[Senate Hearing 111-1121]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 111-1121
ESEA REAUTHORIZATION:
IMPROVING AMERICA'S SECONDARY SCHOOLS
=======================================================================
HEARING
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION,
LABOR, AND PENSIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION.
ON
EXAMINING ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT REAUTHORIZATION,
FOCUSING ON IMPROVING AMERICA'S SECONDARY SCHOOLS
__________
MAY 4, 2010
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
56-380 WASHINGTON : 2012
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION, LABOR, AND PENSIONS
TOM HARKIN, Iowa, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut
BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland
JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico
PATTY MURRAY, Washington
JACK REED, Rhode Island
BERNARD SANDERS (I), Vermont
SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
ROBERT P. CASEY, JR., Pennsylvania
KAY R. HAGAN, North Carolina
JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon
AL FRANKEN, Minnesota
MICHAEL F. BENNET, Colorado
MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming
JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire
LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia
JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
TOM COBURN, M.D., Oklahoma
PAT ROBERTS, Kansas
Daniel Smith, Staff Director
Frank Macchiarola, Republican Staff Director and Chief Counsel
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
__________
STATEMENTS
TUESDAY, MAY 4, 2010
Page
Harkin, Hon. Tom, Chairman, Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions, opening statement......................... 1
Burr, Hon. Richard, a U.S. Senator from the State of North
Carolina....................................................... 2
Enzi, Hon. Michael B., a U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming,
prepared statement............................................. 3
Hagan, Hon. Kay R., a U.S. Senator from the State of North
Carolina....................................................... 4
Bennet, Hon. Michael F., a U.S. Senator from the State of
Colorado....................................................... 5
Johnson, Cassius O., Director of Education Policy, Jobs for the
Future, Boston, MA............................................. 6
Prepared statement........................................... 7
Deshler, Donald D., Ph.D.,Director, University of Kansas Center
for Research and Learning, Lawrence, KS........................ 12
Prepared statement........................................... 14
Capozzi, John, Principal, Elmont Memorial High School, Elmont, NY 22
Prepared statement........................................... 23
Harrison, Richard, Middle School Director, Denver School for
Science and Technology, Denver, CO............................. 25
Prepared statement........................................... 26
Webber-N'Dour, Karen, Principal, National Academy Foundation High
School, Baltimore, MD.......................................... 31
Prepared statement........................................... 33
Habit, Tony, Ed.D., President, North Carolina New Schools
Project, Raleigh, NC........................................... 37
Prepared statement........................................... 40
Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, a U.S. Senator from the State of Alaska.... 48
Franken, Hon. Al, a U.S. Senator from the State of Minnesota..... 50
Bingaman, Hon. Jeff, a U.S. Senator from the State of New Mexico. 54
Roberts, Hon. Pat, a U.S. Senator from the State of Kansas....... 55
Sanders, Hon. Bernard, a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont.. 59
Merkley, Hon. Jeff, a U.S. Senator from the State of Oregon...... 63
Reed, Hon. Jack, a U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode Island... 66
Additional Material
Statements, articles, publications, letters, etc.:
Submissions by Donald D. Deshler, Ph.D.:.....................
What's Evidence Got To Do With It? An Observational Study
of Research-Based Instructional Behavior In High School
Classes................................................ 75
The Content Literacy Continuum: A School Reform Framework
For Improving Adolescent Literacy For All Students..... 98
(iii)
ESEA REAUTHORIZATION: IMPROVING AMERICA'S SECONDARY SCHOOLS
----------
TUESDAY, MAY 4, 2010
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:20 p.m. in Room
SD-430, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Tom Harkin,
chairman of the committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Harkin, Bingaman, Murray, Reed, Sanders,
Casey, Hagan, Merkley, Franken, Bennet, Burr, Murkowski, and
Roberts.
Opening Statement of Senator Harkin
The Chairman. The Senate Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions will please come to order.
Today's hearing, ``Improving America's Secondary Schools,''
will explore the challenges facing America's middle and high
schools and how ESEA reauthorization can help States and
districts address those challenges.
Without question, among the most serious challenges is the
high dropout rate in the United States. Each year, 1.2 million
students drop out of school; that's about 7,000 per day. This
crisis disproportionately affects students who are low-income,
minority, or have disabilities. While only 70 percent of
America's students graduate from high school on time, that
number drops to just over 50 percent for Hispanic, Black, and
Native American students. Students from low-income backgrounds
are 10 times more likely to drop out of high school than their
more affluent peers.
Research shows that the middle grades are a critical time
to influence whether students graduate from high school. The
decision to drop out is rarely the result of a single life
event; in fact, many students exhibit academic warning signs
years before they leave high school. We need to look at ways to
identify these students through the use of early-warning data
systems. As early as sixth grade, such systems can use
information on, for instance, absence rates or course failures
to identify students who are struggling. This information can
be used to target appropriate interventions to get them back on
track. ESEA reauthorization offers an important opportunity to
improve outcomes for millions of students by turning around the
lowest performing secondary schools.
About 2,000, or 12 percent, of American high schools
produce over 50 percent of the Nation's dropouts. Twelve
percent of the schools produce over 50 percent of the Nation's
dropouts. In this reauthorization, I also intend to address the
full spectrum of students' educational needs. We need to do
more to ensure that every child gets a high-quality education
early in life. We need that support to start at birth, if not
sooner. In addition, we must do more for secondary school
students. Currently, only about 10 percent of title I funds go
to high schools, although they educate about one-quarter, or 25
percent, of low-income students.
So, today I look forward to hearing from our witnesses on
the most effective interventions to help students stay on track
to graduate and prepare for success in college and careers. I
also look forward to the recommendations for what it takes to
create world-class secondary schools that will help all
students succeed.
I know Senator Enzi will be here later, but Senator Burr is
here, and I would turn to him if he has his opening statement.
Statement of Senator Burr
Senator Burr. Mr. Chairman, very briefly, let me ask
unanimous consent that the Ranking Member's opening statement
be made a part of the record.
The Chairman. It will be included in the record.
Senator Burr. I thank the Chair. Let me also take this
opportunity, if I could, to welcome our witnesses, especially
Tony Habit, from North Carolina, who has really led a charge at
trying to change the outcome of education in our State.
Let me just echo something I think the Chairman alluded to,
even though I didn't hear the whole statement. This past year,
only 70 percent of our 9th through 12th graders crossed the
goal line on time--meaning, a diploma, graduation. If this were
a disease, we'd call it an epidemic, and we'd do whatever we
needed to, to fix it. The truth is that, community by
community, legislature by legislature, we all seem numb to the
fact that 30 percent of the kids do not, on time, get the
document they need to be invited for an interview. Federal law
says that everybody can fill out an application.
But, stop and think for a moment. Who is invited for an
interview who does not have a high school diploma? For
education? To allow this to happen for 30 percent of our high
school students is unconscionable. At a time that we are
challenged, right now, to address the career paths of our
graduates of higher education, where, last year alone, over 60
percent did not find a career; they found a job, but not a
career. This year, in less than a month, we will see another
group that comes out with 9.7 percent unemployment.
Mr. Chairman, we have to fix education, we have to fix the
economy, we have got to fulfill the promise we made to these
kids: ``If you will stick with it, if you will work hard,
education will be the key to an unlimited opportunity for you,
and you will only be limited by how hard you are willing to
work and what you are willing to put in.''
It is my hope that we will listen intently to what our
witnesses have to say today. This may be our last best chance
to get this right.
I thank the Chair.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Burr.
I will leave the record open for Senator Enzi's opening
statement.
[The prepared statement of Senator Enzi follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Enzi
Thank you, Senator Harkin, for holding this hearing today
on improving America's Secondary Schools. The success of our
Nation's middle and high schools is vital in preparing our
students for the 21st century economy.
The Federal Government's role should be to encourage and
support States and school districts so that more students
graduate from high school on time with the knowledge and skills
they need to attend college and enter the workforce without the
need for remediation. However, the present situation is
discouraging. Every day in the United States, 7,000 students
drop out of school. If the high school students who had dropped
out of the class of 2009 had graduated instead, the Nation's
economy would have benefited from an additional $335 billion in
income they would have earned over their lifetimes. It is an
incredible statistic. Because we could not reach those 7,000
students, it will cost us and them $335 billion in income,
which means we all lose.
The future outlook is no better. It is estimated that
without dramatic changes in our Nation's lowest-performing
middle and high schools 12 million students will drop out of
school over the next decade. The result long term will be a
loss to the Nation of $3 trillion, and as you can imagine, even
more in terms of the quality of life for those dropouts.
We simply cannot afford to lose those students. We must
deal with the situation head on--we cannot allow students to
``waste'' their senior year, and graduate unprepared to enter
post-secondary education and a workforce that is focused on
skills and knowledge.
As we begin our work on the reauthorization of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act we need to strengthen
programs that provide relevance, context and rigor for students
in both middle and high school. While some of my colleagues may
disagree, I believe it is time to bring attention to the
``Secondary'' part of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act. The Federal Government needs to provide some resources to
school districts for these efforts and ensure that the reforms
used are data-driven and have a track record of solid evidence
based success. We learned at a hearing on school turnaround
held a few weeks ago that there is no silver bullet. School
districts need the flexibility to draw from the resources that
are available the best possible solution for each of these
struggling schools.
In addition, it is important to emphasize the fact that a
high school diploma does not guarantee that a student has
learned the basics. Nearly half of all college students are
required to take remedial courses after graduating from high
school, before they can take college level coursework.
The witnesses before us today demonstrate that this work is
hard, but can be done. I am pleased that we have a
representative of a career academy here, Karen Webber-N'Dour.
These schools work for many students across the country because
they help students discover their true potential. For example,
I have heard from students in career academies that they
entered thinking they would graduate from high school prepared
to enter the construction trades. Instead, by being in a career
academy, they discovered they had the talent and ability to
become architects. Career academies provide the same rigorous
content as traditional high schools, but do so in a way that is
relevant to students and provides a context for their learning.
Without a plan for reforming our secondary schools, the
outcome for many of our students will not change, which is not
acceptable. If we are to remain competitive in a global
economy, we cannot afford to lose people because they do not
have the education and skills they need to be successful.
Strong partnerships and alignment among K-12 schools,
institutions of higher education, business and government will
help us meet this need.
I want to thank each of the witnesses for being here today
to share their compelling stories. I hope we can all learn from
you how the Federal Government can be a partner in middle and
high school reform efforts.
The Chairman. Let me just take a moment to introduce each
of the witnesses.
First, we have Cassius Johnson, program director for
education policy at Jobs for the Future, in Boston, MA, where
he handles Federal secondary and post-secondary policy
development and advocacy. Next is Don Deshler, the Williamson
Family distinguished professor of special education and the
director of the Center for Research and Learning at the
University of Kansas. An expert in adolescent literacy, Dr.
Deshler received a presidential appointment to serve as a
member of the National Institute for Literacy Advisory Board.
[Voice.]
The Chairman. I said that. University of Kansas. I said
that.
[Laughter.]
After Dr. Deshler, we will hear from John Capozzi,
principal of Elmont Memorial High School, in Elmont, NY. Under
his leadership, Elmont High School has beaten the odds,
graduating over 94 percent of its students, 97 percent of which
go on to college.
I know Senator Bennet is not here yet. He wanted to
introduce our next witness, but I will just say it's Rich
Harrison, who is the founding middle school director of the
Denver School for Science and Technology, in Denver, CO. Then,
we will hear from Karen Webber-N'Dour, principal of the
National Academy Foundation High School, in Baltimore, MD, a
public high school that provides rigorous college preparatory
and career pathway instruction.
Senator Burr also mentioned Tony Habit. I wonder if the
Senator from North Carolina would like to add anything to the
introduction for Mr. Habit.
Statement of Senator Hagan
Senator Hagan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I certainly would.
I want to echo Senator Burr's welcome of Dr. Tony Habit to
our committee today, as we welcome all of the witnesses here
that are going to testify. I want to tell the group just a
little bit about Dr. Habit.
He is President of the North Carolina New Schools Project
and he has more than 20 years in public school innovation
reform. The New Schools Project, is an independent, not-for-
profit organization established to accelerate the pace of
innovation in the State of North Carolina. As president, he has
been working diligently to ensure that every student has access
to a high-quality education that is going to prepare them for
college and a career.
The New Schools project is in partnership with our North
Carolina Department of Education, and launched an unprecedented
effort to create more than 100 new and redesigned high schools
across the State since 2008. So far, they have created about
106 new secondary schools.
In reference to what Senator Burr was saying concerning the
dropout rate, over half of the early-college high schools, had
a zero dropout rate. I know, at the Medical School at Duke,
they are going to create a high school focused on health and
life sciences.
North Carolina State University is going to focus on
agricultural research--in a rural region of the State looking
at biotechnology, engineering and sustainable energy. I know
that, in the county where I am from, one of our community
colleges, GTCC, has an excellent early-college program. As a
matter of fact, one of my interns, many years ago, was a
dropout, and then successfully completed the early-college
program and went on to matriculate into UNC-Chapel Hill.
It is a great program, we have done great things, and I
look forward to hearing your testimony.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Hagan.
Senator Bennet, I had briefly introduced Rich Harrison,
but, I would yield to you if you would want to expand on it. I
just basically did not say much, because I do not know him.
Senator Bennet. Well, I do know him, so I appreciate it,
Mr. Chairman. Sorry I was a minute late.
Statement of Senator Bennet
Senator Bennet. It is an honor to introduce Rich Harrison
to the committee.
Rich founded the Denver School of Science and Technology.
DSST is an open-enrollment school in the Denver public schools,
reflecting the diversity of our community. Forty-five percent
of the students come from economically disadvantaged families,
and 62 percent of the students are Latino or African-American.
Almost half of this year's senior class will be the first in
their family to go to college. Every senior in DSST's first
three graduating classes has earned acceptance to a 4-year
college. Then, when students from DSST get to college, they are
ready to excel. Only 7 percent of students need remediation.
DSST was chosen as one of three finalists, out of over
1,000 schools, for the Race to the Top Commencement Challenge.
I might say we learned, today, they had not been selected,
which means that there must be some extraordinary place
somewhere else in the country, because I cannot believe there
is a place that would have been a better choice than DSST.
We can learn from the success of programs like DSST, and
Rich demonstrates the kind of leadership it takes to make
reform work. Prior to founding DSST, Rich served as the
principal of Kipp-Cole College Prep, joining the school after
its reconstitution from Cole Middle School. Before becoming
administrator, Rich was an English teacher at Peak-to-Peak
Charter School, which is consistently rated one of the Nation's
top 100 high schools.
I know I speak for my colleagues when I say we are looking
forward to your testimony.
I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, I have spent many hours at
DSST over the years, to learn from the teachers and the
students that are there about what they are doing to achieve
these results, and it turns out not to be rocket science.
I look forward to hearing Rich's testimony.
Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Bennet.
Now, I think all of you were notified by our staff that you
would be given 4 minutes. Your statements will all be made a
part of the record in their entirety. Because of some time
constraints today, if you can just kind of sum up, in about 4
minutes or so, your main points, and then we can get into an
open discussion, here. I would appreciate it very much.
We will start with Mr. Johnson.
Welcome Mr. Johnson, please proceed.
STATEMENT OF CASSIUS O. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION POLICY,
JOBS FOR THE FUTURE, BOSTON, MA
Mr. Johnson. Yes, Senator Harkin, thank you for the
opportunity to speak before the committee today.
I commend the outstanding work that you are doing on behalf
of the American people and on this critical piece of domestic
policy, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
The mission of Jobs for the Future is to double the numbers
of youth and adults who obtain the credentials and the skills
needed to become competitive in today's labor market. Jobs for
the Future identifies, develops, and promotes new approaches
that are helping communities and States in the Nation compete
more effectively in a global economy.
As director of education policy, I have worked closely with
staff in over 200 communities in 48 States to develop
innovative educational workforce solutions.
The continued failure of secondary schools in this country,
in the United States, to dramatically improve the educational
attainment of low-income young people, young people of color,
and those in rural America, is the most significant factor in
our country's drop from 10th to 9th--from 1st to 10th in the
world in completion of race of post-secondary education.
Reversing this course will require strong and coordinated
action and a strengthened State and Federal partnership to
raise graduation rates. From JFF's experience working across
the Nation, we have learned that dramatically better outcomes
are possible, especially for low-income students and students
of color, but only when there is a continued and significant
investment in groundbreaking and innovative high school
designs.
I want to talk about two pieces of JFF's work. First of
all, the national network of early-college high schools.
Launched in 2002, these schools have expanded to 200 in number,
in 24 States, serving 42,000 students. In fact, the largest of
the work is going on in the great State of North Carolina. In
the 8 years since the early-college design was first developed,
it has proven to be an exceptional approach for increasing the
likelihood that high-needs students are on track for high
school graduation and prepared for college. Students have the
opportunity to earn up to 2 years of college credit in an
associate's degree, and, on the average, are obtaining 23
credit hours and getting exposure to a college-going culture.
Another encouraging trend worth noting is the spread of
what we call ``Back on Track'' models that are getting
promising results with young people who are most at risk of not
graduating from high school on time, if at all, and most likely
not to complete a post-secondary credential. Six years ago, New
York City began ground-
breaking work to open Back on Track schools as part of a
systemic reform initiative to replace low-performing high
schools. You see some of the same work going on in
Philadelphia, in what they call accelerated high schools.
To get to my recommendations, though, I want to leave you
with three ``to do's'' in this ESEA reauthorization. First,
adopt rigorous and fair graduation-rate accountability. That
means, Congress should set the requirements that the State give
significant weight to improvements and graduation rates.
There's broad consensus that graduation rates should be given
as much weight as academic performance in holding schools,
districts, and States accountable.
Second, the second ``to do'' is to turn around low-
performing high schools. Too often, policies directed at
improving low-performing schools have little impact on the
2,000 low-graduation high schools. We know that the off-track
population tends to be concentrated in these schools. We
recommend that Congress require districts and their schools to
work with these schools to analyze and use data to identify the
students who are off track to graduation, and put them in a
place where back-on-design models can get them ready for
college and to be successful in today's economy.
Third, the third ``to do'' is support systemic initiatives,
or, rather, establish incentives and advance innovation and
invention. When a most-promising recent Federal policy develops
an expansion of Federal support--it's expansion of Federal
support for innovation at all levels of--to address the
Nation's most perplexing education performance challenges. Just
last week, foundation community came on board to supplement the
Federal Government's investment through i3 to 500---to a tune
of $560 million to the $650-million initial investment by the
Federal Government. That's a powerful statement that speaks to
the role that the Federal Government can play in scaling and
actually calls--allowing for the invention of more effective
models for off-track students, all toward the goal of getting
more kids ready for college and success in today's economy.
I look forward to the question-and-answer discussion.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Johnson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Cassius O. Johnson
summary
The continued failure of secondary school systems in the United
States to dramatically improve the educational attainment of low-income
young people, young people of color and those in rural America is
perhaps the single most significant factor in our country's drop from
first to tenth in the world in the completion rate of post-secondary
degrees by age 35. Reversing this course will require strong and
coordinated action and a strengthened Federal-State partnership to
raise the high graduation rate and the college preparedness level of
high school graduates, especially among those from low-income families.
signs of progress
From Jobs for the Future's experience working to improve college-
ready high school graduation with school, district, and State partners
we have learned that dramatically better outcomes--especially for low-
income students and students of color--are possible, but only when
there is continued and significant investment in groundbreaking and
innovative high school designs.
Around the country, innovative or redesigned high schools are
beginning to amass evidence of their effectiveness in graduating more
students with a college-ready diploma. One key example is the national
network of early college high schools launched in 2002 with generous
resources from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, that has expanded
to more than 200 schools in 24 States, serving 42,000 students.
Another encouraging trend worth noting is the spread of what we
call Back on Track designs that are getting promising results with the
young people who are the most at risk of not graduating from high
school on time, if at all, and most likely not to complete a post-
secondary credential. New York City, Philadelphia and a dozen more
cities across the country are taking on an effort to open such schools
as part of systemic reform initiatives to include invest in smaller
schools or programs for their overaged and under-credit students, to
help them get back on track to graduation.
recommendations
A key task before the committee is to build from such exemplars of
what is possible to the creation of a policy environment that
accelerates the transition away from high schools that fail large
numbers of students toward options that reduce dropout rates and
increase college-readiness and success. To this end we would like to
emphasize four major recommendations:
Rigorous and Fair Graduation Rate Accountability. Congress
should set the requirement that States give significant weight to
improvements in graduation rate. At the same time, the law needs to
avoid penalizing the designs of innovative high schools such as early
college (where students may spend 5 years and get significant college
credit) or back on track models that serve students who have already
spent many years not progressing in school and yet are getting
exceptional outcomes for these youth.
Turning Around Low-Performing Secondary Schools. We know
that the off-track population tends to be concentrated in these
schools. We recommend that Congress require Districts with these
schools to work with the schools on analyzing and using data to
identify the students who are off track to graduation and put in place
appropriate back on track designs for them.
Support district systemic activities. Congress can create
incentives for systemic approaches to implementing strategies and
models aimed at the large number of off-track students and dropouts by
requiring districts and schools to use early warning indicators to
intervene and provide support and put in place back-on-track
alternative education options, as well as work with community-based
organizations on community dropout recovery strategies.
Incentives, Innovation and Invention. The ARRA-funded Race
to the Top and Investing in Innovation (i3) funds commit the Federal
Government to foster innovation in practice and policy. Along with
scaling innovative strategies, we recommend that Congress support the
research and development of new school models that show promise in
serving the most vulnerable and underserved of our youth.
______
Chairman Harkin, Ranking Member Senator Enzi, and the honorable
members of the U.S. Senate HELP Committee, thank you for inviting me to
speak with you today. I commend the committee for its hard work during
the 111th Congress on behalf of the American people and now as you move
forward on the reauthorization of a critical piece of American domestic
policy, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
I speak to you from two perspectives.
First, I speak from a body of work: As Director of Education
Policy, I work closely with the program staff at Jobs for the Future in
Boston and our partnerships in over 200 communities in 41 States to
cultivate and promote innovative education and workforce strategies.
Jobs for the Future identifies, develops, and promotes new approaches
that are helping communities, States, and the Nation compete more
effectively in a global economy. Our work improves the pathways from
high school to college to family-sustaining careers. The JFF mission is
to double the number of youth and adults who attain the credentials and
skills needed to be competitive in today's labor market.
Second, I speak from personal experience: In 1996, 14 years ago, I
was a senior and student body president at Hamilton High School in
rural northwest Alabama. My alma mater is one of the 2,000 low-
graduation rate high schools across the Nation that together produce
more than half of U.S. dropouts. Having returned to Alabama on several
occasions in the past few months, I know from conversations from
friends, families and community leaders that low academic preparedness
and the large number of dropouts are creating formidable challenges as
the region tries to attract new jobs and economic activity to an area
plagued by unemployment and a rural drug problem. From my small
hometown to the great urban centers of this country, continuation of
current trends in high school performance and graduation will lead to
an unacceptable bifurcation of opportunity--a widening gulf between
individuals with the skills and credentials to access higher paying
careers and the poor and low-skilled who have little prospect of
advancement. Unaltered, these trends pose a severe threat not only to
our Nation's future economic growth, but to our social fabric.
In spite of the high stakes involved here, I sit before you today
encouraged by the questions being asked in this hearing. My hope is
that today's discussions send a clear message that it is truly time to
put the secondary into the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. This
reauthorization of ESEA is the time to tackle the K-12 institution most
resistant to reform--the low-performing high school.
the imperative
The continued failure of secondary school systems in the United
States to dramatically improve the educational attainment of low-income
young people, young people of color and those in rural America is
perhaps the single most significant factor in our country's drop from
first to tenth in the world in the completion rate of post-secondary
degrees by age 35. Among the lowest-income students, just 21 percent
graduate from high school prepared for college; an alarmingly low 11
percent earn a post-secondary credential, compared to a 51 percent
credential completion rate for students from higher income brackets
(NCES 1988 and 2000).
Reversing this course will require strong and coordinated action
and a strengthened Federal-State partnership to raise the high
graduation rate and the college preparedness level of high school
graduates, especially among those from low-income families.
The committee is to be commended in recognizing that focusing just
on raising achievement in high school is not enough, that we must also
raise graduation rates dramatically. With the high school graduation
rate basically flat for several decades, our Nation cannot make the
gains we need in productivity without dramatic reductions in the
dropout rate and significant and steady increases in district and State
graduation rates.
signs of progress
From Jobs for the Future's experience working to improve college-
ready high school graduation with school, district, and State partners
we have learned that dramatically better outcomes--especially for low-
income students and students of color--are possible, but only when
there is continued and significant investment in groundbreaking and
innovative high school designs. Some of the best of these efforts are
represented on this panel.
Around the country, innovative or redesigned high schools are
beginning to amass evidence of their effectiveness in graduating more
students with a college-ready diploma. One key example is the national
network of early college high schools launched in 2002 with generous
resources from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, that has expanded
to more than 200 schools in 24 States, serving 42,000 students. In
fact, the largest number of these high schools--70--are in North
Carolina where Tony Habit and his New Schools Project have partnered
with the State and with JFF to implement these schools. In the 8 years
since the early college design was first developed, it has proved to be
an exceptional approach for increasing the likelihood that high-need
students are on-track for high school graduation and prepared for
college.
With a student population primarily composed of students of color,
low-income youth, and first-generation college-goers, early colleges
have overcome historically low education attainment levels and
propelled students on a pathway to post-
secondary success. By graduation, early college students have 23
college credits on average, and enroll in higher education institutions
at significantly higher rates than peers in comparison schools.
Moreover, a growing body of rigorous research that includes
experimental and quasi-experimental studies has shown that early
college students progress through key college preparatory courses at a
significantly higher rate than control students and outperform peers in
comparison schools. It is particularly striking that these schools
appear to be closing the performance gap for students of color.
Even as we sit here today Early College High Schools across the
country are marking the success of these high schools by holding events
to raise visibility in their communities as a part of the national
Early College High School Week.
Another encouraging trend worth noting is the spread of what we
call Back on Track designs that are getting promising results with the
young people who are the most at risk of not graduating from high
school on time, if at all, and most likely not to complete a post-
secondary credential. We use the term ``back on track'' to
differentiate such schools from traditional alternative schools, which
too often have been holding tanks for troublesome students. In
contrast, Back on Track schools combine accelerated academics with the
supports and culture of effort these young people need to succeed in
high school and college.
Six years ago, New York City began groundbreaking work to open such
schools as part of a systemic reform initiative to replace failing high
schools with new small schools for entering ninth graders. At the same
time, they invested in even smaller schools or programs for their
overaged and under-credited students, to help them get back on track to
graduation.
The highest performing of these back on track schools are now
graduating students at 2 to 3 times the rates of other high schools and
students are earning almost twice as many credits in their first year
as they earned upon enrolling in the schools. In Philadelphia, a
similar effort to start what they call Accelerated Schools has
graduated 853 over-age and under-credited students over the last 3
years, raising the district's graduation rate by 2 percentage points
each year.
This work continues to spread. We have worked in over a dozen
cities, from Mobile, AL to Portland, OR that are undertaking similar
efforts.
policy recommendations
The progress of the innovative frontrunner cities and States in
seeding and supporting better alternatives for struggling students is
impressive. But while identifying exemplars is important, creating a
policy environment that promotes and expands successful secondary
school options while shrinking the number of low-performing high
schools is another.
What suggestions does Jobs for the Future have for accelerating the
transition away from high schools that fail large number of students
toward options that can reduce dropout rates and increase college-
readiness and success? Our recommendations fall into four categories.
1. Accountability measures that incorporate graduation rates
rigorously but fairly;
2. Turnaround policies that are appropriate for middle and high
schools and that create openings for more quality options for off-track
youth;
3. Support district systemic activities such as reporting of and
visibility of off-track students and the implementation of appropriate
schools, programs or strategies that put these students back on track
to graduation; and
4. Incentives for innovation to create, test, and grow more
effective high schools to help more low-income young people graduate--
and graduate ready for college success.
Rigorous and Fair Graduation Rate Accountability. As with few other
topics in education reform today, there is strong consensus about
including graduation rates in high school accountability systems.
Advocates and policymakers agree that graduation rates should be given
equal weight with academic performance when holding schools, districts
and States accountable for student achievement. Education reform is no
longer just about getting students the right curriculum, teachers and
supports. We must get more students across the line with a diploma in
hand and ready for the next step to post-secondary education and
training. JFF makes the following recommendations to Congress for
building on current regulations and finishing the job on graduation
rate accountability:
Define the graduation rate as a 4-year cohort graduation
rate adjusted for transfers in and transfers out.
Require States to set aggressive annual measurable
objectives for increasing the number of students who graduate.
Authorize the Secretary to approve State proposals to use
an extended year graduation rate for select schools such as early
college high schools and back-on-track schools.
Allow back-on-track schools to show interim progress
towards annual measurable objectives through predictive indicators of
student achievement, such as the number and percentage of students
earning credit in core courses.
Ensure that any requirement by the Secretary that a
percentage of students graduate under a 4-year cohort graduation rate
allows for an exemption mechanism, such as a waiver, for select schools
that by design will require more than 4 years for students to complete
(i.e. early college high schools and back-on-track schools).
Turning Around Low-Performing Secondary Schools. NCLB provisions to
improve low-performing schools have had little impact on the 2,000 low
graduation rate high schools that account for over half of the Nation's
dropouts. Many of these schools with graduation rates below 65 percent
have not been identified as low performing, in part because graduation
rate regulations have yet to go into effect. The ``differentiated
accountability pilot program'' and the recent ARRA School Improvement
Grant requirements for identifying persistently low-performing schools
have established a framework for distinguishing among troubled schools
and driving the most intensive set of reform strategies to those that
are the lowest performing. These developments are essential to the goal
of creating incentives that advance the development and scaling of
quality pathways, especially for those students who are off-track to
graduation. JFF has found that, in many of these high schools, up to 80
percent of students are behind in skills or credits.
Congress should adopt school turnaround provisions that provide
incentives and resources for States, districts and high schools to
implement strategies and models that meet the challenges of large
numbers of off-track students. Congress should:
Permit differentiated accountability. Allow States to
distinguish between schools and districts in need of intensive
interventions and those that may be closer to meeting annual measurable
objectives.
Prioritize low-graduation rate high schools. Require
States and districts to prioritize for immediate action secondary
schools with graduation rates below 65 percent for immediate action.
Require specific school turnaround activities. Require
schools identified for turnaround to analyze data to determine the
number and percentage of students that are significantly off-track and
identify strategies and models to put them back on track to graduation.
Require district-wide activities. District level
leadership is essential for systemic approaches to implementing
strategies and models aimed at the large number of off-track students
and dropouts in the schools and communities within a district. Congress
can create incentives by:
Requiring districts and schools to use early warning
indicators to intervene and provide support for off-track
students at risk of dropping out.
Requiring district analysis and use of data on the
district-wide off-track population in order to design
interventions and put in place back-on-track alternative
education options (e.g., transfer schools).
Requiring district-wide dropout recovery strategies
in partnership with community-based organizations, such as re-
engagement centers and back on-track alternative education
options including GED-to-college programs.
Support district systemic activities. While over a million students
drop out of school each year, the population of students who are in
school but off-track to an on-time graduation is not a marginal group.
An estimated 1.3 million students are off-track to graduation by the
end of 9th grade. In the lowest graduation rate high schools, up to 80
percent of entering students can be behind in skills or credits.
Most high schools are not equipped--in terms of structure, human
resources, curriculum, or schedule--to deal with this challenge. Too
often, the only option for off-track students is simply to repeat the
same curriculum, taught in the same formats and by the same teachers
who failed to engage them the first time.
Students who are significantly off-track to graduation need a very
different model of schooling; they need well-staffed schools with
experienced teachers and advocates, targeted instructional strategies,
and accelerated learning options. Based on analyses of student data,
these plans should include a range of strategies, from quick recovery
systems for older students who are close to graduation to small
learning communities that support multiple back-on-track strategies in
a single setting to address the needs of students much further from
graduation.
Congress can create incentives for systemic approaches to
implementing strategies and models aimed at the large number of off-
track students and dropouts by:
Requiring districts and schools to use early warning
indicators to intervene and provide support for off-track students at
risk of dropping out.
Requiring district analysis and use of data on the
district-wide off-track population in order to design interventions and
put in place back-on-track alternative education options (e.g.,
transfer schools).
Requiring district-wide dropout recovery strategies in
partnership with community-based organizations, such as re-engagement
centers and back-on-track alternative education options including GED-
to-college programs.
Incentives, Innovation and Invention. One of the most promising
recent Federal policy developments is the expansion of Federal support
for innovation at all levels to address the Nation's most perplexing
education reform challenges. The ARRA-funded Race to the Top and
Investing in Innovation (i3) funds commit the Federal Government to
foster innovation in practice and policy. In response, States and
districts are already changing policies and advancing ambitious plans
to scale effective programs and practices. The i3 competitive grants
have opened important space for innovators to experiment with and
invent new strategies for improving education outcomes for the most at-
risk. JFF makes the following recommendations to Congress:
Invest in scaling what works. Nationally, there are
numerous strategies and school models, such as early college high
schools, that have demonstrated effectiveness in increasing college and
career-readiness for low-income students who are ready for college and
a career. Congress should continue Race to the Top, i3 and other
funding streams that focus resources to ensure more widespread adoption
of and implementation of innovation strategies and approaches at
secondary schools.
Invest in invention. The Nation will not move the needle
dramatically on graduation rates without combining the redesign of
failing high schools with a sustained effort at the invention of new
models designed to help young people get back on track to high school
graduation and post-secondary attainment. In the big cities that are
ground zero of the dropout crisis, educators, youth developers, and
social entrepreneurs have begun to invent new solutions that are
leading to ``beat the odds'' results. Along with scaling innovative
strategies, Congress should support the research and development of new
school models that show promise in serving off-track students, English
learners, and students in rural areas.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Johnson, for the
statement.
Mr. Deshler.
STATEMENT OF DONALD D. DESHLER, Ph.D., DIRECTOR, UNIVERSITY OF
KANSAS CENTER FOR RESEARCH AND LEARNING, LAWRENCE, KS
Mr. Deshler. Thank you, Chairman Harkin, for this
opportunity.
If I might go right to the bottom line, speaking of
adolescent literacy, with one statistic, the magnitude of the
problem is this, 70 percent of all middle school and high
school students read below proficiency on the NAEP. In the
limited time that I have, with that as a backdrop, I'm going to
talk about two incorrect assumptions, or myths, that adversely
affect how struggling adolescent learners are often treated and
taught in public schools, and how education public policy has
been crafted.
The first incorrect assumption is this, that it is too late
to do anything about students once they get to middle school or
high school without sufficient literacy skills. In some of our
schools, this attitude has led to placing these students in
low-track classes, assigning them the least experienced
teachers, and crossing our fingers, and hoping that they do not
become a disruptive force in our schools, but hang on long
enough to graduate, so they do not count against our dropout
statistics.
From a public policy standpoint, a similar there-is-not-
much-we-can-do posture has been adopted. Evidence of this is
the paltry investment that the Federal Government has
historically made in students in grades 7 through 12, compared
to investments made in children from birth through grade six
and in the post-secondary programs, such as Pell Grants.
The bottom line, our investment in adolescents is only 20
percent of the total education expenditure. Since so little is
invested in students in grades 7 through 12, these students,
who fall in the middle of the continuum from birth through
post-secondary, are appropriately referred to as the ``missing
middle.''
The second point that I want to make is, these students can
learn. There's compelling evidence that shows that, when we use
powerful evidence-based practices, dramatic changes occur in
their performance. I cite two examples in my written testimony;
there are thousands around the country mirroring this kind of
achievement. It is not too late to change what is happening. To
buy into the myth that the gap can't be closed is analogous to
a doctor pulling the plug on a patient who is in the hospital
because of a bad virus. The patient might be very ill and not
functioning well, but he is not dead. There is still hope, and
we need to act accordingly.
The second incorrect assumption is the following: ``It is
wiser to invest in younger children,'' or ``Let's get them
while they are young and prevent problems from occurring
later'' mentality. Don't get me wrong, I am a strong proponent
of making investments in our younger children; there is
compelling evidence to justify why it is a sound public policy
to do so. However, there are a couple of fallacies in the
position that ``it is sufficient to put all of our eggs in the
early childhood basket.''
First, unlike getting inoculated for chickenpox, early
literacy education does not ensure that problems will not
emerge as children grow older. In other words, the inoculation
does not last. As children move into middle and high school,
the demands of the curriculum change dramatically; enhanced new
and more sophisticated literacy skills are needed.
Second, even though we may have effective procedures for
younger children, in this country we have not been effective in
scaling those practices; hence, there are many young children
who don't get validated practices. Many of these students move
through the sieve, end up in middle and high school without the
necessary skills.
In conclusion, I would like to emphasize these three
recommendations:
No. 1, there are three pieces of legislation before the
Congress currently: the LEARN Act, the Success in Middle School
Act, and the Graduation Promises Act. All of these are well
conceptualized and go straight to the problems that I have
described in adolescent literacy.
And second, the importance of investment in research in
adolescent literacy. Research is the engine that drives
innovation, that drives improvement on the front lines.
Historically, very little investment has been made in research
for older populations. It is another reason that we have fewer
answers than we need for older students.
I look forward to responding to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Deshler follows:]
Prepared Statement of Donald D. Deshler, Ph.D
summary
the problem
When describing the ``literacy health'' of many adolescents in our
country, the term ``crisis'' is not hyperbole; it is a very accurate
characterization of the realities with which we must come to grips when
we consider the fact that our schools must produce graduates capable of
successfully competing, and leading, in the global arena. If this
crisis is not addressed in the next reauthorization of ESEA, the
futures of millions of today's struggling adolescent learners will be
foreclosed and our Nation's economy and our Nation as a whole will be
weakened as will the fabric of the families and communities that will
become the homes to these undereducated and underprepared individuals.
Some indicators of the severity of the problem are: (a) 70 percent of
middle and high school students read below proficiency, (b) 30 percent
of adolescents do not graduate from high school, (c) 40 percent of high
school graduates lack the literacy skills employers seek, and (d)
Federal investments in middle and high schools has historically been
but a small fraction of investments made in younger children and those
in post-secondary education--this has been referred to as the ``missing
middle.'' This lack of funding has contributed to the dismal literacy
attainment.
important considerations in finding solutions
Because the curriculum demands change dramatically when
students move into middle and high school, the basic literacy skills
that they learned in early elementary grades are necessary but far from
sufficient. To succeed in rigorous courses, students need to acquire a
whole new set of literacy competencies--in short, literacy instruction
must continue through the secondary grades.
There is a direct and unmistakable correlation between the
literacy performance of students within a school and how highly a
school is ranked. This means that if our country wants to turn around
its low-performing schools, it must make literacy improvement a central
part of its overall school improvement strategy.
recommendations
1. Increase funding for middle and high schools.
2. Support current legislative initiatives related to adolescent
achievement.
3. Support the development and adoption of State-led common
standards that embed literacy standards throughout the content areas.
4. Encourage States to develop a comprehensive literacy policy.
5. Invest in professional development in literacy instruction for
current and prospective teachers and administrators and encourage
States to revise certification and licensure standards.
6. Invest in ongoing research and evaluation.
______
Chairman Harkin, Ranking Member Enzi and members of the committee,
thank you for this opportunity to speak about a large and rapidly
growing group of students in our Nation's schools who are frequently
misunderstood, inappropriately taught, or neglected altogether.
My purpose is to speak about the millions of adolescents whose
literacy skills are so low that they cannot make sense of their
classroom texts, frequently fail to graduate from high school, and are
unsuccessful in transitioning into careers or post-secondary education.
Specifically, I will address issues related to adolescent literacy,
including (a) the nature and scope of the problem; (b) why literacy
instruction is essential in middle and high schools; (c) how improving
adolescent literacy performance is foundational to turning around low-
performing secondary schools, (d) evidence that well-conceptualized and
soundly implemented educational programs in and outside of schools can
turn the performance of these students around--it is not too late to
act; and (e) policy recommendations that would serve as the
cornerstones of a sound strategy for dramatically changing the academic
achievement for struggling adolescent readers and writers.
The term ``crisis'' is typically defined as a threat or perceived
threat to an organization's high priority goals. The term is often used
to describe social challenges that our Nation faces. Frequent and
inappropriate use of the term can cheapen its meaning. However, when
describing the ``literacy health'' of many adolescents in our country,
the term ``crisis'' is not hyperbole; it is a very accurate
characterization of the realities with which we must come to grips when
we consider the fact that our schools must produce graduates capable of
successfully competing, and leading, in the global arena. If this
crisis is not addressed in the next reauthorization of ESEA, the
futures of millions of today's struggling adolescent learners will be
foreclosed and our Nation's economy and our Nation as a whole will be
weakened as will the fabric of the families and communities that will
become the homes to these undereducated and underprepared individuals.
the nature and scope of the problem
As little as 10 years ago, educators and policymakers had very
little knowledge about what constituted the adolescent literacy
problem. Limited information was available in the professional
literature, and even less research had been completed on the
characteristics of struggling adolescent readers and writers.
That landscape has changed somewhat in the last decade. Increased
attention from private foundations (e.g., the Carnegie Corporation of
New York, the Gates Foundation, the Stupski Foundation) and even some
Federal agencies has begun to shed light on the magnitude of the
problem.
Among the things we have learned are the following:
Three out of ten high school students do not graduate on
time, and nearly 50 percent of students of color do not graduate on
time (Gewertz, 2009).
Six million out of twenty-two million of America's middle
and high school students are struggling readers.
According to the NAEP (National Assessment of Educational
Progress), 70 percent of middle and high school students read ``below
proficiency''--in other words, fewer than a third of adolescents have
the literacy skills they need to succeed in school or beyond.
Only one out of four 12th-grade students is a proficient
writer (Salahu-Din, Persky, & Miller, 2008).
Forty percent of high school graduates lack the literacy
skills employers seek (National Governors Association, 2005).
Lack of basic skills by young adults costs universities
and businesses as much as $16 billion annually (Greene, 2000).
One out of every five college freshmen must take a
remedial reading course (SREB, 2009).
Nearly one third of high school graduates are not ready
for college-level English composition courses (ACT, 2005).
Over half of adults scoring at the lowest literacy levels
are dropouts (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2007).
Collectively, these findings resoundingly underscore the fact that
insufficient literacy attainment negatively impacts students'
opportunities for success in the classroom, leading to a higher
likelihood of dropping out of school, as well as markedly reduced
earnings as adults. There is no longer the same call for low-skill,
high-wage jobs that there was in the past. In fact, the 25 fastest
growing professions have far-greater-than-average literacy demands,
while the fastest-declining professions have lower-than-average
literacy demands. About 45 percent of all job growth between 2004 and
2014 will require high-level literacy skills.
why quality literacy instruction is essential in middle and high school
In recent years, America's educational system has been successful
in raising the reading and writing scores of younger children. For
example, considerable evidence indicates that the Federal investment in
Reading First (and its predecessor, Reading Excellence) yielded
positive reading achievement outcomes. Specifically, the NAEP reading
scores for fourth graders have been improving since 2002, and the
racial achievement gaps have, in many instances, been narrowed. These
achievement gains are the largest in reading for fourth-grade students
in 33 years and demonstrate that targeted Federal investments that
require schools to use evidence-based methods can produce significant
growth in student performance.
Despite the success experienced with early literacy initiatives,
the NAEP data tell an entirely different story for middle and high
school students. The literacy performance for 13- and 17-year-olds has
remained flat for the last 37 years. Hence, some of the encouraging
early gains appear to dissipate as students move into the secondary
grades.
The most significant instructional and policy question is whether
these losses in achievement can be prevented. Fortunately, compelling
evidence is accumulating showing that gains made in early elementary
school can provide a solid foundation upon which to build additional
success when students reach secondary schools. Two examples of
successful programs will be showcased in the following section. Before
looking at these cases, however, it's important to understand why early
investments in literacy education alone are not sufficient to guarantee
strong literacy performance when students reach adolescence.
The literacy skills that students acquire in early elementary
grades lay an essential foundation for later academic success, but they
are not sufficient in and of themselves. The main reason is the fact
that the demands of the curriculum change dramatically as students move
into middle school and progress through high school, including the
volume, abstractness, and complexity of text materials they must
navigate. As demands change, so must a student's skill repertoire.
Compared to the curriculum demands encountered in the elementary
grades, starting in middle school, students are expected to respond to
assignments that (a) are much longer and more complex at the word,
sentence, and structural levels; (b) present greater conceptual
challenges that affect reading fluency; (c) contain detailed graphics
that often do not stand on their own; and (d) require an ability to
synthesize information. On top of those factors, each content area
(e.g., history, science, math, literature) often requires students to
understand and use different types of strategies and approaches.
Because of the rapidly changing and dramatically different
curriculum demands in the later grades, adolescents must acquire
additional literacy skills if they are to survive, let alone thrive, in
secondary school. While some students can independently make the
necessary adaptations to respond to this changed landscape, many
adolescents cannot--especially those who struggled in learning to read
and write in the first place. These students need explicit, scaffolded,
coordinated instruction to help them acquire a set of strategies for
dealing with the new literacy demands they encounter in middle and high
school.
It is important to note that in many low-performing secondary
schools, a large percentage of the struggling reader group (as many as
80 percent) have not acquired the necessary foundational word-level
skills, including phonics, decoding, word identification, and fluency.
Therefore, these students must receive intensive, explicit instructions
to help ensure they master these essential foundational skills, as well
as instruction in vocabulary and comprehension strategies. In other
words, before these students can be taught the more sophisticated
literacy skills described above, they must acquire the basic word
recognition, decoding, and fluency skills that they should have learned
during their elementary grades. The amount of time that must be devoted
to intensive literacy instruction in middle and senior high school for
these students is daunting. However, in the absence of doing so, the
life trajectory for these students is dismal in light of the compelling
correlations between literacy competence and employment, health,
remaining clear of problems with legal authorities, and family
stability.
transforming low-performing secondary schools by improving
literacy attainment
If a large number of adolescents in a secondary school are
performing poorly in reading and writing, in all likelihood, the school
is a low-performing school. In other words, there is a direct and
unmistakable correlation between the literacy performance of students
within a school and how highly a school is ranked. This means that if
our country wants to turn around its low-performing schools, it must
make literacy improvement a central part of its overall school
improvement strategy.
Foundational to improving any valued educational metric (e.g., high
performance on State assessments, reduced dropout rates, successful
transitioning to and success in careers and post-secondary education)
is ensuring that students are highly proficient in the literacy skills
that enable them to deal with rigorous course requirements in school
and challenging career and post-secondary experiences. If students
cannot read and write with relative ease, they will fail, and their
schools will be among the lowest performing. Schools will only improve
as quickly as literacy proficiency improves.
Transforming America's lowest performing middle and secondary high
schools into productive learning environments in which students and
teachers thrive requires an aggressive, comprehensive, approach that
targets instructional, personnel, and infrastructure factors. Some of
these factors are highlighted below:
School leaders make instruction a top priority. School and
departmental leaders are relentless in their pursuit of meeting
important learning goals for all students. Creating conditions that are
favorable for instruction and learning is a top priority and toward
that end, leaders facilitate the development and use of protocols for
observing, describing, and analyzing practice (Elmore, 2005).
School culture is centered on student learning. Student learning is
of paramount importance for all educators and each assumes a deep sense
of responsibility and ownership for student growth. A school
environment that is encouraging, inviting, and personalized is the
norm. Staff demonstrate a sense of collective efficacy. That is, they
believe that as a whole, they can organize and execute actions
necessary to have a positive effect on students. In addition, there is
a strong bond of trust between colleagues, parents, and students (Hoy,
Tarter, & Woolfolk, 2006).
Instructional practices are evidence-based. Recommendations
recently released by the Institute of Education Sciences (Kamil et al.,
2008) and the Center for Instruction (Torgesen et al., 2007) about
evidence-based instructional practices are the standard against which
current practice is evaluated and improvement goals are set.
Instructional practices seen in high frequency across classes include
explicit vocabulary instruction; direct, explicit comprehension
strategy instruction; guided discussion to determine the meaning of
text; and instruction in essential content knowledge and concepts with
scaffolded supports.
Multi-tiered instructional supports are in place. Because some
students require more intensive and explicit instruction of content and
skills, schools provide scaffolded instructional supports to enable
these students to build the skills that they will need to independently
thrive in content classes (Ehren, Deshler, & Graner, in press). That
is, instructional arrangements of increased intensity are made
available to students, differentiated to address individual student
needs. This instructional model is referred to as a multi-tier system
of supports (MTSS), and where it is implemented with fidelity, failure
rates are reduced.
Literacy instruction is integrated in all classes. Content teachers
from core classes (math, science, language arts, social studies) know
that for students to understand and master critical course content,
they must be taught how to navigate discipline-specific content
materials (Lee & Spratley, 2010). Therefore, teachers provide a
``reading apprenticeship'' in which they give students multiple models
of how to use high-leverage learning strategies to process discipline-
specific text materials and focus classroom talk on how to make sense
of discipline-specific text materials (e.g., Greenleaf & Hinchman,
2009). In addition, the strategies that struggling readers learn in
supplemental reading classes are reinforced in content classes so
students are able to transfer what they have learned to other classes
throughout their day.
Instructional decisions are driven by student, classroom, and
school data. The power of data in informing instruction at the student
and classroom level is widely recognized as essential for student
success (Learning Point Associates, 2006). Data systems are implemented
and continually refined to be more responsive to teachers and
administrators as they work to improve instructional impacts. In
addition to data on how students are responding to instruction, highly
effective schools collect actionable data to help them gauge how fully
and efficiently they are using available resources (e.g., are all slots
in the supplemental reading classes being fully utilized), what factors
operate within a school that ``impede'' progress toward specified
goals, and how closely literacy services within a school are aligned
with the reading and writing profiles of students. For example, data
collected during school-wide professional development can provide
valuable feedback relative to the speed of implementation of a new
instructional practice, the fidelity of implementation, and the
sustainability rate over time. These and other measures help sharpen
the focus of work on improving literacy outcomes and, therefore, are
used by the school's Literacy Leadership Team to drive school-wide
literacy improvement.
Continual learning for all staff is a high priority. Data-driven,
ongoing, job-embedded professional development along with instructional
coaching supports is made available to all teachers and administrators
(Darling-Hammond, et al., 2009). When applicable, the content of
professional development sessions are evidence-based. In addition,
accountability systems are in place to ensure that application and
follow-up coaching is provided to improve the probability of
implementation. As part of these initiatives, school leaders receive
professional development on literacy interventions, and the knowledge
that they gain will form the basis of expectations they will set and
supports they will provide to their teachers.
Student transitions from middle school to high school are carefully
planned. Success in high school is greatly influenced by how
successfully students transition into and succeed during their ninth-
grade year (Roderick, 2006). Hence, emphasis is placed on ensuring that
students are prepared socially and academically to transition from
middle school into high school. Supports (e.g., counseling, mentoring)
are in place to catch and prevent potential failure. Such actions are
aimed at the ninth-grade year because of the high correlation between
setbacks during the ninth grade and students eventually dropping out of
school.
Positive behavioral supports are in place to ensure high
productivity. High-quality instruction and learning occur in school
environments that are orderly and where teachers and student feel safe
to interact and to freely participate in the learning process.
Productive learning environments are built, fostered, and maintained by
implementing school-wide disciplinary practices. School-wide positive
behavioral supports provide schools with an operational framework for
achieving these outcomes (www.pbis.org).
it's not too late to improve outcomes for struggling adolescents:
two success stories
All too frequently, educators and policymakers incorrectly conclude
that nothing can be done to change the trajectory that struggling
adolescent learners are on. In essence, they write off tens of
thousands of students as educational casualties. Such a position is not
only morally wrong; it flies in the face of a mounting body of evidence
that underscores the fact that well-designed instructional programs for
struggling adolescent learners in middle and high school can bring
about dramatic changes in literacy attainment.
The following two examples illustrate this claim. They have been
chosen to show some of the exciting results that can happen in
individual classrooms, and across entire schools, in terms of improving
the literacy performance of struggling adolescent learners.
Example 1: Midwest Middle School--Dubuque, IA
The Problem: A group of sixth-grade students with learning
disabilities who were reading 2 to 3 years behind grade level were
showing no signs of progress from the beginning of the school year in
August to November.
Toward a Solution: Because instructional time was limited, a
decision was made to change the type of reading instruction these
students were receiving. An evidence-based program (Fusion Reading)
designed by researchers at the University of Kansas Center for Research
on Learning was adopted. This program taught students a targeted number
of high-leverage learning strategies to improve their ability to decode
difficult words, read fluently, master discipline-specific vocabulary,
and comprehend complex reading assignments. The teacher received
appropriate professional development and follow-up coaching. Students
received 60 minutes of instruction daily. The program was taught with
high fidelity.
The Results: Six months after instruction began, all students
showed growth on their Measures of Academic Progress scores and 83
percent of them met their target growth goal. The gains that they made
were statistically significant (.004) with large effect size gains
(1.71). Overall, these students are approaching the mean score range
for the norm group. This means that the achievement gap for reading is
closing in a dramatic fashion. With the new skills these students are
acquiring, they will be able to enroll in rigorous classes because they
can independently navigate and cope with the demands of their reading
assignments.
Example 2: J.E.B. Stuart High School--Falls Church, VA
The Problem: In the early 2000s, J.E.B. Stuart High School was
labeled a ``failing school'' because of its poor academic record. The
passing rates on the State assessment were as follows: Reading: 64
percent, Algebra I: 32 percent, Chemistry: 44 percent, and History: 27
percent. Stuart High has an enrollment of 1,500 students. The student
body has a 30 percent mobility rate, 70 percent of its students were
born outside of the United States, 25 percent are English Language
Learners, 13 percent have disabilities, 86 percent are from minority
backgrounds, and 54 percent qualify for free or reduced-price lunch.
Toward a Solution: After looking at the poor record of student
achievement, all of the educators at Stuart High School knew that
drastic changes had to occur to give their students a chance to
graduate and be college- or career-ready. High expectations were set,
and a host of measures were put in place to change the culture and
prevailing practices within the school, including a heavy emphasis on
explicit vocabulary and comprehension instruction, ongoing discussions
related to text, intensive strategic tutoring, multi-tiered
interventions, extended learning time, heavy use of technology, and
shared leadership. A core belief of the entire staff was that reading
proficiency of every student was essential if they were to benefit
fully from their high school education and become career- and/or
college-ready. Hence, all teachers and administrators at Stuart High
proudly say that they spell hope ``R-E-A-D.''
The Results: Over a 5-year period, dramatic improvement was seen on
virtually every indicator, each directly tied to the significant
improvement in the core literacy skills of the student body.
Specifically, on the State assessments, the pass rates became as
follows: Reading: 94 percent; Algebra I: 98 percent; Chemistry: 88
percent; and History: 96 percent. The International Baccalaureate (IB)
enrollment increased from 18 to 48 percent, and the school exceeded the
international average pass rate. Student performance never dropped
below 80 percent. In other words, a school with high poverty, high
diversity, 70 percent second language, and a 30 percent mobility rate
outperformed elite private schools on the IB examinations.
federal policy recommendations
Reauthorization of ESEA represents an opportunity to make a long
overdue course correction in the proportion of Federal investments that
have historically gone to adolescents in middle and high school
settings. As shown in Figure 1, Federal education policy has long
overlooked grades 7-12. As illustrated, early investments and post-
secondary investments each total about $25 billion annually. However,
investments made to bolster the educational achievement of adolescents
in middle and secondary schools are each under $4 billion annually. The
Alliance for Excellent Education refers to this as ``the missing
middle'' (Miller, 2009).
Investments in America's youngest children should continue to be a
high priority as ESEA is reauthorized. But these investments should not
be made at the expense of the needs of older children. An econometric
model developed by Nobel Laureate James Heckman (an economist from the
University of Chicago) demonstrates that with no investments at all,
high-risk children will attain a graduation rate of 41 percent. With
early investments alone, the graduation rate rises to 66 percent.
However, when investments are made from early childhood through
adolescence, the predicted graduation rate rises to 91 percent!
Large numbers of our country's adolescents are on a trajectory that
is leading them to dropping out of school and/or entering the work
force grossly ill-prepared to obtain and keep employment that will
support them and their families. Traveling on this trajectory will
greatly enhance their probability of ending up in jail, divorcing, and
not being a contributing member of their community. While the
adolescents on this trajectory differ in many ways, most of them have
one thing in common: they lack the necessary literacy skills to
successfully navigate the complex world in which they find themselves.
One of the primary roles of public policy is to put in place programs
and structures that will address problems that disadvantage individual
citizens and as well as our Nation as a whole. Public policy
intervention is needed to reverse the poor literacy performance
evidenced by many adolescents. The lives of these students and the
economic vitality of our country will be the beneficiaries.
The following recommendations are designed to dramatically alter
the path that too many of our struggling adolescent learners are on.
Recommendation #1: Increase funding for middle and high
schools. The neglect of financial support for students in grades 7-12,
compared to the earlier grades, that currently and historically has
existed, must be reversed immediately. Without such investments,
serious progress in turning around low-performing secondary schools,
dramatically reducing the current dropout rate, and making more
students career- and college-ready will not occur.
Recommendation #2: Support current legislative initiatives
related to adolescent achievement. Three bills currently before the
Congress would favorably impact adolescent academic performance. The
support of each would create a context conducive to significantly
moving the needle on the adolescent literacy problem. First, the
conceptual framework embodied within the ``Literacy Education for All,
Results for the Nation Act'' or LEARN Act is sound and deserves strong
support. The pre-K through 12 comprehensive nature of this proposed act
affords schools the opportunity to put in place a literacy plan that is
coordinated and integrated across all grade levels. As such, it
recognizes that literacy instruction is, indeed, necessary at all age
levels, not just the earlier ones.
Second, the Graduation Promise Act would support State-led systems
for high school accountability and improvement. States and school
districts would identify low-performing high schools, and a rigorous
diagnostic analysis would be used to identify and tailor research-based
reforms to turn them around.
Third, the Success in the Middle Act is designed to prevent
students from becoming dropout statistics through the use of early
warning systems that identify at-risk students and offer them support
so they continue in school and graduate.
Therefore, it is imperative that all three bills be passed.
Recommendation #3: Support the development and adoption of
State-led common standards that embed literacy standards throughout the
content areas. Our ability to prepare students to succeed in the
marketplace is directly dependent on their ability to meet a set of
uniformly high standards. Currently, there is so much variation across
State standards that it is impossible to align them to college and
career readiness benchmarks. State-led common standards in the core
academic areas will result in setting one high bar to ensure that
students have sufficient literacy skills to be ready for college and
careers. To reach this goal, it is essential that standards within each
of the academic disciplines include specific literacy competencies that
students must meet.
Recommendation #4: Encourage States to develop a
comprehensive literacy policy. To accelerate the rate at which schools
embrace and seriously implement measures to improve adolescent literacy
outcomes, each State's education agency must develop a detailed plan to
work with districts to help them implement State policies relative to
adolescent literacy and then monitor districts' progress. Among other
things, States should identify the reading skills students need in
order to improve reading achievement and to meet State standards in key
academic subjects through high school.
Recommendation #5: Invest in professional development in
literacy instruction for current and prospective teachers and
administrators and encourage States to revise certification and
licensure standards. Of all of the factors that contribute to positive
student outcomes, the competence of the teachers who teach students is
most important. That is, student behavior will change only to the
degree that teachers possess the essential instructional competencies
to enable their learning. Discipline-specific teachers must be prepared
to integrate literacy instruction into their content instruction.
Similarly, reading and writing specialists must demonstrate
competencies in adolescent language and knowledge of explicit,
intensive instructional pedagogies and supplemental teaching methods.
Finally, school administrators must be prepared to lead school-wide
literacy improvement efforts and create the kinds of instructional
conditions that promote literacy attainment.
Recommendation #6: Invest in ongoing research and
evaluation. In order to close the large achievement gap that exists for
struggling adolescent learners and given the shortage of time available
to teach them, teachers need evidence-based instructional practices
that are more powerful and efficient than the ones currently available.
Collectively, the existing research base on adolescent literacy is
relatively scant, significantly hindering the headway that needs to be
made with struggling adolescent learners.
A sampling of the types of research questions that must be answered
include (a) What are the best strategies and/or combination of
strategies to use with adolescents demonstrating various learning
profiles?; (b) How should instruction be designed to meet the unique
needs of adolescents with disabilities and English Language Learners?;
(c) How can teacher preparation and professional development programs
be reconfigured so secondary-level teachers can efficiently acquire the
necessary competencies to infuse literacy instruction into their
classes?; and (d) What are the unique issues confronting low-performing
rural secondary schools versus low-performing urban schools and what
turnaround strategies work best in each setting?
While some investments have been made through IES and NICHD to
support research on adolescent learners, these investments have been
infinitesimally small compared to the investments these agencies make
in younger children. Thus, few of the proposals submitted to these
agencies in adolescent literacy end up being funded. Strategies for
engaging larger numbers of researchers to conduct research in
adolescent literacy need to be identified and implemented.
conclusion
The dismal literacy attainment of so many of our country's
adolescents underscores how critical it is that the newly reauthorized
ESEA include measures to address this problem. Education policy that
focuses on improving the quality of instruction that takes place in our
Nation's classroom can have the most immediate, significant and long-
lasting impact on student outcomes. The needle will move on adolescent
literacy performance when policies are enacted that call for the use of
instructional practices that are grounded in sound research. Keeping
this focus in mind will provide a basis for all policy recommendations
that follow:
References
Darling-Hammond, L., Wei, R.C., Andree, A., Richardson, N., & Orphanos,
S. (2009). Professional learning in the learning profession: A
status report on teacher development in the United States and
abroad. Washington, DC: National Staff Development Council.
Ehren, B.J., Deshler, D.D., & Graner, P.S. (in press). Using the
content literacy continuum as a framework for implementing RTI in
secondary schools. Theory into Practice.
Elmore, R.F. (2005). School reform from the inside out: Policy,
practice, and performance. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Gerwertz, C., (2009), Dropout costs priced for 50 major U.S. cities:
The economic benefits of reducing high school dropout rates in
America's fifty largest cities. Washington, DC: Education Week.
Greene, J.P., (2000). The cost of remedial education: How much Michigan
pays when students fail to learn basic skills. Midland, MI:
Mackinac Center for Public Policy.
Greenleaf, C.L., & Hinchman, K. (2009). Reimagining our inexperienced
adolescent readers: From struggling, striving, marginalized, and
reluctant to thriving. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy,
53(1), 4-13.
Hoy, W.K., Tarter, C.J., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2006). Academic optimism
of schools: A second-order confirmatory factor analysis. In W.K.
Hoy & C. Miskel (Eds.), Contemporary issues in educational policy
and school outcomes (pp. 135-156). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
Kamil, M.L., Borman, G.D., Dole, J., Kral, C.C., Salinger, T., &
Torgesen, J. (2008). Improving adolescent literacy: Effective
classroom and intervention practices: A practice guide (NCEE #2008-
4027). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and
Regional Assistance, Institute for Education Sciences, U.S.
Department of Education. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc.
Learning Point Associates, (2006). Effective use of electronic data
systems: A readiness guide for school and district leaders.
Chicago, IL: Leaning Point Associates.
Lee, C.D., & Spratley, A. (2010). Reading in the disciplines: The
challenges of adolescent literacy. New York: Carnegie Corporation
of New York.
Miller, M. (2009). Seize the moment: The need for a comprehensive
Federal investment in adolescent literacy. Policy Brief.
Washington, DC: The Alliance for Excellent Education.
National Center for Educational Statistics, (2007). The Nation's report
card: Reading 2007. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
National Governors Association, (2005). Reading to achieve: A
governor's guide to adolescent literacy. Washington, DC: National
Governors Association.
Roderick, M. (2006). Aligning dropout prevention approaches with
efforts to raise achievement and improve high school performance:
Evidence from the Chicago Public Schools. In D. Clark (Ed.). The
challenge of high school reform, 21(2), 12-19. Washington, DC: The
Aspen Institute.
Salahu-Din, D., Persky, H., & Miller, J. (2008). The Nation's report
card: Writing 2007. Washington, DC: Institute of Education
Sciences.
SREB, (2009). A critical mission: Making adolescent reading an
immediate priority in SREB. Atlanta: Southern Regional Education
Board.
Torgesen, J.K., Houston, D.D., Rissman, L.M., Decker, S.M., Roberts,
G., Vaughn, S., Wexler, J. Francis, D.J., Rivera, M.O., & Lesaux,
N. (2007). Academic literacy instruction for adolescents: A
guidance document from the Center on Instruction. Portsmouth, NH:
RMC Research Corporation, Center on Instruction.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Deshler.
Now we turn to Mr. Capozzi.
STATEMENT OF JOHN CAPOZZI, PRINCIPAL, ELMONT MEMORIAL HIGH
SCHOOL, ELMONT, NY
Mr. Capozzi. Thank you, Chairman Harkin and distinguished
members of the committee.
My name is John Capozzi, and I am the principal of Elmont
Memorial High School. I would like to thank you for providing
me with the opportunity to speak to you about the strategies we
use at Elmont Memorial High School to improve teacher
effectiveness and provide our students with the rigorous
education that prepares them for their post-secondary goals.
Elmont Memorial High School is the largest of five schools
in the Sewanhaka Central High School District, with nearly
2,000 students in grades 7 through 12. The demographics of our
school are 77 percent African-American, 13 percent Hispanic, 9
percent Asian, and 1 percent White. Our academic achievement
and annual graduation rate of over 94 percent has dispelled the
myth that children of color cannot be provided with an
enriching, challenging, and first-rate education.
I am often asked how Elmont Memorial High School does this.
The driving force behind Elmont Memorial's success is our
belief that all children can learn.
Research clearly shows that the No. 1 factor in student
achievement is teacher effectiveness. We understand that our
student success is directly correlated to our highly effective
and dedicated teachers. My primary role as the principal is to
serve as the instructional leader of the school and to provide
support and supervision to the faculty.
The role of the principal has changed dramatically
throughout the years. Today, principals are often required to
be managers rather than instructional leaders. For student
achievement to improve, the principal's primary focus must
remain on improving teacher effectiveness.
Recently, there has been much discussion on developing
teacher-leaders in schools. At Elmont Memorial, we utilize
teacher-leaders to turnkey successful instructional strategies
at faculty workshops. Excellent teachers benefit from this
plan; however, this alone will not help improve the instruction
in the mediocre and poor teacher's classrooms.
Principals and school administrators must take the lead in
helping teachers develop their pedagogical skills. In order for
a principal to be an effective instructional leader, they must
first be a master teacher. A master teacher analyzes data and
differentiates instruction. A mediocre teacher simply examines
data and re-teaches the material. A poor teacher does not
examine the data and continues on to the next topic. A master
teacher develops lesson plans that are responsive to the
different learners in their classrooms. A mediocre teacher
simply looks at content as the foundation of lesson planning. A
poor teacher does not have the skill set to plan effectively.
Principals must be well-versed in pedagogy and be willing
to work hands-on with their teachers to develop schools where
excellent instruction is the standard. At Elmont Memorial,
three areas that have greatly contributed to our success are
our rigorous observation process, our comprehensive
professional development plan, and our strong collaborative
approach.
The primary goal of our observation process is to improve
instruction and student achievement. This process is a
cooperative undertaking between the instructional supervisor
and the teacher. As the principal and the instructional leader
of Elmont Memorial, my role in the observation process is,
first and foremost, to be a teacher of teachers.
At the start of every school year, we develop and implement
a comprehensive professional development plan based on the
needs of our teachers. Additionally, to enhance the social and
academic growth of our students, we utilize interdisciplinary
teams. Our teaming program provides our teachers with a daily
opportunity to collaborate on instructional practices and to
develop intervention plans to meet the needs of the students.
Our success in identifying at-risk students and providing
them with the necessary instructional support has greatly
contributed to Elmont Memorial High School's high graduation
rate. We have developed and implemented an action plan. This
allows us to be proactive in identifying at-risk students.
In 2009, New York State had 56 percent of African-Americans
and 55 percent of Hispanic students graduate from high school.
At Elmont Memorial High School, 94 percent of African-American
and 95 percent of Hispanic students graduated. Ninety-seven
percent went on to college. This demonstrates the power of
teacher effectiveness to positively impact student achievement.
As a Nation, we must commit ourselves to provide all
students with the highest quality education. It is my sincere
hope that the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act will not only raise standards for public
education, but also provide principals with the resources they
need to develop and hone the skills of our most valuable
educational resource: teachers.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Capozzi follows:]
Prepared Statement of John Capozzi
summary
With nearly 2,000 students, a student body comprised of 77 percent
African-American, 13 percent Hispanic, 8 percent Asian and 1 percent
white, Elmont Memorial High School has proven that all children can
achieve academic success regardless of race, creed, ethnicity or socio-
economic status. We understand that our students' success is directly
correlated to highly effective and dedicated teachers. Research clearly
shows that the No. 1 factor in student achievement is teacher
effectiveness. My primary role as the principal is to serve as the
instructional leader of the school and to provide support and
supervision to the faculty.
At Elmont Memorial, we continually analyze teacher effectiveness.
Three areas that have greatly contributed to improving classroom
instruction are a rigorous observation process, a comprehensive
professional development plan, and a strong collaborative environment.
The goal of our process is to improve classroom instruction and student
achievement. At the start of every school year we develop and implement
a comprehensive professional development, plan based on the needs of
our teachers. The thrust of our professional development plan is
assisting teachers to develop differentiated instructional
methodologies that allow them to meet the various needs of their
students. Additionally, to enhance the social and academic growth of
our students, we utilize interdisciplinary teams. Our teaming program
provides our teachers with the opportunity to collaborate on a daily
basis.
Our success in identifying and supporting at-risk students has
greatly contributed to Elmont Memorial High School's high graduation
rate. We have developed and implemented an A.C.T.I.O.N. Plan (Analysis,
Collaboration, Teaching techniques, Instructional support,
Opportunities for success, Needs of the students) that allows us to be
proactive in identifying at-risk students. Once identified,
individualized academic recovery plans are developed, implemented and
monitored. As a result, students are afforded an opportunity to
experience academic achievement.
Our success at Elmont Memorial is built on the foundation of
teacher effectiveness and individualized assistance for all of our
students. This, coupled with administrative leadership that embraces
these factors enables us to provide our students with the best
education possible.
______
Thank you Chairman Harkin, Senator Enzi, and distinguished members
of the committee. I am John Capozzi, Principal of Elmont Memorial High
School. I would like to thank you for providing me with the opportunity
to speak to you about the strategies we use at Elmont Memorial High
School to improve teacher effectiveness and provide our students with a
rigorous education that prepares them for their post-secondary goals.
Elmont Memorial School is the largest of five schools in the
Sewanhaka Central High School District with nearly 2,000 students in
grades 7 through 12. The demographics of our school are 77 percent
African-American, 13 percent Hispanic, 9 percent Asian and 1 percent
white. Our academic achievement and annual graduation rate of over 94
percent has dispelled the myth that children of color cannot be
provided with an enriching, challenging and first rate education. I am
often asked how Elmont Memorial does this. The driving force behind
Elmont Memorial's success is our belief that all children can learn.
Research clearly shows that the No. 1 factor in student achievement is
teacher effectiveness. We understand that our students' success is
directly correlated to our highly effective and dedicated teachers. My
primary role as the principal is to serve as the instructional leader
of the school and to provide support and supervision to the faculty.
The role of a principal has changed dramatically throughout the
years. Today, principals are often required to be managers rather than
instructional leaders. For student achievement to improve the
principal's primary focus must remain on improving teacher
effectiveness. Recently, there has been much discussion on developing
teacher leaders in schools. At Elmont Memorial, we utilize teacher
leaders to turnkey successful instructional strategies at faculty
workshops. Excellent teachers benefit from this plan. However, this
alone will not help improve the instruction in the mediocre and poor
teacher's classroom. Principals and school administrators must take the
lead in helping teachers develop their pedagogical skills. In order for
a principal to be an effective instructional leader, they must first be
a master teacher. A master teacher analyzes data and differentiates
instruction. A mediocre teacher simply examines data and re-teaches the
material. A poor teacher does not examine the data and continues on to
the next topic. A master teacher develops lesson plans that are
responsive to the different learners in their classroom. A mediocre
teacher simply looks at content as the foundation of lesson planning. A
poor teacher does not have the skill set to plan effectively.
Principals must be well-versed in pedagogy and be willing to work
hands-on with their teachers to develop schools where excellent
instruction is the standard.
At Elmont Memorial, three areas that have greatly contributed to
our success are our rigorous observation process, our comprehensive
professional development plan and our strong collaborative approach.
The primary goal of our observation process is to improve classroom
instruction and student achievement. This process is a cooperative
undertaking between the instructional supervisor and the teacher. As
the principal and instructional leader of Elmont Memorial, my role in
the observation process is first and foremost, to be a teacher of
teachers. At the start of every school year, we develop and implement a
comprehensive professional development plan based on the needs of our
teachers. Additionally, to enhance the social and academic growth of
our students, we utilize interdisciplinary teams. Our teaming program
provides our teachers with the daily opportunity to collaborate on
instructional practices and to develop intervention plans to meet
student needs.
Our success in identifying at-risk students and providing them with
the necessary instructional support has greatly contributed to Elmont
Memorial High School's high graduation rate. We have developed and
implemented an A.C.T.I.O.N. Plan (Analysis, Collaboration, Teaching
techniques, Instructional support, Opportunities for success, Needs of
the students) that allows us to be proactive in identifying at-risk
students. Once identified, individualized academic recovery plans are
developed, implemented and monitored. Additionally, our pupil personnel
counselors play a significant role in providing academic support to our
students. By conducting an annual review of every student, counselors
assist students in formulating goals for each school year and plan for
their post-secondary education. As a result, students are afforded an
opportunity to experience academic success.
In 2009, New York State had 56 percent African-Americans and 55
percent Hispanic students graduate from high school. At Elmont Memorial
High School, 94 percent of African-American and 95 percent of Hispanic
students graduate. This demonstrates the power of teacher effectiveness
to positively impact student achievement. As a nation we must commit
ourselves to providing all students with the highest quality education.
It is my sincere hope that the reauthorization of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act will not only raise the standards for public
education but also provide principals with the resources they need to
develop and hone the skills of our most valuable educational resource--
teachers.
The Chairman. That's pretty amazing. That's over 9 out of
10 going to college.
Mr. Harrison.
STATEMENT OF RICHARD HARRISON, MIDDLE SCHOOL DIRECTOR, DENVER
SCHOOL FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, DENVER, CO
Mr. Harrison. Thank you, members of the committee, for the
opportunity to share with you Denver School of Science and
Technology's vision and program in the context of
reauthorization.
In Denver, our team of educators at DSST looks to double
the number of students going to 4-year colleges and
universities without remediation from Denver public schools. It
is my hope that DSST's charter school model can be replicated
to improve our expanding network of schools in Denver, as well
as shape the direction of national secondary school reform.
DSST Public Schools looks to drastically change the
outcomes for young people in the city of Denver and model the
reform necessary to increase student achievement and prepare
all students for 4-year colleges and universities. DSST Public
Schools currently operate open-enrollment, STEM-focused charter
schools. Currently in our middle school and high school
program, 48 percent of the students are from low-income
households, and we are 68-percent minority. We attract a
diverse student population that mirrors the general population
of Denver.
For 3 years in a row, DSST's graduating classes have earned
100-percent acceptances into 4-year colleges and universities;
and, thus far, our college remediation rate is 7 percent. Over
the last 3 years, DSST has been the highest performing high
school, as measured by the Colorado State growth model.
Locally, according to the district's School Performance
Framework, DSST's Middle and High School Program was the
highest performing school in Denver Public Schools in both
growth and absolute performance. Most importantly, DSST has
demonstrated that all students, regardless of race or income,
can earn a rigorous high school diploma and attend 4-year
colleges and universities.
Our status as a charter school, as well as our focus to
meet the academic and social needs of a diverse population, has
allowed for innovation in the areas of school culture, student
support, and instructional approach. Preparing every student to
succeed in academics and in character in a 4-year college is at
the center of DSST's program. This starts in the middle school.
Our sixth-graders spend a full day at Colorado College, a top-
rated liberal arts college. Our seventh-graders spend a full
day working with students and professors at the University of
Colorado School of Engineering. These are yearly school rituals
that form the mind set of 100 percent college readiness at the
student level.
DSST has created a STEM program that engages students and
prepares them to succeed in college. Every student in the
middle school spends 2 hours each day in our literacy block,
devoting extra time for reading, writing, and nonfiction
studies in non-tracked classes. The expectation of our middle
school math curriculum is designed to take all students to
calculus by their senior year. We also provide additional
instruction for reading recovery and math interventions for the
many students who come to our school grade levels behind. This
is necessary if we are to prepare our students for STEM fields
and make it accessible.
Of our first two graduating classes, we believe 47 percent
have chosen STEM fields in college, considerably higher than
the national average of 14 percent. DSST's status as a charter
school has allowed for a democratic open-enrollment process so
that any student, regardless of academic ability, neighborhood,
or background can apply for admission through our lottery
process. Most traditional urban public schools suffer from a de
facto segregation based on income and neighborhood housing
patterns.
Under the leadership of Senator Bennet, the former
superintendent of DPS, Denver has recently emerged as one of
the more promising cities for education reform efforts. Denver
Public Schools has aggressively supported the expansion of
charter schools.
We would like to present three recommendations for this
committee:
No. 1, create more high-performing secondary schools in
every neighborhood, regardless of their classification as
district or charter schools, that meet the needs of our
Nation's diversity.
No. 2, acknowledge the innovative work of high-performing
charter schools that serve underrepresented and diverse groups
of students, and involve them in the secondary school reform
effort.
No. 3, encourage charter schools and district schools,
working together, to share in innovation around increasing
student achievement and college readiness, and promoting choice
and demand of high-performance schools.
On behalf of Denver School of Science and Technology and
Denver Public Schools, and in recognition of National Charter
School Week, I thank you for the opportunity to share, and
welcome further dialogue around the needs of our students.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Harrison follows:]
Prepared Statement of Richard Harrison
introduction
Thank you Chairman Harkin, Senator Enzi, and members of the Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee for the opportunity to share
with you Denver School of Science and Technology's (DSST) vision and
program in the context of Elementary and Secondary Education Act
reauthorization and the goal of ensuring that every student in every
classroom achieves at the highest levels. In Denver, CO, our team of
educators at DSST has taken on the task of redefining a world class
secondary school program that looks to double the number of students
going to 4-year colleges and universities without remediation from the
city of Denver. It is my hope that DSST's program can be replicated to
improve our expanding network of schools in Denver as well as shape the
direction of Secondary School reform.
issues facing secondary school reform: national and local contexts
With the election of President Obama and the work around the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act reauthorization, a dynamic
national landscape for school reform has developed. Charter schools are
becoming recognized as high quality organizations which successfully
educate our Nation's young people. Within this broader context, the
United States has been struggling to improve student achievement over
the last decade. Student achievement trends and 4-year college-going
rates continue to be a significant national problem that will undermine
future economic and civic growth of the country. A national crisis
persists around successfully educating our population and graduating
students from 4-year colleges--particularly low-income and minority
students.
Denver Public Schools currently faces many of the same challenges
of other large urban districts. Many schools are segregated by race and
income. The district is challenged by a high rate of poverty and a
large percentage of students who are not native English speakers. The
data around college readiness calls for a sense of urgency around
secondary school reform:
Out of 6,310 9th graders in Denver Public Schools in 2004,
612, or 9.7 percent are likely to earn a 4-year college degree within
10 years;
Of 4,164 low income 9th graders in Denver Public Schools,
186, or 4.5 percent are likely to earn a 4-year college degree within
10 years.
These numbers in Denver are directly tied to the level of college
readiness in middle school, where one in three students is meeting
State standards in reading, writing, math, and science by the end of
8th grade.
There are very few highly successful one-track college preparatory
school models in the country today that significantly increase student
achievement in the context of truly diverse populations. In response to
this crisis, DSST Public Schools looks to drastically change the
outcomes for young people in the city of Denver and model the reform
necessary to increase student achievement and prepare students for 4-
year colleges and universities.
dsst public schools: background and history
DSST Public Schools currently operate open-enrollment STEM-focused
charter schools. We are part of the Denver Public Schools system.
What sets us apart from urban charter schools, traditional district
schools, and magnet schools is the rich student diversity of our
program. Currently in our middle and high school, 48 percent of the
students are from low-income households, and we are 68 percent
minority--we are excited to attract a diverse student population that
mirrors the general population of Denver. We draw from over 100
different elementary and middle school programs in our open-enrollment
process. Our students learn to thrive in a diverse environment, which
is a valuable asset that equips them to enter college, the workplace,
and the real world.
Through a network of schools, DSST Public Schools is dedicated to
providing a diverse student body with an outstanding secondary liberal
arts education with a science and technology focus. By creating
powerful learning communities centered on core values and a shared
commitment to academic excellence, we will increase the number of
underrepresented students (girls, minorities and economically
disadvantaged) who attain college science and liberal arts degrees. Our
graduates will be responsible, engaged citizens who are prepared to be
leaders of the future.
Denver School of Science and Technology welcomed its first class of
9th graders in 2004 and has since become one of the most successful
high schools in the State of Colorado. DSST added a middle school
program to its model in 2008. For 3 years in a row, DSST's graduating
classes have earned 100 percent acceptances into 4-year colleges, and
our college remediation rate thus far is 7 percent. DSST has been the
highest performing Colorado public high school over the last 3 years as
measured by value-added student achievement growth on the Colorado
State Growth Model. Locally, DSST's Middle and High School program was
the highest performing Denver Public School according to district's
School Performance Framework.
DSST's middle and high school program has consistently been the
highest performing secondary school in the district in both growth and
absolute performance. Most importantly, DSST has demonstrated that all
students, regardless of income, background, or ethnicity, can earn a
truly rigorous high school diploma and attend a 4-year college. As a
result, DSST has become a national model for school reform, hosting
thousands of educators from all over the country.
Unlike most districts, the reform effort in Denver is defined by
the collaboration between district and charter schools. DSST's
secondary schools will help Denver Public Schools to become a truly
integrated school system--a national model for such efforts.
introduction: dsst's secondary school program
DSST's secondary program mirrors the recommendations and focus
points in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. DSST is a unique
charter school and offers a distinctive value proposition based on
serving diverse students, a 100 percent 4-year college acceptance track
record, data-driven instruction that yields high value-added student
growth, and our STEM focus.
100 percent 4-year college readiness and acceptance focus:
Every aspect of our secondary school program is designed to prepare
students to succeed academically and socially in the context of 4-year
colleges. Preparing every student to gain acceptance to and succeed in
a 4-year college is at the center of DSST's academic program, and work
towards this goal starts the minute a student walks in the door for
summer school in the 6th grade year. In June 2009, Education Secretary
Arne Duncan spoke at the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools
Conference.
The Denver School of Science and Technology serves grades 6 to 12.
They take the 6th graders on college visits. Those children spend years
choosing a college--instead of months--and 100 percent of their
graduates go on to 4-year colleges and universities.
From Summer School in the 6th grade through Senior Project,
students strive to master the standards, knowledge, and skills that
will prepare them for a 4-year college or university without
remediation.
Real-Time Data-Driven Systems That Yields Value-added
Student Growth: Identifying the value-added growth is the most
important metric of student learning. DSST is committed to using data
and up-to-date research to inform, reflect upon, and adapt instruction
to meet student needs. DSST relentlessly focuses on the academic growth
of our students. The result of this focus is outstanding student growth
year-to-year as measured by State and nationally norm referenced tests.
Most schools that use data-driven instruction places the data in the
hands of select teachers and school leaders a few times a year. At
DSST, every teacher uses technology to transform teaching and learning,
harnessing powerful assessment and data tools to measure student
progress towards standards on a daily basis and to adapt instruction
accordingly. Teachers develop strategies to spiral and re-teach
standards on which students, both individually and collectively, have
not achieved mastery. Students use trackers to manage their own data
and progress toward standards on a daily basis as well. Thus, they own
the data, are fully transparent as to what they need to study and
review, and own their progress toward grade level mastery. Even 6th
graders at DSST keep track of their data on mastery checks, tests and
quizzes, and benchmark exams in their notebooks.
STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics):
Young adults who are well-educated in STEM are critical to the
functioning of our democracy in our increasingly technological society
and represent the next generation of economic growth in the innovation
economy. DSST fully realizes that a college preparatory STEM education
has to start with a middle school program. We work to develop a strong
literacy foundation and laser-like focus on math conceptual
understanding and demonstration of skills, and investing the necessary
time in reading recovery and math interventions for the many students
who come to our program grade levels behind. The expectation of our
math curriculum is designed to take all students to calculus by their
senior year. In the middle school program, every student takes an hour
and a half of an integrated science sequence each day; in the high
school, all students take the equivalent of 5\1/2\ years of science as
part of their graduation requirement. Our one-to-one laptop program
also drives our teaching and learning. DSST has a requirement that
every student pass every core academic course that they take and our
graduation requirements exceed Colorado's higher education entrance
requirements. DSST has created a rigorous core curriculum and STEM
program that engages students in the field and prepares them to succeed
in STEM college majors. We anticipate that 47 percent of our students
will go into STEM fields in college, considerably higher than the
national average of 14 percent.
a democratic open-enrollment process--creating choice and demand
in our program
DSST's status as a charter school has allowed for a democratic
open-enrollment process so that any student, regardless of academic
ability or background, can apply for admissions through our lottery
process. This is a unique and important element of DSST as we enroll a
truly diverse student population in terms of both income and race. Most
traditional urban public schools suffer from a de facto segregation
based on income and neighborhood and housing patterns.
However, DSST is in a relatively unique and fortunate position of
operating in a city that is becoming more diverse. As a result, DSST
has the opportunity to serve ethnically and economically diverse
student populations. One reason for the unprecedented level of
cooperation and support from Denver Public Schools is the District's
interest in developing more diverse, high-performing schools, and
meeting the demand for these schools--as a note, DSST Public Schools
had over 1,500 applications for 400 available seats in our 6th and 9th
grade entry points in our schools. Within Denver's secondary school
reform movement, there is widespread public belief that DSST's model
reflects the world in which students will live and work. This model has
greater long-term potential to transform public secondary school reform
as students, regardless of race, income, or geography, have access to
high performing and high-growth schools. As we expand to a network of
schools in Denver, DSST--through parental and student choice--has the
opportunity to reintegrate Denver schools.
dsst's core practices: innovation, autonomy, and diversity
Our student outcomes can be attributed to innovative strategies
that have guided the organization over the first 6 years. DSST's
guiding principles mirror the direction our Nation looks to take
through the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. DSST believes that
all students can learn, and that it is the responsibility of educators
to ensure that students achieve. Our operating principles permeate
every aspect of our work. We are mission- and values-focused, and our
success lies in the development of highly effective people. We are
outcomes-focused, relying on purposeful use of real-time data. Our
organization is committed to innovation and excellence. Most
importantly, our status as a charter school as well as our focus to
meet the academic and social needs of a diverse population has allowed
for innovation in the areas of school culture, instructional approach,
and supporting our student population. Learning is at the core of our
organization. We constantly seek to find out why things work, how we
can we do them better, and we never stop learning.
Our school culture is grounded in our school's six core values:
Respect, Responsibility, Integrity, Courage, Curiosity, and Doing your
Best. Our school culture is defined by our approach with young adults
through these values. We hold high expectations for all students, and
insure that our educators will do whatever it takes to enable students
to meet these high standards. In DSST's high-accountability culture,
doing your best is a core value, and doing well in school is ``cool.''
Students are individually known and cared for, and they are held
accountable and challenged to do their best. This high-accountability
culture includes:
Recognizing that every group of people implicitly operates
based on a set of values, whether defined or not, DSST defines the
values of our community with 100 percent clarity and purpose, leaving
little to be defined unintentionally. Our core values form the heart of
the DSST community. We gather as a school community to share in
reflection, praise, and acknowledgement of our collective direction.
DSST was founded on the premise that the common good of
our community has far more value than the pervasive ``individualistic''
culture teenagers live in today. An intentional shared community not
only challenges students to think of others, but it also contributes to
their sense of belonging to something much larger than themselves.
DSST's rituals and routines, including our community morning meetings,
promote a sense of belonging and common purpose that guide all
students, faculty and staff.
A required after-school study hall for students who have
not completed their homework.
DSST believes that every student learns differently and that our
classroom instruction must accommodate diverse abilities and learning
styles. Rather than adhering to a single teaching philosophy or
instructional model, DSST has tapped deeply into cutting-edge brain
research to ensure that teachers are using the most effective
strategies possible to attain maximum student growth and achievement.
With brain research as a foundation, DSST also draws on the best
practices from the field, visiting high-performing schools across the
country, and then piloting practices in our own classrooms to define a
set of DSST Core Instructional Practices. This balanced pedagogical
approach, both incredibly progressive and surprisingly traditional,
maximizes growth and achievement for all students. DSST Core
Instructional Practices include:
Planning Lessons in 10-minute time segments and using
hooks and real-world connections to maximize student engagement.
Using Differentiation to reach diverse learning styles and
abilities in non-tracked, heterogeneous classrooms.
Spiraling and fluency activities that provide the
repetition necessary to move new learning into long-term memory and to
maintain previously learned concepts and skills.
Multi-sensory classroom approaches to improve access and
retention.
DSST realizes the challenges of supporting the needs of a diverse
student population, particularly the at-risk. The more deeply a student
is known and cared for, the more effectively a student can be
challenged to learn and grow. At DSST all students are known deeply
enough that teachers and staff in the building can personally care for
them and hold them accountable so that they can realize their full
learning and developmental potential. Clear expectations are
communicated, and strong systems of accountability are in place to help
students meet our high expectations. DSST provides an academic advisor
for every student, who monitors student performance and maintains
regular communication with parents and guardians; the advisor also
works to build meaningful connections necessary to reflect on student
progress academically, as well as with the development of character and
expressions of core values. Our student support is defined by the
combination of our focus on building relationships and our intervention
systems. We provide:
Mandatory after-school tutoring, where our teachers work
with students who fail a quiz or test;
Math and English summer school for students who have not
mastered grade-level skills.
Math and English support classes that students must take,
in addition to their regular courses, until they master basic fluency
skills.
Weekly recognition of students for academic effort and
success.
partnership with denver public schools: a model for urban
education reform
DSST has the opportunity to dramatically impact K-12 education in
Denver. DSST's ultimate goal is that Denver becomes the national leader
of urban public education, as indicated by: (1) dramatically increasing
the percentage of college-ready students from all backgrounds; (2)
rigorous STEM education and programs that make Denver the national
urban leader of science education; and (3) racially and
socioeconomically diverse college preparatory schools that reflect
today's workplace and society.
To achieve these outcomes, Denver Public School (DPS) Board
approved charters for four additional DSST 6-12 schools. By 2020, DSST
Public Schools' five schools will be fully enrolled with over 4,000
students, will graduate approximately 500 students per year and will
double the number of college-ready students from DPS matriculating to
4-year college each year (from 500 today to 1,000). DSST Public Schools
will serve 10 percent of DPS's 6th through 12th grade population, but
graduate the same number of college-ready graduates. And 100 percent of
DSST Public Schools' graduates will be prepared to succeed in STEM
fields of study.
Securing financially viable facilities and funding meaningful
professional development are great challenges for charter schools. DSST
Public Schools has developed a strong pro-active strategy to deal with
this issue, but must successfully execute the strategy. DSST has a
written commitment from the Superintendent of DPS that DPS will provide
leased facilities to DSST Public Schools for all four of the growth
campuses and has already assigned DSST to a new DPS building for its
second campus. DSST hosts many DPS teachers and school leaders on
learning walks, and over the last 2 years hosted the Denver Teaching
Fellows Program through The New Teacher Project. Taking our partnership
to the next level, DSST will be submitting an i3 grant with Denver
Public Schools. In this grant, DSST will be sharing the DNA of our
innovative instructional model with the district to impact student
achievement in several schools across the city.
Under the leadership of Senator Bennet, the former Superintendent
of Denver Public Schools, Denver has recently emerged as one of the
more promising cities for education reform efforts. Denver Public
Schools has aggressively supported the expansion of charter and
innovation schools, begun to create a pay-for-performance compensation
system, has opened up facilities to charter schools, and created school
performance metrics to measure a variety of value-added student
achievement data.
Within this promising context, however, district student
achievement continues to suffer. By any measure, Denver is failing to
educate an entire generation of young people, which will have long-term
consequences for our city and State. Today, 49 percent of DPS students
graduate high school, and of those that do, less than 45 percent are
academically prepared for college. There is an acute shortage of high
performing secondary schools in Denver. As the Obama administration
seeks to scale effective practices at a pace never seen before, DSST,
together with DPS, is positioned to build a national model partnership
that will expand impact and support positive change throughout a large
urban district.
conclusion
There is much debate in our Nation about how to improve our public
schools. This is a critical conversation for many constituents as the
stakes could not be higher. We suggest a simple guiding principle to
guide the conversation: center the conversation around what kids need.
Every student in every neighborhood deserves a high-performing school,
so we simply must debate the quality of our schools first. Our Nation's
policy must strongly favor having more high-performing schools in every
neighborhood--regardless of their classification--district or charter
school.
There is nothing more important to our Nation's future than
improving our public education system. The health of our democracy, the
social and civic fabric of our communities, and the Nation's economic
future depend upon it. Providing all students from all backgrounds and
incomes with an outstanding K-12 education and the academic preparation
to go to college without remediation should be the singular focus of
the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
As charter school leaders, we recognize that charter schools are
one of many strategies to accomplish this goal. We do not believe that
charter schools are the only path to take. Traditional district schools
and alternative schools all have an important role to play in
dramatically improving our Nation's public secondary education. Instead
of using different governance or management structures of public
schools to divide and distract our efforts to educate all students, we
should be encouraged that there are multiple strategies that our
districts can use to insure a great education for all students, and
focus on the results that each teacher, school and district achieve for
their students. This is one of many reasons why charter schools are a
critical component of our education reform strategy.
As the Nation seeks to improve student outcomes in STEM and
increase the pipeline of well-prepared students entering STEM fields,
DSST Public Schools has much to offer these efforts through advocacy
and the sharing of a proven model. We would like to present the three
recommendations based on DSST Public School's work with the Denver
Public Schools for the re-authorization of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act:
Create more high-performing secondary schools in every
neighborhood--regardless of their classification as district or charter
schools--that meet the needs of our Nation's diversity;
Acknowledge the innovative work of high growth and high
performance charter schools that seek to serve under-represented and
diverse groups of students on the track to a 4-year college or
university, and involve them in the secondary school reform effort;
Encourage charter schools and district schools working
together to share in innovation around data-driven instruction,
increasing student achievement and college readiness, and promote
choice and demand of high performance schools.
On behalf of Denver School of Science and Technology and Denver
Public Schools, I thank you for the opportunity to share, and welcome
further dialogue around the needs of our students.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Harrison.
Now Ms. Webber-N'Dour.
STATEMENT OF KAREN WEBBER-N'DOUR, PRINCIPAL, NATIONAL ACADEMY
FOUNDATION HIGH SCHOOL, BALTIMORE, MD
Ms. Webber-N'Dour. Thank you.
The Chairman. Did I pronounce that correctly?
Ms. Webber-N'Dour. ``Indoor.'' Opposite of ``outdoor.''
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. All right.
Ms. Webber-N'Dour. Good afternoon. My name is Karen Webber-
N'Dour. I am the principal of the National Academy Foundation
High School, in Baltimore, MD. I am also a career academy
graduate. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to be here
today on behalf of my school, the National Academy Foundation
(NAF), and the career academy movement.
I am here today to tell you about the success of my school
and thousands of other schools like it and why you should make
sure that we continue and, in fact, expand our mission.
The students at my school, NAF High School, have
experienced unprecedented success. We are currently ranked as
the sixth-best high school in Baltimore City, and admission is
open to all students. For the past 4 years, 100 percent of our
seniors have graduated, and 100 percent of our students have
been admitted to college. For the past 3 years, our attendance
rate has averaged over 90 percent. Our high academic standards
have also led to impressive gains on our State achievement
tests and we have closed the ``achievement gap'' among our
increasingly diverse student body.
Last year, our 12th graders scored almost 20 percentage
points higher than the city average on both the English and
algebra assessments. I believe the time is right to look at
what career academies can do for more of our schools and more
of our students. Career academies are one of the most
established, prevalent, and well-researched models for
reforming high schools.
Career academies can be charter schools, parochial schools,
or traditional public high schools, but they must have three
essential components. A career academy is structured as a small
learning community. A career academy uses college preparatory
curriculum, focused on a specific career, such as finance. A
career academy gives students access to a wide range of work-
based learning experiences, such as internships and job
shadowing.
The National Academy Foundation model also adds one
additional component. The NAF requires each academy to have an
advisory board, which formalizes the relationships between
local businesses, higher education, community groups, and the
school.
It has been my experience that many students with varying
levels of academic performance can dramatically benefit from
this type of personal attention and curriculum that is career-
focused. To this point, the NAF Academy model supports open
recruitment. Any young person who wants to enroll can do so. So
we, therefore, attract both high- and low-performing students,
but both groups become successful under this model.
My high school is a wall-to-wall academy school. It serves
400 students in five career-themed academies. The academies
focus on finance, hospitality and tourism, information
technology, engineering, and law. We also use living
classrooms. In other words, we try to apply what is learned in
the classroom to a real-world situation. Our latest project is
to create an entirely student-run cafeteria.
Our finance students won a MECU branch in our school. It is
an actual bank. The MECU branch is a real living branch. You
can make deposits, withdrawals, and you can open accounts in
our MECU branch. Our students are trained tellers, so they are
actually able to run the bank on their own, with supervision.
Once our young people have experiences like these, there is
a noticeable shift in the way they carry themselves, and this
is really important. When our students have this change in
personal behavior, it carries over to the expectations they
have of their fellow students' behavior. I can tell you that
this kind of positive peer pressure changes a school's culture
indelibly.
I mentioned, earlier, that NAF Academies have advisory
boards that formalize relationships between the schools and
their local communities. Our board has brought us amazing
opportunities. Thanks to connections made through our board,
Hilton Hotels created a $3-million fund for scholarships for
Baltimore City high school students. Our National Academy
Foundation students receive first priority. These board
members' involvement changed lives in a way that will have a
ripple effect for generations to come.
Here we are today, the reauthorization of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act. It is a great opportunity to
increase the number of career academies nationwide. Career
academies are a widely-used school reform strategy, but they
are estimated to reach only 5 percent of public high school
students. Increased funding is critical to increasing both the
quantity and quality of career academies.
This is also an opportunity to promote the teaching
methods, that are proven to help students be so successful, and
the teacher training that is required to make these changes.
We will also have to develop new ways of testing our
students that can measure what they know and what they can do.
It has been said that the NAF Academy model is the best-
kept secret in education. I believe this cannot, and should
not, continue to be the case. There is an opportunity now to
expand it in ways that can help students, schools, businesses,
communities, and yes, the government, too, work better.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak today.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Webber-N'Dour follows:]
Prepared Statement of Karen Webber-N'Dour
summary
Established 40 years ago, career academies are one of the most
prevalent and well-researched high school reform approaches, serving
approximately 1 million public high school students.
Most significant among the research is a 12-year random-assignment
study conducted by MDRC which found that the career academy model can
produce substantial, long term improvements in young people's ability
to earn money and make a successful transition to adulthood,
particularly for young men. It also showed that for the subset of
students most at risk of dropping out, career academy participants
showed increased school retention through the 12th grade, improved
attendance, and earned more credits. The MDRC evaluation meets the
Office of Budget Management's PART test, the highest standard for
evaluating program effectiveness.
The career academy model contains three essential components: that
the academy is structured as a small learning community; that the
academy uses college-
preparatory curriculum that applies a career-context to learning; and
that students access a range of work-based learning experiences such as
internships and job shadowing. The National Academy Foundation model
also requires an advisory board to formalize the relationships between
local businesses, higher education, and community groups and the
school. To promote full implementation of the model, in 2004 a
coalition of career academy organizations developed the ``Career
Academy National Standards of Practice,'' which identify 10 elements of
successful implementation of the career academy model.
The National Academy Foundation High School is a small, public high
school serving 300 students in five career-themed academies. The
Academies focus on Finance, Hospitality & Tourism, Information
Technology, Engineering, and Law. National Academy Foundation academies
are also successfully implemented as a school-within-a-school in a
larger comprehensive high school or as small schools that may only be
one academy theme.
Through living classrooms, interactions with experienced
professionals, and paid internships, students at the National Academy
Foundation High School are prepared for college and career success.
Currently ranked as the sixth best high school in Baltimore, the only
one of which that is open to all students. For each of the past 4
years, our school has achieved a 100 percent graduation rate and 100
percent of our students have been admitted to college. For the past 3
years, our attendance rate has averaged over 90 percent. Our high
academic standards have also led to impressive gains in State
achievement tests and we have closed the ``achievement gap'' among our
increasingly diverse student body. Last year our twelfth graders scored
almost 20 percentage points higher than the city average on both the
English and Algebra 2 assessments.
The reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
provides many opportunities to increase the prevalence of career
academies and apply key lessons learned to improving high schools for
all American young people. Increased funding is critical to increasing
their scale and can also ensure quality among all schools that seek to
use the model. We also need standards that allow academic and career-
themed courses to be integrated, expanding the relevance of coursework
and deepening students' ability to apply core concepts. Alongside
promoting these instructional methods must be assessments that measure
students' skills in addition to the knowledge they have gained. These
assessments must also be aligned with credentialing opportunities in
which students can earn industry certifications or college credits.
______
Good afternoon Chairman Harkin, Ranking Member Enzi, and members of
the committee. I am Karen Webber-N'dour, principal of National Academy
Foundation High School, a public high school in Baltimore City, MD. I
am proud to be here today on behalf of my school, the National Academy
Foundation, and the career academy movement.
I am heartened by the increasing dialogue around the pressing need
for American high schools to achieve college and career readiness for
every student. I deeply understand this need, both as a high school
principal and from my previous work life. I am not a career educator; I
am a lawyer by training. After 10 years focusing on civil rights, it
was clear to me that a quality education could be the key to the
betterment of the disenfranchised populations with whom I was working.
I decided to switch tracks to create opportunities for people who
otherwise may not have them, and I have found the career academy model
an ideal vehicle to do that.
I also have a very personal connection to this movement; I am a
career academy graduate. I embarked on my professional path at the
Academy of Law, Politics, and Community Affairs at Tilden High School
in Brooklyn, NY.
Career academies are one of the most established, prevalent, and
well-researched high school reform approaches. This model is time-
tested--the career academy movement began 40 years ago in Philadelphia
and the National Academy Foundation has been refining its model for
nearly 30 years. Today, there are estimated to be between 2,500 and
4,000 career academies across the country, serving approximately 1
million public high school students. Five hundred of these academies
are part of the National Academy Foundation's network and they will
reach 53,000 students this school year.
Career academies' impacts have been demonstrated by rigorous
research, including a longitudinal, random assignment evaluation by
MDRC. The MDRC study meets high standards set out in the Office of
Budget Management's PART test for evaluating program effectiveness.
Career academies are one of the best examples of how educational
interventions can apply research findings to improve practice. The wide
range in the estimated number of career academies is due to the fact
that many schools or programs with a career theme label themselves as
career academies without fully applying the model. To address this and
promote full implementation, in 2004 a coalition of career academy
organizations developed the ``Career Academy National Standards of
Practice.'' Based on both the experience of the organizations involved
and on the MDRC findings, the national standards identify 10 elements
of successful implementation of the career academy model.
the career academy model
Among local, State and national career academy organizations, it is
widely agreed that the career academy model contains three essential
components: that the academy is structured as a small learning
community; that the academy uses college-preparatory curriculum that
applies a career-context to learning; and that through business,
college, and community partners, students access a range of work-based
learning experiences such as internships and job shadowing. The
National Academy Foundation model adds one additional component,
requiring that each Academy has an advisory board to formalize the
relationships between local businesses, higher education, community
groups and the school.
Academy Structure
Career academies are organized as small learning communities so
that students get the benefit of a supportive and personalized learning
environment. The National Academy Foundation academy structure also
emphasizes recruitment that is open to any young person who expresses
interest in the career theme and attracts both high- and low-performing
students. It also requires a scheduling and school structure that
allows teachers to collaborate across subject areas.
This can take hold in a variety of forms. The high school I lead is
what we call ``wall-to-wall academies.'' It is a small high school
serving 400 students in five career-themed academies. Four out of the
five are affiliated with the National Academy Foundation. The Academies
focus on Finance, Hospitality & Tourism, Information Technology,
Engineering, and Law. National Academy Foundation academies are also
successfully implemented as a school-within-a-school in a larger
comprehensive high school or as small schools that may have only one
academy theme.
Curriculum
Career academies are at the forefront of the college and career
movement because they combine academic learning with a contemporary
approach to Career and Technical Education. This results in young
people who are prepared to enter college and succeed there, and who
have the critical skills necessary to excel in the 21st Century
workplace.
The National Academy Foundation has developed curriculum for its
themes that is driven by proven, research-based methods that emphasizes
literacy and project-based learning. In this highly-effective teaching
approach, students are called upon to use teamwork, creativity,
decisionmaking, communication and other core skills to perform tasks
and achieve outcomes, mimicking the world of work. Professional
development, technical assistance, and ongoing evaluation are offered
by the National Academy Foundation to help teachers and academies
succeed.
At the National Academy Foundation High School we strive to create
a living classroom for each Academy, and we take the opportunity to
create relevance to the extreme. We have a branch of the MECU credit
union in our school that is operated by our Finance students. Our
Hospitality & Tourism students cater and run all of our special events
and are hired to do so for many local government and business events.
Our latest project is to create an entirely student-run cafeteria. Our
Hospitality students can create better tasting food than available at
any other cafeteria, our Finance students can handle the money and
business side, and our IT and Engineering students can create systems
and processes to track the inventory. These aren't projects for
projects' sake. They are real life applications for students' knowledge
and skills that also allow them to create benefits for their own
school.
Work-based Learning and Internships
Career academies integrate a range of work-based learning
experiences that include mentoring from business professionals, career
fairs, job shadowing, classroom speakers and culminate in an
internship.
High school internships, particularly those that are paid, are an
essential component of workforce preparation and an important motivator
and context setter for young people. Internships introduce youth to the
habits and value of work, while making connections between academic
learning, the real-world application of knowledge, and the role of
business in the community. Indeed, these partnerships between academies
and the local business community are the cornerstone of the career
academy model, connecting youth with hands-on experiences under the
guidance of practiced professionals.
At the National Academy Foundation High School, we are able to
provide a wide-range of opportunities for students to get a window into
the world of work and apply the knowledge they have gained from their
living classrooms. After students participate in job shadowing or
internships, they are filled with the most incredible sense of pride
and confidence. Once young people have had these experiences, there is
a perceptible shift in the way they carry themselves. This even
transfers over to the expectations that they have of their fellow
students' behavior, all of which changes a school's culture indelibly.
Advisory Boards
One of the most distinctive elements of National Academy Foundation
academies is their relationship with their local communities. Teachers
and academy directors rely on Advisory Boards, made up of local
business, higher education, and community leaders. Employees of more
than 2,500 companies serve as Advisory Board members for National
Academy Foundation academies. They create access to expertise in the
subject areas the academies are built upon, and connect students and
their growing skills to a wide world of career paths. These highly-
engaged Board members provide students with paid internships and
opportunities for job shadowing and mentoring; act as role models; and
help to enhance career-themed curriculum through their own knowledge of
the industry. Their constant involvement provides a stable base of
support that allows academies to endure and flourish even when
leadership at the school- or district-level changes.
At the National Academy Foundation High School, we have the most
incredible collection of professionals who are an integral part of our
school. They help us to make the subject matter real, and they hold us
accountable. We only have 15-20 board members, but each one of them
comes with a network that grows our reach exponentially. We have over
750 business people at our annual awards benefit who are deeply
connected to our school.
Through this group come the most amazing opportunities. For
example, when Hilton Hotels earned a contract to take over the hotel at
the Baltimore Convention Center, connections made through our board
made it so they created a $3 million fund for college scholarships for
Baltimore high school students who pursue hotel management and
hospitality careers, with National Academy Foundation students
receiving first priority.
career academy evidence
Thanks to their longevity and the outcomes demonstrated at
individual schools, career academies are one of the most well-
researched high school interventions. Attached to my written testimony
is a summary of the research, Career Academies: A Proven Strategy to
Prepare High School Students for College and Careers,\1\ compiled and
recently updated by David Stern, Charles Dayton, and Marilyn Raby, and
a recent paper commissioned by the National Career Academy Coalition
and written by Betsy Brand of the American Youth Policy Forum, High
School Career Academies: A Forty-Year Proven Model for Improving
College and Career Readiness.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The article referred to may be found at http://
casn.berkeley.edu/resource-files/Proven
_Strategy_2-25-1010-03-12-04-27-01.pdf.
\2\ The article referred to may be found at http://www.aypf.org/
documents/092409Career
AcademiesPolicyPaper.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most significant among this research is a 12-year longitudinal,
random-assignment study conducted by MDRC and released in June 2008.
The full report is also attached to my written testimony.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The article referred to may be found at http://www.mrdc.org/
publications/482/full.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Key findings of the MDRC study include:
Career academy graduates earned 11 percent more in total
earnings over the 8 years following high school than their non-academy
peers.
Young men from career academies experienced increased
earnings over 8 years totaling 17 percent more than their non-academy
peers.
An increased percentage of career academy graduates live
independently with their children and spouse or partner. Young men,
specifically, reported positive effects on marriage and parenting.
While there were neither positive nor negative impacts on
high school graduation rates or post-secondary attainment, for the
subset of students most at risk of dropping out, career academy
participants showed increased school retention through the 12th grade,
improved attendance, and earned more credits.
Especially noteworthy are the magnitude and persistence of this
earning effect over 8 years; it is roughly the equivalent earning power
of an associate's degree.
The Coalition for Evidence-Based Policy, an independent,
nonpartisan organization, has identified career academies as meeting a
``top tier'' evidence standard of effectiveness, based on MDRC's long-
term evaluation. The career academies model joins only three other
interventions that the Coalition has identified that meet the ``top
tier'' criteria. MDRC is now conducting follow-up analyses to examine
how the programs produced these effects and which features were likely
to have contributed most to the impacts.
national academy foundation high school outcomes
Students at the National Academy Foundation High School experience
unprecedented success. We are currently ranked as the sixth best high
school in Baltimore and admission is open to all students. For the past
4 years, we have achieved a 100 percent graduation rate and 100 percent
of our students have been admitted to college. For the past 3 years,
our attendance rate has averaged over 90 percent.
Our high academic standards have also led to impressive gains in
our State achievement tests and we have closed the ``achievement gap''
among our increasingly diverse student body. Last year our twelfth
graders scored almost twenty percentage points higher than the city
average on both the English and Algebra 2 assessments.
All of this has brought us to the attention of many of the city's
outstanding students. As attractive as the school is, our
superintendent and our school leadership are determined to ensure that
it remains an option for those who could benefit most. Next year, we
become a 6-12 school, absorbing a failing middle school and its
struggling student body. It will be a challenge, but I am confident
that with the career academy model, 4-plus years from now, those
students will be on their way to post-secondary and career success with
the unmistakable professionalism that marks a National Academy
Foundation High School graduate.
opportunities in the reauthorization of esea
The reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
provides many opportunities to increase the prevalence of the career
academy model and apply to key lessons learned over the 40-year
refinement of the model to improve the high school experience for all
American young people.
Funding for Career Academies
While career academies are a widely used high school reform
strategy, they are estimated to reach only 5 percent of public high
school students. Increased funding is critical to increasing their
scale and can also help to ensure quality among all the schools that
seek to use the model. Since the National Standards of Practice were
created in 2004, both the National Career Academy Coalition and the
National Academy Foundation have developed detailed academy assessments
to increase effective implementation in order to reap the most benefits
for students, schools and communities.
Integrated Curriculum, Assessments and Credentials
The skills and knowledge that prepare students to be successful
college applicants and goers are many of the same ones that lead to
success in the workplace. We need standards that allow academic and
career-themed courses to be integrated to expand the relevance of
coursework and at the same time deepen students understanding and
ability to apply core concepts. Alongside promoting these instructional
methods must be assessments that measure students' skills in addition
to the knowledge they have gained. These assessments must also be
aligned with credentialing opportunities in which students can earn
industry certifications or college credits.
The National Academy Foundation is working to develop a
certification and assessment system for its academy students. This
system will center around a combination of course tests, a student
portfolio demonstrating proficiency in industry authentic projects, and
an evaluation of the internship, that will provide a portable
credential that will assist students in their applications to college.
This certification and assessment system will also enable the National
Academy Foundation to gauge student learning and will form the basis
for articulation agreements with prestigious universities to engender
student access and portability to high quality post-secondary
opportunities.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide this testimony. I am happy
to answer any questions you may have.
The Chairman. Thank you.
And now our last witness is Mr. Habit.
STATEMENT OF TONY HABIT, Ed.D., PRESIDENT, NORTH CAROLINA NEW
SCHOOLS PROJECT, RALEIGH, NC
Mr. Habit. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank
you so much for the opportunity to be with you today, and to
speak briefly. It is an honor to be here as we talk about this
very important issue for our Nation.
I would, as a point of privilege, if you don't mind, say a
special word about the practitioners who are at this panel
today. It is very, very impressive to hear them talk. These are
people who are on the ground, day to day, working with young
people and teachers, and they deserve a great deal of respect
from all of us.
So, thank you for that, it is an honor to be with you.
I want to thank Senators Burr and Hagan for their very
generous comments in opening today. They are remarkable leaders
for our State, and we are very, very grateful for the things
that they do here on behalf of North Carolina.
In North Carolina, we are so fortunate, in that we have had
a succession of leaders who are deeply committed to this idea
that education must change, and must change rapidly, in
response to an economy that is changing at a breathtaking pace.
Our Governor, Beverly Perdue, has launched a new education
agenda called Career and College--Ready, Set, Go! That agenda,
for the first time in our State's history, sets out the
expectation that every child should graduate and--every child
should graduate ready for the next step, which assumes
continued education beyond high school. She has taken these
steps and, with her budget, made recommendations to build on
the innovation work in North Carolina during times that are
very, very tight for our State, as they are for most States.
Our general assembly shares this commitment; they have
created a commission called the JOBS Commission. That
commission, in effect, looks at, How do we join our businesses,
schools, and jobs, to connect secondary school innovation to
economic and workforce development in ways that will accelerate
the change process that I am going to talk about briefly today?
That commission is led by our State's Lieutenant Governor,
Walter Dalton.
By so many measures, we have been very fortunate, as a
State, to have great progress, in that there are indicators
that suggest that the work is putting us where we really need
to be. For example, last year, North Carolina ranked No. 1 in
the percentage of students enrolled in advanced mathematics in
high school, at 80 percent. But, the economic restructuring has
created a sense of urgency around the transformation of
secondary education that has really made our work possible at
the North Carolina New Schools Project.
We recently commissioned a poll of young people who have
graduated, to ask them about their perceptions of what they
received and did not receive in secondary schools. What they
came back to us with was very clear messages that they felt
there were significant gaps in their preparation, both for high
school and for life beyond high school. As we look at our
State's graduation rate, only 72 percent of our students
graduate in a 4-year period in North Carolina; and for African-
American students, that number is around 63 percent.
As has been said earlier, our organization was created to
serve in the nexus between the public sector in government and
private sector to help accelerate the change process in ways
that will both be sustainable for the long-term and that will,
ultimately, systemically impact every community and every
school in North Carolina.
So, I want to briefly update you on our progress, point to
a few data points, and then talk briefly about where we are
headed, as an organization and as a State.
To date, we have created 106 innovative new secondary
schools around North Carolina that range from early-colleges.
Early-colleges, as you have heard earlier from our partner,
Cassius, with the Jobs for the Future, are typically based on
the campus of a 2- or 4-year college or university, in which
students, beginning in the 9th grade, are accelerated toward a
12th or 13th year, and expected to graduate high school with up
to 2 years of college credit, at no cost to them or to their
families. Students who enroll in early-colleges are typically
underserved, and these are the students who would not likely
complete high school, and are typically the first in their
families to succeed in college.
We are also involved in the development of innovative
schools on traditional campuses that are focused in ways that
are inconsistent with conventional high schools; where
teachers, working in teams around a group of students, have the
ability, and the support, to meet the individual needs of each
student.
I believe that the evidence of these schools provides us
with some data that gives us--I'm looking at the time, here,
and realizing I'm going to have to significantly change my
remarks.
Let me just add a few points here, and I'll conclude.
With the early-colleges, we find that the students--by the
end of the 9th grade, there essentially is no achievement gap--
no achievement gap between the minority students and the
majority students, compared to conventional schools, where the
gap in achievement is 10 points or greater. We are seeing that
students in our innovative, redesigned schools are graduating
at much greater rates than students in conventional high
schools that are compared to them, across the board.
I am going to mention a couple of lessons along the way,
and skip the concluding comments that I have here.
First is that changing beliefs in schools is critically
important, as you have heard from others who have spoken today.
That is, the traditional set of low expectations for many
students really is a cancer that undermines the attempt to set
very high and ambitious goals for student performance.
Second, setting a goal that every child should be expected
and supported to attend college provides a way to unify the
thinking of teachers, it gives them a platform with which to
ask meaningful questions and to connect with one another, and
ultimately focus on the resources and time of that school.
Third, meaningful change in schools is often undermined by
the fact that schools lack the capacity. They lack the
training, the tools, and experience around change management.
Many of our private-sector partners have, for years, been
working around change management, and going out and purchasing
expertise in change management. We need to expect schools to
have the same supports and structures if they are to be
successful at creating the new American high school.
And last, the idea that we heard earlier, that rethinking
leadership is critical. Principals in new schools must be
leaders of teachers, and teachers of teachers, as we heard
earlier, rather than managers of facilities who focus on data
and stability of campuses.
With that said, let me conclude my comments and hope that
there are some comments or questions from you all.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Habit follows:]
Prepared Statement of Tony Habit, Ed.D.
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Enzi and members of the committee,
thank you for the invitation to testify today. I am pleased to be with
you to consider the urgency for change in our Nation's secondary
schools. My name is Tony Habit, and I am president of the North
Carolina New Schools Project.
In North Carolina we are fortunate to have leaders who appreciate
both the urgency for change and the magnitude of the change that must
occur. Our governor, Beverly Perdue, continues to champion innovation
in our State's secondary schools with an education agenda that sets a
paramount goal of raising the State's graduation rate and ensuring that
graduates are well prepared for college, career and citizenship. Even
as North Carolina faces another year of serious fiscal challenge,
Governor Perdue's proposed budget calls for continued investments to
improve educational outcomes as an essential strategy to advance the
State's future workforce.
The North Carolina General Assembly shares this commitment by
enacting legislation in 2009 to establish the JOBS Commission--Joining
Our Businesses and Schools--that is co-chaired by Lt. Governor Walter
Dalton and Representative Rick Glazier. The Commission is tasked with
recommending the next phase of secondary school innovation with a
particular emphasis on economic development.
North Carolina also has benefited from the unparalleled
philanthropic leadership of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to
transform the Nation's high schools to meet the demands of this
century.
By many traditional measures, North Carolina is fortunate to have
high schools that in relative terms have succeeded over the last
century in moving from institutions that served very few to ones that
strive to serve all students. At 80 percent, North Carolina is ranked
first in the country in the percentage of high school students taking
advanced math courses.\1\ North Carolina ranks in the top third of
States for the percentage of high school seniors passing Advanced
Placement exams.\2\ Sixty-three percent of our State's 12th grade
students took the SAT in 2009, and North Carolina had the second
largest 10-year gain in SAT math scores among States with over 50
percent of the population taking the SAT.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education (2008).
Measuring Up 2008. Available at http://measuringup.highereducation.org/
default.cfm.
\2\ College Board (2010), AP Report to the Nation 2010, Available
at http://www.college
board.com/html/aprtn/pdf/ap_report_to_the_nation.pdf.
\3\ Public Schools of North Carolina (2005). The North Carolina
2005 SAT Report. http://www.ncpublicschools.org/docs/accountability/
reporting/sat/2005/sat_report_2005_part1
.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the same time, North Carolina has felt acute pain from dramatic
economic shifts of the past decade, and hastened by the downturn of our
State and Nation during the last 2 years. In the first 5 years of the
last decade, for example, North Carolina lost nearly one-quarter of its
manufacturing jobs--184,200 jobs in all. The ``Big Four'' of our
State's traditional manufacturing base--tobacco, textiles, apparel and
furniture--are projected to continue shedding jobs.
As low-skill, high-wage jobs have vanished, some communities are
left bereft of opportunity. Idled middle-aged workers often are trapped
in a string of low-skilled, low-wage jobs or are required to return to
college for retooling without the preparation in high school required
to succeed.
There is strong evidence as well that our most recent high school
graduates are under-prepared for the demands they are facing in the
``real world.'' In a poll commissioned by our organization a few years
ago, half of North Carolina high school graduates in college reported
gaps in their preparation for college academic work and half of recent
graduates in the workforce report gaps in their preparation to get a
good job. A quarter of the recent graduates in college reported having
taken a remedial course.
In addition, far too many high school students never reach
graduation. North Carolina's cohort graduation rate in 2009 was 72
percent of the students who entered 9th grade in 2005. For African-
American students, the graduation rate was only 63 percent. For
Hispanics, it was only 59 percent. And for students from low-income
families, it was 62 percent.
My organization, the North Carolina New Schools Project, is an
independent, not-for-profit corporation that serves as the nexus of the
leadership of Governor Perdue and our State Board of Education; the
strong interest in change among the Gates Foundation and other
philanthropies, public and private colleges and universities and the
private sector; and the pressing economic need that North Carolina
faces.
While impressive in relative terms, the incremental gains of our
high schools are insufficient both in terms of scope and in terms of
pace to address a changing economy. North Carolina must graduate more
students with more skills and knowledge than ever before. The New
Schools Project was established to accelerate the pace of innovation in
our State and to ensure that all students have access to high-
quality schools that will prepare them fully for college, work and
life.
Since I last appeared before this panel, in the spring of 2007, the
number of innovative high schools that we support has more than
doubled--to 106 schools across the State. The number of students has
tripled from about 7,000 in 2006-2007 to more than 21,000 this year.
Two-thirds of the schools are early colleges that are proving to be
highly successful in keeping students in school, challenging them with
high expectations and effective support and graduating them well-
prepared for college and career. The other 36 schools are yielding
invaluable lessons about the challenges inherent in redesigning
existing, traditional high schools into ones that truly serve all
students.
I believe that the results being achieved by North Carolina's
innovative schools are persuasive evidence that secondary schools can
be transformed into places of powerful teaching and learning where
truly all students graduate ready for college and careers.
For example, a recent independent study of early college in North
Carolina found that these schools are succeeding in erasing the
achievement gap.
By the end of 9th grade, little or no gap separated the
performance of non-minority students from under-represented minorities
in the core subjects of English I and Algebra I. Gaps of 10 points or
more were measured for similar students attending traditional schools.
Overall, the study's first-year analysis found that by the
end of 9th grade, 83 percent of early college students had successfully
completed Algebra I, compared to 67 percent of similar students
attending other schools.
On a number of other measures as well, North Carolina's innovative
high schools are improving outcomes for students. Consider these
results from 2008-2009 for the 101 innovative high schools that the
North Carolina New Schools Project (NCNSP) was helping to support:
North Carolina's innovative high schools are making
academic progress.
Nearly 7 in 10 (67 percent) of 101 innovative high
schools last year out-performed their comparison high school on
the State's ABCs accountability measurement, based on statewide
exams in core subjects.
Passing rates for early college high schools on
Algebra I end-of-course exams were nearly 10 points higher than
the State average and more than 15 points higher on English I
exams.
Early college students earned higher grades, on
average, than college-age students last year in their community
college courses. Of all the college courses taken by early
college students, 75 percent received a grade of C or higher,
compared to 70 percent of courses taken by other college
students.
Students in North Carolina's innovative high schools are
graduating.
Nearly three quarters of the redesign high schools
with senior classes in 2008-2009 (17 of 23 schools) achieved
graduation rates outpacing those of comparison schools in their
districts with similar student demographics.
Seventeen of the schools also had graduation rates
above 80 percent, with eight of the 17 with rates of at least
85 percent, compared to North Carolina's overall graduation
rate of 72 percent for the class of 2009.
North Carolina's innovative high schools are challenging
students.
Of 59 high schools in North Carolina where at least
25 percent of students took Algebra II in 2008-2009, 41 were
innovative schools supported by NCNSP.
Students in North Carolina's innovative high schools are
less likely to drop out.
The combined dropout rate in 2008-2009 for 97 NCNSP
schools open this year and last was 2.96 percent, compared to
4.27 percent for all high schools in the State.
In 9th grade, the most critical year and where
students are at greatest risk of quitting school, NCNSP schools
had a combined dropout rate of 3.1 percent, compared to 5.7
percent for all North Carolina high schools.
42 of 97 NCNSP schools lost no students as dropouts
in 2008-2009.
Attendance is better in North Carolina's innovative high
schools.
The combined attendance rate for 101 NCNSP schools in
2008-2009 was 95 percent, vs. 93.5 percent among comparison of
high schools.
Nearly four of every five innovative high schools in
2008-2009 had better attendance than a comparable, traditional
high school.
lessons learned on the road to meaningful change
Since 2003, the North Carolina New Schools Project has partnered
with local school districts and, in some cases, with national partners
such as the Asia Society, the New Technology Network, and the
KnowledgeWorks Foundation to open innovative schools of various
designs. We engage with a school and its school district for at least 6
years--a planning year followed by 5 years of implementation. This
timeframe recognizes both the scope of the change we are pursuing and
its complexity. This day-to-day, on-the-ground experience in working to
foster innovation--along with what we have gleaned from the experience
of others in the field--has offered us important insights into what it
takes to transform secondary school to make it more effective for more
students. Let me offer you four specific observations to consider.
Changing Beliefs
Simply put, low expectations are a cancer that can weaken a school
enough to make significant changes in teaching impossible. It is clear
how this occurs in a typical high school--some students are tracked
into demanding courses which prepare them for a future beyond high
school, while others are tracked into classes that offer little
challenge and even less future. The usual justification is that
``those'' students were not ``ready'' for Algebra II or honors English.
Some parents reinforce these beliefs by advocating that certain
students be discouraged from enrolling in advanced courses.
If I do not believe that all students can do the work, I do not
feel obligated to assume responsibility for changing the way my school
is organized or the way resources are allocated to ensure that all
students succeed. In the schools we partner with, we work to instill
the notion that preparation to tackle new demanding content is the
responsibility of the teachers, not the students.
In our partnership with schools, we insist that they be fully
representative of the student population of their district; we do not
allow access to innovation to be limited to the best and brightest.
This is one of our stakes in the ground to enforce what we believe as
an organization about who can do the work. Notably, three of every four
of our partner schools subject to No Child Left Behind's growth
provision last year made Adequate Yearly Progress. Among the 60 early
colleges open last year, only two fell short of that goal.
Teachers and administrators frequently do not believe all
students--particularly poor and minority students--can master the
knowledge and skills that lead to true opportunity until they see it
first hand. As part of our work, we have taken hundreds of educators
from across North Carolina on study visits to schools in other parts of
the country whose results are irrefutable. Educators study some of the
country's most successful high schools to learn how changed instruction
and high levels of student support combine to improve student outcomes.
This includes direct classroom observation that leads to deeper
reflection about changing instruction. More than 20 schools such as
University Park Campus High School in Worcester, MA, and Urban Academy
at the Julia Richmond Complex in New York City are used for these site
visits. In partnership with the University of North Carolina system we
are now developing four of our own innovative schools into ``learning
labs'' to make these kinds of transformative site visits even more
accessible.
While it seems counter-intuitive, there is strong evidence
supporting the premise that with greater challenge, students try harder
and perform better. This is particularly the case when schools and
students focus on the most important content and skills and when the
material relates to students' own aspirations. The term ``comprehensive
high school'' speaks to the difficulty of achieving this kind of focus
in the traditional setting. We work to create high schools of no more
than 400 students that provide focus either through an academic theme,
an instructional approach, or their location on a college campus in the
case of our early college high schools. Additionally, a school's focus
represents one strategy to enable teachers in the core courses to work
together to make connections between courses and the world of work. The
intent of a focus is not preparation for a specific career, but rather
preparation for a lifetime of learning and workplace changes.
As adults, we should not shy away of expecting more from all
students. In our survey of recent graduates, 77 percent said that high
school graduation requirements were easy to meet, 80 percent said that
they would have worked harder had the expectations been higher and 68
percent said that they would have worked harder in high school had they
known then what they know now about real world demands. As adults, we
must bear the burden of our knowledge of what preparation for college,
work and life requires and must act on that knowledge.
Setting College as the Goal
Often, the limitations of beliefs about students' capabilities
emerge around the notion of making every graduate ``college-ready.''
Inevitably, someone raises the challenge that not every graduate will
go to college.
The overarching goal of North Carolina's innovative high schools is
to ensure that every student graduates college-ready. We are even more
explicit in asking, first, that students meet the admission
requirements of the University of North Carolina system and, second,
that every student earn college credit before leaving high school.
This college-ready imperative is intentionally provocative. It
becomes a point on which a faculty must agree and collaborate. Another
value to the small scale of our innovative high schools is that they
allow teachers to be flexible in meeting the academic needs of
students, to alter what is offered and for how long in ways that a
2,000-student high school cannot.
At the same time, this imperative is based on a growing body of
research that shows that the skills high school graduates need in order
to be ready for college and ready for the 21st century workplace are
the same.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See ACT, Ready for College and Ready for Work: Same or
Different?, 2006 and Achieve, Ready or Not: Creating a High School
Diploma That Counts, 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The most recent such study, conducted by ACT, analyzed data and
items from its college and work readiness tests, found that 90 percent
of jobs that do not require a bachelor's degree but that do provide a
``self-sufficient'' wage require the same level of mathematical and
analytical reading and writing skills as those needed by students who
are planning to enroll in a 4-year university.\5\ The report goes on to
state that this finding suggests that ``all high school students should
be educated according to a common academic expectation that prepares
them for both post-
secondary education and the workforce. This means that all students
should be ready and have the opportunity to take a rigorous core
preparatory program in high school, one that is designed to promote
readiness for both college and workforce training programs.'' \6\
However, another ACT study released this month showed that high school
teachers' view of college-ready content misses the mark in terms of
focus.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Examples of jobs cited in the report that do not require a
bachelor's degree but do provide a ``self-sufficient'' wage include
electricians, construction workers, upholsterers and plumbers. From
ACT, Ready for College and Ready for Work: Same or Different?, 2006.
\6\ ACT, 2006, page 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Voters in North Carolina, perhaps intuitively, understand this
convergence. In a poll we commissioned, 70 percent agreed that the
skills to succeed at work and in college were the same. Eighty-four
percent said it was important for nearly all high school graduates to
move on to a 2- or 4-year college, with 69 percent calling it very
important.
We have good reason to believe that students can meet this higher
expectation. Last year, students in North Carolina's early college high
schools on average took at least three college courses.
Managing for Significant Change
Meaningful change in high schools is essential and elusive; it is
worth remembering that A Nation at Risk was a report about changing
secondary education. Schools and school districts are rewarded for
maintaining the status quo and for adding new programs. For example,
rather than consider the absence of personalization and effective
student supports within a school, districts will add a dropout
prevention program or a specialist for that problem. At its heart,
however, changing schools to graduate all students to be college-ready
means redirecting all of the resources of a school to provide greater
student support and to address highly focused targets for achievement.
This is especially true in using the resources represented by the role
and responsibilities of adults in the school.
While the private sector has experienced decades of organizational
restructuring in which workers are displaced in one function and then
rehired in another to adapt to changing market conditions, the
education sector possesses no such history. Changing the roles of
adults in schools typically results in conflict and undermines the
overarching school change process--if not derailing it altogether. Most
schools and districts lack the expertise or organizational structure
with which to manage change and innovation.
Further, since communities and educators must embrace the need for
change, the absence of resources and expertise for most schools and
districts to effectively engage their communities means that well-
intentioned efforts can be undermined by relatively few, well-organized
citizens or disgruntled educators.
Current funding and professional development programs reinforce a
piecemeal approach to change and typically fail to support a coherent,
sustained and focused model for schools. It stands to reason that if
tools and plans for school change are not supported by high-quality and
aligned training that the likelihood of success will be greatly
diminished.
The New Schools Project and its partners provide specific supports
for new and redesigned high schools that deviate from this norm. They
include:
Teaching for Results: This annual series of intensive professional
development sessions for teachers supports the use of protocols and
other tools to sustain the focus on instruction, academic rigor and
professional learning communities. The sessions stress differentiating
instruction, teaching literacy across the curriculum, facilitating
meaningful learning, and providing effective student support.
Leadership Institute for High School Redesign: In cooperation with
the University of North Carolina Center for School Leadership
Development and the Principals' Executive Program, the Leadership
Institute for High School Redesign offers a peer support and
professional development network for principals in new and redesigned
high schools. The network promotes effective instructional leadership.
Coaching: Each new school also benefits from coaching services in
which experienced educational leaders and master teachers assist with
facilitating the overall change process and with the development of
instructional strategies such as differentiation of teaching to meet
individual needs of students; lessons and units which engage students
in learning; and the improvement of literacy and mathematics skills.
Investing financial resources and expertise in building the
capacity of schools and districts to manage change is essential.
Schools and districts must be expected to define a single,
comprehensive model for change regardless of what that model might be
and sustain the work over time.
Further, within the broader model for change, strategies for
professional development of teachers and school administrators and
district office personnel must be tightly aligned and integrated so
that they connected at all levels to point in the same direction. In
our work this year to help schools define rigor, the sessions involved
both principals and teachers; in essence, they debated within their
school the definition after visiting other schools in North Carolina
thought to offer rigorous instruction. Expectations of teachers and
principals must be aligned with those of district administrators for
high school innovation to be sustained.
Rethinking Leadership
Finally, a new generation of student-focused schools calls for a
new model for school leadership. The principal in a traditional high
school is a building manager first and an educator second. Schools
which place teaching and learning above all else are led by principals
who understand both school design and who facilitate among teachers an
unrelenting focus on high quality teaching and learning.
One element of our partnerships aimed at ensuring the
sustainability of innovation is our expectation that our partner
schools are completely autonomous, with its own principal and school
budget, an essential step to create more entrepreneurial faculties with
both the responsibility and accountability for the success of all
students. This increases the demand for capable leaders.
New, proactive initiatives to identify, recruit, place and support
principals to lead schools are required. Leadership preparation
programs should emphasize both school designs that support achievement
and the role of principals as facilitators of adult learning in schools
intended to strengthen teaching.
Since most district administrative staff begin as principals,
creating a new generation of school leaders who believe and act as
though all students can succeed will inevitably change districts over
time.
strategies going forward: aligning innovation with economic development
Our pressing priority is scaling the success of innovation across
districts and regions. One key strategy is to link innovation with
economic and workforce development.
In cooperation with government, the private sector, higher
education and others, we are developing ways to connect new schools to
promising growth sectors of the economy with high-wage, high skill
jobs. This emphasis includes the development of networks of STEM--
science, technology, engineering and mathematics--focused secondary
schools, the incorporation of one-to-one computing and rethinking the
role of career and technical education in a way that helps all students
become both college- and career-ready.
We think that achieving cost-effective, scalable solutions in
secondary school innovation demands greater collaboration among schools
that share a similar focus. New Schools is creating groups of schools
with shared themes keyed to North Carolina's economy such as
biotechnology, health and life sciences, aerospace and energy. Each of
these schools will incorporate engineering and technology to achieve
mastery of science, mathematics and the skills essential in the
innovation economy.
For example, Duke Medical Center will soon host a secondary school
focused on health and life sciences and that also incorporates
engineering. An agricultural research center in a poor, rural region of
the State will soon host a new school focused on biotechnology and
agribusiness. North Carolina State University will soon host an early
college themed around engineering and sustainable energy. In each of
these examples, the schools will be part of a network of similarly
themed schools, and each will have strong ties to the private sector in
the development of academic content.
These clusters of STEM schools will also incorporate one-to-one
computing. With the assistance of corporate partners like SAS and AT&T
and private charities such as the Golden LEAF Foundation, New Schools
is creating models in which each student has a laptop, netbook or some
other digital device that in some instances have already replaced
textbooks. These schools will leverage technology to transform teaching
and learning; demonstrate instructional strategies and data analysis
that use technology to engage students in interactive learning; and
inform the anticipated statewide expansion of one-to-one computing in
the near future.
Finally, the historical division between courses of study focused
on college preparedness and those intended to graduate students
prepared for work have frustrated attempts to ensure true readiness for
life behind high school.
The New Schools is working in cooperation with our State
Superintendent of Public Instruction to advance a blended approach
integrating core academic courses and career and technical courses.
Unlike traditional secondary schools, these schools will blend course
content into new structures for earning high school credit, making the
transition from discrete blocks of knowledge toward an integrated and
applied approach to learning. Students enrolled in a STEM-themed
school, for example, might learn Algebra I and introductions to
biotechnology and physical science in the same course. Other approaches
might pair an online high school or college course with a different,
but related high school course or seminar, making connections across
disciplines. Students will have the opportunity to pursue individual
paths through internships, mentoring, field experiences and
individually designed projects.
This integrated approach to learning will accomplish the dual goals
of: (1) engaging students to master more demanding content by
illustrating the application of academic content to real-world problems
and needs; and (2) mimicking the world of adult learning in which
solving complex problems requires applications of information ranging
from literature to mathematics, science and technology.
In conclusion, the North Carolina New Schools Project believes that
a clear and unwavering focus on the bottom-line goal of graduating all
students ready for college, career and life in the 21st century drives
real change in the classroom. In that same spirit, we believe that the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act must be aligned to support that
same goal.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Habit.
Thank you all for very succinct, but very pointed, remarks.
As I said, your statements will be made part of the record in
their entirety.
I will now recognize Senators for 5-minute rounds of
questions. As you know, we sent a notice out--and I shared this
with Senator Enzi. We agreed on a new structure so that people
will be recognized in the order of their appearance, regardless
of party, on this committee. So, the order that my staff has,
of appearance, is Franken, Hagan, Burr, Bingaman, Roberts,
Murray, Murkowski, Bennet, Merkley, Reed, Casey, and Sanders.
The only one that's out of order there is Murkowski, because
she is standing in for the Ranking Member. I will recognize her
after my opening questions.
Let me just pose a general question to all of you--
graduation rates. You have all talked about improving
graduation rates, getting kids ready for college. We heard, the
other day--maybe last week, from other witnesses--about the
problem with dropouts. You get kids that are behind, they are
in high school, they have some problems, they drop out, they
come back, they are behind--if you can get them back in. That
is one part of my question, What do we do with dropouts? How do
we get them back? But, the idea that somehow they have to
graduate with their peers in 4 years, and if--are we going to
set up, or should we set up, some kind of performance criteria
for high schools, secondary schools, in terms of graduation
rate in 4 years? Is that all that important? Or is it just
important to get these kids through? Some kids may take 5
years, or 4\1/2\ years. So, if we are saying, ``Well, if there
is some performance criteria on 4 years, do schools then start
thinking about, `What do we cut?' `How do we slice and dice
this?' `How do we shove these kids through in 4 years?' Because
we will get evaluated on that.'' Is there another set of
performance evaluations that we ought to be thinking about,
which is not strictly a 4-year--but in terms of how many kids
graduate, and how ready they are either for career or college?
So, if you could address yourself to that.
Mr. Johnson, we will start with you.
Mr. Johnson. Yes, thank you for that question. We know, in
these low-performing schools, there are, given our research,
upwards to 80 percent that are actually off track. So, they're
going to need some type of educational setting that has the
curriculum, the supports needed to get them back on track to
graduation. When it comes to graduation-rate accountability, I
think our position at JFF has been that--aligned with many of
the Governors, who have agreed to grad-rate accountability
definition--and we see, in regulation now, a great deal of
activities now by States to put in place 4-year graduation-rate
definitions and measures of progress. When you move beyond that
and look at these programs that get these off-track students
where they need to be, the accountability needs to be fair for
them in allowing for the use of an extended rate, as the
regulations provide. And that, ``as long as they get them
across the line,'' is the problem.
The criteria for the type of educational options that
qualify for the use of extended rate needs to be extremely
tight, because the last thing we want to do is to create an
incentive for pushout among districts.
The Chairman. That is what I am concerned about.
Anybody else want to address themselves to that? If someone
drops out, how do you get them back? And should there be some
kind of incentive, initiative. Mr. Capozzi, you talked about
initiatives----
Mr. Capozzi. Thank you.
The Chairman [continuing]. To get these kids back in.
Mr. Capozzi. Senator Harkin asked, ``How do we get them
back.'' First, we should not let them drop out. That is first
and foremost. What we do at Elmont Memorial High School--and it
is becoming harder and harder, especially with our State aid
being cut--we had summer school. I will give you a perfect
example. We are on the westernmost portion of Nassau County, so
we are right on the Queens city border. Students, every year,
every month, come to our school below grade level. We had
summer school and we had night school; therefore, we could
catch kids up with quality education, as well, not just push
them through.
What we do, we use an acronym called ACTION.
The Chairman. I read that in your statement.
Mr. Capozzi. Right. It's something that's real, and it's
something that works. A big part of it is our pupil-personnel
counselors. The average class size in our school is about 325,
330, we don't let a student fall through the crack. We
establish a culture, in the school, that every student is a
success story. It's not easy, it's hard work. But, as far as
the graduation rates go, it's the way we report it. I could
have someone in my cohort for a couple of months, they'd move,
he or she is still in my cohort. And it's reported like that.
I would not like to see 5-year graduation rates. I believe
that students can complete a quality education in 4 years.
The Chairman. Anybody else want to address this? I might
gently disagree with you on that.
Mr. Capozzi. That's OK.
The Chairman. Because some students have tough home lives.
Mr. Capozzi. Absolutely.
The Chairman. They get off track. They may get into drugs,
they may even be incarcerated for a while, in a juvenile home
or something--and then they come back.
Mr. Capozzi. The school has taken on--I'm sorry.
The Chairman. Pardon?
Mr. Capozzi. I'm sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt.
The Chairman. Oh, no, I was just saying that sometimes, you
know, to try to get these students to graduate in 4 years
becomes overwhelming.
Mr. Capozzi. It does. It's not easy, but that's what we're
paid to do. That's what teachers are paid to do, to help
students graduate. You know, what schools----
The Chairman. But, again, I challenge you, Mr. Capozzi--is
it more important to get that kid to graduate and to actually
absorb learning, or to say, ``You've got to graduate in 4 years
or you're out of here?''
Mr. Capozzi. I don't think you say, ``You're out of here.''
But I, and I disagree, respectfully, that we don't just push
kids through. summer school is not some ``flunky dropout
building'' where you put the failures in. Stuff happens. Kids
have a whole--I received a phone call today, ``How is that
child going to graduate with something so traumatic her life?''
It's something that we do--schools become more than an
educational institution. They really are. And we look at that,
and we know that, and we realize that, and we perform upon it.
Kids with hard home lives--that's a fact of life, but, you know
what, we can't give into it.
The Chairman. Mr. Capozzi, my time has run out. If I get
another round, I'll come back to that question.
Senator Murkowski.
Senator Murkowski
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
You've mentioned, Mr. Capozzi, that the real ticket here is
to keep kids from dropping out in the first place. I certainly
appreciate it, although I think the Chairman has raised some
real issues that we struggle with.
I want to go back to some of the comments that you made,
Mr. Deshler--and, Mr. Harrison, you spoke about within your
school--and that's focusing on this ``missing middle,'' you
call it. It seems like we get so caught up in working with the
kids once they hit high school, and say ``OK, we've got to
figure out ways to keep you in.'' But, our reality is, kids
start checking out a heck of a lot earlier than high school,
and our focus, earlier on, whether it's the literacy aspect or
challenging them through STEM programs, getting them into a
college--having a sixth-grader go to a college, I think, is a
great way to get them thinking about what they need to be
doing.
Are we, from a funding perspective, then--as we think about
how we allow for the programs that deal with literacy, how we
challenge our kids in the different areas--are we missing the
boat by not starting earlier, as we focus on these kids? I
don't mean to limit it to just Mr. Deshler and Mr. Harrison,
but I worry about the kids that are in the middle school, where
we just kind of figure, ``OK, you made it through elementary,
you're cruising now.''
Mr. Deshler. Right. Excellent question. For years we have,
policywise and within the educational community, had this
conversation about, ``Where do we do the investment?'' And, as
I said in my statement, no one can argue against looking at
younger children and doing the very best that we can, and what
we know, with younger students.
The problem is, the curriculum changes as students move
along. We may have a student well prepared in the early
elementary years, doing fine, but as he moves past fourth
grade, fifth grade, the demands of the curriculum change, but
we no longer are teaching them literacy skills, and many of the
students start to fall behind, get discouraged, start to
disengage, and then it becomes a vicious cycle.
Senator Murkowski. So, do we continue those literacy skills
throughout high school?
Mr. Deshler. Absolutely. But, they change. I think
something that is exciting about the new core standards that
are being discussed is the infusion of literacy instruction
throughout middle school and high school, which is something
that has not happened in the past. It's not just students who
are struggling in learning, but students who are doing well.
The demands to take in large amounts of content and to draw
inferences and problem solve, and so forth--students need
deliberate instruction in how to do that from a literacy
prospective.
Senator Murkowski. Let me go to Mr. Harrison.
I know you wanted to comment on this, but I also would like
a little bit of discussion on--the terminology that you used,
Mr. Habit, was ``rethinking leadership.'' I'm curious, as to
some of the responses that you may have to the proposal that we
need to remove the principals from the schools that are not
succeeding. From a rural State, that's a real issue for us. So,
I'd like to hear a little bit of your input on that, too.
Mr. Harrison, and then Mr. Habit, if you could address
that.
Mr. Harrison. Sure. I think it's really important to think
about middle school as the time where kids either get on the
bus or get off the bus. I think there are a couple things that
a lot of urban charter schools have done around the focus of
school culture and the teaching of values. I think we have to
do a better job of teaching our most at-risk students the
values that they need to have to be productive citizens here in
our country. We also have to have a school culture that creates
a mindset in kids that they want to stay and be a part of a
school. I think that's really important.
I think when you talk about ``rethinking leadership,'' I
always--I'm very concerned about our student achievement. But,
more importantly, I'm concerned about the level of
relationship-building that myself, teachers in our building,
our staff--we need to connect better with our students and with
our parents, and really making sure that they feel ownership of
our school. I think there have been a lot of charter schools
that have made a lot of progress in really making it feel like
a team and a family.
I'd like to just point out a couple of things that I think
support that. There was a question around retention and
attrition issues that a lot of urban middle school and high
schools are facing. I think that this is where we think about
the use of data.
There are two data systems that DSST is known for. We track
data around student achievement. I can look in a sixth-grade
student's notebook and know exactly what standards he or she
needs to work on. So, I can talk to a student and know, ``Hey,
you know what, how's adding fractions with unlike denominators
working for you?'' That type of relationship-building is really
important, but using data to make sure that there's a sense of
urgency for that child to master fractions and decimals, that's
really important in the sixth grade.
No. 2, we have an extensive data system that tracks school
culture data. This is a little bit unique to DSST. I know
exactly how many times a student hasn't done their homework, or
how many times they've had a compliance violation, or the
number of times they've been awarded for an ``effort of the
week'' or a school performance award around a test when we have
our interim assessments. I think that there are some systems
that we should look at to share more often so that school
leaders are empowered with the tools and around data to really
creating culture and buy-in from all students.
Senator Murkowski. My time's expired, Mr. Chairman, but
hopefully there'll be an opportunity for someone to address
that issue--the principals.
The Chairman. Senator Franken.
Senator Franken
Senator Franken. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Harrison, you talk a lot about charter schools, and
your school obviously is doing an exceptional job. I read your
whole testimony, and it's--congratulations on your remarkably
successful school. But, unfortunately, charter schools do have
a mixed record; in fact, a recent study by researchers at
Stanford found that fewer than one-fifth of charter schools
offered a better education than regular public schools. Almost
half offered an equivalent education, and more than a third
were, quote, ``significantly worse.''
We have these schools come before us that are incredibly
successful, like yours--we had one, Green DOT, from LA.
Mr. Harrison. Yes.
Senator Franken. Then, you know, I asked about it, and it
turned out that it had gotten funding from Bill and Melinda
Gates, which I think is great. Bill and Melinda Gates are doing
great stuff, and you can look at that school as a laboratory.
That's an investment in laboratories. Did you get outside
funding like that?
Mr. Harrison. Yes, we did. Let me talk to you about DSST's
model. We do use fundraising to support infrastructure-
building, but our program is strictly on per-pupil. I think we
need to--we can't rely on the kindness of others all the time.
That's going to change from year to year. I don't think that--
--
Senator Franken. Well, I guess what I'm trying to say is--
we see a lot of successful stuff, a lot of successful stuff in
these hearings. And our job on this committee is to scale that
up.
For example, Mr. Deshler, you talked about this Dubuque,
IA, program, in which they were reading from a program called
Fusion Reading, and had remarkable results. And I was reading
the thing. I said, ``OK, let's just do that.'' You know? Why do
we have to re-invent the wheel every time? We have all these
things that are working, and we hear them all the time, and I'm
trying to figure out how, as a Senator, where the disconnect
is.
I like the Investing in Innovation Fund. I think that's a
terrific tool to--basically, it's what the administration has
done through the stimulus package, invested in finding things
that work, and scaling them up.
Now, one of the things that you, Mr. Habit and Mr. Capozzi,
talked about were principals, the importance of principals.
Both of you spoke to the fact that principals used to be
building managers, and now need to be leaders and teachers of
teachers. I'd like you to speak to that, because Senator Hatch
and I put a bill together, where we believe the exact same
thing.
What does that entail? And are you substituting for
education schools that aren't teaching the teachers? I know
it's an ongoing process, and it has to be, but can you speak to
that a little bit?
Either of you.
Mr. Habit. With regard to----
Senator Franken. Both.
Mr. Habit [continuing]. Principalship?
Senator Franken. Yes.
Mr. Habit. Yes. Well, the approach that we take is that the
principal needs direct support in making that transition from
being a building manager, focused on safety and so forth, to
focusing on teaching and learning. So, we assign coaches, who
are master principals, to sit with that principal, to
essentially do the same sort of demonstration and mirroring you
expect with teachers in a classroom, to get classroom-level
change. So, if the growth doesn't happen with that sort of
support, then the principal needs to be outsourced and the
recruitment needs to happen for a new principal.
The problem is, the ranks are thin. We need solid models
for the identification and recruitment and support of
topnotch----
Senator Franken. Especially in rural schools----
Mr. Habit. Yes.
Senator Franken [continuing]. As Senator Murkowski points
out.
Mr. Habit. But, I would suggest, even in wealthier
communities, the ranks are very, very thin. Because the job is
quite challenging. That's why I made my opening comment about
the folks on this panel. It is a very, very demanding job.
Scaling success, whether it's a charter or an innovation in a
conventional school, is going to come down to the ability of
that person to lead that change.
Mr. Capozzi. When you talk about things that work, and you
look at what needs to change, I really look at it as pretty
simple. Student achievement is directly related to effective
teachers. Effective teachers are directly related to effective
principals.
Being a teacher of teachers, I came from, within my--I'm a
product of my observation process that I came through. I'm
lucky enough to have three assistant principals, chairpeople of
each department, to really handle the day-to-day operations. My
focus is primarily on instruction. If you lose that teacher
effectiveness, the culture of high standards for teachers--and
students, for that matter--will go down. We really need to--we
talk about--and I spoke briefly about teacher-leaders. They're
not trained to train teachers. It's good, once in a while, but
principals will bring about change. Teachers won't. The
principal is the one that will bring about change within the
building.
Senator Franken. Thank you.
My time is expired. I'd love for the whole committee to
spend a weekend at the Greenbrier and just keep bringing these
people, so that we just spend, like, an amazing--am I out of
order?
[Laughter.]
Senator Roberts. I think----
Senator Franken. You just want to go endlessly with these--
--
Senator Roberts. I think with the Greenbrier, you are. I
don't know about the rest of it.
[Laughter.]
Over here. You knew where that was coming from.
Senator Franken. Yes. You again.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. Sounds like an interesting week, I'll tell
you that. No, that'd be good.
Let's see, Senator Hagan was next.
Senator Burr.
Senator Burr. I have a slightly different takeaway than my
good friend from Minnesota. I don't think there is a silver
bullet. I think what I've heard is success stories, and the
tool was very different, from individual to individual. The
common thread was, you bought in to the belief that this was
the answer to education. More importantly, you forced the
staffs to buy in to that belief. Amazingly, this is not about,
in my estimation, replication; it's about a commitment, by
educators and principals and policymakers, that anything less
than some number is unacceptable. And I will tell you, that
number is not 70 percent or 72 percent of graduation on time.
Mr. Johnson, you talked about technology a little bit, you
talked about the change in students that we've seen go on. Does
it trouble you that, with today's high school students who
communicate totally different than I did, when I was their age,
when they pick up a cell phone, they have no intentions of
making a call, they're going to send a text or take a picture,
yet--I do it the old-fashioned way, I want to talk to
somebody--does it bother you that we still use textbooks?
Mr. Johnson. At the risk of walking into a conversation
about the textbook industry----
[Laughter.]
Mr. Johnson [continuing]. I'll say that the generation is
different, and they communicate----
Senator Burr. But, why not breach it? What is so magical
about a textbook? Why, in a generation that thinks of knowledge
as an instantaneous thing, that looks at news as accessing when
they want to, not waiting until the morning--why are we so tied
to a textbook?
Mr. Deshler. I think that's a question that many people are
asking. And we do want to capitalize on the technologies that
are available to us. However, to solve problems and to grapple
with issues and come to a deep understanding of knowledge and
information, we must have students going beyond sound bites.
Senator Burr. Well, I'm not talking about sound bites, Mr.
Deshler, I'm talking about downloading the textbook----
Mr. Deshler. Well, OK.
Senator Burr [continuing]. To an electronic tool, where we
totally eliminate the book bags, we end the security concerns
we have in high schools. We've proven that when we put a laptop
in a child's hand, we give them access like they've never seen
before. The amazing thing is, there's a different buy-in on
their part. I think this is not just about the buy-in that you
take in how you do, or the staff takes; this is about the buy-
in from the kids who make up that classroom.
Let me just ask Mr. Johnson one more thing. You stated that
your No. 1 goal was to have rigorous accountability toward the
graduation rate. Can you describe for me what the tools are for
rigorous accountability?
Mr. Johnson. Rigorous accountability for graduation rates.
Senator Burr. Yes.
Mr. Johnson. I think that, first of all, the elements of
that include the right, consistent definition across States;
States setting annual measurable objectives in regard to
improving graduation rate; and the third element of which
includes having some flexibility for the use of an extended
rate for select schools, such as Back on Track schools, tightly
defined, and early-college high school, that, by definition,
cannot do a 4-year graduation rate, because they're a 5-year
design.
Senator Burr. Sure.
Mr. Johnson. On your technology question, I think that it's
an important role for the Federal Government to play, in regard
to inventing platforms that may tip the scale on this regard--I
think it's part of the solution set--and then scaling them up
appropriately.
Senator Burr. Mr. Capozzi, I heard your testimony. I
understood everything you said. I didn't hear about pre-high-
school deficiencies in education, I didn't hear about the lack
of parental involvement. So, who, in your school, IDs those at-
risk students?
Mr. Capozzi. At Elmont Memorial High School, it's not a K
through 12 district. We have an elementary school district, the
Elmont Union-Free school district, then we have the Sewanhaka
Central high school district. Our pupil-personnel department
does an excellent job. They articulate with the elementary
schools, early.
Senator Burr. So, it's necessarily tied to: This person
didn't have the same skills coming in, in ninth grade; this
child doesn't have a parent that's involved.
Mr. Capozzi. No.
Senator Burr. This is an assessment of the individual
student.
Mr. Capozzi. We have a saying ``We get what we get, and we
have to do it.'' You're looking at every child. When I talked a
little bit about differentiating to meet the needs of all
learners, we don't just walk the walk or talk the talk, we do
it. It's about meeting every student's needs, whether it's in
the classroom or outside the classroom.
Senator Burr. My time's expired, but I'm going to ask two
questions that can have short answers.
What's the student-teacher ratio in your high school? And
how long did the turnaround take?
Mr. Capozzi. OK, average class size, I'll say, is about
23--we're 7 through 12, so in about 7th and 8th grade, a little
bit higher; about 27, 28, in the high school, 9 through 12.
Turnaround, I will tell you that--I took over, 5 years ago.
I've worked at Elmont for 18 years. There was a time, where--
the first year and the second year, I wanted to walk away. It
was not easy. And my wife wanted to walk away from me.
[Laughter.]
Voice: Mine wants to do that, too.
Mr. Capozzi. But, it took awhile. It took 3, 4 years to get
that culture re-established, I'll say.
Senator Burr. I thank you.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Burr.
Senator Bingaman.
Senator Bingaman
Senator Bingaman. Thank you very much.
Thank you all for being here.
Let me pickup on your comment, Mr. Deshler. You urge the
committee and the Senate to go ahead and pass several bills,
including the Graduation Promise Act, which I appreciate very
much. That's a bill we've worked on for several years. One of
the strengths of that bill is that it has a very specific
target. The target is the 2,000 so-called ``dropout factories''
that were identified by the study that Johns Hopkins did. And
I'm concerned, frankly, that if we don't have a real, specific
target, we will wind up doing this reauthorization, and not get
the funds sufficiently concentrated where those so-called
``dropout factories'' are.
In my State, the figures I've got are that there are 41
such dropout-factory high schools--that is, schools that have
60 percent, or fewer, of their students graduating.
When we get into the tiering business that the
administration has used for the Recovery Act funds, about 11 of
the 41 would actually get some funding, under that criteria.
So, anyway, I would be interested in your view on that, Mr.
Deshler. Is it important that we try to concentrate on that
group of schools, or is there a different way that makes more
sense?
Mr. Deshler. If we concentrate, I would say--we need to
keep at least two factors in mind.
No. 1, there's a direct and unmistakable linkage between
literacy proficiency and the success of turning schools around.
We often try to dodge that bullet, in one way or another, and
there's no dodging it. Well, there's a lot of things we need to
learn about how to better deal with the literacy issue--there's
a lot of things we know and enough to act on. That's point No.
1.
Point No. 2, while the schools you refer to clearly qualify
for, and can benefit from, additional resources, one of the
concerns that I have--as our center has worked in a lot of
underperforming schools--is that money alone won't solve it.
That is, oftentimes, when schools are low-performing in the
classroom, they are also, infrastructure-wise, low-performing,
and they lack the capacity, often, to wisely use the funds that
come to them. So, I think very serious consideration should be
given, as funding is allocated in any way. What is the
qualifications and the capacity to use those funds wisely and
as they are intended?
I would offer those two things for serious consideration.
Senator Bingaman. Mr. Habit, you talked a lot about change
management. Could you comment on anything Mr. Deshler said, and
elaborate as to, How do you help a school to institutionalize
change management?
Mr. Habit. Well, I think he answered very thoughtfully
around the issue of literacy and the foundational aspect of
literacy. If I could address my comments to that, we see that
it's critical that reading and writing and thinking take place
in every classroom, every day, at the secondary level. So, the
need to make literacy an essential part of that culture becomes
paramount as we set a standard for every child graduating
college-ready.
Teachers, quite frankly, at the secondary level--the
historical pattern is that the English teacher is left down the
hall, dealing with literacy issues, and we found that very few
teachers are actually prepared for their role in helping
students to read, write, and think. We know we've achieved
success when we walk into a math class and a student will say,
``I read and write as much in this classroom as I do in my
English classroom.''
Senator Bingaman. All right. I'll stop with that, Mr.
Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Roberts.
Senator Roberts
Senator Roberts. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me say, to the good doctor from the University of
Kansas, that I apologize for not being here to introduce you
properly. I think, in part, that was because the Chairman is
from Iowa, and he's still pretty proud of that northern Iowa
guy that put up the three--I'm sorry to even bring it up--as
you know, I went to Kansas State, and we grieved with you about
that.
[Laughter.]
He was supposed to dribble the ball, you know, and he put
up a three, and made it. So, I think the Chairman was just--
anyway, I'm sorry I couldn't introduce you in the proper way.
So, we'll both try next year.
Thank you for your testimony. Thank you for your
comprehensive statement. It is comprehensive. I hope every
member reads it. Your six recommendations, your endorsement of
the Murray, Reed, and Benjamin legislation, especially the
paragraph on the Fusion program that worked so well in Iowa, in
Dubuque. Thank you for your--I truly appreciate your warning to
the committee that it's not too late for the middle school
child, that we really concentrate on birth to 6, but 7 to 12,
we just don't do as much as we could possibly do. I am guilty
of that prejudice, that if they're going to keep up, it demands
change, and certainly a whole bunch of skills.
I read a lot to kids under the Reading is Fundamental
program. A Coffeyville teacher started that, some years ago,
way back, and then it came back again. Two hundred and sixty-
one different schools participate in that. We had about 300,000
in Federal funding. And I concentrate on the second- and third-
graders, mainly because the fourth-graders get a little smarter
than I am, and a little snippy, so I stick with the second- and
third-graders. And that is entirely what you're talking about,
that you ought to go to the middle-school folks, if you
possibly can.
In Kansas, we think we have several programs. We're not
really on top of it, to the degree that other Senators have
referred that we need to be, especially my good friend over
here, Senator Franken.
Senator Murkowski touched on the problem of rural
education. I'm going to mention the name of the school where I
talked to the second- and third-graders, and then the principal
asked if I had time for a special program for middle-income
kids, and I said, ``Sure.'' I wasn't going to say ``no.'' I
went in, and the whole thing was different. The whole attitude
was different. We had some kids there--well, a great majority
of kids, who, (a) didn't want to be there, (b) were bored to
death, (c) there was actual fear about going on to the next
grade, for fear they couldn't compete, and the peer pressure
involved.
I started to read a book that was ridiculous, then I said,
``Why don't you read to me?'' That also proved to be not worth
much. So, I said, ``Why don't we just have a discussion about
what language you speak at home, and what do you want to be? If
you could be anybody that you wanted to be''--and obviously you
got the sports hero, then you got the movie star, and you got
this, that, or the other thing. And I said, ``I'll tell you
what. If you're a movie star, you've got to read the script. If
you're the star quarterback, you've got to know the play, you
have to know the offense.'' Then I got to thinking about it,
and I wondered--I asked the teacher, and they said, ``Well,
we're doing the best with these kids, but, you know, there are
just some of them that are not grasping what we need to have
them do to really compete.'' Then, on page 9, you really refer
to it, where people are ending up in jail, divorcing, not being
a contributing member of the community. That's largely the base
of a problem that we have in this country today that we're
using other methods to try to solve, and we're not solving it
the right way, or we could do it a lot better.
Where do we find the teachers to do this? I mean, we don't
have teachers to teach, period, out in the rural areas of
Kansas. You know that. I just don't know--it would seem to me
you're going to have to educate the teachers before you educate
the middle-school kids to really get the total-school
involvement, so these kids do not have the sense of fear and
simply want to drop out and get a job at the local packing
plant, girlfriend drops out, boom, they have a youngster, and
the whole cycle starts over again.
Mr. Deshler. One of the challenges we've got in all of
education is getting into our teacher-preparation programs the
best of what we know how to teach students. I think there's
much more of what we know than actually what we do. If we can
bring all of our teacher-preparation programs up to the highest
standard--and there's many who are doing some great work, but
in many instances, we do not arm teachers with the competencies
that they need to, first and foremost, engage students, to make
schooling and learning exciting.
Senator Roberts. Right.
Mr. Deshler. Where they want to be there, they feel valued
and----
Senator Roberts. Right.
Mr. Deshler [continuing]. Counted. Second, to have the
proficiency, as a teacher, to teach students the critical
skills that they need, to read, to think, to express
themselves, to write. When you have students doing those
things, they get excited about performing and doing, and
engaged in the learning process. Teachers get excited. The kind
of culture in schools that we've heard about this afternoon
starts to emerge, and then students really start to achieve in
extraordinary ways.
Senator Roberts. Well, I thank you for commitment.
I thank all of the witnesses. I know it takes a lot of time
to come up here and give testimony.
I thank the Chairman for holding this hearing, which I
think is exceedingly important.
Many thanks. And I will be paying you a visit.
Mr. Deshler. Thank you.
The Chairman. Senator Hagan.
Senator Hagan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really do
appreciate this hearing.
In your opening testimony, Dr. Habit, you mentioned a
``cancer in education,'' and you said that, ``Simply put, low
expectations are a cancer that can weaken a school enough to
make significant changes in teaching impossible.''
When we're looking at the early learning and the dual-
enrollment, the middle-colleges, can you give me a further
explanation on how these programs can impact and make
significant changes in this cancer?
Mr. Habit. I think a theme of this afternoon's conversation
has really been about that, and the crisis of low expectations.
And if you are a teacher who has never seen or been in a
classroom where all students are fully engaged, and all
students are working at high levels academically, why would you
believe it could be done? Why would you believe that could
happen? So, we spend a great deal of time working with our
faculties around this notion of expectations, and exposing them
to classrooms that get those results, and then, over time,
equipping them with the tools and skills and beliefs so that
they can deliver on that promise.
If I could add, I think in the conversation, earlier, about
the colleges and schools of education, there are many exciting
programs happening there, but this we see as sort of ground
zero. There needs to be a great deal more work done, exposing
pre-service teachers and principals to classrooms that succeed
with all, and not some.
Senator Hagan. In your opening comments, you talked about
the difference in the achievement gaps--how do the new
innovative high schools make achievements in that area?
Mr. Habit. I think that, with the early-college high
schools in particular, it's often described as the ``power of
place.'' Removing young people from a conventional high school,
where their peers and/or their teachers may be pulling them
down and pulling them away from the academic mission. By moving
them on to the campus of a college or university, you are
really, then, constituting a culture about high expectations.
They begin to see themselves as high-school completers, and
then begin to see themselves as college-completers. But, it's
as much about putting that team of teachers within that
environment so they can incubate a culture that is highly
results-driven. Not to be too critical of conventional high
schools, but unfortunately conventional high schools often are
driven by things like the number of seats in the cafeteria and
the schedule that that allows that school to have. Early-
college is driven by a very, very crisp academic mission.
Senator Hagan. Do you see any problems with parents
accepting a change like this?
Mr. Habit. It's very difficult. We work in more than half
of our State's school districts in partnership, and in some of
them, parents do not believe that all students need Algebra 2,
for example, do not believe that all students can master
Algebra 2. So, the role of growing the beliefs of parents, as
well as classroom teachers, can't be overlooked.
Senator Hagan. Senator Roberts talked about this, Mr.
Deshler, and I was very surprised to hear your comments about
the fact that only 20 percent of funding is going to grades 7
through 12. I was very surprised to hear that. What sort of
recommendations would you make to change that?
Mr. Deshler. Well, I think the first recommendation would
be that we need to understand that students at that age, if
they're having difficulty, can indeed learn, as I mentioned
before. It is not too late. We should not treat them as
``throwaway kids.'' Many of our policies up to this point, I
think, in reality, have done that.
Senator Hagan. Is that low expectations of the teachers?
Mr. Deshler. Yes, it's low expectations, oftentimes, for
teachers.
Second, we often fail to give teachers the kinds of skills
and competencies that they need to really get some traction
with students so they can get them onto that path of being
successful.
Then, third, we need to make some tough policy calls, in
terms of--there are needs for students, for half of their
school year--the school career, 6 through 12 that we really
need to start tending to, because the demands that they are
facing literacy-wise, emotionally, and the social pressures,
are so significant and so different than when we went to
school. We need to arm schools and arm teachers with the kinds
of skills and supports that they can really make some headway
to give students the kinds of skills and competencies they
need.
Senator Hagan. With 70 early-college high schools in North
Carolina, I'm proud to be a cosponsor of the Fast Track to
College Act, which is legislation introduced by Senator Kohl.
This legislation authorizes a competitive grant program to
provide schools serving low-income students with funding to
establish and support these early-college high schools.
Mr. Johnson, I know that your organization worked closely
with Senator Kohl in developing this legislation, and I know
that you recognize that, without innovation and intervention,
we will not be able to meet the workforce needs of our country.
As I commented, finding ways to replicate the effectiveness
of early-college programs on a national level should be a top
priority in the reauthorization effort we're undergoing right
now. What sort of supports and resources do States need in
order to implement early-college programs? Does every State
need a not-for-profit organization like the one that North
Carolina has in the New Schools Project to partner with these
States?
Mr. Johnson. Another State that has another, kind of, State
intermediary is the State of Texas, leading the way in scaling
early-college high schools. The State of Texas is also looking
at Back on Track models, particularly models for those who are
old and far, that may even need a GED-type option that's
connected to a post-secondary opportunity----
Senator Hagan. ``Old and far'' means what?
Mr. Johnson. ``Old and far,'' 16, but many credit hours
from obtaining a high school diploma. There's a way of thinking
about the population--about off-track students, and one of the
subgroups are the ``old and far,'' and you have to look at the
different models.
So, back to your question around the State role--that in
this budget-type situation, it's a very difficult time to think
about a State-run intermediary serving this role. So, we have
to look at the Federal Government's role in supporting the
State and building out such partnerships, because whether or
not the State has the capacity, internally, to actually do the
scaling work itself is questionable in most cases, and we've
shown in North Carolina and Texas that the power of a New
Schools Project or the Texas High School Project of providing
political cover, of ensuring integrity of running the design,
having professional development--Tony talked about the
structural coaching component of it. Those are key technical
assistant elements that need to be put in place. Conceivably,
they could be shown to be effective in a department of
education, for instance, but our experience has been that some
type of relationship with an outside intermediary actually
results in a better scale of these models.
Senator Hagan. Thank you.
You know, Mr. Chairman, I was co-chairman of the Budget
Committee in the North Carolina State Senate, when the early-
colleges legislation came forward, and we did line items for
coaching, for mentoring, and the fact that these young people
can go to high school and, when they graduate go to a community
college campus or a university, and have 2 years of college
credits, is extraordinary. The fact that parents are not paying
money out-of-pocket for this, it's a big impetus on a lot of
students, and especially those that have already dropped out or
are thinking about dropping out.
Thank you.
The Chairman. Senator Sanders.
Senator Sanders
Senator Sanders. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you all for being here, and thank you for the work
that you're doing.
What I want to do is just throw out a couple thoughts, and
anyone who feels like it, please comment on it. You guys are on
the front lines of the educational struggle facing our country.
We heard, a couple of months ago, testimony from a fellow who
studies worldwide standards and raised a lot of concerns about
how our kids are not really competing against young people from
around the world. I want you to think about that and tell me
what your understanding is about that.
Second of all, in terms of our national priorities, we have
the highest rate of childhood poverty of any major country on
Earth, far higher than most of the European countries; and we
end up with more people in jail than any other country. What do
you think about that?
I think it was Mr. Capozzi who used the term ``culture of
high standards.'' Do you think, as a nation--and we know that,
when the NCAA Final Four--you can't turn on TV without
everybody talking about which, team's going to win--do you
think, as a nation, we really take intellectual development
seriously? Is it something that, as a nation, we really believe
in, or are we kidding ourselves? Are you having to, kind of,
fight against the trend? Are these kids saying, ``Hey, I want
to be a great basketball player,'' ``I want be a great
football''--``I want to be rich.'' ``I love these guys on Wall
Street who made a billion dollars last year, sleazy though they
may be. I can make quick money. Why do you want me to be a
scientist? Why do you want me to be an engineer? Why do you
want me to be an English professor? Who do you guys--are you
kidding? I want to make money quick.''
I also want you to think about, and talk to us about, the
childcare situation, something which I worry about a whole lot.
I know, in Vermont, it is very hard to come up with quality,
affordable childcare. Many of the kids who are coming into
school are already--especially from low-income families--
already pretty far behind, in a gap, perhaps, that they'll
never overcome because their parents, mom and dad, are both
working, or mom is working, and the kind of childcare and early
childhood education they're getting is inadequate.
So, those are some of my thoughts, and I'd appreciate
anybody responding to them.
Mr. Capozzi.
Mr. Capozzi. As far as kids growing up and swimming against
the tide, are we banging our heads against the wall? Growing
up, I don't think, really, is any different than me wanting to
be Mickey Mantle. I did want to be a pro baseball player, just
like, today, kids want to be LeBron James. We had kids from
Elmont Memorial High School who are also Intel's semifinalists.
One went on to Harvard University last year. I think--our
challenges are different, but I just think we need to focus on,
How do we face the challenges?
The challenges for kids are different. We're the adults,
and I think we have to help them find out how to deal with the
challenges. I don't think college--college is an expectation.
If you walked into Elmont Memorial, every one of my students
feel as though they're going to go to college. Yes, they do
want to be a professional basketball player, but I think
reality----
Senator Sanders. Well, my point was--I understand that.
Mr. Capozzi. OK.
Senator Sanders. I agree with that. But, my point is, as a
nation, Do we appreciate, and are we inculcating our young kids
with, the understanding that intellectual development is a good
idea, in addition to being a great basketball player?
Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Webber-N'Dour. I don't think we are. In addition to
that, I think there's a culture of students feeling that it's
not cool to be intellectual. So, to create a culture of high
intellectual capacity within a school is fighting against the
tide, because you're fighting a subculture, and then you're
fighting the majority culture, which is seen on television.
Senator Sanders. How do we turn--I agree with you. Then
some people say that's more in the minority community. I'm not
sure that that's the case. I think it's----
Ms. Webber-N'Dour. I'm not, either.
Senator Sanders [continuing]. It's pretty prevalent. How do
we turn that around to say that, ``If some kid wants to study
hard and become an engineer, you know what, that's pretty
cool?''
Ms. Webber-N'Dour. I think one of the ways we do it is by
the early-college movement that we're speaking of now. Instead
of pulling from the bottom and trying to bring it up to the
top, try pulling from the top, because everyone really can do
better.
The other thing I wanted to say, about childcare----
Senator Sanders. Yes.
Ms. Webber-N'Dour [continuing]. It's not just the children,
the young infants that are at stake, but in high school, for
example, I see so many students whose work suffers because they
are the childcare givers. They're the ones who run home to pick
up brothers, sisters, and the like. I don't think that any of
us fully appreciate the far reaches of poverty on children.
Senator Sanders. Are many of the kids--you've raised a very
interesting question. I was amazed that, in high schools in
Vermont, you ask the kids, ``How many of you kids are working
after school in McDonalds?'' A huge numbers of kids are
working. Do you run into that, as well?
Ms. Webber-N'Dour. Absolutely.
Senator Sanders. OK.
Ms. Webber-N'Dour. Absolutely. Especially since we're a
career academy, so we highlight work ethics. Fortunately, many
of them have other opportunities, because we provide other
opportunities for careers. But, kids are working because they
have to.
The other thing I just wanted to mention briefly is that
kids eat lunch at school because sometimes that's the only meal
that they're getting that's a decent meal. If you're lucky,
it's a decent meal.
Senator Sanders. OK. Other thoughts?
Mr. Harrison.
Mr. Harrison. Yes, I want to go back to--really, the
national ethos around teachers. There has to be some language
that really ensures that, every school building, teachers are
wearing that character and modeling the values that we need to
shift in our country. It's a battle, when homework is up
against TV. But, again, every teacher has to wear those
expectations and communicate to students that success is really
important, that we value learning, we value higher education,
we value making mistakes in learning. I think that if every
teacher in every classroom, every school leader, can
communicate that, over and over again, and really wear those
values, and really understand that school has to be more
exciting if we're going to compete with TV or the----
Senator Sanders. I agree with that, but in your heart of
hearts, as a culture and as a nation, do we really say, ``You
know, teachers are doing some of the most important work
imaginable?''
Yes, Mr. Deshler.
Mr. Deshler. I think you're asking a highly significant
question. We don't properly showcase the importance of
intellectual growth and achievement and hard work. You made
reference to the difficulties within families--mom and dad
working, and so forth. But, we need to give thought to, How can
we reestablish and strengthen families to provide the kind of
support, and have those conversations with their children, and
to provide the emotional fabric to give them encouragement?
When we look back at the early years of our country, there
was an awful lot of poverty that characterized our way of life
then, but there's something about the family being together as
a strong unit. I think we need to try to learn some lessons
from what happened there. That won't solve it all, but I think
often we ignore the powerful role that a strong family can play
in inculcating those kind of values.
Senator Sanders. Chairman, thank you very much. My time is
long expired.
The Chairman. Senator Bennet.
Senator Bennet. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Harrison, I wanted to ask you a question, based on
something you had said, because you observed that you have a
lottery for kids that come to DSST that now come into the sixth
grade and the middle school. I think one of the things that
really ails us, as policymakers, at every level of this
equation, is that, too often, we don't look at this from the
child's point of view, from their prospective. I wonder if you
could describe for the committee what it looks like to come to
DSST as a young person who's behind in reading and math and
other subjects, and what it looks like for a young person that
comes in at grade level. Does it look the same?
Mr. Harrison. Yes, I think that's a great question. I
always tell people that the hardest part of my job is saying,
``no'' to the number of families that are on the wait list in
the city of Denver who want to attend Denver School of Science
and Technology. It really comes from both groups of students--
students who want the opportunity to be in a school where
they're going to be caught up and be on the track to college,
and for those students who are on grade level, who want to be
part of a successful program.
At the end of the day, the students still wear the same
uniform. The students still receive praise. We value growth. We
value growth more than achievement, so we want to praise those
students who are making gains. That may be a student in the
sixth grade, on a second- or third-grade reading level--who's
made significant increases in 1 year. They may have to be
retained and do the sixth grade again, but they're proud of
being part of our school.
I think there's a way that we manage the culture around
really keeping those kids together. And I think that the
students who are on grade level understand that and support
that, as well.
Senator Bennet. I asked the question poorly, that was a
great answer, but it wasn't the answer to my question, which
is, If I'm a child that comes in, and I'm reading at a second-
and third-grade level when I get to the sixth grade at DSST,
what does my day look like? What does my year look like at
DSST? How are you going to get me from where I am to where I
need to be?
Mr. Harrison. I think that's the flexibility that I have,
as a charter school principal, around making sure that there's
a lot of time and investment around catching those students up.
A student who's been behind a grade level in reading--all
students take a 2-hour English block, the literacy block, but
those students who are behind take an additional hour. We have
some students who take 3 hours of English instruction every
day. But, that's what it's going to take for them, to get them
on grade level.
The same thing with math. We have students who take 2\1/2\
hours of math a day. And, you know what, if we need all
students at pre-calculus or calculus by the time they're
seniors, that's what it's going to take for all sixth-graders
who are behind, really getting those intervention supports.
That's coupled with--you know, there's a programmatic aspect,
and then there's the aspect of building relationships, to
really getting the kid to understand that they need to roll up
their sleeves and get a lot of positive work done.
Senator Bennet. Thank you.
Mr. Habit, I had a question for you. You mentioned that the
early-college programs in North Carolina are generally situated
on college campuses, and that the kids that go are able to get
the college credit without cost to them, I think you said, or
to their families. Can you explain to me how that funding works
in North Carolina, the higher-ed pool versus the K-12 pool? How
did you sort that out? That's been a challenge in my State.
Mr. Habit. I think that's a challenge for every State. It
leads to lots of debate about the funding streams, and so
forth. In our State, we've had a working team of our education
cabinet, over the last few years, to continue to sort through,
decision by decision, how to get the best out of the resources
that are available. So, a student moving on to a community
college campus, for example, the community college would be
reimbursed for the FTE for the course that student is enrolled
in when they're in a college course, versus when they're on
that campus, enrolled in a high school course being taught by
one of their high school teachers.
Senator Bennet. So, in other words, you've applied common
sense to this question.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Habit. Yes. But, actually, the point that often gets
overlooked is the cost of textbooks, because--if you're
involved in post-secondary education, you know that's a big
issue. Our State has been very committed, thus far, to paying
for the textbooks for those students enrolled in those college
courses.
Senator Bennet. Thank you Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Merkley.
Senator Merkley
Senator Merkley. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I want to thank you all for your work on the front line of
education.
I was out, this weekend, visiting with a superintendent in
rural Oregon, and she made a couple of points I found fairly
interesting. I wanted to share those and get your reactions to
them.
The first issue is that more diverse schools are much more
likely to be labeled as failing, in the sense of not meeting
annual yearly progress. The superintendent showed me a
comparison between one of her schools and another school. She
had, I think, seven breakouts, if you will. This other school
had a single population and no breakouts. Her students, in the
same area as the other school, were doing better than the other
school, but she had six other areas where she could end up
being marked as failing to meet annual yearly progress. So, she
had a far more difficult challenge of meeting AYP in all the
subgroups, and yet, much more likely to be labeled as failing,
even though she was doing better than this school that wasn't
labeled as failing. And she said, ``You know, it's a problem,
because it basically creates a greater challenge for diverse
schools, and it's not a fair measure,'' because most of her
subgroups were doing far better than this other school, that
wasn't labeled as failing.
Second, the superintendent also said poor schools are much
more likely to be publicized as failing schools. The reason why
is because when you fail to meet AYP for a couple of years, and
either the choice provision is triggered or the supplemental
education services is triggered, then you have a big public
interaction about these features that really brings it up again
and again. Whereas a more affluent school, that isn't a title I
school, could be doing a worse job, but, they send out one card
in the mail, and people kind of forget about it. The poor
schools are more likely to become framed as a public failure,
even if they're doing better than a more affluent school and
cause a loss of morale or a flight from that school and other
bad effects.
The third thing the Superintendent pointed out is that,
when you turn to triggering the supplemental education
services, 20 percent of the title I funds go to tutoring. She
showed me this card, that I have right here, as an example of
the types of mailings that her students get. It's designed to
look like a little laptop computer, and it says, ``Hey, sign up
for this and you'll get a free computer.'' She said other
private tutoring firms were giving away free iPods to get the
students to mail in the cards. It costs her $60 an hour for
these private tutors, who are not even required to be college
graduates or basically be capable in any certified way.
Meanwhile, her teachers cost $20 an hour to do the tutoring.
So, it costs three times as much. Plus, by doing small groups,
they can get a lot more mileage out of that single teacher at
$20 an hour. The result is that it is 10 times more expensive
to do this private tutoring, that kids are being talked into
doing, by being given free gifts when they mail in this coupon.
Well, this is a problem, for a school with limited resources,
because they're getting far less effect on the education of the
children.
The Superintendent pointed out these three things, and I
just wanted to see if you all had any comments on them.
Mr. Johnson. I'll take the supplemental educational
services one; same as the last one, I'll take the last one. In
the context of this hearing around secondary schools, first of
all, supplementary educational services have not been shown to
be very effective, across the board. But, as tailored, and as
specific to secondary schools, it's not well designed for some
of the unique challenges of high schools. So, in the
reauthorization, I think it's important to look at, whether it
be a high school improvement system or such, that we actually
tailor the solutions and the interventions that actually work
in high school. Credit recovery, intention to structural
services, supports and such, and supplemental educational
services is not a good proxy for that. So, this would be my
firm statement on that.
Senator Merkley. Thank you.
Mr. Capozzi. As far as making AYP and subgroups, my school,
close to 2,000 students, we had 60 students in special
education in grades 7 and 8. We didn't make our AYP in that
subgroup in 2 years, prior to when I was the principal, when I
took over. If we did not make our AYP in one of those subgroups
again, in math and English, there would have been school
choice. So, 60 students were really--we were being held hostage
from 60 students in two subgroups. We were publicized that we
were going to be put on the list if it wasn't corrected.
New York State had a--I believe it was a 31-point--there
was a safe harbor after that, and then a 31-point addition to
your safe harbor. And, with that, we did make it. I believe
that's no longer there anymore.
To hold an entire school hostage, from 60 students in two
grades--it's such a small percentage--so, it really does affect
the school, and it affects the community, as well.
Senator Merkley. Are you saying that--I missed the point
you made about a safe harbor that is no longer there. Could you
explain?
Mr. Capozzi. Yes. There is a safe harbor. If you don't make
your AYP, you're given a safe harbor. It's a number to--that's
your number that you have to make.
In addition, if you're short of your safe harbor and you
have a participation rate of--I believe it's above 90 percent-
95 percent--you are given an extra 31 points, I believe; and
that takes you to your safe harbor. Hopefully. It was a safety
net that was taken away. So, I know this year is the first year
that it will not be given to subgroups to make their safe
harbor, or AYP.
Senator Merkley. Any other comments? Any comments about the
practice of using laptops.
Yes.
Mr. Habit. I thought there was a great deal of validity to
the observation you just shared about the cost and how
efficiently to go about that. There really is no way to get
around the fact that a highly effective and focused teacher
working with the student over the long haul is the best
solution. I'm reminded, a few days ago, of talking to a teacher
in one of our schools--who knows a student so well, knows that
student's family so well, that she recognized that what her
student needed was Saturday work and after-school work around
Algebra 1, and she knows the diagnostics around that student,
and doesn't have to relearn his needs and styles, and that is,
in my perspective, in our perspective, the most efficient way
to go about accelerating a young person.
Mr. Deshler. Yes.
Senator Merkley. Yes.
Mr. Deshler. I have no problem with them making laptops,
iPods, available, and teaching kids how to use them in the
correct way, as Senator Burr mentioned early. What does concern
me is your other observation, that the tutors that these
students are working with don't have the kind of proper
training to make them effective tutors. That's the big concern.
Senator Merkley. I am over my time, and I thank you all
very much.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Reed.
Senator Reed
Senator Reed. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you for holding, again, a very impressive hearing. Thank
you, to all the witnesses, for excellent testimony, but, also,
when you leave here and you go back to the schools and back to
the universities you continue to work hard, and I appreciate
that very much.
The focus is secondary schools. I want to thank Dr. Deshler
for mentioning Success in the Middle. Because before secondary
school, there's the middle school. One of the issues that comes
up perennially with respect to secondary schools, is the
dropout rate. You know, that's kind of, the shorthand for how
you're doing. But, a lot of what you have done--and I know Mr.
Johnson, particularly--has been with respect to those
indications in the middle schools, of potential dropouts, in
terms of looking at the early warning signals. Sometimes I get
the sense that we're focusing a lot on the last few years--
efforts that are probably not as efficient as, focusing on the
first few years--in the middle schools. I wonder, Mr. Johnson
and Dr. Deshler, if you wanted to comment, and anyone else on
this sort of issue of early warnings, middle schools, and
preventing dropouts.
Mr. Johnson. Well, the research is pretty significant and
instructive, that we can tell, as early as sixth grade, with
high predictability, who's going to drop out. I think that
whatever solution the committee comes up with, they need to
take in consideration the success and what it does about
intensive interventions as early as sixth grade to get those
young people back on track. It's an important part of the
solution, it's important--a part--about sustaining the supports
that we see in making gains in our early years, that we're not
seeing sustained through middle and high schools. So, I think
that's right, yes.
Senator Reed. Dr. Deshler.
Mr. Deshler. The power of highly effective educational
experience on the academic side and the social side during the
middle school is so pivotal. When students--as well as--
deliberately planning that transition into the high school, and
that we don't just take that for granted and leave it up for
luck, that it will happen correctly. There's some very exciting
and encouraging work that is being done on, ``How do you put in
place effective transitions from middle school to high
school?'' But, a part of that is really having students geared
up with the proper skill sets so that when they go to high
school, then they can benefit from a challenging curriculum
when they get there.
Senator Reed. Mr. Capozzi and Mr. Harrison and Ms. Webber-
N'Dour, you are on the front lines. I don't know, maybe--I
feel, some way, that high school principals shoulder the
responsibility for dropouts. But, by the time the youngster
gets there, as Mr. Johnson suggests, the indicators were
already there, and the effective interventions are delayed by
years. So, I'm just wondering what reaction you have, Mr.
Capozzi, Mr. Harrison, and Ms. Webber-N'Dour.
Mr. Capozzi. What we put in place--what we look at, No. 1,
is where students are. In ninth grade, I have spoken about our
interdisciplinary teaming program, that we will be implementing
this year. We have safety nets in place. We get kids who aren't
reading at grade level. We have programs, like READ 180, to
catch students up. I would love to see it in the lower grades,
because we're getting them in seventh and eighth grade, and,
really, we're afforded the opportunity to put programs in, such
as READ 180. We have language enrichment. We are a title I
school. Our free and reduced lunch, I believe, is 33 percent.
So, with that title I money, we do utilize that, to level the
playing field, with the literacy programs.
Senator Reed. Thank you.
Mr. Harrison, please.
Mr. Harrison. Yes, I wouldn't be surprised if Mr. Capozzi's
intervention systems--you know, they're the same in the middle
school, as well. I think that really thinking about making it
systematic, in terms of what intervention looks like--from
kindergarten through 12th grade--because, at the end of the
day, it's the same system that we're going to use and really
holding school leaders, like ourselves, accountable for making
sure that the growth happens from the students who come in at
those levels. That's something that I would feel comfortable,
as a school leader, to be held accountable to. Because, at the
end of the day, if those students aren't moving, we're not
doing our jobs.
Senator Reed. Ms. Webber-N'Dour.
Ms. Webber-N'Dour. Something that Dr. Alonso, of Baltimore
City Public Schools, recently started to do, and started with
our school, is to annex failing middle schools with successful
high schools. So, next year, I will take over a failing middle
school. The thought in mind is to use the successful model we
have and make a seamless transfer of information, both in terms
of curriculum and culture, so that both schools are mirroring
one another.
The other issue that is of interest to me is to try to
accelerate the students, that are already doing exceptionally
well, into the high school forum in the similar way that we're
doing with early-college.
So, this is a model. It hasn't been testing out fully, but
I'm sure it's going to succeed. High school teachers will make
the decisions as to what the curriculum looks like in middle
school, because we know best what the high school student
needs.
Senator Reed. Mr. Habit, do you have a comment, or----
Mr. Habit. I just think it's a critical issue. We're
exploring the ramp-up strategy to incorporate middle grades so
that they're prepared for the rigors of ninth grade. If that
goal of that high school is truly college readiness, it's got
to ramp up in the middle grades.
Senator Reed. Right. Just an observation, because my time
is expired, but one of the things that I think we have to deal
with is that too many principals are not educational leaders,
because after monitoring buses, collecting the candy money--
well, we don't do that anymore--but all the extracurricular
activities and I just wonder, am I off, or is that something
that you sense, too?
Mr. Capozzi.
Mr. Capozzi. Absolutely. Running a school is a tremendous
undertaking. It really is. I often say to myself--every day--
there's one incident that you say, ``They didn't teach me this
in principal school.'' It is just overwhelming at times, and if
it wasn't for my assistants--I have quality assistant
principals, quality chairpeople, and it definitely helps. It is
overwhelming. I don't want to be a manager, I want to be an
instructional leader.
Senator Reed. No, and that's the model, but we organize
schools so that principals are managers, budgeters, etc. That's
what they get hired on, and that's what they get fired on, in
many cases.
Mr. Capozzi. Absolutely.
Senator Reed. Like everything I learned in kindergarten,
everything I learned in the Army. I had 1st Sergeants who did
all that stuff when I was a company commander, thank God,
because I wasn't that good of a company commander, but they
were----
[Laughter.]
Senator Reed [continuing]. They did all that, and I was
expected to be a tactician you know, doing all that stuff.
But, as I see the principals in my home State--you know,
they just don't have the time to be the educational leaders
they want to be.
Also, to be honest, some are drawn to the job because they
don't have to do educational leadership; and those are people
we don't want as principals.
But, thank you so much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Hagan.
Senator Hagan. Thank you, again, Mr. Chairman.
I really do appreciate all of the testimony we've heard
today. It's been excellent.
One comment came up earlier in the hearing, regarding the
length of the school day and year, when our students are
looking at competing in a global economy today. I'd love to
hear your comments on the impact of a longer school day.
Please.
Mr. Harrison. Sure. When you're behind in math or reading,
you have to put in the extra time. We have students come in for
summer school to get caught up, we have students staying until
5 o'clock, getting tutoring. We have tutoring provided by our
teachers. They invest an hour, after school, by department, to
catch students up. And it does take time. That's a factor that
should definitely be in the legislation, in terms of really
making sure that there's certain protocols in place,
particularly time, to catch students up.
Senator Hagan. One of the things that I've read is that, by
the time a student graduates in the United States, they are
practically a year behind their European counterparts, who have
had a much longer school year.
Yes.
Mr. Deshler. Yes, I would add to what Mr. Harrison said,
that, yes, if students are behind, we do need more time on
task, more time in instruction. However, we've completed some
studies, within our research center, that tells us very clearly
that we're not currently using, optimally, the time that we do
have.
Senator Hagan. So, what do we need to do?
Mr. Deshler. Well, just adding extra time is not going to
necessarily solve it. We need to, with that time, be adding
it--or the time we're using now--is to check, ``How are we
using it? How much time are students not engaged, or are
teachers not engaged, in active instruction?'' so that we're
fully utilizing the available time that we have.
Senator Hagan. Do you have any examples or recommendations?
Mr. Deshler. Sure. Well, in a study that we just completed,
about 24, 25 percent of time during a classroom period, the
teacher was not involved in active instruction. They were doing
administrative things, e-mail, and so forth. So, I think some
of the things, as Mr. Capozzi has said--you know, our primary
mission is instruction----
Senator Hagan. Right.
Mr. Deshler [continuing]. And it's not all of the
administrative things that are needed to keep the school
moving. But, it is that culture that says, ``Our job is
instruction,'' and there are certain things that we do during
instruction that are paid greater dividends than other things,
such as teacher modeling, elaborated feedback, scaffolded
learning, and so forth. Then you really see student gain.
Ms. Webber-N'Dour. Yes, I just wanted to say that my school
is a turnaround school. We were in the 30 and 40 percentile
range when I came in as principal. We're now in the 80s and
90s. We didn't do that by adding any time to the day; in fact,
I took away programs that were ineffective--Saturday programs
that were not working, after-school programs that were not
working. The emphasis had to be put on a 90-minute block, and
what are you actually doing with that 90-minute block? How
qualified is the person in that classroom? So, I don't think
that more is always more.
Senator Hagan. Dr. Habit.
Mr. Habit. Yes, I'd just agree with what's been said. More
of the same is exactly what's not needed. Some earlier
questions from the panel had a lot to do with the need to
engage young people by redefining what it means to be an
effective teacher, which has a lot to do with inquiry and
classroom collaboration and real-world connections.
Senator Hagan. I have one last question. The goal of the
early-college high schools is to keep the at-risk students in
school by eliminating the divide between the high school and
college, and to provide them with the opportunity to excel in a
different educational setting. Are there specific criteria that
are used to identify students who could benefit from attending
an early-college high school? If so, how can we ensure that
we're targeting the students who will actually benefit the most
from these programs?
Mr. Habit. Well, I'll respond----
Senator Hagan. OK.
Mr. Habit [continuing]. Quickly, because that's obviously
an area we're spending a great deal of time on, along with
Cassius and Jobs for the Future.
I think that there is a great deal of conversation about
this. There are discussions every day; but, generally, they
come down to this: identifying young people, who, with extra
support and extra time, can achieve at much higher levels, who
have, maybe, not met with success in conventional schools, and
who were typically the first in their family to attend and/or
graduate from college.
If I could add--earlier, you made, Senator, some
conversation or, comments about the design of this work. We've
had a history of very ad hoc approach to reforms and
innovations. When we look at early-college in North Carolina,
and our other redesigned schools, we look at some very tight
core design principals, where it's really not a pick-and-
choose, it's a matter of a whole implementation of the model, a
true fidelity to the set of design principles that are
associated with highly successful early-colleges.
Senator Hagan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Hagan.
Well, I thank all of the panel. This was a very instructive
session.
We've spent a lot of time, as you know, on elementary and
secondary education, but I think we haven't focused enough, in
the past--I'm hopeful we'll do that this year in the
reauthorization--on the middle-school area. It seems to me that
everyone's saying that you can identify these kids, you can
find out, when they're in sixth or seventh or eighth grade--you
can begin programs, that will challenge them and get them on a
graduation-rate basis so that they'll be graduating, and that
they will be ready for college--not just graduating, but
they'll be ready for college or a career. It seems to me, you
all talked about individual--I was just taking notes here--it
seemed like everyone talked about the importance of
individualized kind of focusing, not putting everybody in one
big group. Well, I suppose that's kind of tough, to do that,
with limited resources. But, you all seem to be doing it. There
are these schools, like Mr. Capozzi's school and others, if
you--not ``if,''--since what you've done has been so
remarkable, how can we take that model and move it around the
country? I mean, how do we incentivize? You all spoke about
initiatives, incentives to get schools to do things. So, if
there are models, like yours, that are out there, have done
great things, well, what's the problem? Even in your home State
of New York, what's the problem with taking your model and sort
of replicating it? Obviously it's working. Well, why--if you
can't do it on a city or county basis, or State basis, how can
we do that on a national basis? I'm intrigued by this, why we
can't take these examples.
Mr. Capozzi. Senator Harkin, so am I. When you look on Long
Island, alone, and you look at minority schools, it really is
horrific. The graduation rate is 60, 70 percent. My students
get 94-percent Regents diplomas. We're at 50 percent advanced
Regents diplomas. I wish that I had an answer for you, where,
``Why aren't more people coming to see us?'' I don't really
know if I want all these people to come and see us, but it is
being done, and everybody should know that. And the foundation
is effective instruction in the classroom.
Mike Schmoker, in his book, ``Results Now,'' talks about
the No. 1 factor being the effective teacher, and I think that
what we need to do is get the word out.
The Chairman. Do you really do an outreach to parents,
bringing them in? And how is that done? Teachers only have so
many hours a day, you know.
Mr. Capozzi. Well, that's really two issues. No. 1, I would
love to have more parent involvement. I believe that the
parents of Elmont Memorial High School--and it's been this way
my past 18 years, where they really leave them on the doorstep,
trust us and say, ``You know what, we trust that you're going
to provide our students with a great education.'' Well, that's
good; however, I want more parent involvement. That's not good
enough.
The other part is keeping the parents engaged. You know, we
run title I programs, with parents. We're a title I school, so
we run title I programs. It's not an easy task.
The Chairman. Mr. Harrison, you wanted to say something
about this?
Mr. Harrison. I think Denver, in Colorado, is a really
unique place. Denver Public Schools is encouraging the top-
performing charter schools to replicate, and supporting them in
those efforts. Really, that question of scale and replication,
that's really hard work. But, again, when the district is
supporting charter schools to replicate to meet the needs of a
diverse group of students, I think that's really central. I
think the reason why that's happening is that--when Senator
Bennet was the superintendent of Denver Public Schools, he
encouraged principals to go see what's working. So, I've hosted
a number of district principals, who've come to see how we do
school culture, how we do math instruction. Yesterday, I even
spent some time in southeast DC, looking at highly-performing
charter schools that are doing great things here. Again, that
learning has to happen, but also there has to be a partnership
that really allows for highly successful schools to replicate
and scale, and really providing them with the funding to do so
and make a larger impact on student achievement.
The Chairman. Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Johnson. I would say two things. From the Federal
perspective, nationally, I think there are two roles.
First of all is to strengthen the supply of these quality
options--and they're here, they're out there, they're here at
this table, they're here beyond this table--and strengthen the
role--the supply, rather--and recognize there's an important
role to play for the Federal Government in inventing new models
and strategies for some of the intractable issues that we still
haven't had a lot of success with.
It's like my father used to say, ``Know what you know, and
know what you don't know.'' What we don't know, we need to get
to the business of inventing solutions for that.
The second piece for the Federal, nationally, I think, is
to use the formal grant-making process as a lever to get States
and districts to look for strategies and look for these type of
solutions, and to install them in their communities throughout
the country. I think we see, through the Race to the Top
competition, through the School Improvement Grant competition
they are already funding that States are reacting to this. We
can have a conversation, another day, about whether this is the
right set of strategies as such. But, the fact of the matter
is, we are seeing tremendous activities in the department of
education, in districts, collaborating in ways we've never seen
before. I think that it's an important and an instructive set
of activities as we move forward with this reauthorization.
The Chairman. Well, hopefully within the next month or so,
we're going to have States agree to a common core of standards.
We haven't had that for a long time--well, we've never had
that. So, maybe you're right, maybe we're getting to a thing
where more and more States are saying, you know, there's a
place for innovation and change, there's a lot of different
models, but there ought to be some core standards that
everybody adheres to. Hopefully we'll have that soon.
Yes, Ms. N'Dour.
Ms. Webber-N'Dour. I just wanted to say that--you asked
what it is that we need to replicate--it's really the people,
that we have to replicate. The model, the type, the form, none
of that matters if you don't have the right person at the helm.
Then we really are talking about trying to get people to
understand what it is that Mr. Capozzi does, or what it is that
Mr. Harrison does, or who he is. What qualities does he bring
with him? What expectations does he have for his students? How
does he select teachers? It can't rest with the teachers,
because there are 40 or 50 of them. It has to rest with the
principal and their ability to select, their ability to
understand culture, their children, and so on and so forth. It
really boils down to the principal.
The Chairman. Mr. Capozzi.
Mr. Capozzi. I applaud the national standards. I was
thinking a lot about it, and if we don't have teachers who can
teach to the national standards effectively, if they're not
teaching to our standards now, that will be a problem.
The Chairman. Well, does that get back to just making sure
we get the best and brightest into education? I was looking at,
what was it Finland? Finland, where they go to their secondary
schools and they find the brightest kids, kids that are really
doing well, not just academically, but show leadership
examples, things like that. They groom them to be teachers.
They provide them with support, they send them to college, they
pay their way, they make them stars. They become, sort of, the
creme de la creme. And they become the teachers.
We don't do that in this country. I said, the other day--
this'll be the last thing. When I was a Congressman, a House
Member, a Senator--you know who I'd come across as the
brightest, most goal-oriented, leader, leadership-quality-type
students in our schools? Who do you think they are? They're the
kids who apply to go to the military academies. I tell you, I
see these kids--they're smart--you should see it. I mean, it's
hard--they're all 4.0 students. But, not only that--it's not
just that they do well on tests, they have to be involved in
the YMCA, they have to be on the sports team, maybe even
acting, maybe the school plays, they're involved in
extracurricular activities, maybe with their church. They put
all that together. These kids, I'm telling you, they're really
good. They're smart, they're leaders, and they're going to the
Air Force Academy, Naval Academy, West Point, Merchant Marine
Academy. They know they're going to get a good education.
They're going to be challenged. They're going to be identified
as a special kind of a person. But, I went and looked back. Of
all the kids I've gotten appointed through to the academies in
all my years here, somewhere around 7 or 8 out of 10 don't stay
in the military. They're there for their 4 years or 5 years, or
whatever their obligation is, and then they're out. And they go
on to become business leaders and community leaders and
everything else.
Seems to me we ought to have that kind of a system for
educators, to try to get into our schools, to have the best and
the brightest--like have our academies have them apply, and pay
their way through school, send them to the best schools, give
them the best support. You know, there's no debt when you come
out of the Air Force Academy, and you've got a great
education--or Naval--Air, Navy, Army--they're all great
education systems. I'm just wondering if we shouldn't be
thinking about that, to find these kids in high school, groom
them through. I don't know, it's just an idea I have.
Yes.
Mr. Habit. I'm just very excited about your observation. We
have had a series of study visits from North Carolina to
different countries, and one of those was to Singapore, to look
at how they approach the building of top teachers and top
leaders in their schools. It is a remarkable example of being
singularly focused on quality. And, as you suggested, they go
in and recruit the top 20 to 30 percent into their schools of
education, and pay their tuition while they're there.
The Chairman. Where is this?
Mr. Habit. Singapore.
The Chairman. Singapore.
Mr. Habit. When you talk to the young people in the
Singaporean colleges who are enrolled in their schools of
education and colleges of education, they are very, very
capable of talking about how to meet the individual needs of
students.
The last observation I'll make of that is that, in
Singapore, the approach to identify top candidates for
principalship isn't the choice of the teacher who goes into a
master's program; it's really the choice of the search for top
teacher-leaders, in schools, who are observed in classrooms,
and then they are invited to apply into a program to prepare
them to be leaders.
What, in effect, happens is, you have the top candidates
moving into teaching and the top in natural leaders among those
faculties moving into the principalship. It is a beautiful
model that should be studied here.
The Chairman. I just asked them to get me stuff on
Singapore. Find out about that.
Mr. Habit. We have a study we can send you--if it would be
helpful to you--by one of our organizations in North Carolina,
the Public School Forum of North Carolina. It's online. The
report can be downloaded.
The Chairman. I'd like to find out more.
Well, our time has expired. Thank you all very much, this
was really, really great.
Now, I will leave the record open for 10 days for other
questions that may come in, but I also ask all of you to
continue to follow our debates and deliberations on the ESEA,
as we go forward, continue to give us your thoughts and
suggestions.
We have set up a separate e-mail site for this. It's just
ESEA
[email protected]. We're trying to just keep that
separate, just for comments and stuff on Elementary and
Secondary Education Act reauthorization.
My only closing comment here would be that someone kept
mentioning AYPs. Believe me, if there's one thing I know we're
going to change, it's how AYPs are judged, rather than, ``How
close are you getting to some unattainable goal?'' ``How far
have you come from a base measurement?'' And that's true for
making sure--we're going to differentiate groups, too. One of
the things I focus on are kids with disabilities and rather
than seeing how far they drag them down, I want to know how far
you're bringing them up. You know? When you've got 60 to 70
percent of people with disabilities unemployed, and they want
to work, and they have abilities, something's wrong. That is
one area to focus on, to find out how we bring them up, rather
than just how far are they dragging you down.
Thank you all. You're a wonderful panel. Thank you. I
appreciate it very much.
The committee will stand adjourned.
[Additional material follows.]
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
WHAT'S EVIDENCE GOT TO DO WITH IT? AN OBSERVATIONAL STUDY OF RESEARCH-
BASED INSTRUCTIONAL BEHAVIOR IN HIGH SCHOOL CLASSES
by jake cornett
copyright 2010
Submitted to the graduate degree program in Special Education and
the Graduate Faculty of the University of Kansas in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of Master's of Science in Education.
Chairperson, Donald D. Deshler, Ph.D.
Thomas M. Skrtic, Ph.D.
B. Keith Lenz, Ph.D.
______
The Thesis Committee for Jake Cornett certifies that this is the
approved version of the following thesis: What's Evidence Got To Do
With It? An Observational Study Of Research-Based Instructional
Behavior In High School Classes
Committee: Chairperson, Donald D. Deshler, Ph.D.; Thomas M. Skrtic,
Ph.D.; B. Keith Lenz, Ph.D.
Date approved: April 27, 2010
______
Abstract
This study examined typical instruction and management in general
education classes that are co-taught by a special educator (co-taught
CWC), general education classes that are taught by a special educator
(adapted), and resource room instruction by a special educator. Over 3
days, 12 teachers in a middle class urban high school were observed
using momentary time sampling relative to four foci: student
engagement, transition time, learning arrangement, and instructional
activity. On average, across the three settings students were on-task
83.9 percent of all intervals, in transition 4.4 percent of intervals,
and teachers were disengaged from instruction during 23.2 percent.
Whole group instruction, the least differentiated and effective mode of
instruction, consumed the largest portion of observation intervals. If
effective differentiated instructional practice is the sine qua non of
providing students with disabilities access to general education
curriculum, the data provide little evidence to suggest that
appropriate instructional practice is frequently used.
Chapter I: Introduction and Literature Review
Enacted in 1975, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA) requires that students with disabilities be educated in the
least restrictive environment (LRE). Moreover, amendments made to IDEA
during the 1997 reauthorization require that every individualized
educational plan (IEP) include how the student will progress in the
general education curriculum. However, disagreement about how to
interpret access to ``the general education curriculum'' (IDEA, 1997)
has dogged the disability community; especially for students whose need
for support is not as great, including students with learning
disabilities. Greater clarity for integrating students with
disabilities into the general education curriculum came with passage of
IDEA amendments during the 2004 reauthorization (Individuals with
Disabilities Education Improvement Act, IDEA, 2004). As Soukup,
Wehmeyer, Bashinski, and Bovaird (2007) noted, ``IDEA requires that the
IEPs of all students receiving special education services . . .
identify specific accommodations and curriculum modifications to ensure
student involvement with and progress in the general education
curriculum'' (p. 101).
According to the Digest of Education Statistics, approximately 13.4
percent of students enrolled in public schools in the U.S. receive
special education services (Snyder & Dillow, 2010). Among students to
be given access to the general education curriculum under the IDEA, the
largest categorical group is students with a specific learning
disability (LD) (Snyder & Dillow, 2010). LD is defined as,
Having a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological
processes involved in understanding or in using spoken or
written language, which may manifest itself in an imperfect
ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or do
mathematical calculations. The term includes such conditions as
perceptual disabilities, brain injury, minimal brain
dysfunction, dyslexia, and developmental aphasia. The term does
not include children who have learning problems which are
primarily the result of visual, hearing, or environmental,
cultural, or economic disadvantage (IDEA, 2004).
The meaning of ``access to the general education curriculum'' is
not well understood, however. Central issue in the debate over the
meaning of access are physical placement and who delivers content
(Daniel & King, 1998). Concerns about physical placement are focused on
the type of classroom where students with disabilities are educated
(e.g., regular, resource room, segregated, etc.). Concerns about who
teaches the content are focused on questions of instructional training
and certification (e.g., general education teacher, special educator,
paraprofessional). Although this debate has continued among scholars,
special education administrators appear increasingly to favor more
integrated settings for students with mild disabilities (Waldron &
McLeskey, 1998; Snyder & Dillow, 2010). For example, we have seen
marked decreases over the past twenty years in the amount of time
students with disabilities spend outside of general classrooms (Snyder
& Dillow, 2010). Whereas in 1989, 31.7 percent of students with
disabilities spent 80 percent or more of the school day in general
education classrooms, by 2007 the number of students doing so had grown
to 56.8 percent (Snyder & Dillow, 2010). Because students with
disabilities spend larger portion of the school day inside general
education these classroom are more academically diverse today than at
anytime in the preceding 20 years.
Unfortunately, receiving less attention in the debate on access to
the general education curriculum is concern for instructional practice.
That is, how curricular content is delivered and what instructional
supports are provided to ensure students are benefiting from
instruction. This latter concern for instructional practice should be a
primary concern. This is not to question the importance of physical
inclusion, but inclusive education is merely a half-victory for
disability advocates if the only benefit is the reduction of social
stigma. Students with disabilities should realize both academic and
social benefits as a result of inclusion. This is the real meaning of
gaining access to the general education curriculum. Accomplishing this
requires greater focus on academic achievement and classroom
instruction, especially at the high school level where student
achievement appears to be stagnant.
The academic achievement of 17-year olds taking the 2008 National
Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) in reading did not differ
from 2004 or 1971 (Rampey, Dion, & Donahue, 2009). Likewise, 2008 NAEP
mathematics scores for 17-year olds did not differ from 2004 and only
marginal increases were observed since 1978 (Rampey, Dion, & Donahue,
2009). Wang, Haertel, and Walberg (1993) provide insight on the lack of
progress in American education by distinguishing between distal and
proximal variables. Distal variables, like state, district, and school
level policy and demographics, are at least one step removed from the
daily learning experiences of students. However, distal variables are
the target of most educational innovation and attention in the U.S. As
Wang et al. explain, ``implementing a policy of maximized learning
time, for example, does not guarantee that students in a given
classroom will receive instruction from a teacher who plans lessons
with special attention to eliminating poor management practices and
inefficient use of time'' (p. 276). Proximal variables like curriculum,
instruction, and assessment that directly impact teaching and learning
have a more immediate and direct influence on student achievement (Wang
et al., 1993). These proximal variables are the epicenter of the
instructional core of education. The stagnation of high school NAEP
scores, some suggest, is due, at least in part, to a lack of focus on
the instructional core of education (City, Elmore, Fiarman, & Teitel,
2009).
According to City et al. (2009), ``in its simplest terms, the
instructional core is composed of the teacher and the student in the
presence of content'' (p. 22). Outside the instructional core are the
student's home life; school governance, financing, and administration;
and peer effects. Using hierarchical linear modeling to estimate
variance in student achievement in New Zealand, Hattie (2003) found
that teachers account for approximately 30 percent of the total
variance in achievement while the students account for approximately 50
percent and their home life, school, and peers account for 15 to 30
percent. What teachers know and how they instruct are powerful
predictors of student achievement. Beyond what students arrive prepared
to do, teacher effects are the largest single contributor to student
achievement.
The importance of the instructional core is central to student
learning because teaching is the moderation of learning between a
knowledgeable source (e.g., teachers, books, etc.) and a novice learner
(i.e., student). In essence, learning itself is encapsulated within the
instructional core. As such, there are three ways to manipulate the
teaching and learning enterprise: (a) change the content to be learned,
(b) change the student, or (c) change teaching. In the U.S., control
over content is decentralized such that state and local education
agencies determine what will be taught in public schools. Likewise, it
appears untenable to change the student. Although much can be done to
improve the school readiness of academically disadvantaged and at-risk
students, social and cultural politics are a formidable barrier to
doing much more in this regard. Therefore, educational improvement must
be driven by the third component of the instructional core, the
teacher. How teachers manipulate content to make it more accessible and
thereby mediate content for the student, largely determines academic
success (Hattie, 1999; Sanders & Rivers, 1996).
Teachers impact student academic success by the control they
exercise over a series of closely coordinated instructional activities
and management strategies. Combining these in such a way that
meaningful access to the general curriculum is achieved for all
students, regardless of current skill, requires careful consideration
of four separate yet interrelated categories of instruction and
management foci: student engagement, transition time, learning
arrangement of students, and instructional activity. In order to meet
the needs of all learners, high school teachers must effectively use
the instructional period, keep students engaged, create opportunities
for individualized learning, and match instructional activities to the
skill level of students. Given the importance of these four foci to the
teaching and learning enterprise, and their centrality to this study,
they warrant closer examination.
Student Engagement
Research on classroom management indicates a variety of
instructional activities and classroom management techniques can reduce
the likelihood of student problem behavior and enhance student
achievement (Doyle, 1986). McNamara and Jolly (1990a; 1990b)
investigated ways to increase on-task behavior while reducing off-task
and disruptive behaviors of 12 and 13-year old students, they concluded
that, ``when disruptive behavior is dealt with by the promotion of on-
task behaviors then all types of off-task behavior, from innocuous to
grossly disruptive, are reduced'' (1990b, p. 248). When off-task and
disruptive behavior are reduced, the opportunity for student learning
increases. Doyle (1986) made clear the link between the learning
arrangement of the students and engagement when summarizing the
research of several leading scholars (Gump, 1967; Kounin, 1970;
Rosinshine, 1980). In general, Doyle concluded that student engagement
was highest in teacher led small groups and lowest in unsupervised
seatwork.
Transitioning Between Activities
While students transition between places, activities, phases of a
lesson, or lessons there is great opportunity for wasted time and off-
task behavior; moreover, there is little opportunity for student
learning. Transition periods are lost instructional time that teachers
should endeavor to reduce. Research in elementary classrooms has found
that approximately 31 transitions occur daily accounting for about 15
percent of classroom time (Burns, 1984; Gump, 1967). In high school
classrooms, much less is known about the frequency or duration of
transitions. However, it is commonly assumed that because the seating
structure or ``room arrangements in secondary classes typically remain
the same across activities, major transitions take less time'' (Doyle,
1986, p. 406). Also, whereas the instructional period in elementary
schools is typically 6-hours, in high schools each period is 45 to 90
minutes; when the instructional period is shorter there should be fewer
discrete tasks and less need for multiple transitions during a single
instructional period. Therefore, transitions in high school classrooms
should take less time (Doyle, 1986) and be fewer in number.
Learning Arrangement
Although whole or large group instruction is most prevalent in high
schools, it is not regarded as an appropriate learning arrangement for
extended periods of time in academically diverse classrooms (Hughes &
Archer, in press). During whole group instruction, the teacher gears
the lesson to the average ability of the students in the classroom,
assuming to thereby meet the educational need of the greatest number of
students (Ornstein, 1995). This type of instruction is thought to be an
economical and convenient format of teaching large quantities of new
information, especially to large class sizes. However, students within
high school classrooms have diverse academic needs, and whole group
instruction only meets the needs of the few students whose ability is
at the middle of the group average.
Small group learning allows students to excise different skills not
used in whole or large group instruction. Cohen (1994) found that
students who worked well together in small groups were better able to
manage competition and conflict among team members, listen to and
combine different points of view, construct meaning, and provide
support to one another. The most common means of creating small groups
is within-class ability grouping, also referred to as skill
grouping.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The term ``ability grouping'' implies that current assessment
and group assignment is intrinsic, immutable, and a permanent
reflection on the individual's potential to learn. The term ``skill
grouping,'' however, suggests that current ability bear no reflection
on the individual's intelligence or ability to learn. Therefore, skill
grouping should be considered the preferable term such that grouping is
not implied to be a reflection on an individual's potential for
academic success or ability to learn. Further, skill grouping should
not be a semester-long assignment for the student. Instead, for a
struggling student, skill grouping should be used to remediate the
skill rapidly then shift the student out of the lowest skill group.
Although skill grouping is the preferable term the researcher's term
will be used here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chorzempa and Graham (2006) surveyed a random sample of primary
teachers from across the U.S. and found that 63% of the respondents
used ability grouping in their classroom. Research suggests that two or
three homogeneous ability groups within one classroom is better than a
larger number of very small groups because it permits frequent and
extended monitoring and feedback by the teacher, reduces transition
times, and limits time spent on individual seatwork (Hiebert, 1983;
Webb & Farivar, 1994). Moreover, students in each skill group should be
carefully and frequently monitored such that regrouping is common. When
heterogeneous classes are split into small homogeneous learning groups
then students academically benefit, especially struggling students, in
the content areas of reading and mathematics (Gamoran, 1992; Oakes,
1987; Slavin, 1989).
Instructional Activity
Rosenshine and Stevens (1986) synthesized the work of several
leading scholars (Gagne, 1970; Good & Grouws, 1979; Hunter & Russell,
1981) on effective teaching practice to create a list of six
``fundamental instructional `functions' '' (p. 379). These functions
are,
1. review, check previous day's work (and reteach, if necessary)
2. present new content/skill
3. guided student practice (and check for understanding)
4. feedback and correctives (and reteach, if necessary)
5. independent student practice
6. weekly and monthly reviews (Rosenshine & Stevens, 1986, p. 379).
Across these six functions are six instructional practices. These
practices are presenting new information, describing new skills,
monitoring, providing feedback, re-teaching, and scaffolding supports
toward student mastery. Within each of these six practices are several
instructional activities that are used by teachers; instructional
activity is one of the foci of this study. Assessing student knowledge
is an instructional activity associated with Rosenshine and Stevens'
(1986) first and sixth functions. Assessing student knowledge and
checking for understanding is an important instructional activity to
monitor mastery of new skills, identify struggling students, and
pinpoint what learning process was not mastered during initial
teaching. Broadly, there are two types of assessments: formative and
summative. Formative assessments are not for credit but rather are
intended to inform future instruction by rapidly identifying current
level of mastery and specific skills that a student did not grasp.
Formative assessments are also referred to as progress monitoring
assessment. Summative assessments include tests and quizzes intended to
measure knowledge and assign credit based on that measurement. Both
formative and summative, can be used to inform future instruction,
provide feedback to students, and identify skills that need to be re-
taught. Assessments of learning are key to effective instructional
practice.
Reviews should be guided by results from formal assessments. Often,
reviewing past content is used as an activity to re-teach and monitor
student knowledge (Hughes & Archer, in press). Reviewing can focus on
fact or concept recall, ability to manipulate or generalize previous
learning to novel situations, or processes for learning that include
broad skills (e.g., summarizing) or strategies (e.g., comparing
concepts or writing paragraphs). Research indicates that reviewing and
summarizing the key information from a lesson is associated with
increased student achievement (Armento, 1976; Wright & Nuthall, 1970).
Moreover, review activities can be used to re-teach content that was
not mastered during initial teaching and learning. Reviewing past
content is an opportunity to provide feedback to students and assess
current knowledge.
Four instructional activities used when initially presenting new
information or skills are lecturing, describing, giving directions, and
modeling. These instructional activities are associated with Rosenshine
and Stevens' (1986) second function. These four activities are all led
by the teacher and are typically characterized by the teacher talking
to the class. Lecturing is thought to be an efficient way to present
large blocks of information to students. When teachers lecture,
students are typically instructed to take copious notes as the main
method of learning the content. However, although commonly used, this
is a passive learning process that may lead to disengagement and
confusion on behalf of the student. Rarely is extended periods of
lecture preferable to other instructional activities.
Monitoring students is an instructional practice associated with
Rosenshine and Stevens' (1986) third function. Teachers monitor
students using a variety of instructional activities including multiple
types of questioning, physically observing student work, and listening
to students' academic talk while working in small groups. Effective
teachers use these monitoring activities to assess student
understanding of new content, provide correction or feedback, reteach,
and adjust future instruction (Hughes & Archer, in press; Rosenshine &
Stevens, 1986). Research has shown that when teachers circulate the
classroom to physically observe student performance student engagement
increases (Fisher et al., 1978), academic achievement may be bolstered
(Evertson, Anderson, & Brophy, 1978), the pace of the lesson is
maintained (Doyle, 1984; Evertson & Emmer, 1982), and a clear message
is sent to the student that the teacher is available to help.
Giving feedback is an instructional practice associated with
Rosenshine and Stevens' (1986) fourth function. In his meta-analysis of
more than 180,000 studies, encompassing 450,000 effect sizes, on the
effects of instruction on student achievement, Hattie (1999) found that
``the most powerful single moderator that enhances achievement is
feedback'' (p. 9). According to Hattie, feedback is providing
information about how and why a student understands, and next steps the
student should take to continue toward mastery. There are multiple
instructional activities associated with feedback. Hattie and Timperley
(2007) examined other types of feedback and found them to be powerful
moderators of student achievement also, but not all types were equally
powerful. Notably, reinforcing student success, giving corrective
feedback, and remediating feedback were shown to positively impact
student achievement with average effect sizes of 1.13, 0.94, and 0.65,
respectively (Hattie, 1999).
Missing from the list of six instructional functions and practices
synthesized by Rosenshine and Stevens (1986) is modeling and graphic
organizers. Although they do include modeling ``the skill or process
(when appropriate)'' as one element of presenting new skills or
processes (p. 381), they fail to emphasize the importance of modeling
at various stages of learning and to differentiate between explicit and
implicit modeling as separate instructional activities. As an
instructional activity, explicit modeling has two components--physical
demonstration of the steps or procedure and verbalizing the meta-
cognitive thought process used to guide actions. Implicit modeling is
teacher demonstration of the steps or procedures without verbalizing
the meta-cognitive process. Research indicates that students with
disabilities may not use self-talk to guide performance on academic
tasks (Warner, Schumaker, Alley, & Deshler, 1989). Therefore, educators
need to teach both the procedural steps of completing a task and the
meta-cognitive process that guides self-talk and leads to successful
completion. In other words, they need to both present and make explicit
the thought process used by skilled learners. Such explicit modeling is
key to the academic success of students, especially those who struggle
with information processing, and those with LD (Gildroy, 2001). Given
the diverse levels of academic skill found in most high school
classrooms, explicit modeling is almost always appropriate as an
instructional activity when presenting new skills or processes.
Graphic organizers are a visual representation of ideas or concepts
intended to show relationships and demonstrate the organization of
concepts (e.g., hierarchical lists, flowcharts, outlines, concept
maps). Graphic organizers are used for many purposes, including as
reading enhancement (DiCecco & Gleason, 2002; Dunston, 1992; Griffin &
Tulbert, 1995; Robinson, 1998; Vekiri, 2002), a mathematical problem-
solving tool (Ives & Hoy, 2003), note taking strategy (Katayama &
Crooks, 2003; Katayama & Robinson, 2000), and an accommodation for
students with disabilities (Boudah, Lenz, Bulgren, Schumaker, &
Deshler, 2000; DiCecco & Gleason, 2002; Horton, Lovitt, & Bergerud,
1990; Kim, Vaughn, Wanzek, & Wei, 2004). Evidence suggests that graphic
organizers aid in comprehension by providing students a method to
organize new information and understand the interconnections between
newly learned and recently learned knowledge (Alvermann, 1981; Robinson
& Kiewra, 1995). Stone's (1983) meta-analysis of the effects of graphic
organizers presented in advance of the lesson found that long-term
learning was on average .66 standard deviations better. Furthermore,
when an organizer is provided at the beginning of the lesson it can
help students with disabilities retain more of the information
presented (Lenz, Alley, & Schumaker, 1987).
Purpose of Study
There is little known about differences in classroom instruction
and management among general education classes that are co-taught by a
special educator (co-taught CWC), general education classes that are
taught by a special educator (adapted), and resource room instruction
by a special educator (resource room). Given the literature on
effective instructional practices and activities, the purpose of this
study was to systematically catalogue how teachers instruct students in
these settings by observing how they manage and use the instructional
period relative to four foci: student engagement, learning arrangement,
transition time, and instructional activity. The goal of this study was
to understand typical and routine instruction and management in high
school classrooms that promote access to the general curriculum for
students with disabilities.
Chapter II--Methodology
Setting and Participants
Teachers in one public high school serving grades nine through
twelve participated in this study. Within the school district this high
school has a reputation for high academic achievement. The high school
is located in a large urban city in the Midwestern United States with
an approximate population of 350,000. The student population served by
this high school is best characterized as middle class with 31.9
percent of the students eligible for free or reduced meals (NCES,
2009). Among the students who attend the high school, 3.0 percent are
American Indian or Alaskan Native, 3.8 percent are Asian or Pacific
Islander, 10.3 percent are Hispanic, 14.7 percent are African-American,
and 68.2 percent are Caucasian (NCES, 2009). All teachers observed had
at least 5 years of teaching experience and were certified in the area
observed.
Three types of instructional settings were observed: adapted
classrooms, co-taught class-within-a-classroom (CWC), and resource
rooms. Adapted classes use the same curriculum as regular education
classes; however, the instructor is a certified special educator and
all students enrolled in the class are qualified for special education
services. McCall and Skrtic (in press) have referred to these classes
as ``special regular classrooms.'' The number of students in these
adapted classrooms is slightly fewer than in general education
classrooms; this is intended to allow the special educator opportunity
for more individualized instruction and greater student participation.
Students in these adapted classrooms receive credit that applies toward
earning a regular diploma.
CWC classrooms are co-taught by a general education teacher and a
certified special educator (Hudson, 1990; Schulte, Osborne, & McKinney,
1990). In these classes, the general educator was primarily responsible
for teaching the content with the special educator acting in a support
capacity. The special educator would circulate the room providing
assistance to individual students and would occasionally engage in
whole group teaching to augment the general educator's instruction.
Resource classrooms are taught by a certified special education
teacher; all students enrolled in the class are qualified for special
education services (Wiederholdt, 1974). Resource classrooms do not
follow the general education curriculum but rather are intended to
support individual student needs or small homogeneous groups of
students. The number of students in these resource classrooms is very
few, ranging from two to six at any given time. Special educators in
these classrooms are expected to augment prior general education
instruction received in content areas by tutoring students, pre-, and/
or re-teaching information, and working on other skills as needed
(e.g., organizational strategies for assignments, note taking, learning
strategies).
Measurement Instrument
There is little known about differences in classroom instruction
and management among co-taught CWC, adapted, and resource room
settings. Given the literature on effective instructional practices and
activities, the purpose of this study was to systematically catalogue
how teachers instruct students in these settings by observing how they
manage and use the instructional period relative to the four foci. The
goal of this study was to understand typical and routine instruction
and management in high school classrooms that promote access to the
general curriculum for students with disabilities.
There were four foci of the observation instrument. The first
concern was to determine the level of student engagement. Student
engagement is the amount of time students are on-task and involved in
the assigned instructional activity. The second focus was to determine
what portion of each class period was spent in major transitions. Major
transitions are those transitions that occur while the class moves
between places, activities, phases of a lesson, or lessons. The third
focus was to determine the learning arrangement of the classroom.
Several types of learning arrangements are possible, ranging from whole
group instruction to independent work being completed by one student.
The fourth focus was to determine the proportion of engaged time spent
in each of 30 types of instructional activity appropriate for high
school identified on the observational instrument. See Appendix B for
the observation instrument.
To develop the teacher observation instrument, a comprehensive
literature search was conducted to identify empirical and prescriptive
literature regarding instructional practice appropriate for secondary
classrooms. Beginning with ERIC, PsycINFO, and Dissertation Abstract
International online databases, the following keyword search terms were
used: instructional practice, instructional method, teaching method,
classroom instruction, and inclusion teaching. From this corpus of
literature, seminal articles were identified and used for ancestral
searches. Further, the three most recent editions of the Handbook of
Research on Teaching was carefully examined (Gage, 1965; Richardson,
2001; Wittrock, 1986).
Culled from this literature base were 142 instructional and
management activities. For each activity, a brief definition was
written based upon the literature and printed onto 3-inch by 5-inch
index cards. These index cards were then sorted into categories such
that similar instructional and management activities were grouped
together. After initial sorting was complete, some categories were
combined due to their extreme similarity. Then, a description and
operational definition was written for each instructional and
management activity. These categories were presented to an expert panel
with extensive background in conducting intervention research and
teaching in inclusive settings. The panel had nine members, five of the
nine hold doctorates in education or developmental psychology while the
remaining four each have 15 or more years experience teaching students
with disabilities in inclusive high schools. The panel was asked to (a)
identify any missing instructional activities, (b) provide references
for those activities, (c) critique the description and operational
definition of the activities, and (d) offer advice on the organization,
categorization, or elimination of the categories of activities.
Based upon the literature and this expert advice, the following
categories and subcategories of activities were identified. Presented
below is a brief description for each category; the operational
definitions used as decision criteria by both observers when using the
observation instrument can be found in Appendix A.
Student On-Task. Student on-task was a dichotomous category; either
the student was on- or off-task during the observation interval. On-
task was recorded when the students were engaged in an instructional
activity. Off-task was recorded when the students were not engaged,
misbehaving, or out of the room.
Learning Arrangement. Learning arrangement consisted of six
subcategories. The subcategories were whole group instruction, large
group instruction, small group instruction, individual teacher led
instruction, student peer pairs, and individual-independent work.
Transition Time. Transition time was a dichotomous category; either
occurring or not during the observation interval. Transition time was
recorded when the students were shifting between classroom activities.
Instructional Activity. Instructional activity consisted of 30
subcategories of activities and a not-engaged observational option. The
subcategories of instructional activity were lecture, describe, two
types of modeling, two types of giving directions, six types of
monitoring, three types of reviews, two types of feedback, three types
of graphic organizers, six reading activities, three types of formal
assessment, and video. An additional not engaged time category was used
to capture off-task teacher behavior during respective instructional
activities.
Procedures
Two independent observers conducted the observations over a three-
day time period; one served as the primary data collector and the
second as the inter-observer agreement data collector. Both observers
were trained on data collection procedures of momentary time sampling
(MTS). First, both observers read and discussed the operational
definition for each category of time-on-task, learning arrangement,
transition time, and instructional activity. Second, both observers
practiced data collection using the observation form in two classrooms
in an urban public high school. Third, observers practiced recording
the data using publicly available video recordings of students not
involved in this study. Once the two observers were in 90 percent
agreement in each of the four foci, data collection was scheduled.
Data collection was conducted in real-time using MTS beginning when
the teacher began instruction and ending when the teacher stopped
instruction. Partial interval recording (PIR) and MTS are two commonly
used time sampling methods in educational observation research. Both
methods divide large blocks of time (e.g., a class period) into a
number of small segments (e.g., 30 seconds). The small segment becomes
the time sampling interval whereby behavior occurrence or nonoccurrence
is coded based upon the pre-determined decision criteria described
previously. Data is collected during each interval in each of the four
foci.
PIR and MTS differ by virtue of when the behavior is observed and
coded and what decision rule is used to guide this. When PIR is used,
the observer records the behavior if it occurs at least once during the
interval period. In other words, the observer behaves like a video
recorder, capturing behavior during the entire sampling interval (e.g.,
30 seconds). If the behavior is observed at all, the behavior is
recorded. However, when MTS is used, the observer records the behavior
that occurs the moment the sampling interval begins. In other words,
the observer behaves like a still camera, capturing behavior at the
beginning of the sampling interval. The first behavior observed is the
only behavior recorded. Neither PIR nor MTS are concerned with
frequency or duration of individual behavior within each interval; only
one behavior is recorded each sampling interval.
In this study, MTS was used to estimate percentage of time (a) on-
task, (b) spent in each learning arrangement, (c) lost in transitions
between instructional activities, and (d) used for each instructional
activity. Each of these four foci were recorded every 30-second
observation interval. The research comparing PIR and MTS has determined
that PIR overestimates time percentage of behavior whereas MTS gives a
reasonably accurate estimate of behavior when brief intervals (30
seconds or less) are used (Gardenier, MacDonald, & Green, 2004; Murphy
& Goodall, 10980; Powell, Martindale, Kulp, Martindale, & Bauman, 1977;
Tyler, 1979).
The two observers arrived prior to the start of class and occupied
seats in the rear of the classroom where they would not interfere with
instruction but could see every student. Each observer sat with a data
collection sheet and a clipboard in their lap, and a pen in hand. A
digital 30-second repeating countdown clock was positioned near the two
observers. When the teacher began class (e.g., asking students to sit
or beginning to instruct) the clock was started. Once the clock reached
zero, the two observers looked at the teacher and designated student,
then recorded whether the student met the criteria for on-task
behavior, what the learning arrangement of the class was, if the
transition criteria was met, and what instructional activity was used
by the teacher. The repeating countdown clock automatically reset to 30
after each interval and began counting down again. After recording the
behavior, the observers watched the clock until it reached zero again,
this process was repeated in each classroom until the instructor ended
the class period.
When rating student time on-task, both observers began with the
student in the front-left seat of the class, then worked their way
across the first row of students, and then began the second row
continuing until every student had been observed and rated on the
observation sheet. Only one student was scored during each time
interval. Once all students had been scored, the observers began again
at the beginning front-left seat and would repeat this until the class
ended. Both observers took care to ensure they were observing and
rating the same student during each time interval. See Appendix B for
the observation instrument sheet.
Inter-Observer Reliability
To determine inter-observer agreement, the two data collectors
independently observed and scored 98.7 percent of the time sample
intervals. Inter-observer percent reliability agreement was calculated
using the following formula: Percent Reliability = (Number of
Agreements / Number of Agreements + Disagreements) X 100. Inter-
observer agreement across all intervals was 95.6 percent reliability.
When both observers did not agree, the data was removed from analysis
such that all results presented below represent 100 percent agreement
between the two observers.
Chapter III--Results
Results will be presented beginning with student on-task behavior
and major transitions then continue with results from the learning
arrangement and instructional activity. In each of the three sections
that follow, data from all classrooms in all settings is summarized
first; then results from each of the three types of settings are
presented. A one-way between subjects ANOVA was calculated to compare
the observation data collected in the three instructional settings for
percentage of time intervals that students were on-task. A second one-
way between subjects ANOVA was calculated to compare the observation
data collected in the three instructional settings for percentage of
time intervals that major transitions occurred. However, no statistical
test of mean difference was used for learning arrangement or
instructional activity due to inadequate power. Instead, these
comparisons are presented descriptively.
On-Task Behavior and Major Transitions
Observations across all classrooms and settings indicated that on
average students were on-task 83.9 percent of all intervals. A one-way
between-subjects ANOVA indicated there was no significant difference in
percent of time on-task between the three instructional settings, F(2,
87) = 2.79, p > .05. See Table 1 for the mean percentage and standard
deviation of on-task intervals in each type of setting (i.e., adapted,
co-taught CWC, and resource room).
In all settings, observations suggest that very little time was
lost in major transitions during the class period. Transition time
accounted for 4.4 percent of all intervals, which is markedly less time
than Burns' (1984) and Gump's (1967) 15 percent of classroom time.
Further, a one-way between-subjects ANOVA indicated that there was no
significant difference in major transition time between the three
instructional settings, F(2, 87) = 1.41, p > .05. See Table 1 for the
mean percentage and standard deviations of major transition intervals
in each type of setting (i.e., adapted, co-taught CWC, and resource
room).
Table 1
Mean percentage of intervals of student time on-task and major transitions for adapted, co-taught CWC, and
resource room settings
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adapted (N = 4 Co-Taught CWC Resource Room
Observation Code Classes) (N = 5 Classes) (N = 3 Classes)
Mean(SD) Mean (SD) Mean(SD)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On-Task...................................................... 82.2(16.2) 81.6 (12.6) 89.9(11.9)
Transition................................................... 6.0(18.6) 5.4 (9.4) 0.5(1.5)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Learning Arrangement
Table 2 shows the mean percentage of intervals in which teachers in
all classrooms and settings arranged the students in the six formats.
Students in these classes spent the largest portion of observation
intervals in whole group instruction (47.2) and the second largest in
independent work (33.3). During observations, teachers did not instruct
students to work with one peer in any classroom. Teachers spent less
than 10 percent of time intervals in each of the remaining
instructional arrangement with 1.1 percent of intervals in small group
learning.
Table 2
Mean percentage of intervals, standard deviation, and rank of each
learning arrangement across all classrooms
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mean
Learning Arrangement Percentage SD Rank
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whole Group........................... 47.2 44.7 1
Independent........................... 33.3 41.1 2
Large Group........................... 9.6 28.1 3
Teacher Led 1-1....................... 8.9 24.6 4
Small Group........................... 1.1 10.5 5
Peer Pairs............................ 0.0 0.0 6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3 shows the mean percentage of intervals in which teachers in
each classroom setting arranged learning. In each of the three
settings, whole group instruction consumed the largest portion of
observation intervals. The percentage of intervals teachers used whole
group instruction in adapted, co-taught CWC, and resource rooms is
37.5, 51.0, and 55.5, respectively. Small group instruction occurred
only in adapted classrooms, and infrequently in that setting. Teacher
led one-on-one instruction occurred during 28.8 percent of the
intervals in the resource room setting whereas 4.7 percent in the co-
taught CWC classrooms and not at all in adapted classrooms.
Table 3
Mean percentage of intervals in each learning arrangement for adapted, co-taught CWC, and resource room settings
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Co-Taught CWC Resource Room
Adapted (N = 4 (N = 5 (N = 3
Learning Arrangement Classes) Classes) Classes)
Mean(SD) Mean(SD) Mean(SD)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whole Group..................................................... 37.5(45.5) 51.0 (42.9) 55.5 (45.6)
Independent..................................................... 36.3(45.7) 41.4 (42.3) 15.7 (25.0)
Large Group..................................................... 23.2(41.2) 2.9 (13.2) 0.0 (0.0)
Teacher Led 1-1................................................. 0.0(0.0) 4.7 (18.3) 28.8 (38.2)
Small Group..................................................... 3.0(17.4) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0)
Peer Pairs...................................................... 0.0(0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Instructional Activity
The mean percentage of intervals in which teachers in all settings
engaged in instruction was 76.8 whereas the mean percentage not engaged
in instruction is 23.2. Figure 1 shows the mean percentage of intervals
in which teachers in all settings engaged in each of the 30
instructional activities or did not engage in any instructional
activity. The bars in Figure 1 are arranged from largest percentage of
intervals to smallest percentage of intervals.
Table 4 shows that in general teachers were not engaged in
instruction for more intervals than any of the 30 instructional
activities. Instructional activities in which teachers spent more than
ten percent of time were lecturing, giving academic direction, and
giving procedural directions. Teachers engaged in elaborated feedback,
physical observation of students, asking questions for student verbal
response, and simple feedback five to ten percent of time intervals.
Few, if any, intervals were spent using instructional activities that
research indicates are appropriate for diverse academic learners (e.g.,
using advance organizers, explicit modeling, monitoring progress with
formative assessment).
Table 4
Mean percentage of intervals, standard deviation, and rank of each
instructional activity across all classrooms
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mean
Instructional Activity Percentage SD Rank
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lecture.......................... 12.8 21.4 2
Describe......................... 1.8 4.0 10
Implicit Model................... 0.9 4.9 13
Explicit Model................... 0.7 3.1 15
Academic Directions.............. 10.8 11.9 3
Procedural Direction............. 10.2 12.1 4
Physical Observation............. 7.9 15.8 6
Questioning for Self Answer...... 0.2 1.1 20
Questioning for Verbal Response.. 7.8 12.9 7
Questioning for Written Response. 0.8 5.9 14
Questioning for Action Response.. 0.1 0.6 23
Listen........................... 1.7 4.7 11
Review Fact, Concept, Procedure.. 0.7 2.1 17
Review by Generalization......... 0.1 0.8 22
Review Skill or Strategy......... 0.1 0.8 21
Simple Feedback.................. 6.4 10.5 8
Elaborated Feedback.............. 8.3 14.5 5
Advance Organizer................ 0.0 0.0 24
Post Organizer................... 0.0 0.0 24
Other Graphic Device............. 0.0 0.0 24
Read to Students................. 2.3 9.6 9
Shared Reading................... 1.6 7.8 12
Simple Silent Reading............ 0.0 0.0 24
Augmented Silent Reading......... 0.0 0.0 24
Reading Strategy................. 0.3 2.9 19
Computer Mediated Instruction.... 0.0 0.0 24
Test............................. 0.0 0.0 24
Quiz............................. 0.4 4.1 18
Formative Progress Monitoring.... 0.0 0.0 24
Watch Video...................... 0.7 5.2 16
Not Engaged in Instruction....... 23.2 26.8 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 5 display similar data to those reported above except they
are organized according to the type of instructional setting. As a
group, teachers in the adapted setting are on average involved in
instructional activities 71.6 percent of time intervals and not engaged
in instruction 28.4 percent of time intervals. While engaged, these
teachers used four types of instructional activities most frequently
(i.e., procedural direction, physical observation, questioning for
verbal response, and simple feedback). These four instructional
practices accounted for 41.6 percent of all time intervals in adapted
classrooms. Modeling of any kind was not observed in any adapted
classroom nor was use of graphic devices of any kind, silent reading of
any kind, computer-mediated reading instruction, formative assessments,
or tests.
As a group, teachers in the co-taught CWC setting are on average
involved in instructional activities 76.6 percent of time intervals and
not engaged in instruction 23.4 percent of time intervals. Figure 2
shows that only five instructional activities account for nearly three
quarters of the time intervals that teachers in this setting were
engaged in instructional activities. The five activities are elaborated
feedback, procedural directions, academic directions, physical
observation, and lecture. Several instructional activities were never
observed (see Table 5).
Table 5
Mean percentage of intervals of each instructional activity for adapted, co-taught CWC, and resource room
settings
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Co-Taught CWC Resource Room
Adapted (N = 4 (N = 5 (N = 3
Instructional Activity Classes) Classes) Classes)
Mean(SD) Mean(SD) Mean(SD)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lecture......................................................... 2.5(6.4) 7.2 11.1) 30.5(29.9)
Describe........................................................ 0.7(1.9) 0.9(2.5) 4.8(6.4)
Implicit Model.................................................. 0.0(0.0) 2.8(9.5) 0.7(2.5)
Explicit Model.................................................. 0.0(0.0) 0.2(1.1) 2.8(5.8)
Academic Direction.............................................. 7.3(9.0) 11.3(13.3) 12.3(11.8)
Procedural Direction............................................ 10.4(11.1) 13.3(16.1) 4.8(7.0)
Physical Observation............................................ 10.4(21.9) 7.3(8.0) 3.2(10.8)
Question for Self-Answer........................................ 0.0(0.0) 0.0(0.0) 0.6(2.1)
Question for Verbal Answer...................................... 10.4(16.7) 3.4(6.1) 10.8(13.2)
Question for Written Answe...................................... 2.3(9.7) 0.0(0.0) 0.0(0.0)
Question for Action Response.................................... 0.0(0.0) 0.3(1.3) 0.0(0.0)
Listen.......................................................... 0.8(2.2) 1.9(5.0) 2.1(3.8)
Review Fact, Concept, Procedure................................. 1.0(2.4) 0.0(0.0) 1.0(2.8)
Review by Generalization........................................ 0.3(1.3) 0.0(0.0) 0.0(0.0)
Review Skill or Strategy........................................ 0.3(1.3) 0.0(0.0) 0.0(0.0)
Simple Feedback................................................. 10.4(15.1) 4.1(5.9) 4.1(5.9)
Elaborated Feedback............................................. 5.0(9.3) 16.4(23.4) 6.4(9.1)
Read to Students................................................ 6.3(15.1) 0.0(0.0) 0.0(0.0)
Shared Reading.................................................. 2.7(7.9) 2.7(12.5) 0.0(0.0)
Reading Strategy................................................ 0.8(4.8) 0.0(0.0) 0.0(0.0)
Quiz............................................................ 0.0(0.0) 1.8(8.3) 0.0(0.0)
Watch Video..................................................... 0.0(0.0) 2.9(10.5) 0.0(0.0)
Not Engaged in Instruction...................................... 28.4(34.6) 23.4(24.5) 15.8(16.9)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Among the types of learning arrangements, no class used student peer pairs. Likewise, among the list of
instructional activities no teacher used graphic devices of any kind, silent reading of any kind, computer
mediated reading instruction, formative assessments, or tests. Therefore, means and standard deviations are
not reported for these variables.
Figure 2. Percentage of time intervals while engaged in instruction
across all co-taught CWC classrooms
As a group, teachers in the resource classroom setting were on
average involved in instructional activities 84.2 percent of time
intervals and not engaged in instruction 15.8 percent of time
intervals. This is the largest percent of time intervals engaged in
instruction among the three settings. However, in resource classrooms
much of the instructional time was used to lecture. Only a few time
intervals were spent reviewing in resource classrooms. Further, reading
instruction of any kind was not observed in any resource classroom nor
was use of graphic devices of any kind or assessments of any type.
Great variability among the classes was indicated by the large
standard deviations, particularly in percentage of time intervals that
teachers were not engaged in instruction and the percent of time
intervals that whole group and independent learning arrangements were
used. These results have limited generalization to adapted, co-taught
CWC, and resource room settings in other schools.
Chapter IV--Discussion
There is little known about differences in classroom instruction
and management among co-taught CWC, adapted, and resource room
settings. Given the literature on effective instructional practices and
activities, the purpose of this study was to systematically catalogue
how teachers instruct students in these settings by observing how they
manage and use the instructional period relative to four foci. The goal
of this study was to understand typical and routine instruction and
management in high school classrooms that promote access to the general
curriculum for students with disabilities.
These three settings are common in large high schools that attempt
to provide meaningful access for students with disabilities to the
general education curriculum. Observations in four focused areas were
used to create a profile of instruction in each of these settings. The
four foci were student engagement, major transition time, learning
arrangement of the students, and instructional activity. Learning
arrangement was split into six subtypes spanning from whole group
instruction to independent learning. Likewise, instructional activity
was split into 30 separate instructional practices plus not engaged
time.
Conclusions and Implications
Four major findings emerged from this study. First, disengaged from
instructional activity was the most frequently observed behavior.
Second, instructional activities that occurred frequently (e.g., giving
academic or procedural direction and lecturing) are not associated with
student academic outcomes in the empirical or prescriptive literature.
Third, practices that have been shown to increase learning (e.g.,
feedback, graphic organizers, modeling) were observed sporadically.
Fourth, students spent the class period engaged primarily in whole
group or independent learning arrangements.
When examining the proportion of time teachers were engaged and not
engaged in instruction the results show that a large amount of
instructional time is not utilized. In the adapted and co-taught CWC
settings, this was the largest percentage of time, and second largest
in resource classrooms. However, in the resource setting teachers were
engaged in instruction during more intervals than were teachers in the
adapted or co-taught CWC settings, 12.6 and 7.6 percent respectively.
On average, teachers were not engaged during 23.2 percent of
observation intervals; in a 90-minute class period this represents 20.9
minutes per school day per class period, or nearly 1.75 hours per
school week per class. Typically, teachers were checking, writing, or
reading emails at a computer in the classroom or preparing to teach the
lesson for the next class period. Although these are necessary tasks
that teachers must complete, it is inappropriate to be completing those
tasks during instructional time. This is cause for great concern
because if approximately one-quarter of all instructional time is used
by teachers to check their email, there is a reduction in the potential
for learning.
Across the three settings, lecturing, giving academic direction,
and giving procedural direction were the second, third, and fourth most
frequently observed instructional practices, respectively. In other
words, when teachers are engaged in instruction, they were found to be
spending a large portion of the class period talking; that is, of the
time teachers are engaged in instruction, the teacher is talking 44
percent of the time. These instructional activities, although common in
most high schools, are not regarded as appropriate practice when
teaching new content or skill (Hughes & Archer, in press), and rarely
are these instructional activities preferable, especially for students
with disabilities (Deshler, Ellis, & Lenz, 1996; Hughes & Archer, in
press; Swanson & Deshler, 2003).
More effective teaching practices such as explicit modeling,
frequently reviewing, using graphic organizers, giving formative
assessment, and small group instruction occurred infrequently across
the three settings. These instructional practices have been shown to
impact student academic achievement (Armento, 1976; Gildroy, 2001;
Hattie, 2003; Hattie & Timperley, 2007; Lenz, Alley, & Schumaker, 1987;
Stone, 1983) and should be used more frequently during instruction.
Across the three settings, students were arranged as a whole group for
nearly half of the observation periods. Teachers in the resource room
setting used the whole group learning arrangement 18 percent more
thanteachers in the adapted setting and 4.5 percent more that teachers
in the co-taught setting. However, research has shown that regardless
of the size of class, whole group learning is less effective than one-
to-one tutoring or small group learning (Ornstein, 1995; Slavin, 1989).
On average students were instructed to work independently during 36.3
percent of time intervals in adapted classrooms, 41.1 percent in co-
taught CWC classrooms, and 15.7 percent in resource rooms. Moreover,
across the three settings, students were instructed to work
independently on a task during one third of the observation periods.
Although independent work is important for progressing toward and
displaying mastery learning, it appears to be used as an activity to
occupy students so that the teacher can engage in non-instructional
behavior (e.g., checking email, grading papers). Rarely is it
appropriate for students to spend 30 minutes during a 90-minute class
period working independently on a task, especially given that on
average teachers in this study were disengaged from the learning
process for 21 minutes during a 90-minute class. These disappointing
results may be related to the increasing content demand of curriculum
and the prevalence of pacing guides that require large quantities of
information be covered in relatively short time. Teachers may feel the
only conceivable way to teach the prodigious required content is by
using less effective but more efficient instructional activities (e.g.,
lecture, video, describing). In effect, curricular demands and
standards based accountability may result in a race to the bottom with
regard to instructional activities. In essence, sacrificing
differentiated instruction and scaffolds of support for curriculum
content.
When taken together, the four major findings from this study raise
serious questions about meaningful access to the general education
curriculum for students with disabilities. The results indicate that
physical inclusion in the general education classroom does not
guarantee access to the general curriculum as required by IDEA.
Moreover, it is questionable whether co-taught CWC classrooms are the
least restrictive environment given the learning arrangements students
are placed into and the instructional activities that teachers use.
And, the same conclusion can be drawn regarding adapted and resource
room instruction. In summary, the quality of education, as assessed by
the instructional and management activities observed in this study, is
of questionable quality in each of the three instructional settings.
These four findings raise questions about the quality of education not
only for students with disabilities but for all students.
Limitations
This study has several limitations. Data collection occurred over
three days and only in one high school. Therefore, limited
generalization can be justified. However, given the middle class nature
of the school where data were collected and the school's reputation
within the community for high academic achievement, it is doubtful that
dramatically better instruction would have been observed elsewhere.
Another limitation of this study is that the observational
methodology of MTS does not capture all behavior. When behaviors are
extremely brief or occur infrequently MTS can underestimate percentage
of intervals in those behaviors (Repp, Roberts, Slack, Repp, & Berkler,
1976); however, Murphy and Goodall (1980) and Gardenier, MacDonald, and
Green (2004) establish that MTS is preferable to other time sampling
methodology because it results in lower measurement error when
intervals are brief. Nevertheless, results of this study related to
student time on-task and major transitions should be viewed with some
skepticism. After all, in well-managed high school classrooms, spotting
off-task behavior can be difficult due to infrequency and the skill
with which adolescents disguise off-task behavior. Finally, skilled
instructors quickly transition between instructional activities and
learning arrangements. However, with MTS these transition periods are
only recorded if they occur at the beginning of the time interval;
therefore, more transitions may have occurred than is reflected by
percentage of time intervals, thereby underestimating transition time.
Given these limitations, these findings are preliminary, but they do
point to several trends in the educational experience of students with
disabilities in large urban high schools.
Future Research
The following issues should be considered in future research
efforts. First, research should continue in the area of typical
instructional practice and activity in both general education and
special education high school classrooms. Much attention has been paid
to instructional practice in general education elementary classrooms,
but little is known about the typical instructional experience of high
school students. Continuing research in this area requires that
measurement systems, like the observational system in this study, be
developed, tested, and validated. Measurement systems could be used for
three separate activities: first, as a research instrument to compare
different instructional settings, content areas, and educational
systems; second, as a teacher evaluation tool for administrators; and
third, as a data collection tool for coaches. As a research tool, the
observation instrument used in this study may be appropriate. However,
as an administrative teacher evaluation tool or coach's data collection
tool the number of learning arrangements and instructional activities
may need to be reduced in order to improve reliability among un- or
less-trained observers.
Second, for students with disabilities, access to the general
education curriculum requires at least two elements: physical inclusion
with their peers and pedagogy that opens the curriculum to diverse
learning needs. Given the results of this study, a new pedagogy may
need to be learned by general and special educators who support
students with disabilities in the general education curriculum.
Regardless of what new practices must be learned, this will likely
require changes to pre-service training at the academy and ongoing
professional learning for currently practicing teachers. Research in
this area is suggested.
Third, one variable not explored in this study was whether or not
general and special educators co-plan for instruction prior to co-
teaching a lesson, something that researchers (Walther-Thomas, 1997;
Walther-Thomas, Bryant, & Land, 1996) have described as necessary for
co-teaching. Moreover, co-planning was included in nearly all studies
of co-teaching where improved student performance was found (Bear &
Proctor, 1990; Harris et al., 1987; Klinger, Vaughn, Hughes, Schumm, &
Elbaum, 1998; Marston, 1996; Patriarca & Lamb, 1994; Self, Benning,
Marston, & Magnusson, 1991). It may be that co-planning for instruction
has greater impact on instructional practice than the presence of a
special educator inside the general education classroom. Results from
this study suggest there is a gap between the research and prescriptive
literature and the instructional practices used by teachers in schools.
Additional research is necessary to confirm this finding, ideally using
a nationally representative sample of schools.
Fourth, research to understand why teachers are not engaged in
instruction for such a large portion of the instructional class period
is suggested. Qualitative research methods are uniquely suited to
identify the barriers that prevent teachers from utilizing this time.
Once these barriers have been identified, interventions can be
developed and implemented that reduce the portion of class time that
teachers are not engaged in instruction, therefore increasing the
potential for learning in high schools. These interventions may be
focused on the individual teacher, organizational configuration, or
communication systems. Once these interventions have been implemented,
research should continue to measure the effects.
Finally, learning arrangements and instructional practices used in
the adapted and resource classroom settings closely mirrored teaching
in co-taught general education classrooms. This raises questions about
whether instructional differences exist between general education and
special education for students with LD. Granted, adapted class sizes
were smaller than co-taught classes, however the profile of
instructional activities looked largely the same. Therefore, more
research on the typical educational experience of students with
disabilities in various settings is warranted.
references
Alvermann, D.E. (1981). The compensatory effect of graphic organizers
on descriptive text. Journal of Educational Research, 75, 44-48.
Armento, B. (1977). Teacher behaviors related to student achievement on
a social science concept test. Journal of Teacher Education, 28,
46-52.
Bear, G.G., & Proctor, W.A. (1990). Impact of a full-time integrated
program on the achievement of nonhandicapped and mildly handicapped
children. Exceptionality, 1, 227-238.
Boudah, D.J., Lenz, B.K., Bulgren, J.A., Schumaker, J.B., & Deshler,
D.D. (2000). Don't water down? Content learning through the unit
organizer routine. Teaching Exceptional Children, 32, 48-56.
Burns, R.B. (1984). How time is used in elementary schools: The
activity structure of classrooms. In L.W. Anderson (Ed.), Time and
school learning: Theory, research and practice. London: Croom Helm.
Chorzempa, B.F., & Graham, S. (2006). Primary-grade teachers' use of
within-class ability grouping in reading. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 98, 52-541.
City, E.A., Elmore, R.F., Fiarman, S.E., & Teitel, L. (2009).
Instructional rounds in education: A network approach to improving
teaching and learning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Cohen, E.G. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for
productive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 64, 1-35.
Daniel, L.G., & King, D.A. (1998). Impact of inclusion education on
academic achievement, students behavior and self esteem, and
parental attitudes. Journal of Educational Research, 91, 67-80.
Deshler, D.D., Ellis, E.S., & Lenz, B.K. (1996). Teaching adolescents
with learning disabilities: Strategies and methods (2nd ed.).
Denver, CO: Love Publishing.
DiCecco, V.M., & Gleason, M.M. (2002). Using graphic organizers to
attain relational knowledge from expository text. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 35, 306-320.
Doyle, W. (1984). How order is achieved in classrooms: An interim
report. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 16, 259-277.
Doyle, W. (1986). Classroom organization and management. In M.C.
Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching (3rd ed.) (pp.
392-431). New York: MacMillan Publishing Company.
Dunston, P.J. (1992). A critique of graphic organizer research. Reading
Research & Instruction, 31, 57-65.
Evertson, C., Anderson, L., & Brophy, J. (1978). Texas Junior High
School Study: Final report of process-outcome relationships (Report
No. 4061). Austin, TX: University of Texas, R&D Center for Teacher
Education.
Evertson, C., & Emmer, E. (1982). Effective management at the beginning
of the school year in junior high classes. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 74, 485-498.
Fisher, C.W., Filby, N.M., Marliave, R., Cahon, L.S., Dishaw, M.M.,
Moore, J.E., & Berliner, D.C. (1978). Teaching behavior, academic
learning time, and student achievement: Final Report of Phase III-
B, Beginning Teacher Evaluation Study. San Fransico: Far West
Educational Laboratory for Educational Research and Development.
Gage, N.L. (1965). Handbook of research on teaching: A project of the
American Educational Research Association. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Gagne, R. (1970). The conditions of learning. New York: Holt, Rinehart
& Winston.
Gamoran, A. (1992). Synthesis of research: Is ability grouping
equitable? Educational Leadership, 50, 11-13.
Gardenier, N.C., MacDonald, R., & Green, G. (2004). Comparison of
direct observational methods for measuring stereotypic behavior in
children with autism spectrum disorder. Research in Developmental
Disabilities, 25, 99-118.
Good, T.L., & Grouws, D. A. (1979). The Missouri mathematics
effectiveness project. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 355-
362.
Gildroy, P.G. (2001). The development and evaluation of an
instructional modeling routine for students with learning
disabilities. Dissertation Abstract International, 63 (10), 3516
(UMI No. 3067084).
Griffin, C.C., & Tulbert, B.L. (1995). The effect of graphic organizers
on students' comprehension and recall of expository text: A review
of the research and implications for practice. Reading & Writing
Quarterly, 11, 73-89.
Gump, P.V. (1967). The classroom behavior setting: Its nature and
relation to student behavior (Final report). Washington, DC: U.S.
Office of Education, Bureau of Research. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 015 515).
Harris, K.C., Harvey, P., Garcia, L., Innes, D., Lynn, P., Munoz, D.,
Sexton, K., Stoica, R. (1987). Meeting the needs of special high
school students in regular education classrooms. Teacher Education
and Special Education, 10, 143-152.
Hattie, J.A. (1999, June). Influences on student learning (Inaugural
professorial address, University of Auckland, New Zealand).
Retrieved April 11, 2010, http://www.education.auckland.ac.nz/uoa/
home/about/staff/j.hattie/hattie-papers-download/influences.
Hattie, J.A. (2003, October). Teachers make a difference: What is the
research evidence? Retrieved April 11, 2010, http://
www.education.auckland.ac.nz/webdav/site/education/shared/hattie/
docs/teachers-make-a-difference-ACER-(2003).pdf.
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of
Educational Research, 77, 81-112.
Hiebert, E. (1983). An examination of ability grouping for reading
instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 18, 231-255.
Horton, S.V., Lovitt, T.C., & Bergerud, D. (1990). The effectiveness of
graphic organizers for three classifications of secondary students
in content area classes. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23, 12-
22.
Hudson, F. (1990). Research reports for Kansas City, Kansas public
schools division of special education on CTM--collaborative
teaching model at Stony Point Sough Elementary School, 1989-90.
Kansas City: University of Kansas Medical Center, Department of
Special Education.
Hughes, C.A., & Archer, A. (in press). Teaching students with learning
difficulties: Making instruction effective and explicit. New York:
Guilford Publications.
Hunter, M., & Russell, D. (1981). Planning for effective instruction:
Lesson design. In Increasing your teaching effectiveness. Palo
Alto, CA: The Learning Institute.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 1997, 20 U.S.C.
1400 et seq. (1997).
Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA) of 2004,
20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq. (2004).
Ives, B., & Hoy, C. (2003). Graphic organizers applied to higher-level
secondary mathematics. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice,
18, 36-51.
Katayama, A.D., & Crooks, S.M. (2003). Online notes: Differential
effects of studying complete or partial graphically organized
notes. Journal of Experimental Education, 71, 293-312.
Katayama, A.D., & Robinson, D.R. (2000). Getting students ``partially''
involved in note-taking using graphic organizers. Journal of
Experimental Education, 68, 119-133.
Kim, A., Vaughn, S., Wanzek, J., & Wei, S. (2004). Graphic organizers
and their effects on the reading comprehension of students with LD:
A synthesis of research. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37, 105-
118.
Klinger, J.K., Vaughn, S., Hughes, M.T., Schumm, J.S., & Elbaum, B.
(1998). Outcomes for students with and without learning
disabilities in inclusive classrooms. Learning Disabilities
Research & Practice, 13, 153-161.
Kounin, J.S. (1970). Discipline and group management in classrooms. New
York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Lenz, B.K., Alley, G.R., & Schumaker, J.B. (1987). Activating the
inactive learner: Advance organizers in the secondary content
classroom. Learning Disability Quarterly, 10, 53-67.
Marston, D. (1996). A comparison of inclusion only, pull-out only, and
combined service models for students with mild disabilities.
Journal of Special Education, 30, 121-132.
McNamara, E., & Jolly, M. (1990a). The reduction of disruptive behavior
using feedback of on-task behavior: An across setting study of a
class of 12- and 13-year-olds. Behavioural Psychotherapy, 18, 103-
119.
McNamara, E., & Jolly, M. (1990b). Are disruptive behaviours reduced
when levels of on-task behaviours increase? An across settings
study of a class of 12- and 13-year-old pupils--II. Behavioural
Psychotherapy, 18, 239-249.
Murphy, G., & Goodall, E. (1980). Measurement error in direct
observations: A comparison of common recording methods. Behavior
Research and Therapy, 18, 147-150.
NCES. (2009). CCD public school data 2007-2008. National Center for
Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S.
Department of Education. Washington, DC. Retrieved April 9, 2010,
http://nces.ed.gov/.
Oakes, J. (1987). Tracking in secondary schools: A contextual
perspective. Educational Psychologist, 22, 129-153.
Ornstein, A.C. (1995). Synthesis of Research: Teaching whole-group
classrooms. Peabody Journal of Education, 70, 104-116.
Patriarca, L.A., & Lamb, M.A. (1994). Collaboration, curriculum
development and reflection as frameworks for exploring the
integration of general and special education. B.C. Journal of
Special Education, 18, 95-100.
Powell, J., Martindale, B., Kulp, S., Martindale, A., & Bauman, R.
(1977). Taking a closer look: Time sampling and measurement error.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10, 325-332.
Rampey, B.D., Dion, G.S., & Donahue, P.L. (2009). NAEP 2008 trends in
academic progress (NCES 2009-479). National Center for Education
Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of
Education, Washington, D.C.
Repp, A.C., Roberts, D.M., Slack, D.J., Repp, C.F., & Berkler, M.S.
(1976). A comparison of frequency, intervals, and time-sampling
methods of data collection. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,
9, 501-508.
Richardson, V. (2001). Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed.).
Washington, D.C.: American Educational Research Association.
Robinson, D.H. (1998). Graphic organizers as aids to text learning.
Reading Research and Instruction, 37, 85-105.
Robinson, D.H., & Kiewra, K.A. (1995). Visual argument: Graphic
organizers are superior to outlines in improving learning from
text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 455-467.
Rosenshine, B.V. (1980). How time is spent in elementary classrooms. In
C. Denham & A. Lieberman (Eds.), Time to Learn. Washington, DC:
National Institute of Education.
Rosenshine, B., & Stevens, R. (1986). Teaching functions. In M.C.
Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching (3rd ed.) (pp.
376-391). New York: MacMillan Publishing Company.
Sanders, W.L., & Rivers, J.C. (1996). Cumulative and residual effects
of teachers on future student academic achievement. Knoxville, TN:
University of Tennessee.
Self, H., Benning, A., Marston, D., & Magnusson, D. (1991). Cooperative
teaching project: A model for students at risk. Exceptional
Children, 58, 26-33.
McCall, Z., & Skrtic, T.M. (in press). Intersectionality as a policy
frame for disproportionality and other wicked problems. Multiple
Voices.
Schulte, A.C., Osborne, S.S., & McKinney, J.D. (1990). Academic
outcomes for students with learning disabilities in consultation
and resource programs. Exceptional Children, 57, 162-171.
Slavin, R.E. (1989). Class size and student achievement: Small effects
of small classes. Educational Psychologist, 23, 99-110.
Snyder, T.D., & Dillow, S.A. (2010). Digest of Education Statistics
2009 (NCES 2010-013). National Center for Education Statistics,
Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
Washington, DC.
Soukup, J.H., Wehmeyer, M.L., Bashinski, S.M., & Bovaird, J.A. (2007).
Classroom variable and access to the general curriculum for
students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 74, 101-120.
Stone, C.L. (1983). A meta-analysis of advance organizer studies. The
Journal of Experimental Education, 51, 194-199.
Swanson, H.L., & Deshler, D.D. (2003). Instructing adolescents with
learning disabilities: Concerting a meta-analysis to practice.
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36, 124-135.
Tyler, S. (1979). Time sampling: A matter of convention. Animal
Behavior, 27, 801-810.
Waldron, N.L., & McLeskey, J. (1998). The effects of an inclusive
school program on students with mild and severe disabilities.
Exceptional Children, 64, 395-405.
Vekiri, I. (2002). What is the value of graphical displays in learning?
Educational Psychology Review, 14, 261-312.
Walther-Thomas, C.S. (1997). Co-teaching experiences: The benefits and
problems that teachers and principals report over time. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 30, 395-407.
Walther-Thomas, C., Bryant, M., & Land, S. (1996). Planning for
effective co-teaching: The key to successful inclusion. Remedial
and Special Education, 17, 255-265.
Wang, M.C., Haertel, G.D., & Walberg, H.J. (1993). Toward a knowledge
base for school learning. Review of Educational Research, 63, 249-
294.
Warner, M.M., Schumaker, J.B., Alley, G.R., & Deshler, D.D. (1989). The
role of executive control: An epidemiological study of school-
identified learning disabled and low achieving adolescents on a
serial recall task. Learning Disabilities Research, 4, 107-118.
Webb, N.M., & Farivar, S. (1994). Promoting helping behavior in
cooperative small groups in middle school mathematics. American
Educational Research Journal, 31, 369-396.
Wiederholdt, J.L. (1974). Planning resource rooms for the mildly
handicapped. Focus on Exceptional Children, 8, 1-10.
Wittrock, M.C. (1986). Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed.). New
York: Macmillan.
Wright, C., & Nuthall, G. (1970). Relationships between teacher
behaviors and pupil achievement in three experimental elementary
science lessons. American Educational Research Journal, 7, 477-491.
APPENDIX A
scoring protocols and decision criteria--classroom observation sheet
Student on Task: At each time interval, please score this box. You
should begin with the student in the front-left seat of the class, then
work your way across the first row of students, and then begin the
second row continuing until every student has been observed and scored
on the observation sheet. If all students have been observed, begin
again at the beginning front-left seat. If the student is on-task, mark
``1'' in the box. If the student is off-task, mark ``O'' in the box.
Take care to ensure that both raters are observing and scoring the same
student during each time interval.
Student on Task will be checked whenever the student is not
actively engaged in the appropriate instructional activity. The student
is off task if they are violating rules, engaging in social talk with
peers, doing nothing, throwing something away, in the restroom, playing
a non-instructional computer game, getting organized for a task (e.g.,
putting papers away into backpack), using their cell phone, etc. For
example, if the teacher is lecturing and the student is looking through
her backpack for a pencil, the student is not engaged and therefore off
task.
Learning Arrangement: At each time interval, please score one of
the following learning arrangements. Mark ``1'' in the box that best
describes the learning arrangement of the students. If there is more
than one type of learning arrangement in the classroom, only score the
learning arrangement that the teacher is instructing or monitoring. For
example, if a large group of students is working independently while
the teacher provides additional instruction for a small group of
students you should score the learning arrangement as ``Small Group.''
The focus is on the teacher's behavior or activity.
Whole Group will be checked whenever all the students in a
classroom are being instructed together. For example, the teacher might
be lecturing, the class might be involved in a class-wide discussion,
or the class might be watching a movie.
Large Group will be checked when most students in the classroom are
provided the same instructional activity directed at most students
simultaneously. Large groups range in size from greater than 1/3 of the
students to one less than the entire class.
Small Group will be checked whenever the students have been
assigned to work in small groups. Small groups range in size from 3
students to 1/3 of the class. For example, students might be doing a
cooperative learning activity or engaged in small group reading
instruction.
Individual Student-Teacher Led will be checked whenever the
students are working one-on-one with a teacher in a clinical manner.
For example, the teacher may be doing ``experimental teaching,'' direct
phonics instruction, or monitoring reading errors.
Student Peer Pairs will be checked whenever the students are
working in pairs and have been formally instructed to work in pairs. If
the class contains an odd number of students, one group may contain 3
students and still be scored ``Student Peer Pairs.'' For example,
students might be doing a ``Turn-to-Your-Neighbor'' activity or a
class-wide peer tutoring activity.
Individual-Independent Work will be checked whenever the students
are working independently. Students may be working quietly at their
desks on a worksheet or whispering to a peer, but they have been asked
to work on their own.
Transition Time: At each time interval, score this box. If the
class is transitioning between activities, mark ``1'' in the box. If
the class is NOT transitioning between activities, mark ``O'' in the
box. Note, if some students appear to be transitioning and others
students are not transitioning score ``1.''
Transition Time will be checked when the students are transitioning
between classroom activities but not yet engaged in any learning
activity. For example, if the bell rings to begin class and students
are not seated yet. Or, if the teacher completes the lecture then asks
students to begin working on their homework, the time between ending
the lecture and when student beginning to work is transition time.
Finally, if students quit working before the end of class, this is also
transition time.
Instructional Activity: At each time interval, score one of the
following instructional activities. Mark ``1'' in the box that best
describes instructional activity. If more than one instructional
activity is observed during the observation time period, only score the
first instructional activity observed.
Lecture will be checked when the teacher talks to students without
any, or minimal, student participation. The teacher may use the
chalkboard, maps, or an electronic media (e.g., PowerPoint) while
lecturing.
Describe Skill or Strategy will be checked for each interval the
teacher is observed giving task explanations or explaining how to do
something orally that requires several steps. For example, ``In order
to write this paper, you will need to do the following four things. . .
. '' ``To complete this experiment, you will need to follow the five
following procedures. . . .,'' ``This math algorithm has three parts. .
. .,'' ``This strategy has five steps . . . .''. The steps or parts
must be described.
Modeling
Implicit Modeling will be checked for each interval the target
teacher spends modeling how to do something for instructional purposes.
This refers to showing how to do an academic task that is to be copied
or imitated by the student. For example, the teacher demonstrates how
to solve a math problem. Please note, if the teacher physically
demonstrates while also thinking out loud to verbalize the teacher's
thinking, then you should check ``Explicit Modeling.''
Explicit Modeling will be checked for each interval the target
teacher spends modeling how to do something for instructional purposes.
This refers to showing how to do an academic task that is to be copied
or imitated by the student WHILE verbally modeling the thought process
the teacher is using to complete the task. For example, the teacher
demonstrates how to do a lab experiment while asking questions and
answering the questions so that students understand the thought process
of a scientist. Please note, if the teacher only physically
demonstrates while stating each step, then you should check ``Implicit
Modeling.'' Also, if the teacher does not physically demonstrate the
procedure, a designation would be placed in the ``Describes a Skill or
Strategy'' column.
Give Directions
Give Academic Directions will be checked for each interval the
teacher spends orally giving simple instructional directions. This
includes verbally directing, supervising, or managing classroom
academic tasks and describing a grading rubric. For example, the
teacher saying, ``Turn to chapter 9 in your book,'' or ``Please do the
first 10 math problems on the worksheet.''
Give Classroom Procedure Directions will be checked for each
interval the teacher spends orally giving simple procedural directions.
This includes (a) verbally directing students' behavior, (b) managing
classroom procedures (e.g., bathroom and hall passes), (c) giving non-
instructional directions to students (e.g., ``Please shut the window,
Susan.''), (d) telling students how many points an assignment is worth,
or (e) expressing disapproval, dislike, dismay, dissatisfaction, or
disgust with a student's class work, appearance, or behavior. For
example, the teacher saying, ``Jonathan, please take your seat,'' or
``Allison, that is not what our bathroom pass procedure is; you need to
. . . ''
Monitoring and Questioning
Physical Observation will be checked for each interval the target
teacher spends doing physical observation of students in order to
monitor students. Examples of physical observation for the purpose of
monitoring are: The teacher walking around students' desk or visually
observing students to determine if they have completed work or are
successfully doing work. When the teacher is monitoring a cooperative
group activity or a pair activity, please note what the activity is in
the description area. Please note, this activity should not be confused
with giving feedback.
Questioning for Self-Answer will be checked when the teacher
invites student to ask self-questions by way of engaging the learner
but allows the learner not to self-disclose on a potentially sensitive
subject (e.g., no response is required from the student). For example,
the teacher asked a question to the class as a whole and said, ``I
don't want a verbal answer or show of hands, but think to your self:
`How many of you ever thought you'd wished you could be more confident
when talking to your peers at school?' ''
Questioning for Verbal Response will be checked when the teacher
poses a question pertinent to the instructional topic at hand and asks
one or more students to respond orally. Students are instructed to
respond with a verbal answer but answers can be provided to a partner,
generated by a team, individually, or as a choral response.
Questioning for Written Response will be checked when the teacher
poses a question pertinent to the instructional topic at hand and asks
one or more students to respond in writing. Students are instructed to
respond with a written answer using response cards, response slates, by
writing on the chalkboard, or writing on a sheet of paper.
Questioning for Action Response will be checked when the teacher
poses a question pertinent to the instructional topic at hand and asks
one or more students to respond with an action or movement. Students
are instructed to respond with a physical movement by touching/
pointing, acting out something, using gestures such as thumbs up, or
giving facial expressions (smiley face/sad face).
Listening will be checked when the teacher is attentively listening
to a student's verbalizations for 10-seconds or longer. The teacher
must emit at least one attentive behavior during the interval.
Attentive behaviors include eye contact, ``uh-uh'' verbalizations, head
nodding, and/or linguistic listening cues. (e.g., ``I understand,''
etc.).
Review
Facts/Concepts/Procedure will be checked when the teacher makes a
statement or asks a question(s) that requires the student to show that
the student remembers or understands the factual content or concept or
knows the steps/procedures for completing a task (e.g., solving a
particular type of math problem or the steps for constructing a good
outline). For example, the teacher may ask the class to state the
formula for calculating the area of a triangle.
Manipulate/Generalize will be checked when the teacher makes a
statement or asks a question(s) that requires the student to show that
the student can generalize or apply a previously learned skill, or
manipulate new information using a recently learned skill to new
content or to a novel or practical life situation. For example, if the
class recently learned about osmosis and selective diffusion by
experimenting with chicken eggs, the teacher may ask about how osmosis
would occur in human cells.
Skill or Strategy will be checked when the teacher makes a
statement or asks a question(s) that requires the student to show that
the student understands the underlying skills or strategies of
effective academic performance. For example, if students in astronomy
are learning about the life cycle of stars, reviewing how to examine
the textbook organization would be helpful to structuring student
thinking and finding appropriate information in the text.
Feedback
Simple Feedback will be checked for each interval during which the
teacher verbally tells a student or group of students whether their
answer or performance is correct or incorrect. This includes
summarizing information that students have said. For example, when
student gives the correct answer and the teacher simply acknowledges it
but does not give more elaborate feedback. Please note, if the teacher
provides elaborated feedback or asks follow-up questions as a means of
giving elaborated feedback, this should be scored as ``Elaborated
Feedback on Learning.''
Elaborated Feedback will be checked for each interval during which
the teacher orally provides private or specific feedback to a student
with regard to something the student has done. Teacher gives
information on student performance when constructing meaning, or
related to the processes underlying strategies or skills of completing,
relating, or extending a skill or strategy. The feedback might include
describing an error category or pattern of error, explaining how to
avoid the error, modeling a new way or performing, having the student
practice a new way of performing, having the student paraphrase how to
perform in the future, and having the student set one or more goals for
the next performance. For example, if the student gives the correct
answer to a math question but doesn't seem to understand how they
reached the correct answer, the teacher provides elaborated feedback on
the process used to reach the answer while checking for student
understanding at different points in this re-teaching process.
Graphic Devices and Organizers
Advance Organizer will be checked for each interval the teacher
orally presents information about the upcoming lesson in a relatively
simple way. The oral presentation should provide an overview, cite the
purpose or goal(s) of the lesson or activity, state the topic or
present a specific order that the lesson or activity will follow. For
example, the teacher might state, ``Today we are going to be studying
about the causes of the Civil War.'' This is different from the "Other
Graphic Devices" category in that it does not involve a content map for
the lesson, lesson questions, and other parts of the Content
Enhancement Routines.
Post Organizer will be checked for each interval the teacher orally
presents information about that day's lesson in a relatively simple
way. This statement should be at the end of the lesson or instructional
activity and should summarize the main points of the lesson or
activity. For example, the teacher might state, ``We just learned about
the various causes of the Civil War. These causes were . . ..''
Other Graphic Devices (e.g., study guide, CE) will be checked for
each interval the teacher is presenting information about the lesson
with the aid of a graphic device. Teacher uses a graphic device to
enhance learning by transforming, repackaging, or manipulating the
content. Some examples of graphic devices include Venn diagrams,
content maps, or study guides.
Reading Instruction
Teacher Reads to Students will be checked when the teacher is
verbally reading a passage that students are expected to ``follow
along'' with.
Shared Reading will be checked when one student in the class is
reading out loud while other students are expected to follow along in
the text. After a period of time, another student begins reading aloud
and the first student stops, this continues at the direction ofthe
teacher.
Simple Silent Reading will be checked when the teacher instructs
all students to read silently to themselves.
Augmented Silent Reading will be checked when the teacher instructs
all students to do the following two tasks: (1) To find the answer to a
question in the reading and (2) instructs students who finish early to
re-read the passage.
Reading Strategy will be checked when the teacher directs students
to use a comprehension learning strategy while reading. For example,
the teacher may ask a student to predict what will happen next,
summarize plot developments for each chapter, or infer the meaning of
some words and give a rationale.
Computer Mediated Instruction will be checked when the primary mode
of instruction involves the use of a computer or computerized mechanism
to either present reading instruction to the student, test a student,
or provide assistance to a student during a learning task. This
includes computerized reading instructional programs such as Read 180.
Please note, if the teacher is working in small groups with some
students engaged in instruction while other groups are using a
computerized instructional program, do not check this item; instead,
mark the appropriate instructional practice the teacher is using.
Formal Assessment of Learning
Test will be checked when the teacher instructs students to
complete a long assessment during the class period. The test is a long
exam given to students for the purpose of assigning a grade/value to
the student's performance.
Quiz will be checked when the teacher instructs students to
complete a short assessment during the class period. The quiz is a
short exam given to students for the purpose of assigning a grade/value
to the student's performance.
Formative Progress Monitoring will be checked when the teacher
instructs students to complete a very short formative assessment. The
results of the task are not assigned a grade/value but instead are used
to inform the teacher about individual student's degree of mastery of a
new body of knowledge or skill.
Video will be checked when a film, video, or clip is shown in class
as the primary means of instruction.
Un-Engaged Time
Not Engaged in Instruction Time will be checked for each interval
during which the teacher spends (a) grading papers, (b) passing out
papers, (c) taking attendance/writing student pass, (d) having a
discussion with another adult in the classroom, (e) completing
paperwork or computerized forms, (f) talking on phone for any purpose,
(g) engaging in personal activities (e.g., reading a newspaper, filing
nails, etc.), (h) reading professional reading materials, or (i)
accessing, writing, or sending emails.
Appendix B
KU Center for Research on Learning--The University of Kansas
the content literacy continuum: a school reform framework for improving
adolescent literacy for all students
b. keith lenz, barbara j. ehren, and donald d. deshler
Making the commitment to improve literacy in secondary schools must
be at the very heart of school reform efforts. Too often, literacy
improvement efforts are parenthetical to other goals in secondary
education. Teachers and educators systematically discriminate against
those who do not have the literacy skills to meet course demands and
against teachers and staff involved in advocating for or providing
literacy services. This unfortunate situation lessens the importance of
secondary schools in preparing our children to succeed in college and
to compete in society. It also has consistently and systematically left
millions of students behind.
Recent evidence indicates that policymakers and advocates of
secondary school reform are taking seriously the problems of adolescent
literacy and are turning their attention to supporting research-based
efforts to improve it. These groups place increasing emphasis on
students successfully completing more rigorous secondary core content
courses, on students meeting standards as measured on state
assessments, on schools addressing the needs of an increasing number of
English language learners in classrooms, and on moving all students
toward a standard of college readiness that will allow them to be
successful after high school.
For the past 15 years, a significant research thread at the
University of Kansas Center for Research on Learning (KU-CRL) has been
to design and test effective school-wide literacy instruction in
secondary schools. A series of studies focused on how to increase the
success of high school students in rigorous academic courses revealed
several factors that challenge secondary educators who are seriously
concerned about improving the performance of all students to make
literacy a central part of school improvement and reform agendas:
1. Requirements for teachers to ensure that all students meet
standards have put pressure on teachers to teach more content faster.
This has led to an instructional focus on breadth of coverage rather
than depth of understanding. Consequently, students are required to be
more independent and self-sufficient learners, leaving students who
have limited literacy skills and strategies unable to acquire the
content and, as a result, meet standards.
2. Because many students do not have the literacy skills and
strategies necessary to meet these standards, core curriculum teachers
must face the challenge of compensating for the lack of these skills
and strategies to ensure mastery of critical content, regardless of
literacy levels.
3. Attention to the connected development of increasingly complex
vocabulary and background knowledge is needed if comprehension is to
improve and students are to benefit from instruction in grade-
appropriate comprehension strategies.
4. Students must have authentic and successful experiences using
newly acquired literacy skills and strategies in core curriculum
courses to solve problems and meet high school course demands if they
are to become motivated to develop literacy skills.
5. Direct instruction, teacher modeling, and practice in literacy
strategies must become authentically embedded in the teaching practices
of all secondary teachers so that students will have sufficient
opportunities to practice and generalize these skills and strategies.
6. Secondary core curriculum teachers can promote literacy by
planning and focusing on critical content and critical comprehension
strategies so that instruction is targeted and mastery is achieved for
all learners.
7. Even when instruction, modeling, and practice is provided
across secondary courses, many poor readers will need additional
intensive instruction and practice in these strategies if they are to
master and use them effectively.
8. Students who do not comprehend well but who have developed
fluent word recognition skills through the fourth-grade level need
opportunities for direct, systematic, and intensive instruction in
learning strategies that are appropriate for handling both expository
and narrative text.
9. Opportunities for direct, systematic, intensive instruction in
sound-symbol correspondence, word automaticity and fluency are needed
to address the word recognition skills for those adolescents who are
reading below the fourth-grade level.
Collectively, these factors challenge secondary schools to make a
dramatic shift in the way they organize and deliver instruction, if
both content and literacy goals are to be realized. Only by adopting a
schoolwide approach to literacy in which every teacher is committed,
involved, and championing coordinated literacy improvement efforts can
we make our secondary schools count for all students.
meeting the challenge
There have been efforts to reform secondary schools to improve
learning in ways that lead to outcomes that meet the standard of
college readiness and post-secondary success. Most efforts to reform
secondary schools have focused on creating infrastructure supports by
adding block and flexible scheduling of courses, providing additional
time for teacher learning and planning, providing behavioral supports
to improve discipline, and creating opportunities for more personalized
learning by restructuring schools into smaller learning communities.
Other school reform efforts have focused on creating system learning
supports to more closely monitor student progress, collaboratively make
decisions to address problems in learning, encouraging coaching among
one another to improve instructional effectiveness, and creating a
culture in which staff value and embrace continuing collaborative
learning and school improvement.
Although many of these secondary school reform efforts have
addressed important problems that have been barriers to improving the
academic achievement of students, they have not been able to
significantly affect the quality of classroom instruction provided nor
improve the outcomes of academically diverse groups of students. More
recently, it has become clear that structural and systemic supports
must be accompanied by attention to improvement to the instructional
core of the secondary school. This instructional core must include
attention to an aligned instructional system that is based on
standards-informed instruction, connected and coherent courses,
engaging instructional materials and activities, and instruction that
is informed by the knowledge and backgrounds of students to anchor
relevant and meaningful learning. Furthermore, the instructional core
must be centered on a view of secondary schools that is grounded in
providing a continuum of literacy instruction that ensures the ongoing
development of those learning skills and strategies required for
college readiness and post-secondary success. (See Figure 1)
As a result of our research, the staff of the KU-CRL has developed
a framework called the Content Literacy Continuum (CLC; LenzEhren,
1999). This structure provides a vehicle for (a) considering the
factors that influence the success of secondary literacy efforts, (b)
leveraging the talents of secondary school faculty, and (c) organizing
instruction to increase in intensity as the deficits that certain
subgroups of students demonstrate become evident.
The CLC has been used to guide the use of interventions in the
Strategic Instruction Model (SIM) developed by KU-CRL over the past 27
years. However, as a framework, the CLC is sufficiently comprehensive
in scope to accommodate any research-validated intervention that has
been effective with adolescent populations. In short, the CLC is a tool
for enabling all secondary teachers and administrators to participate
in the development and evaluation of a literacy initiative that is
consistent with the goals of secondary education for all students and
that will dramatically improve literacy outcomes for those who are at
risk of academic failure.
The five levels or types of instruction associated with the CLC are
presented and described in Figure 2. These five levels are based on
keeping content as a central focus in literacy efforts, defining roles
and responsibilities of all school-level educators, providing a
continuum of instructional intensity for ensuring success for a wide
range of students, and providing a framework for integrating a variety
of literacy improvement efforts. Each of these levels collectively
represent a framework for organizing secondary reform around the goals
of improved literacy.
It is important to note that secondary educators must work
collaboratively to synchronize instruction across the five levels to
ensure the success of a schoolwide literacy effort. The continuum of
instruction represented in the CLC framework is more than a way of
sorting or organizing instructional practices and commercial
educational programs. Several instructional principles define how the
levels of instruction should be implemented to complement and reinforce
one another to ensure a coherent learning experience for students.
First, the instruction provided at each level should reinforce a common
set of literacy strategies that can be enhanced and leveraged at each
level of the continuum. This cross-level focus ensures that students
are learning a set of critical core strategies with sufficient
opportunities to practice different applications across different
content areas and under different conditions. Second, content
enhancements used to ensure content area learning at Level 1 of the CLC
that compensates for poor learning strategies should be built on and
around the critical core set of literacy strategies taught and
practiced at the other levels of the continuum. Third, the literacy
strategies that define Levels 2 and 3 should help students apply the
skills acquired from instruction in Level 4. Fourth, the intervention
provided by a speech-language professional represented in Level 5
should be informed by the core set of literacy strategies and content
enhancements. In other words, CLC should not be thought of as framework
for siloing programs that seem to fit at a given level. Regardless of
the program, there are instructional conditions that must be created
across the levels regardless of the goals of individual programs to
create the type of instructional synergy necessary to improve literacy
in secondary schools.
the clc adoption and implementation process
Adopting the CLC requires a focused schoolwide effort. A school
interested in putting the CLC in place needs to take stock of the
literacy and content mastery performance of students, as well as its
existing efforts to meet literacy needs. Faculty should consider how
the efforts already under way fit into each of the five CLC levels and
learn how to integrate SIM and other necessary components into current
practices. Initial adoption takes place over a 3- to 5-year period as
school staff work through activities associated with the phases of
planning, implementing, and sustaining a literacy improvement
initiative. A commitment for the duration of the adoption process on
the part of the administration and faculty is a necessary component.
A hallmark of the entire adoption process is that it is co-
constructed with school leaders, resulting in a growth partnership. It
is clear that one of the reasons that secondary school reform efforts
have failed to significantly improve the academic performance of all
students is that few efforts have addressed the unique culture that
shapes the likelihood of change in secondary schools. System change in
secondary schools must be closely tied to the individual in the system
responsible for the nature and quality of classroom instruction.
Therefore, the success of literacy- centered secondary school reform is
likely to hinge on the ability of school leaders to collaboratively co-
construct change with teachers. School leaders must be able to create a
shared (a) vision that allows for individual contributions, (b)
knowledge base that leads to individual learning, (c) system of
leadership that seeks the voice of individuals, (d) sense of
responsibility that shapes individual planning and action, (e) system
of evaluation that guides self assessment, and (f) accountability
system that motivates individual action. Using this set of values to
guide reform would call into question traditional systemic approaches
that rely solely on top-down models to accomplish school change.
conclusion
Although professional development is required to implement the CLC,
it is more appropriate to conceptualize CLC adoption as a school-
improvement initiative requiring more than professional development.
Adopting the CLC is framed in the context of helping schools meet their
school-improvement goals. The current focus of schools and school
districts on meeting the No Child Left Behind requirements regarding
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) typically enhances the motivation of
schools to target improvement efforts on behalf of all learners.
Serious attention must be paid to tapping into or creating the
infrastructures to promote individual and systemic change, including
data-based decision making, effective leadership activities, and the
creation of professional learning communities.
references
Lenz, B.K., Bulgren, J., Kissam, B., & Taymans, J. (2004). SMARTER
planning for academic diversity. In Lenz, B.K., Deshler, D.D., &
Kissam, B. (Eds.), Teaching content to all: Inclusive teaching in
grades 4-12 (PP. 47-77). Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Lenz, B.K. & Ehren, B. (1999). The strategic content literacy
initiative: Focusing on reading in secondary schools. Stratenotes,
8.1. Retrieved June 1, 2005, from University of Kansas Center for
Research on Learning Web site: http://www.kucrl.org.
Lenz, B.K., Schumaker, J.B., Deshler, D.D., & Beals, V. (1984). The
learning strategies curriculum: The word identification strategy.
Lawrence: University of Kansas, Center for Research on Learning.
Lenz, B.K., with Bulgren, J.A., Schumaker, J.B., Deshler, D.D., &
Boudah, D.J. (1994). The unit organizer routine. Lawrence, KS: Edge
Enterprises.
Schumaker, J.B., Denton, P.H., & Deshler, D.D. (1984). The learning
strategies curriculum: The paraphrasing strategy. Lawrence:
University of Kansas, Center for Research on Learning.
Figure 2: The Content Literacy Continuum
A Framework for Guiding the Development of Schoolwide Literacy Services in Secondary Schools
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level of Instruction Teacher Actions Example Professional Competence
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level 1: Enhanced Content Teachers: (a) ensure Teachers use Content Teachers responsible
Instruction. mastery of critical Enhancement Routines for ensuring content
Goal: Students learn critical core content for all such as The Unit mastery must select
content required in the core students regardless of Organizer Routine to the critical content,
curriculum regardless of literacy levels by deliver content. learn how to enhance
literacy levels. leveraging the Teachers use standards- that content for
principles of based planning models mastery, and then
universal design in to target critical implement these
explicit teaching content that needs to enhancements through
routines, (b) ensure be enhanced. the use of explicit
that all students and sustained teaching
acquire the vocabulary routines. Special
and background service providers must
knowledge required for help core curriculum
basic literacy teachers provide this
associated with type of instruction.
comprehension and This facilitates a
communication through mindset in which
classwide instruction is
accommodations, delivered in ways that
individual students acquire
accommodations, or content information as
technology, and (c) well as active
respond to approaches to learning
increasingly complex and responding.
content demands
requiring strategic
manipulation of
content such as
categorizing,
developing analogies,
comparing,
questioning, or
evaluating.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level 2: Embedded Strategy From a small set of Teachers teach the Teachers adopt a
Instruction. powerful learning steps of a mindset that it is
Goal: Students are presented strategies, teachers paraphrasing strategy important to embed
opportunities to learn and apply a select one or two (RAP), regularly model instruction in
set of powerful learning strategies strategies that match its use, and then learning strategies
for improving literacy across core the specific demands embed paraphrasing within content-area
curriculum classes to learn critical needed to learn the activities in course instruction. Content
content. critical content in activities through the teachers learn a
their core curriculum year to create a shortened form of an
courses. Teachers use culture of ``reading Eight-Stage
direct explanation, to retell.'' Graphic Instructional Sequence
modeling, and group organizers (e.g., The for selected learning
practice to teach the Unit Organizer) strategies (e.g.,
strategy and then introduced as part of Paraphrasing, Self-
prompt student Level 1 instruction Questioning, etc.)
application and are used to model and that they can use to
practice in content- prompt paraphrasing of provide classwide
area assignments critical chunks of instruction. Teachers
throughout the school content. assist in the
year. For students generalization of
receiving more strategies that may
intensive strategy emerge from Level 1
instruction (Level 3), instructional
teachers assist them routines; these
in generalizing emerging strategies
strategy use to core may guide students in
curriculum courses. strategic approaches
Instruction in to content literacy
strategies is embedded demands such as making
across a number of comparisons,
instructional categorizing, or
settings, including questioning.
settings in which
tutoring is provided.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level 3: Intensive Strategy Special education Instructional options Special education and
Instruction. teachers, reading such as additional other support
Goal: Students who need more teachers, and other courses are created to personnel learn how to
intensive strategy instruction than support personnel systematically and provide intensive and
what can be provided through provide more intensive intensively teach explicit instruction,
embedded strategy instruction are instruction through learning strategies practice, and feedback
provided more intensive and explicit additional learning that students need to in specific learning
strategy instruction. experiences. These may meet course demands. strategies and the
be provided in the When core curriculum process of strategic
general education teachers notice tutoring that shows
classroom, in a students having students how to apply
pullout program, difficulty learning strategies as they
through the offering and using strategies complete assignments.
of a separate course, such as paraphrasing, Professional
or through beyond- they work with support development focuses on
school tutoring personnel to provide helping teachers learn
programs. Assessments more intensive the strategies and
for screening and instruction. course management
ongoing data-based competencies required
decision making are to provide the
put in place to help intensive instruction
identify students who required to ensure
may profit from these student mastery of
courses. These learning strategies.
students are generally
those who minimally
have developed the
decoding skills and
fluency levels
associated with
reading proficiency at
the third- to fourth-
grade level and need
to develop the
comprehension
strategies to
successfully meet the
reading demands of the
core curriculum.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level 4: Intensive Basic Skill Special education The staff develops Special education
Instruction. teachers, reading course options for teachers and reading
Goal: Students develop the specialists, and support services that specialists learn
foundational decoding, fluency, and speech-language directly address research-based
comprehension skills associated with pathologists team to deficits that cannot approaches to
K3 literacy through specialized, develop intensive and be addressed Through implement programs
direct, and intensive instruction. coordinated less intensive that develop
instructional efforts. Students foundational literacy
experiences designed still participate in skills and strategies
to address several the history class in students who read
literacy deficits. because the teacher is below a fourth-grade
Special education presenting content in level.
teachers and reading ways that take into
specialists will most consideration literacy
likely deliver these problems. Intensive
services. They also research-based
assist content programs, such as The
teachers in making Corrective Reading
appropriate Program, typically are
adaptations in content chosen.
instruction to
accommodate severe
literacy deficits.
Intensive instruction
in listening,
speaking, and writing
can also be part of
these services.
Services may be
delivered in a pullout
program, through the
offering of a separate
course, or through
beyond-school programs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level 5: Therapeutic Intervention.... Speech-language Students identified as Speech-language
Goal: Students with underlying pathologists learn language impaired may pathologists deliver
language disorders learn the curriculum-relevant have difficulty curriculum-relevant
linguistic, related cognitive, approaches to language learning The language therapy in
metalinguistic, and metacognitive therapy that interface Paraphrasing Strategy. collaboration with
underpinnings they need to acquire with other intensive They may need support special education and
content literacy skills and intervention provided to provide more other support
strategies. to students. Speech- language-sensitive personnel who are
language pathologists instruction or teaching literacy.
and special education clinical intervention Speech-language
teachers learn to delivered by speech- pathologists
collaborate to provide language pathologists collaborate with
coordinated and who can address the special education
integrated services. linguistic and teachers to assist
metalinguistic content teachers in
underpinnings of the making appropriate
Paraphrasing Strategy modifications or
(RAP) and the academic accommodations in
content. content instruction to
address the needs of
students with language
disorders. Speech-
language pathologists
work with special
education teachers to
help students with
language disorders
acquire learning
strategies.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Whereupon, at 4:35 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]