Based
on the Framework for Effective
Schools Research, the Sustainable School Reform worksheet (appendix A)
helps identify essential elements or “correlates” of effective reform, and
critical components while reviewing case studies involving school improvement
initiatives. While a metacognitive tool
is very useful for effectively and efficiently organizing, analyzing,
synthesizing, and evaluating information, prerequisite understanding of the
information comprising the tool is necessary to optimize usage of the instrument. The purpose of this month’s post is to describe
the six essential attributes of school reform, describe how the Seven
Correlates of Effective Schools are utilized as leading indicators of sustained
reform, and explicate how and why these basic beliefs involving Effective
Schools Research provide an framework for improvement.
The Six Essential Elements (Attributes) and Their
Importance
As identified on the Sustainable
School Reform worksheet, the six essential attributes for school reform are:
1.
Data Driven
2.
Results Oriented
3.
Research Based
4.
Focused on Quality and Equity
5.
Collaborative Is Form
6.
Ongoing and Self-Renewing
The importance of these
essential attributes are more readily recognized when analyzing the Correlates
of Effective Schools in relation to any case studies seeking to examine
sustained school improvement. Following
World War II, W.
Edwards Deming developed a Total Quality Management
(TQM) system comprised of14 data driven points that he contended, “were
essential for business success” (Davenport
& Anderson, 2002, p. 33). The Brazosport reform initiative used
Deming’s TQM system and his “Plan-Do-Check-Act Cycle” (p.34) as the
Superintendent sought to implement results-oriented and research-based school
reform. When a school’s mission statement describes a preferred future then the importance of the mission statement is to provide the staff with a clear projection for growth and benchmarks for assessing progress. By contrast, when a school’s mission statement merely represents current reality, the mission is less inspiring and less energizing (Lew, 2001). The effective leader will be able to communicate this clear vision grounded in optimistic values.
Without combining quality principles with its school reform efforts, continuous improvement would be less likely. Through an examination of tenets derived from Effective Schools research, Ravitch (1985) advocates for an indissolvable link between the issues of quality and equity. Given this, it is highly advisable for schools to seek out and identify systems promoting equity in quality.
Development of a Clear and Focused Mission often encounters resistance by educators who are fearful of making bold statements such as "Learning for all." Fear rules the day when staff collectively worry about what happens if the school falls short of its stated mission? A strong leader of educational reform makes it a moral journey for followers to collaboratively join the effort. A detriment to reliance on a charismatic leader during reform efforts without including quality principles in the initiative is that if the leader then leaves before the initiative becomes institutionalized, then effort often dies and the gains are quickly lost.(GCU, 2011, p. 2).
Although the interconnectedness of the correlates of Effective Schools requires a strong educational leader, once the reform efforts institutionalize quality principles then the likelihood for continuous improvement is increased. In the Brazosport case study, such institutionalization resulted from analyzing, synthesizing, and implementing Mary Barksdale’s successful classroom approaches into an eight-step process “similar to Deming’s Plan, Do, Check, Act, cycle” (Davenport & Anderson, 2002, p. 48).
Using Correlates as Leading Indicators for Continuous
Improvement
As
a counter to Coleman’s (1966) research that extensively absolved
schools of responsibility for student achievement, Edmonds began extensive
research designed to investigate successful schools with large populations of
low SES students. His subsequent
findings resulted in a call for equity grounded in a commitment to promoting
the academic skills of low socio-economic status (SES) children to levels of mastery
of basic skills. By addressing the
equitable distribution of goods within a society, Edmonds’s (1979) work was
framed in socio-political terms whereby all children could be educated and the
school's treatment of children was seen as a critical factor in each child’s
academic success. Edmonds believed there
are six factors that schools can actually control, which can optimize academic
success for poor children. These
included:
1.
strong administrative leadership;
2.
a climate of expectation that
children would succeed;
3.
orderly school atmosphere;
4.
primary emphasis on student
acquisition of basic skills;
5.
school energy and resources focused
on basic skills; and
6.
frequent monitoring of pupil
progress (p. 18).
The six factors identified by
Edmonds (1979) were reinforced by Pechman’s and King’s (1993) identification of
six essential factors for successful school reform, which included:
1.
a
stable and safe school environment;
2.
the
ongoing support from district staff for reform;
3.
the presence of teacher leaders within the
school;
4.
the
collaboration and support of the whole faculty;
5.
the
acceptance and commitment by the faculty to participate in the change process;
and
6.
a
principal who facilitates the changes and encourages collegiality.
Additionally,
as reported by Childress (2009), six types of essential
involvement need to be included in any program of school reform. This comprehensive program of
school-family-community partnerships, as explicated by Epstein (1995), includes:
1.
parenting--helping all families
establish home environments that support children as students;
2.
communicating--designing and
conducting effective forms of communication about school programs and
children's progress;
3.
volunteering--recruiting and
organizing help and support for school functions and activities;
4.
learning at home--providing
information and ideas to families about how to help students with schoolwork
and school-related activities;
5.
decision-making--including parents
in school decisions and
6.
collaborating with the
community--identifying and integrating resources and services from the community
to strengthen and support schools, students and their families (p. 16).
The basic conclusion of Edmonds
(1979) comparative research on Effective Schools was that public schools can
and do make a difference, even if comprised of students from low SES backgrounds. As a result of effective public schools, all
children can learn at high levels including children from low SES
backgrounds. Unique characteristics and
processes found in schools where all students were learning at high levels
regardless of SES status were correlated with student success therefore the
term "correlates"
has been subsequently referenced in Effective Schools Research. These interconnected correlates include:
• Safe
and Orderly Environment
• Clear and Focused Mission
• Climate of High Expectations for
Success
• Opportunity to Learn & Student
Time on Task
• Frequent Monitoring of Student
Progress
• Positive Home-School Relations
• Strong Instructional Leadership
(Lezotte, 1991)
As a bridge between the initial
work by Edmonds and more recent research related to school reform, the research
by Levine and Lezotte (1990) focused upon correlates of effectiveness,
processes for creating effective schools, and achievement criteria for
determining the success of these efforts.
During this time, Levine and Lezotte encouraged an emphasis on dual
research that focused upon the instructional features of effective teaching and
the organizational features of effective schools. Ultimately, the Seven Correlates and Six
Essential Elements of School Reform formed the basic beliefs framing
improvement for Effective Schools.
How are Basic
Beliefs of Effective Schools an Important Part of School Improvement?
The seven correlates of effective schools are
interdependent and not intended for implementation in isolation. Although there is utility in
considering each correlate one at a time for purposes of becoming familiar with
the related research, each correlate must be viewed as a necessary, but not
sufficient, part of the entire effective school as a system that successfully
produces learning for all. Given the
interdependency of the seven correlates, school leaders must therefore approach
them with the view of implementing them all at once. Thus, a clear and focused mission as well as
strong instructional leadership is required to move the other interdependent
correlates from being an ideal to effective practice.
Since
Effective Schools research demonstrates that a result of schools ignoring the
interdependence among the seven correlates is slow progress, then without
strong, respected instructional leadership that can help bring consensus for a
clear and focused mission, confusion about how to simultaneously incorporate
all the correlates would prevail. For
example, during the late 1980s and early 1990s, educators who were formerly
advocates of the comprehensive Effective Schools
Process broke off certain elements of that process and overemphasized them, to
the detriment of the whole process. When
educators attempted to run with one or two correlates of Effective Schools, their efforts were
unsuccessful.
In recent years replication research (Comer,
1998; Reeves,
2008)
reaffirmed the earlier findings by Edmonds
(1979) and Lezotte
(1991) that the basic beliefs of effective schools are
important for school improvement. The
correlates clearly describe schools where children are learning and these
correlates remain absent from schools where children are learning at an
observably lower level of success. These
replication studies involved diverse schools ranging from urban, suburban, and
rural settings, including elementary middle, and high schools, in affluent,
middle class communities, and low SES communities. Therefore, consistently, the seven correlates
have been shown to provide schools with a comprehensive framework for
identifying, categorizing, and solving the problems confronting schools and
school districts. When utilizing the
Effective Schools Model, by implementing a
faculty-administrator-parent-community team-planning approach, which utilizes
student achievement data and the seven correlates to develop and implement a
long-range improvement plan, the schools and school districts exhibit school
improvement. Most importantly, research
proves the Effective Schools Model promotes district-wide, systemic
restructuring that provides continuous improvement, thereby ensuring every
child has access to a quality education and an equal educational opportunity.
Worksheet 1: Sustainable School
Reform
Based on the
Effective Schools
Research Framework
As you read any the case study material intended to evaluate
school reform efforts, print this worksheet and use it to take notes regarding
what the district did and how it went about doing it. There may be elements listed on the worksheet
not mentioned or even implied in the case material. If this is the case, you should note that
related information was not provided. In
addition, you should “score” (3 = very important, down to 1= little importance)
for each component that is discussed in the materials. At the completion of the exercise, you should
list questions that could be addressed by any educators involved in the case
study, thereby providing a deeper understanding of what occurred.
1.
Essential Elements and Critical Components
a. Data Driven
b. Results Oriented
c. Research Based
d. Focused on Quality
and Equity
e. Collaborative Is Form
f. Ongoing and
Self-Renewing
2.
Five Ts of Continuous Improvement
a. Theories
b. Teams
c. Tools
d. Time
e. Technology
3.
Correlates of Effective Schools
a. High Expectations for
Success
b. Strong Instructional
Leadership
c. Clear and Focused
Mission
d. Opportunity to
Learn/Time on Task
e. Frequent Monitoring
of Student Progress
f. Safe and Orderly Environment
g. Positive Home/School
Relations
4.
Implementation Processes
a. Involvement Processes
b. Clarifying
Mission/Belief
c. Defining Essential
Student Learning
d. Analyzing the Data
e. Searching for
Solutions
f. Action Planning
g.
Executing Action Plans
To Cite:
Anderson, C.J. (October 6, 2013) Using correlates of effective schools. [Web log post] Retrieved from
References
Childress,
S. M. (2009). Six Lessons for Pursuing Excellence and Equity at Scale. Phi
Delta Kappan, 91(3), 13-18.
Comer, J. P. (1998). Educating poor
minority children. Scientific American,
259(5) 42-48.
Davenport, P., & Anderson, G. (2002). Closing the achievement gap: No excuses. Houston, TX:
APQC.
Edmonds,
R. (1979). Effective Schools for the Urban Poor. Educational Leadership,
37,
15-24.
Grand Canyon University
(producer). (2011, October). EDA805 Module 1 Lecture
Levine, D.
U., & Lezotte, L. W. (1990). Unusually Effective Schools: A Review and
Analysis
of Research and Practice. Madison,
WI: The National Center for Effective Schools
Research and Development.
Lezotte, L. W.
(1991) Correlates of Effective Schools: The First and Second Generation.
Northouse, P. G. (2009). Leadership:
Theory and practice (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications,
Inc. ISBN: 978-1-4129-7488-2.
Pechman, E. & King, J. (1993). Obstacles to
restructuring: Experiences of six middle-grades
schools. New York, NY: National Center for Restructuring Education, Schools and
Teaching. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED362985)
Stober, D. R. (2008). Making it
stick: coaching as a tool for organizational change. Coaching: An
International
Journal Of Theory, Research & Practice, 1(1), 71-80.
doi:10.1080/17521880801905950
Taylor, B. O. (2002). The
Effective Schools Process: Alive and Well. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(5),
375.
