For any school improvement effort to be successful, teaching and learning – “the instructional core” – must be the North Star (Cohen and Ball, 1999). The Council of the Great City Schools (2015) found that the most improved schools were able to clearly articulate how instruction was going to be transformed, how professional learning was linked to this transformation, and how external partners would support the school in these efforts.
Not just any instructional interventions will work in low performing schools. The interventions must be research-based and match students’ needs. The Alliance for Excellent Education (2017), writes: “Just as a doctor’s prescribed course of treatment fails if the patient’s condition has been diagnosed incorrectly, a school intervention will fail if it addresses the wrong problem. The school needs assessment is the diagnosis, and the [School Improvement Plan] sets out the treatment.” (p.2) An effective needs assessment helps schools determine their most critical challenges so they can identify interventions that research indicates will help them overcome those challenges.
The research literature indicates that when intentional practices for instructional transformation are well-implemented, school improvement has a better chance of success. These practices include:
- defined expectations for rigorous and consistent instruction
- increased instruction time and individualized tutoring or small group instruction integrated into core subject areas
- increased time for teacher collaboration to review and coordinate their strategies
- professional learning to build instructional capacity
- teacher evaluations with constructive and customized feedback linked to professional development (Anrig, 2015; Council of the Great City Schools, 2015; Lane, Unger, & Stein, 2016).
As mentioned in the previous article on leadership, relying on collaborative teacher teams rather than individuals is the best approach to accelerate instructional improvement (Allensworth and Hart, 2018). Teams of teachers develop collective instructional expertise that can benefit students across many classrooms. Schools with structured forums for professional learning and engagement are better able to increase student achievement (Bryk, Sebring, Allensworth, Easton, Luppescu 2010; Leana, 2011).
Practitioners and researchers highlight that, in addition to leveraging the power of teacher teams for instructional improvement, customized feedback (via peers, coaches, external partners, and administrators) for individual teachers is crucial. Specific and precise feedback can help individual teachers implement effective instructional strategies in low performing schools (Lane, Unger, and Stein, 2016; Sun, Penner and Loeb, 2018). In the absence of feedback coupled with support (e.g. planning, modeling, practicing, guided reflection), teachers may struggle to adopt new instructional practices in isolation.
School improvement research finds that most successful turnaround efforts involve intentional use of data to improve instruction and an increased use of data to monitor the progress of instructional interventions (Anrig, 2015; Player, Hambrick Hitt, & Robinson, 2014). Teams of educators in successful school transformations utilize data for four key purposes: to pinpoint the specific needs of struggling students, to target professional learning, to identify intervention strategies, and to adapt and improve their interventions over time (The Council of the Great City Schools, 2015; Lane, Unger, & Stein, 2016).
Evidence also suggests that some focus on students’ nonacademic needs also is critical, including efforts to ensure a safe and well-organized school climate, and social and emotional supports to ensure readiness for learning (Anrig, 2015; Lane, Unger, & Stein, 2016). As a recent study of the School Improvement Grant program concludes:
To the extent that the failure of low performing schools reflects the challenges that disadvantaged students bring to the classroom, and not simply poor leadership or instruction, more attention to those challenges may be necessary in the form, for example, of health clinics, counselors, or mental health specialists. Moreover, disadvantaged students need effective teachers and within-school structures of academic and social support to succeed. (Heissel and Ladd, 2018, p. 315).
As with instructional interventions, successful non-academic supports also must be research-based and fit the needs and capacity of the school.
Finally, there are two important roles that states and districts should play to support instructional transformation in low performing schools. The first is to insist that schools implement interventions with strong evidence of success and support their efforts to identify research-based practices, but stop short of prescribing a specific intervention (Alliance for Excellent Education, 2017; Herman, 2017). Second, states and districts also should provide an effective instructional infrastructure, including clear curriculum guidance, high-quality curriculum-aligned assessments, a data system to track implementation progress and measure student outcomes, and access to interim student data via user-friendly data tools. (Center on School Turnaround, 2014; CST 2018).
This is part of a series of articles detailing and providing examples from each of these components. Other articles in the series:
- Overview
- Supporting Structures and Systems
- Culture Shifts
- Turnaround Leadership
- Instructional Transformation
- Talent Management
By Bradford R. White, Interim Director, Illinois Education Research Council (IERC) and David Osta.
Allensworth E. and Hart, H. (March 12, 2018). How Do Principals Influence Student Achievement? Education Week. Retrieved from http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/urban_education_reform/2018/03/how_do_principals_influence_student_achievement.html?cmp=eml-enl-eu-news3&M=58412030&U=84558.
Alliance for Excellent Education (2017). School Interventions That Work: Targeted Support for Low-Performing Students. Retrieved from https://all4ed.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/SchoolInterventions.pdf.
Anrig, G. (2015). Lessons from school improvement grants that worked. The Century Foundation. Retrieved from: http://www.tcf.org/blog/detail/lessons-from-schoolimprovement-grants-that-worked.
Bryk, A. S., Sebring, P. B., Allensworth, E., Easton, J., & Luppescu, S. (2010). Organizing Schools for Improvement: Lessons from Chicago. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Cohen, D.K. and Ball, D.L. (1999). Instruction, Capacity, and Improvement. CPRE Research Reports. Retrieved from https://repository.upenn.edu/cpre_researchreports/8.
Council of the Great City Schools (2015). School Improvement Grants: Progress Report from America’s Great City Schools. Retrieved from https://www.cgcs.org/cms/lib/DC00001581/Centricity/Domain/87/SIG%20Report%202015.pdf
Heissel, Jennifer A., and Ladd, Helen F. (2018). School turnaround in North Carolina: A regression discontinuity analysis. Economics of Education Review, Volume 62, 2018, Pages 302-320. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272775716303156.
Herman, R. (2017, May 9), Obamas’ School Improvement grants flunked the test – now what? The Hill. Retrieved from http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/education/332584-obamas-school-improvement-grant-program-flunks-the-test-now-what.
Lane, B., Unger, C., & Stein, L. (2016). 2016 Massachusetts Turnaround Practices Field Guide: A Research-Based Guide Designed to Support District and School Leaders Engaged in School Turnaround Efforts. Prepared for the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education.
Leana, C. (2011). The missing link in school reform. Stanford, CA: Stanford Social Innovation Review.
Sun, Min, Penner, Emily, & Loeb, Susanna (Forthcoming). Resource- and Approach-Driven Multi- Dimensional Change: Three-Year Effects of School Improvement Grants. American Education Research Journal.
Player, D., Hambrick Hitt, D., & Robinson, W. (2014). District Readiness to Support School Turnaround: A Users’ Guide to Inform the Work of State Education Agencies and Districts. Center on School Turnaround at WestEd.