Each month, Special Report summarizes a recent research study (or several studies related to the same topic) containing findings of importance to Educational Leadership readers. The purpose of this column is not to endorse or refute the conclusions of the study or studies summarized, but rather to keep readers informed about timely research that may significantly influence education policy and practice.
What can we do to help the students who arrive in high school lagging far behind their peers? The Education Trust attempts to answer this question in its new report Gaining Traction, Gaining Ground: How Some High Schools Accelerate Learning for Struggling Students.
During the 2004–2005 school year, researchers at the Education Trust studied four schools that they had identified as exceptionally successful at improving the performance of struggling students: Jack Britt High School in Fayetteville, North Carolina; Los Altos High School in Hacienda Heights, California; East Montgomery High School in Biscoe, North Carolina; and Farmville Central High School in Farmville, North Carolina. Each of these high-impact schools served a large proportion of low-income or minority students. All the schools had at least average overall performance on their states' math and reading assessments (although they were not among the highest-performing schools in their states). More significantly, each of the four schools was making greater-than-expected gains on these state assessments (according to growth criteria determined by the two states) with the subgroup of students who began high school furthest behind.
Characteristics of High-Impact Schools
To find out what practices enabled these schools to accelerate learning for struggling students, the researchers made extensive classroom observations; conducted student and teacher focus groups; surveyed administrators, teachers, and students; and collected data and materials on schedules, student transcripts, assignments, and so on. The researchers then compared the four high-impact schools with three demographically similar average-impactschools that were producing more typical results among low-performing students. The study found significant differences in the practices of these two sets of schools.
Culture. High-impact high schools had a culture of high expectations. Policy documents focused on academics; school practices were geared toward preparing students for college and careers; and teachers and administrators consistently stressed achievement and either embraced external standards or created their own. In contrast, at average-impact schools, practices paid more attention to merely enabling students to graduate; official policy documents focused on rules; and teachers' attitudes about external standards were lukewarm.
Academic core. In high-impact schools, educators took responsibility for helping all students succeed. They removed barriers to high-level courses and encouraged students to take on academic challenges. They used assessment data to plan for the future and improve the curriculum. In average-impact schools, students had to jump more hurdles to gain access to the most challenging courses. These schools tended to use data primarily to measure past student performance.
Support. Both sets of schools provided extra instructional time in English and math for students who started 9th grade far behind their peers. But high-impact schools provided that help in a way that kept students on track with college-preparatory requirements. They identified struggling students early and required them to get the help they needed. Counselors took an active role in monitoring student performance and arranging help where needed. Average-impact schools often offered students extra help but made it optional; provided remedial help after students had fallen further behind; and provided that extra help in a way that delayed students' entry into grade-level courses.
Teachers. High-impact schools established teaching assignments to meet the needs of students; average-impact schools tended to determine assignments by staff seniority and teacher preferences. High-impact schools' support for new teachers focused on instruction and curriculum, whereas support in average-impact schools was more personal and social. High-impact schools reduced class sizes to provide more attention for struggling students, even if it meant larger classes for other students; in average-impact schools, class size was more uniform. Principals of high-impact schools had more control over teacher hiring than did principals of average-impact schools.
Time and other resources. Although all the schools claimed to protect academic time, high-impact schools used instructional time more efficiently and deliberately. For example, students who entered 9th grade lagging behind in high-impact schools spent a larger portion of their time in “college-prep” courses than did students in average-impact schools, who were more likely to be found in “support” or “remedial” courses.
Fragile Progress
The Education Trust study concluded that there are many distinctions, sometimes subtle, between the practices of schools that accelerate the growth of struggling students and the practices of schools that do not. As the report noted, these distinctions are also sometimes fragile. One of the four high-impact schools was not able to maintain its elevated status and had slipped to “expected-growth” by the following year—probably as a result of losing several key staff members. Despite this caveat, the researchers hope that the common ranges of practices shared by the high-impact schools will “be of particular interest to schools that receive large numbers of below-grade-level students and want to accelerate their learning.”
