\doc\web\97\08\schowork.txt DRAFT Schools That Work: Can We Do That Too? by Michael McKeown Substantial concerns have been raised about the quality of the education our children, especially children in public schools, are receiving. The causes for these concerns include 1) the perception of many parents and community members that students know, or can do, far less than they should; 2) the low scores of American students relative to students in Asia and Europe on objective tests; and 3) the notable and continuing performance gap between affluent and poor students, and between Caucasian and Asian students and students of other ethnic groups. It is clear that these concerns are raised by both general perceptions of student performance and by the results of objective, standardized tests of student competence. The concordance of objective testing and subjective opinion suggest that the problem of poor student performance is real, that poor objective test scores do reflect a true weakness among students, and that superior test scores are likely to indicate true academic strength. Two goals that many would accept are o Raise achievement levels for all students o Raise achievement for low performing students thus decreasing the achievement gap between children from rich and poor families or between different ethnic groups, even as all students improve. Many different ideas have been put forward to realize these goals. Some, for example, have suggested that we need new methods of teaching subjects such as math since "women and minorities learn math differently" (J. Price, former President NCTM). In this context, it has been suggested that learning by deductive reasoning should be decreased and that a new emphasis should be place on discovery learning, inductive logic, group work and discussions and non-traditional modes of assessment such as portfolios of student work. In contrast, others have suggested that the key to success is high, explicit, standards of learning judged by regular objective testing. Advocates of such standards often favor teaching using a Direct Instruction method, where Direct Instruction is a highly structured method of presenting material in a very specific way, with exact and specific work and achievement goals. In reading and math discovery learning techniques are heavily utilized by Whole Language programs and by specific math curricula such as Quest2000 and Glencoe Interactive (both adoptions in SDCS) that are aligned with the Standards of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). Direct Instruction techniques are found in phonics-based reading programs such as Reading Mastery and Open Court and math programs such as Connecting Math Concepts and the books from Saxon Publishers. The American Federation of Teachers (AFT, a major teacher's union) and others have suggested that high, clear, grade-by-grade, testable standards are the key to raising achievement of all students, and to raising US students to the level of students in European and Asian, where such standards are common. There have been some attempts by private organizations to establish content and performance standards for American students. Some of these, such as those of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM), differ from those suggested by the AFT in covering broad bands of grades (K-4, 5-8, 9-12) instead of being grade by grade; in being vague with regard to exactly what students should know and be able to do; and in concentrating heavily on teaching methods rather than on student achievement. Given this confusion of methods for achieving agreed upon goals, we have chosen to take an empirical approach. Specifically, we have searched for schools with high student performance in spite of characteristics usually associated with low student achievement. Having identified such schools, we then asked what they do and what they do differently from other schools. The data that follow are obtained from the three such schools we were able to identify in California. We hope that there are other such schools, but we have not yet identified them. Each of these schools is a public school in a district not necessarily associated with academic excellence. Two of these schools are in the same district. This is not an accident, the Principals of these schools established their programs together, thus allowing us to conclude that their success is the result of the plan and the program and not of luck. We have spoken to the Principals of each of these schools in an attempt to determine how well these schools are doing and what they actually do. Each Principal was specifically asked to comment on the statement that "Explicit, grade-by-grade standards of what students should know and when they should know it are detrimental to children of color." All three reject this statement with essentially the same words, "That is nonsense." Each of these Principals believes in high standards for students. In the case of Bennett-Kew in Inglewood, the mathematics standards are not just year-by-year, but month-by-month. In all of the schools, there is regular diagnostic testing of student progress and immediate remediation. There is also a willingness to tell students that if they don't perform they will not be promoted. The principal at Kelso specifically commented that when the school raised the standard of achievement required to be promoted to seventh grade, the children improved their performance to the required level. Although it may not be the only style of instruction that succeeds, all three of these schools are committed to Direct Instruction, with systematic explicit phonics instruction. The two Inglewood schools use the Open Court reading program. Bennett-Kew uses an older Silver-Burdett math program supplemented as necessary to meet the school standards. Herman Leimbach uses the whole array of Direct Instruction Materials from SRA/McGraw-Hill (Reading Mastery, Writing Mastery, and Connecting Math Concepts). #012#Bennett-Kew Inglewood, CA Nancy Ichinaga, Principal 310-419-2501 Demographics 54% African-American 44% Hispanic (mostly immigrant and Limited English Proficiency, LEP) 2% Other 70% qualify for subsidized lunch 1996 test scores. All children tested, including those with less than 1 semester in the school. This is up to 20% of the students in some cases. Additional scores are available for earlier years The test is CAT-5 and the numbers are NCE, which is essentially percentile GRADE 1 2 3 4 5 Subject Reading 65 55 54 52 48 Math 62 72 68 69 75 #012# Kelso School Inglewood, CA Marjorie Thompson, Principal 310-419-2526 FAX 310-674-5108 E-mail c/o yvette@kelso.inglewood.k12.ca.us Demographics >50% Spanish speaking LEP 99+% minority "one anglo child in the school." All reading instruction in English Test scores, CAT-5, "#177#3 or 4 NCE points" GRADE 1 2 3 4 5 6 Reading 60-65 55-60 55-60 50 50 50 #012# Herman Leimbach School Sacramento, CA (Elk Grove District) Milley Schrader, Principal 916-689-2120 FAX 916-689-8400 Demographics 927 Students, 45 GATE Enrolled 42% African-American 15% Asian 23% Hispanic 14% White 30% LEP Students/ 18 different languages 71.49% qualify for subsidized lunch Test scores CTBS First Grade 1992- 52 %ile CAT-5 %ile Grade 2 1993 Vocabulary 43 Reading Comprehension 55 Total Reading 52 Language Mechanics 59 Language Expression 46 Total Language 52 Grade 3 (year not given) Word Analysis 70 Vocabulary 53 Reading comprehension 53 Total Reading 58