Heading Toward a Long-term, Systemic Solution
A Boston Globe editorial stated that for "40 years,
study after study on grade retention has reached the same conclusion: Failing a
student, particularly in the critical ninth grade year, is the single largest
predictor of whether he or she drops out" (Edley, 2002). The editorial
goes on to state that "widespread retention further exacerbates the
achievement gap: In Massachusetts, for example, across all grades,
African-American and Hispanics are retained at over three times the rate of
whites" (Edley, 2002).
According to research (Anderson, Jimerson and Whipple, 2002;
NASP, 2003; Jimerson, Anderson and Whipple, 2002; Stenovich, 1994), some of the
devastating effects of retention are:
- Most children do not "catch up" when held back.
- Although some retained students do better at first, these
children often fall behind again in later grades.
- Retention is one of the most powerful predictors of high
school dropout; holding a child back twice makes dropping out of school 90%
certain.
- In 2001, 6th-grade students ranked grade retention as the
most stressful life event, followed by losing a parent and going blind.
- Students who are held back tend to get into trouble,
dislike school, and feel bad about themselves more often than children who go
on to the next grade.
- The weakened self-esteem that usually accompanies
retention plays a role in how well the child may cope in the future.
Far too many students simply give up on school, largely
because they feel that their schools have already given up on them. Even our
special education services are failure-based. "The current system uses an
antiquated model that waits for a child to fail, instead of a model based on
prevention and intervention " (U.S. Department of Education, Office of
Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, 2002).
It doesn’t have to be that way.
So, what can we do?
Many advocates for early identification of student needs in
order to apply appropriate instructional strategies (Anderson, Whipple and
Jimerson, 2002; U. S. Department of Education, 2002; Lyon and Fletcher, 2001;
Lyon, 2002). That is clearly a step in the right direction.
But not all teachers are effective at identifying student
needs and applying instructional strategies that are the most appropriate for
student needs. A study conducted by Sanders and Rivers (1996) examined the
cumulative and residual effects of teachers on student achievement and found a wide chasm between the impact on student achievement by effective teachers and
ineffective teachers. Equally performing second graders were separated by as
many as 50 percentile points on standardized tests by the time they reached
fifth grade solely as a result of being taught by teachers whose effectiveness
varied greatly.
The study was based on Tennessee's "value-added"
testing system that maintained year-to-year test records on every student in
the public-school system and matched students to their teachers. Teachers were
divided into three groups – low, average, and high – based on their students'
performance. The results showed the dramatic effect of good teaching on student
achievement in two urban districts. There was a sharp difference in performance
between students who had three teachers rated "low" and three
teachers who were rated "high" during a three-year period. Although
students in one of the urban systems performed at a higher level than the
other, the pattern of "teacher-added value" was evident in both
systems. The study also found that African American students were about twice
as likely to be assigned, ineffective teachers.
What we now know
What action can we take to ensure that all teachers are
functioning at a level that optimizes the highest levels of student learning?
Scientific research from multiple fields is allowing us to
understand how learning takes place, what it looks like when it isn't, and
which interventions or instructional strategies will result in the greatest
impact on student learning. Evidence-based research, for example, has found new
ways to help young children become proficient readers. Over the last ten years,
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) at the
National Institutes of Health (NIH) has conducted extensive scientific reading
research studies. To date, 42,062 children have been included in these studies
at 44 sites across the United States. The reading research sites are classrooms
in public schools, including inner-city, high poverty, high-risk schools. In
even the most difficult inner-city, high-risk schools in cities such as
Washington D.C., Houston, Los Angeles and Seattle, at the end of five years of
intensive teacher training on how to deliver scientific evidence-based reading
instruction, 94 to 96% of all third graders were reading on grade level. Prior
to this intervention, approximately 70% of the third graders the Washington
D.C. schools were reading below grade level. The research studies include a
strong emphasis on teacher coursework, observation, consultation, and
collaboration. (Thomas, 2002)
Yet this new knowledge is not being utilized by every
district, every school, and every teacher in every classroom. Thus, it is
critical to promote these new methods throughout the education system.
Transferring and translating the knowledge gained in studies
into scientifically based classroom practices is a complex undertaking.
Effective teaching that leaves no child behind requires teachers to have a
skillset that is tremendously intricate, sophisticated and based upon
converging scientific evidence. Highly effective teachers continually monitor
pupil progress and then design (and re-design) lessons that meet the specific,
individualized needs of each student (Lyon and Thomas, 2003; Bennett and
Rolheiser, 2001). Teachers, therefore, must be provided with state-of-the-art
ongoing, continuous professional development delivered by experts. Teacher
learning at the school level must be carefully supported by a consistent and
systematic flow of correct information and instruction from experts, especially
in low performing schools, in order to prevent the dissemination of
misinformation in these groups.
If we know that teacher quality makes a decided difference
in the quality of student learning, it seems both logical and ethical to focus
investments in improving teacher quality across the board. State-, district-
and school-wide intense professional development for current teachers and an ongoing comprehensive redesign of university teacher preparation for aspiring
teachers should become our strategic priorities.
The National Staff Development Council (NSDC) has developed
and revised a set of standards for staff development that is directly linked to
increased student achievement (NSDC, 2001). The standards provide a framework
for ensuring that staff development is responsive to the needs of educators and
their students. NSDC groups the standards around context, process and content.
The NSDC standards move away from the workshop "sit and get"
staff development models and into serious learning. The reason is
straightforward: workshops by themselves do not get the results we desire
(Joyce and Showers, 2002). To reach maximum effectiveness, a staff development
model must include both presentation and follow-up support in order to ensure
improvement. Follow-up must be planned and adequately funded. According to
NSDC, some experts believe that 50% of the resources set aside for staff
development initiatives should be directed to follow-up.
Options for follow-up support include coaching, modelling
and demonstration lessons, peer visits, collegial support groups, mentoring
study groups, and audiotaping or videotaping learners. Follow up strategies
enable teachers to focus on the new skills and their impact on students, and
move from skill attainment on an imitative or re-synthesizing level to
extendible, manipulable, and innovative levels that allow them to problem-solve
real-time, real-world, unpredictable problems that occur in classrooms filled
with diverse learners (Joyce and Showers, 2002.)
The differences in the three levels of impact in the chart
below, as they apply to a training model, are thus: Level I - Understanding
Concepts; Level II - Skill Attainment (can follow a recipe); and Level III –
Application of Innovative Problem Solving (able to change the recipe like a
master chef to fit the needs of diverse students).
Paul Pastorek, former president of the Louisiana Board of
Elementary and Secondary Education sums it up: "Research says the most
important link to student success is having highly knowledgeable and skilled
teachers in the classroom. We have not provided our teachers with enough
information on how children learn and what it takes to learn to read. Equipping
teachers with that new knowledge will allow them to reap the rewards they want
for the children they teach." (Thomas, 2002).
Dennis Sparks, NSDC's executive director, issued a challenge
in 2002: Within five years, all teachers will have access to high quality
professional development. If it is to be met, the challenge will require active
commitment and support from educators, policymakers, parents, and community
members alike.
But we cannot stop there. In order to be successful, and in
order to sustain and institutionalize our efforts, leadership that understands
and provides the context and infrastructure necessary for teacher and student
success must be developed at the university, district, school and classroom
levels. If leaders are to cultivate a deep understanding of the complex
conditions that must be in place to develop such a model, they must also be
involved in learning the complexities of what teachers must master.
Michael Fullan argues that this will require that school
principals reach beyond instructional leadership. "Some school districts
have embraced the development and support of the school principal as
instructional leader (Fink & Resnick, 2001), but despite these good
beginnings, the principal as an instructional leader is too narrow a concept to
carry the weight of the reforms that we need for the future. We need, instead,
leaders who can create a fundamental transformation in the learning cultures of
schools and the teaching profession itself" (Fullan, 2002a).
Fullan (2002b) also cautions that school leadership must
become change leaders, and clarifies that being a change leader is very
different from being a content expert: "There is a difference between
being an expert in the content of innovation vs. being an expert in the
change process. In other words, it is possible to be a leading expert in
literacy for example, while being a disaster as a change agent in getting it
implemented. In our training, we teach people about the process of change – how
to understand and work with 'the implementation dip', the importance of
developing relationships with others not so committed to the idea, how not to
get frustrated by overload and the pace of change, etc. Understanding the
vicissitudes of the change process are key to working on large scale change."
It seems, then, that in order to dramatically reduce grade
retention, remedial services, referrals to special education and school dropout
rates, we must build both the teacher and leadership capacity that is
necessary for widespread implementation of scientific, research-based
instruction that we know works in the classroom. Thus, the objectives:
- Identify and put into place all critical contextual
conditions necessary to implement research-based instruction that we know works
in the classroom.
- Develop, implement, test and refine models that will guide
both preservice education and training for teachers as well as continuing
education for teachers currently serving students in the classroom.
- Develop, implement, test and refine models for building
educational leaders at the university/college level, the district level, the
school level and the classroom level.
Time is ticking. With children's lives at stake and
especially our most vulnerable children, we cannot afford to keep doing
business as usual. We know too much to leave even one child behind.
Teachers and school leaders need, want and deserve to have
the support and tools they need to produce optimum success in their classrooms.
With serious focus and resolve, we must pick up the gauntlet and accept Dennis
Sparks' challenge to ensure that all educators in all schools will experience
high-quality professional development by 2007. Highly effective, highly
equipped teachers in every classroom can fundamentally wipe away the need for
even a discussion on grade retention and special education services based on
failure.
Comments