Common Threads Found Among Schools Closing Achievement Gaps

By Jaynae Laine and Debbie Hicks(*)

From Foresight, No. 51
published 2008

Selection Process

An Achievement Gap Team from the Kentucky Department of Education (KDE) reviewed progress data from elementary, middle, and high schools to identify schools that had closed achievement gaps in one or more of the populations identified in Senate Bill 168 (i.e., gender, disabilities, limited English proficiency, African American, and low socioeconomic status). The team used the same criteria established for the 2004-05 and 2005-06 studies to identify schools that had successfully closed achievement gaps by achieving goals such as:

• Showed sustained evidence of whole-school improvement for a minimum of six years (increase in academic index for all students);
• Made adequate yearly progress and not in-school improvement;
• Closed achievement gap(s) in one or more of the specific populations in reading and/or mathematics by at least 10 points;
• Met or exceeded state accountability indices (84.7 for elementary, 77 for middle, 75 for high); and
• Closed gap in 60 percent of the content areas for the identified population.

Using the Minority Student Achievement goals established by KDE as a guide, reviewers were asked to document a school’s processes/practices, programs, people, policies, and the physical environment that assisted them in successfully closing achievement gaps. The documentation included: interviews with principals, central office staff, teachers, students, parents, and school leadership team members; reviews of Comprehensive School Improvement Plans, School-Based Decision-Making policies, Kentucky Performance Reports, local assessment data; and observation in the school.

Each team completed the documentation, prepared narratives, and submitted summary reports to Achievement Gap Team leaders. The reports were then analyzed to determine what individual practices, policies, and strategies contributed to a school’s success in closing a specific achievement gap. These summaries were compiled and commonalities across all of the schools selected for this process were identified. These shared practices comprise the major findings from this study, which should serve as best practices for schools seeking to close gaps.

The schools recommended to be a resource to assist schools with similar demographics in closing their gaps are listed in the following table. (Not all schools that were initially identified based solely on the criteria were selected following the on-site visits.)

Table: Kentucky Schools Closing the Achievement Gaps in Specific Populations, 2006-2007

Findings

Findings from the 2006-07 visits were similar to those from prior years. Reviewers found that the presence of a positive school culture and climate was a common thread in schools they observed, evidenced in multiple ways. However, many schools conducted no intentional, open discussion about the issues of race and achievement. Documented commonalities among the successful schools included:

• Schools demonstrated a positive school culture and acceptance of responsibility for cultural responsiveness to students and staff.
• Leadership, staff, students, and community stated they liked, valued, and enjoyed being a part of their school.
• Schools cited vision, mission, values, and goals centered on student achievement through improved curriculum and effective instruction, high expectations, accountability, and an “ALL means ALL” mentality.
• There was a collective purpose to ensure that each and every student would be successful.
• Teachers openly talked about ownership of all their students’ learning.
• The schools evidenced strong leadership—formal and informal. Opportunities for collaborative decisionmaking were planned and provided, even if minimal.
• Leadership in each of the schools went beyond the traditional principal as manager to include teachers as leaders in curriculum, assessment and instruction. Leadership was participatory.

In an effort to improve learning and academic performance, schools identified several processes to enhance effectiveness:

• Schools cited vertical and horizontal planning as commonplace and routine. To achieve this, some had to reorganize planning periods.
• Reviewers observed high levels of collaboration, shared leadership, and collegiality.
• Schools consistently cited ongoing assessment and multiple assessments as essential to effective planning and instructional content.
• Many schools “mined” their data down to the individual student while others analyzed all students as well as data within specific groups.
• Some schools intentionally focused on gaps while others focused on individual student achievement.
• Teachers and leaders understood the necessity of knowing exactly where the student is functioning day to day in order to effectively plan future instruction and support for each student.
• All of the schools had strong emphasis on Core Content and Program of Studies with an increased focus on reading and math.

No particular model was employed by all of the schools examined; however, all had an intentional focus on reading and mathematics. Both district and school planning focused on reading and math with some purchasing specific models (i.e. Thoughtful Education, Successful Schools Network, etc.). Intensive data analysis also has helped drive many of the schools in the direction of one model or another. The majority of the schools have incorporated the use of technology as a part of everyday instruction and learning. Some were using Smart Boards/Active Boards for instructional purposes. Others expected students to create PowerPoint or other computer-based media to illustrate and evidence learning.

Reviewers observed positive, respectful, mutual relationships among leadership, staff, students, parents, and community. Additionally:

• Schools and stakeholders publicly celebrated and supported student effort and achievement. This was evidenced throughout the schools in displays of student work, community and district support, and general conversations with staff, parents, and stakeholders.
• The physical environment was safe, organized, and clean.
• Schools noted and reviewers observed a high rate of parent participation and volunteerism. The school also, when appropriate, provided additional support and resources to the families of students.
• Schools noted that students with disabilities were not viewed as separate but a part of the general population. Resource rooms were used minimally with a strong emphasis on inclusion and collaboration to ensure access to general curriculum and rigor. Expectations were high for special education students and teachers, parents, and staff stated how students were meeting the expectations.
• Teachers accepted responsibility for all students. If a child was not reaching mastery, regardless of his or her needs, a collective focus and process was in place to meet the child’s needs.
• Leadership at the district and school levels discussed the design of professional development that was based on the needs of the individual school and its students as identified through the Comprehensive School Improvement Plan.
• Professional development was a process that was intentional, ongoing, and systemic with a correlation to student achievement. Some teachers reported a freedom and expectation by leadership to seek professional development for professional growth.

Leadership was observed throughout the schools. Teachers were encouraged and expected to assume leadership roles for increased and sustained schoolwide improvement and student achievement. Collective analysis of data and decisionmaking among staff and stakeholders were frequent and ongoing. Across all of the schools, districts and schools made sure that resources were provided based on the needs of the students. The district provided teachers with the resources they needed to meet their students’ needs. In addition, the district leadership was visible in the school and a valuable resource to the staff. Beyond monetary resources, leadership ensured time and other resources were available to staff.

Sharing Findings Statewide

The findings from these site visits and the schools recommended as resources have been shared with districts and schools via:

1. e-mails to superintendents and principals;
2. postings on the KDE website; and
3. an article in the Instructional Supervisors’ Network (ISN) communication.

Notes

*  Jaynae Laine and Debbie Hicks are with the Division of Federal Programs and Instructional Equity within the Kentucky Department of Education. Return to text.