|
'Inside The Black Box Of High-Performing High-Poverty Schools' (2005) by Kannapel, P. J., & Clements, S. K., with Taylor, D., & Hibpshman, T.
Published by Prichard Committee for Academic Excellence, Lexington, KY Although public schools are responsible for educating all students, they historically have had greater success educating middle-to-upper income and white students than poor and minority students. Nearly all the worst-performing schools in Kentucky and across the nation are high-poverty schools. But there are also striking exceptions to the pattern of low income/low performance. There are enough schools that defy the trend to prove that the background of the student body does not have to determine achievement results.
The research detailed in the following pages adds to growing evidence on high-performing, high-poverty schools by looking closely at the practices of a small number of such schools across Kentucky. Using the standardized school audit instrument developed by the state Department of Education, researchers sought to answer two questions:
- What common characteristics that seem to contribute to high student performance are shared by a set of high-performing, highpoverty schools?
- What characteristics and practices differentiate a set of high-performing, high-poverty schools with a small achievement gap from similar high-poverty schools that are neither high-performing nor have a small achievement gap?
Of 26 eligible schools, eight elementary schools were chosen for the study:
- Brodhead Elementary, Rockcastle County
- Cuba Elementary, Graves County
- Drakesboro Consolidated Elementary, Muhlenberg County
- Lincoln Elementary, Jefferson County
- Lost River Elementary, Warren County
- McFerran Preparatory Academy, Jefferson County
- Morgan Elementary, Paducah Independent
- Oak Grove Elementary, Whitley County
The schools were selected based on the following criteria:
- 50 percent or more of students on free/reduced lunch
- State accountability index (a combination of academic and non-academic indicators) of 80 or higher in 2003
- State academic index (a composite of academic test scores) of 75 or higher for minority students and students on free/reduced lunch
- Progress on the state test over time
- An achievement gap of fewer than 15 points between low and middle income students and between white and African American students
- A range of types and locations of schools, such as urban/rural and geographic areas
The audits were conducted by state-trained teams that spent a week in each of the schools and prepared a report on their fi ndings. The project researchers visited the study schools, interviewed the audit team members after the audits were completed, and conducted follow-up interviews with the school principals. In addition, audit results for the eight study schools were compared to audit results for eight low-performing schools that previously had been audited by the state. Findings in this report are based on the audit results and comparisons as well as what the researchers and audit team members observed during their school visits and on what the principals said during the interviews.
The Findings
Audit results and comparisons. The eight study schools generally received high ratings on the audit, scoring highest in the areas of school culture and student, family, and community support. When audit results were compared to those of low-performing, high-poverty schools, the eight study schools scored significantly higher on:
- Review and alignment of curriculum
- Individual student assessment and instruction tailored to individual student needs
- Caring, nurturing environment of High Expectations for students
- Ongoing Professional Development for staff that was connected to student achievement data
- Efficient use of resources and instructional time
Common Characteristics
The eight schools shared a number of characteristics, including:
- High expectations that were communicated in concrete ways:
Principals held high expectations for faculty and staff, who held high expectations for themselves and the students. There was a strong belief that all students could succeed academically and that faculty and staff were capable of making this happen.
The caring, nurturing atmosphere in each of the schools related closely to high expectations. Respectful relationships were observed among adults, between adults and students, and among students.
- Academic, instructional focus:
All eight schools had a strong focus on academics, instruction, and student learning.
All of the schools paid close attention to their performance on state assessments, but the results from the state test were just a starting point. Each school had a system in place to regularly assess the progress of individual students and to plan or change instruction to meet the students' needs.
- Leadership and decision-making:
Leadership styles varied greatly at the schools, but all shared a collaborative decision-making process. None of the schools had an authoritarian or dictatorial leader, and faculty and staff were involved in making most key decisions.
- Faculty work ethic and morale:
The faculty and staff worked very hard to meet their students' needs, regularly analyzing data on individual students and planning appropriate instruction or interventions. They helped families and students find transportation, clothing, health care, and other services, and they worked After school and on weekends to provide help with tutoring, portfolios, assessment preparation, or parent programs. They did this work with enthusiasm and dedication; there were no reports of overload or teacher burnout.
- Teacher recruitment, hiring, and assignment:
A contributing factor to the high morale and overall success of the schools was the careful and intentional manner in which teachers were recruited, hired, and assigned.
The audits of the eight highperforming schools showed little difference.
from http://www.prichardcommittee.org/Ford%20Study/FordReportJE.pdf
|
Good Ideas 
