Collaborative for Teaching and Learning

Dr. Linda F. Hargan, President and CEO

VOLUME 2, ISSUE 1

JANUARY 2003

IN THIS ISSUE...Meeting Performance Targets
	ESEA: What the Law Says|Issues & Updates| Best Practices| How We Can Help| Recommended Reading|NCLB Resources
SUBSCRIBE/ UNSUBSCRIBE	CTL Privacy Policy

WHAT THE LAW SAYS

The following is a brief summary of what the law says regarding consequences for low-performing schools/school improvement.

Low-Performing Schools/School Improvement

For school districts receiving Title I funds, ESEA/NCLB includes requirements for setting a timeline and establishing consequences for school and district performance related to Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) as follows:

• Schools that fail to meet the state AYP standard for two consecutive years must be identified as needing improvement. Technical assistance must be provided and public school choice offered to their students by the next school year (unless prohibited by law).
• Schools that fail to make AYP for three consecutive years must offer students from low-income families the opportunity to obtain instruction from a supplemental service provider of their choice.
• Schools that fail to make AYP for four consecutive years must take one or more of a series of specified "corrective actions" that include: replacing school staff, implementing a new curriculum, decreasing management authority at the school level, appointing an outside expert to advise the school, extending the school day or school year, or changing the school's internal organizational structure.
• Schools that fail to meet AYP for five consecutive years must be restructured, that is, reopening as a charter school, replacing school staff, a state takeover of the school or some other form of major governance restructuring.
• Procedures for schools failing to meet AYP are analogous for school districts.

ISSUES & UPDATES

The table below illustrates the ways in which the state of Kentucky is striving to increase student performance and achievement and how these strategies differ from the requirements of the new ESEA/NCLB legislation.

RAISING STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT LEVELS
KENTUCKY	FEDERAL
Student testing in reading, math, writing, science, social studies, vocational studies, arts & humanities	Student testing in reading, language arts, math
Annual testing, grades 3-11 but not in every subject	Annual testing in math and reading
Individual goals set for each school in the state	Same goal for all schools or one goal each for elementary, middle and high
Composite score with rewards for incremental student gains	Pass-fail method based on whether sub-groups meet specified standards
Goals set and schools judged every two years based on accumulated data	Schools judged and scores reported annually
Schools accountable for each child enrolled when tests are given	Schools accountable for students enrolled since the beginning of the school year

[Source: More Kentucky Schools at Risk Under Mandates, Lexington Herald-Leader, November 2002]

BEST PRACTICES

Achieving School Improvement

The Kentucky Education Reform Act addresses a number of the provisions of ESEA/NCLB to help schools that are struggling to meet performance targets. Two examples follow.

• Extended School Services - Extending the school day allows schools to reexamine how they apply their instructional time, and to plan and implement specific interventions that are based on documented need. Schools provide additional support for students who need enhanced learning opportunities to master Core Content for Assessment.
• Highly Skilled Educators - By appointing an outside expert to provide leadership and advice, the school is able to further analyze its needs, plan for improvement efforts, and build internal capacity to sustain improvement after external intervention ceases.

Still, a number of Kentucky schools have not made sufficient progress in raising overall achievement or reducing the percentage of students performing at the lowest levels. With the addition of the new requirements under ESEA/NCLB for different sub-populations (e.g., race/ethnicity, social class, language group, disability) to make progress, the need becomes even greater for schools to build the capacity to be self-improving and self-sustaining.

Building School Capacity for Improvement

Documents like the KDE's Standards and Indicators for School Improvement (SISI) tell schools where they need to be in order to meet reform goals. What these documents do not clarify is how schools go about becoming an effective environment for learning, and more skilled at helping students learn and perform well. Following is a brief description of an improvement structure that can build long-term capacity for change in schools. It has four components: Core Leadership, Rigorous Standards, Learning Culture, and Continuous Progress.

1. Core Leadership is the development of internal leadership whereby all members of the school community take leadership roles in developing and maintaining the common purpose and vision for the school. This can be described as the common understandings, beliefs, and values that the school holds, manifested in the actions in which faculty members regularly engage. Providing sustained professional learning opportunities focused on attributes and actions of leaders will build internal capacity to sustain positive change over time.
   
2. Rigorous Standards brings together understanding of and expectations for learning. First, it is critical for teachers to understand deeply the core content for assessment in order to be successful in planning instruction. In addition, teachers must clearly understand the level of expectations they should hold for ongoing student learning. Only when classroom practice is consistent with state standards and expectations will students have a realistic opportunity to excel. In schools that are struggling to make progress, it is critical that teachers have regular opportunities to engage in conversation and new learning about standards and appropriate expectations for student work.
   
3. Learning Culture refers to the norms and expectations that characterize a school. The culture describes the way the school functions for the adults and the students. A culture where continuous improvement is expected holds high expectations for the growth of teachers and students, and provides support mechanisms for both groups to meet those expectations. In such a culture, actions and decisions are intentional and aimed at meeting the learning targets of the school, a key factor if schools are to meet the Adequate Yearly Progress requirements of ESEA/NCLB.
   
4. Continuous Progress focuses on the development and use of ongoing assessment strategies to inform daily practice. For many teachers assessment is merely a summative activity, and for still others it is an activity that is external to their work. For teachers to be responsive to student needs, they must constantly assess all student interactions, processes, and products. In this way, teachers can make well-informed decisions about necessary next steps for student learning, as well as use the evidence they gather to reflect on and improve the quality of their own practice. Exposing teachers to a variety of systems, models, and structures for continuous assessment supports them in fully integrating an emphasis on continuous progress into their teaching.

These four components, or capacities, interact with each other to help move a school toward reform. For example, Rigorous Standards influence teacher planning and when coupled with Continuous Progress, assist teachers in determining whether students are in fact meeting these standards. Moreover, the Learning Culture provides a context for teachers to help students meet Rigorous Standards. Core Leadership supports all three of these capacities, since without a unifying vision and persistent action to reach that vision, increases in student learning will not occur.

Developing the four capacities is critical to the long-term success of any school and/or district. In an effort to support this key work of schools, the Collaborative offers courses of study focused on each capacity. For more information about these courses of study, contact Christie Maloney .

Amy Lynne Awbrey (bio) is research and design coordinator and Deborah Walker (bio) is senior vice president for the Collaborative for Teaching and Learning.

WE CAN HELP

The Collaborative is currently developing professional development tools to help educators meet ESEA/NCLB requirements. All courses of study, available summer 2003, can be further customized based on individual school or district need. For additional information, please contact Dr. Deborah Walker.

New Products
Developing a Balanced Literacy Approach in the Elementary Classroom	Engaging in comprehensive student-centered literacy: 1 year school-level course of study, including formal training, on-site coaching, and classroom modeling
Leading in a Standards-Based Environment	Developing skills and strategies for instructional leaders: 1 year district-level course of study, including formal training, coaching, and school visits
Reading and Writing to Learn in the Middle School	Developing a comprehensive cross-disciplinary literacy program: 2 year school- or district-level course of study, including formal training and coaching
Gathering Evidence of Student Learning	Assessing student performance to assure student progress
Closing the Achievement Gap	Strategies for closing the achievement gap, collecting and analyzing data, and expanding instructional practices

The following products and services are currently being offered by the Collaborative for Teaching and Learning to build on whole school quality and performance:

Existing Products and Services
Different Ways of Knowing	Arts-infused practices to insure success for all learners
Learning Xpress™	Software and training to design lessons/units
Standards Based Teaching & Learning	Solid framework for continuous improvement
Accelerated Schools Project	Whole faculty involvement to insure powerful learning

For additional information on the Collaborative's programs, please visit our website or contact Christie Maloney

RECOMMENDED READING

Policy Brief: Low Performing Schools

by Kirstin Craciun and Ravay Snow-Renner

The Price of Accountability

An excerpt from Bridging the Gap Between Standards and Achievement: The Imperative for Professional Development in Education by Richard Elmore, professor, Graduate School of Education, Harvard University and senior research fellow, Consortium for Policy Research in Education, and The Albert Shanker Institute, November 2002

NCLB RESOURCES

Schools in Need of Improvement by State

Public School Choice: Draft Guidance

FEEDBACK

The Collaborative for Teaching and Learning is a non-profit, tax exempt corporation founded in 1994 to assist schools in the implementation of comprehensive school reform. Please feel free to contact any of the Collaborative's officers for additional information on the organization and its work.

Dr. Linda F. Hargan/President and CEO

Dr. Deborah Walker/Senior Vice President

Mr. Dennis Horn/Vice President, Resource Development and Communications

Ms. Christie Maloney/Vice President, Programs

Collaborative for Teaching and Learning
Spring River Business Park 2303 River Road Suite 100 Louisville KY 40206 1010
Phone 502 895 9500 Toll Free 800 995 3965 Fax 502 895 9521 Email info@ctlonline.org
www.ctlonline.org