improving districts occur in states that have relatively strong standards-based accountability systems in place. Local school systems in those states are at various stages of discovering that, in some fundamental sense, they don’t have the option of using volunteerism, since ultimately their performance as a system will be based on the performance of all classrooms and schools in the system.

101 BUILDING A NEW STRUCTURE FOR SCHOOL LEADERSHIP 35

Conclusion

HAVE ARGUED that standards-based reform poses problems of the deepest and most fundamen- tal sort about how we think about the organization of schooling and the function of leaders in school systems and schools. The stakes are high for the future of public schooling and for the students who attend public schools. Change, as it has been conceived and carried out in the Ipast, is not an option in responding to these problems. Large scale, sustained, and continuous improvement is the path out of these problems. This kind of improvement is what the existing insti- tutional structure of public schooling is specifically designed not to do. Improvement requires funda- mental changes in the way public schools and school systems are designed and in the ways they are led. It will require changes in the values and norms that shape how teachers and principals think about the purposes of their work, changes in how we think about who leaders are, where they are, and what they do, and changes in the knowledge and skill requirements of work in schools. In short, we must fundamentally re-design schools as places where both adults and young people learn. We are in an early and perilous stage of this process, in which it is not clear whether public schooling will actu- ally respond to the challenge of large scale improvement or will adapt to this reform in the way it has adapted to others over the past century, by domesticating it into the existing loose-coupled institu- tional structure.

The pathologies of the existing institutional structure—a normative environment that views all matters of practice as matters of idiosyncratic taste and preference, rather than subject to serious debate, discourse, or inquiry; a structure of work in which isolation is the norm, and collective work is the exception; and a managerial philosophy in which it is the job of administrators to protect or buffer teachers from the consequences of their instructional decisions and from any serious discus- sion of practice—these pathologies are all being addressed, in one way or another, in isolated school systems that are seriously at work on the problems of large scale improvement. The question is whether other school systems, operating in an environment of increased attention to student per- formance and quality of instruction, will discover that they need to learn not just different ways of doing things, but very different ways of thinking about the purposes of their work, and the skills and knowledge that go with those purposes.

This shift requires first, a redefinition of leadership, away from role-based conceptions and toward distributive views; and second, a clearer set of design principles to guide the practice of large scale improvement. Distributed leadership—hardly an original idea with me—derives from the fact that large scale improvement requires concerted action among people with different areas of expertise

102 36 BUILDING A NEW STRUCTURE FOR SCHOOL LEADERSHIP

and a mutual respect that stems from an appreciation of the knowledge and skill requirements of different roles. Design principles derive from the fact that large scale improvement processes run directly against the grain of the existing institutional structure of public education, and therefore it is difficult to do anything consequential about large scale improvement without violating some fun- damental cultural or managerial tenet of the existing structure. The problem, then, is how to con- struct relatively orderly ways for people to engage in activities that have as their consequence the learning of new ways to think about and do their jobs, and how to put these activities in the context of reward structures that stimulate them to do more of what leads to large scale improvement and less of what reinforces the pathologies of the existing structure.

As I said earlier, I offer these design principles based on my own work on large-scale improvement and from my reading of the little research that exists on the subject. The main point here should be the urgency of learning more about these issues in many school districts and in many different set- tings. This requires pressing hard for more concrete knowledge about how large-scale improvement processes work.

103 BUILDING A NEW STRUCTURE FOR SCHOOL LEADERSHIP 37

Bibliography

Abelmann, C. and R. F. Elmore (1999). “When Accountability Knocks, Will Anyone Answer?” Consor- tium for Policy Research in Education Research Report RR42.

Bidwell, C. (1965). The School as a Formal Organization. Handbook of Organizations. J.G. March. Chicago. Rand McNally.

Cohen, D. K. and C. A. Barnes (1993). Pedagogy and Policy. Teaching for Understanding: Challenges for Policy and Practice. D. K. Cohen, M. W. McLaughlin and J. E. Talbert. San Francisco, JosseyBass: 207-239.

Cuban, L. (1984). How Teachers Taught: Constancy and Change in American Classrooms. New York, Longman.

Cuban, L. (1988). The Managerial Imperative and the Practice of Leadership in Schools. Albany, NY, State University of New York Press.

Cuban, L. (1990). “Reforming Again, Again, and Again” Educational Researcher 19(l): 3-13.

Drury, D. W. (1999). Reinventing School-Based Management: School-Based Improvement Through Data-Driven Decision-Making. Alexandria, VA, National School Boards Association.

Elmore, R. (1993). School Decentralization: Who Gains? Who Loses? Decentralization and School Improvement. J. Hannaway and M. Carnoy. San Francisco, Jossey Bass.

Elmore, R. and D. Burney (1998). Continuous Improvement in Community School District #2, New York City, University of Pittsburgh, Learning Research and Development Center, High Per- formance Learning Communities Project.

Elmore, R. F. (1996). “Getting to Scale with Good Educational Practice.” Harvard Educational Review 66(l): 1-26.

Elmore, R. F. (1997). Accountability in Local School Districts: Learning to do the Right Things. Improving Educational Performance: Local and Systemic Reforms. P. W. Thurston and J. G. Ward. Greenwich, CT, JAI Press, Inc. 5: 59-82.

104 38 BUILDING A NEW STRUCTURE FOR SCHOOL LEADERSHIP

Elmore, R. F., C. H. Abelmann, et al. (1996). The New Accountability in State Education Reform. Holding Schools Accountable. H. Ladd. Washington, D.C., The Brookings Institution: 65-98.

Elmore, R. F. and D. Burney (1997). Investing in Teacher Learning: Staff Development and Instruc- tional Improvement in Community District #2, New York City, National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future and Consortium for Policy Research in Education.

Elmore, R. F. and D. Burney (1997). School Variation and Systemic Instructional Improvement in Community School District #2, New York City. University of Pittsburgh, Learning Research and Development Center, High Performance Learning Communities Project.

Elmore, R. F., P. L. Peterson, et al. (1996). Restructuring in the Classroom: Teaching, Learning, and School Organization. San Francisco, Jossey Bass.

Floden, R., A. Porter, et al. (1988). “Instructional Leadership at the District Level: A Closer Look at Autonomy and Control” Educational Administration Quarterly, 24: 96-124.

Fuhrman, S. H. (1993). The Politics of Coherence. Designing Coherent Education Policy: Improving the System. San Francisco, Jossey Bass: 1-34.

Fuhrman, S. H. (1994). Legislatures and Education Policy. The Governance of Curriculum.

R. F. Elmore and S. H. Fuhrman. Alexandria, VA, Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD): 30-55.

Fuhrman, S. H. and R. F. Elmore (1994). Governors and Education Policy in the 1990s.The Gover- nance of Curriculum. R. F. Elmore and S. H. Fuhrman. Alexandria, VA, Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD): 56-74.

Grissmer, D. and A. Flanagan (November 1998). Exploring Rapid Achievement Gains in North Car- olina and Texas. Washington, D.C., National Education Goals Panel.

Hess, F. M. (1999). Spinning Wheels: The Politics of Urban School Reform. Washington, D.C., The Brookings Institution.

Knapp, M. S., P. M. Shields, et al. (1995). The School and District Environment for Meaning-Ori- ented Instruction. Teaching for Meaning in High Poverty Classrooms. M. Knapp.

Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher: A Sociological Study. Chicago, University of Chicago Press.

Lortie, D. (1987). “Built In Tendencies Toward Stabilizing the Principal’s Role.” Journal of Research and Development in Education 22(l): 80-90.

Malen, B., R. Ogawa, et al. (1990). What Do We Know About School-Based Management? Choice and Control in American Education. W. Clune and J. Witte. 2:289-432.

105 BUILDING A NEW STRUCTURE FOR SCHOOL LEADERSHIP 39

Meyer, J. and B. Rowan, Eds. (1992). The Structure of Educational Organizations, Organizational Environments: Ritual and Rationality. Newbury Park, CA, Sage.

Murphy, J. (1990). “Principal Instructional Leadership.” Advances in Educational Administration I (Part B): 163-200.

Murphy, J. and P. Hallinger (1988). “Characteristics of Instructionally Effective School Districts.” Jour- nal of Educational Research 81(3): 175-181.

Murphy, J., P. Hallinger, et al. (1987). “The Administrative Control of Principals in Effective School Districts.” The Journal of Educational Administration 25(2): 161-192.

Newmann, F. M., R. Rutter, et al. (1989). “Organizational Factors that Affect School Sense of Efficacy, Community, and Expectations.” Sociology of Education 62(4): 221-238.

O’Day, J., M. Goertz, et al. (1995). Building Capacity for Education Reform, Consortium for Policy Research in Education, University of Pennsylvania.

Powell, A. G., E. Farrar, et al. (1985). The Shopping Mall High School: Winners and Losers in the Edu- cational Marketplace. Boston, Houghton-Mifflin.

Ragland, M. A., R. Asera, et al. (1999). Urgency, Responsibility, Efficacy: Preliminary Findings of a Study of High Performing Texas School Districts. Austin, TX, The Charles A. Dana Center, University of Texas, Austin.

Rosenholtz, S. (1989). Teachers’ Workplace. New York, Longman.

Rosenholtz, S. J. (1985). “Effective Schools: Interpreting the Evidence.” American Journal of Education 93(3): 352-388.

Rosenholtz, S. J. (1986). “Organizational Conditions of Teacher Learning.” Teaching and Teacher Edu- cation 2(2): 91-104.

Rowan, B. (1990). Commitment and Control: Alternative Strategies for the Organizational Design of Schools.

Schmidt, William, McKnight, Curtis, and Raizen, Senta. 1997. The Splintered Vision: An Investiga- tion of U.S. Science and Mathematics Education. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Spillane, J. P. (n.d.). “Cognition and Policy Implementation: District policy makers and the Reform of Mathematics Education.” Unpublished Paper, Northwestern University.

Spillane, J. P., R. Halverson, et al. (1999). Distributed Leadership: Toward a Theory of School Leadership Practice. Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal.

Stigler, James and Hiebert, James. 1999. The Teaching Gap. New York: Free Press.

106 40 BUILDING A NEW STRUCTURE FOR SCHOOL LEADERSHIP

Tyack, D. (1974). The One Best System. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press.

Tyack, D. and L. Cuban (1995). Tinkering Toward Utopia: A Century of Public School Reform. Cam- bridge, MA, Harvard University Press.

Tyack, D. and E. Hansot (1982). Managers of Virtue: Public School Leadership in America, 1820–1980. New York, Basic Books.

Weick, K. E. (1976). “Educational Organizations as Loosely-Coupled Systems.” Administrative Science Quarterly 21(l): 1-19.

107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 http://www.aasa.org/SchoolAdministratorArticle.aspx?id=8828

The School Administrator Features Reclaiming Children Left Behind

Addressing the causes and cures for low minority achievement by N. Gerry House

One of my most unforgettable and painful moments as an educator occurred during my first few months as superintendent of the Memphis, Tenn., City Schools. I had to meet with two caring, responsible and very disillusioned minority parents whose daughter was graduating as valedictorian of one of our inner-city high schools.

The parents were distraught. Their hardworking, dedicated student had a 4.0 grade point average but a score of 15 (out of 36) on the ACT exam used for admissions decisions at colleges and universities.

Their child had worked hard for a scholarship she knew she needed to be the first in her family to go to college. Now she was devastated. The family, which had supported her and dreamed with her, was shattered. There would be no scholarship. There would be no four- year college with that low score. The school had not prepared that child for a higher level of education. The system had failed her—as it fails millions like her.

A U.S. Department of Education study shows that the average 12th-grade African-American student is reading and doing math at around the level of the average 8th-grade white or Asian student. Hispanic students are about as far behind. Both African-Americans and Hispanic college students obtain diplomas at half the rate of white or Asian students. Inner- city high schools that serve low-income minority and immigrant populations graduate fewer than half their students. Those who do manage to make it through high school, in too many cases, have had their academic careers badly mishandled, have been tracked into oblivion or have been mislabeled into mediocrity.

The conditions for low minority achievement are both educational and a combination of social-economic-environmental issues. Together, they create a negative synergy that can relegate students to the ash heap. Our sense of urgency about implementing valid solutions stems from the bleak options for those students who are left behind.

Inside Schools The stark failure of our education system to prepare all of our children for productive futures is attributable to several factors, among them low expectations, traditional organizational structures and poor instruction, resistance to change, lack of leadership, the

147 shortage of quality teachers and a failure to recognize the remarkable resilience and dreams of even those students who struggle the most.

When I was superintendent in Memphis, we eliminated all math courses below Algebra 1 in high schools. Students had to take at least a three-year college-prep math program because the low-level courses to which many had been assigned no longer existed.

Low expectations are a life sentence for these children. A rigorous college-prep program is how a student gets to college. In today’s knowledge economy, most of the good jobs in fields that are growing require a college diploma as an entry ticket. We start with the premise that college is necessary for minority children with a history of low-achievement and then it becomes a matter of tracking them into college.

Low-achieving students are the products of low expectations. They get less challenging work because teachers don’t expect much from them. Less challenging work means the students have less-developed cognitive skills. Those students are condemned to low self- esteem. Students who are disrespected by the work become less and less capable.

Traditional school structure is another culprit. It can crush a child with a fragile purchase on academic competence. Too many schools with large populations of poor minority students are designed to do anything but help them. The schools are huge, dreary, impersonal, under-resourced, low performing and unsafe, oblivious to the promise of the young lives who venture inside for awhile and frequently drop out. They are schools that lose children, not schools where children can find themselves.

Institutions with a long history of failure will not become havens of success by continuing to do what they have always done or making a few minor adjustments. This is as true for a school as it is for a business. Bold, systemic change that revolutionizes every aspect of the school is required. Leadership, policy, curriculum, instruction, student support, data collection and evaluation—all of it has to be stood on its head, re-examined, re-invented.

It takes the very best teachers—those with a passion for content, solid pedagogical skills and a grounding in the particular needs of low-achieving students—to succeed at these kinds of educational heroics. Sadly, those teachers are not typically the ones we find in underperforming schools with large populations of minority children.

In Redesigning Schools, What Matters and What Works, author Linda Darling-Hammond observes: “A substantial body of research suggests that one of the most important school determinants of student achievement is the quality of teachers.” But we know what happens in inner-city schools. Cities recruit new teachers for schools that have trouble retaining faculty. The new teachers, inexperienced and undersupported, flee to better pay and better working conditions at the first opportunity. Turnover is high; quality is low. A Gallup Poll conducted for Phi Delta Kappa showed that poor urban schools had three times the attrition rate of any other schools.

148 Outside Classrooms The educational factors that affect low-achieving students are compelling. But just as urgent are the communities and the conditions of their lives outside the classroom. In fact, we can argue, and studies show, no walls exist between the two.

Confronting the enormity of the social, economic and environmental barriers to achievement for at-risk students can seem overwhelming and beyond the mandate of schools and teachers. But it is at the heart of reclaiming those students and freeing them to realize their dreams. The issues are a necessary consideration of any solution.

Most low-achieving minority students live in single-family homes where the average income is below the poverty level. They have limited access to quality health care. The education level of their parents is frequently below high school. The communities that surround them are poor and without resources. No libraries. No parks. No museums or public performances. No quality preschool. No decent housing. No models for understanding or accessing these things even if they did exist. Bring this child into a classroom and all that is lacking comes with him or her.

A high correlation exists between parent education, family income and school achievement. A high correlation also exists between a quality preschool experience and student achievement. To narrow the focus of improving scholarship to the school alone is to ignore economic, social and community gaps that are as wide and treacherous as sinkholes.

Policy researcher Richard Rothstein, author of Class and Schools, has studied the correlates for low achievement and underscores this point: “We know that a great deal of the variance in achievement is related to factors beyond school and, therefore, that direct nonacademic intervention at the individual, family and community levels can increase educational outcomes.”

In other words, low-achieving minority students cannot depend solely on school to remedy the problems that interfere with learning. They are caught between schools that don’t serve their needs and family and community resources inadequate to compensate. Only by acknowledging that a multifaceted impoverishment of resources creates the net they are trapped in can we begin to unravel it.

Transformation Tools We can turn low achievement into academic success. The strategies I work with at the Institute for Student Achievement and that others use in similar programs are aimed at the high school level. But the principles apply to any level where students are desperate for a real chance at learning in the face of tremendous odds. Those strategies are academic rigor, support for students, personalization, continuous improvement and a professional learning community for teachers.

At a time when the vast majority of jobs require a college degree or some type of postsecondary degree, most low-achieving students are relegated to classrooms where remediation and low skills instruction are the norm. According to the Bureau of Labor

149 Statistics, 65 percent of the available jobs in 1950 were filled by unskilled workers. By 2000, that percentage had more than reversed to 85 percent of jobs requiring professional and skilled workers and 15 percent requiring unskilled workers. So whether a student chooses to attend college, the job of the school is to prepare students so they have the choice to make.

In order for low-achieving students to be prepared for the challenges of postsecondary education, the workplace and citizenship, they need to learn how to use their minds well, to think, to reason, to solve problems, to make meaning from knowledge and facts—all habits that are developed when teaching and learning are intellectually rigorous.

However, just giving low achievers intellectually challenging work won’t make them college-ready. These students do come to high school with low performance that can’t be ignored. They need directed, quality time during the school day and beyond the school day—an extension of the regular, academically rigorous program into after hours. That time should be used for skill development, tutoring, test prep, college tours, homework and project work.

Personalized Learning When extended day is relevant to the challenging academic program, when the students know the teacher has high expectations for them and when the students are engaged in meaningful work, they will attend.

At Bushwick High School, a school in Brooklyn, N.Y., that partners with the Institute for Student Achievement, students who were working on a challenging group project took it upon themselves to stay after school to work together, gave up their lunchtime to work and waited for the teacher in the morning before the start of class. After they had passed the course, they came back to continue working on their project because they felt they weren’t finished exploring its possibilities.

Parent involvement is not optional in the reclamation of low-achieving kids. Minority parents can provide a solid foundation for a student’s academic success. A key point is to build trust with parents. Often their own school experiences were unhappy ones. They have doubtless endured many negative contacts with schools when their child was in trouble. So it is critical that parents be helped to see the school as a friendly, welcoming place. Staff and teachers must reach out to parents and families to establish alliances, develop relationships and keep channels of communication open.

Schools can use different strategies for creating a personalized learning environment. At Bronx International School, personalization is achieved through the use of advisories where teachers serve as advisers, counselors and advocates for a small number of students throughout the four years of high school. No student falls through the cracks.

Teachers need support, too. They need professional development to integrate literacy and numeracy across the curriculum. They need transitions to use an inquiry-based approach to learning. They need to learn about promoting higher-order thinking and complex

150 problem solving. They need experience in using multiple forms of assessment and time with colleagues to plan and develop curriculum and discuss ways to help their students. They need external coaches who can work with them to assess their practice, co-construct lessons and implement strategies. Coaching is a critical and often neglected component of professional development.

And finally, teachers must be supported in their efforts to connect with minority students’ communities and culture and to celebrate both in making learning meaningful.

Schools that try new approaches to lift the level of low-achieving minority students need to document progress carefully. It is imperative to collect data on optimal and just-ordinary approaches, to adjust and refine and even revolutionize the curriculum to energize forward momentum. Schools that work in this way self-examine and self-monitor curriculum, instruction, use of time, class organization, professional development, student performance and teacher assignments.

Benchmarks for student progress are attendance, course passing grades, test data and graduation rates. Assessments of student performance can be portfolios, demonstrations and exhibitions of authentic student work.

Conditions for Change Once we add up all the proven elements that lead to high student achievement, we get a picture of a very different school, a connected, intimate, demanding school. A small school.

Small is the concept at the heart of the new student success model. Small schools allow for things that aren’t possible in large schools, such as a laser-like focus on academic rigor, the expectation that every student will graduate and go on to college, support for students and personalization.

Tom Vander Ark, executive director of education for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and a former school superintendent, told an audience: “The evidence is clear, in fact it is overwhelming: Small schools improve attendance, achievement, climate, safety, graduation and college attendance rates, staff satisfaction and parent involvement. And the research is clear, size is even more important for disadvantaged students. Of the great high schools that I’ve visited, the schools that have served disadvantaged students and achieve graduation and college attendance rates of at least 90 percent all have fewer than 400 students.”

None of this happens without the support of districts, administrators and school boards for real transformation. Administrators have to be willing to provide resources and assess and change policies, procedures, structures and norms of behavior that do not lead to high achievement for all students.

Equally important is a strong principal. The principal who actively encourages commitment to a compelling vision and mission creates the positive change that can come from uniformly high expectations for the school and its students. The principal-as-catalyst

151 promotes and rewards experimentation and provides time and support for teachers to research and examine new approaches for meeting the needs of low-achieving students.

That principal needs teachers who value working collaboratively, who take responsibility for student learning and who are willing to invest time in their own professional development. Teachers who care about what they do and who do it well are not only catalysts for student achievement; they also are role models for how to shape and conduct a productive life.

And last, we need among all of us a sense of urgency about low-achieving minority students. We need to believe that it is not all right to deny some American children access to a quality education. We need to appreciate the real human cost of such negligence.

Persistent Aspirations The Institute for Student Achievement surveyed the 9th graders in our partner schools about their aspirations and career intentions. These are children with a history of failure and outward behavior that would suggest they have the same low expectations for themselves that others have of them. These are kids who have been written off. Close to 90 percent of those low-achieving minority students said they intended to go to college. Those kids were silently holding on to their dreams and aspirations, refusing to give up on themselves.

So we can’t give up on them either. It takes significant and sustained work to provide the conditions for academic success to low-achieving minority students. It takes a willingness to tackle profound change and learn right along with the students. But it can be done and it must be done. Those children don’t have any other options. So we don’t have any other choice.

Gerry House, a former superintendent, is president and CEO of the Institute for Student Achievement, 1 Hollow Lane, Suite 100, Lake Success, NY 11042. E-mail: ghouse@isa- ed.org

152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167