You are here:     Home > Transforming
Education

Trends in School
Reform

by Michael
Silver

In the last couple of
decades, a variety of serious attempts have been made to improve schools.
Some school improvement efforts have produced model classrooms and model
schools. Some interventions have been targeted as "turnaround" efforts to
improve low achieving schools. While there have been many approaches,
strategies and designs toward school improvement, there are several broad
trends sweeping public schools in this age of reform. I would like to
describe three of these trends influencing school reform; namely,
standards-based reform, comprehensive school reform and student-centered
reform.

Standards-based
Reform

Teachers and administrators
in schools across the country have had to grapple with the issues of
standards and improving student performance. Standards identify the
centerpiece of the curriculum for academic learning responding to
questions such as, "What do students need to know?" and "What are they
expected to do?" to succeed in life. At the heart of standards based
reform is the assumption that higher standards are a core component of
school improvement and student success. Standards-based reform is about
forming a clear idea of what excellence is and improving the quality of
student work and learning.

The standards movement has
its roots in curriculum content and skills. The National Council of
Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) was one of the first national professional
organizations to publish national curriculum standards and goals. The
application of standards can also be found to describe and define
excellence for professional practice. The National Board for Professional
Teaching Standards (NBPTS) has worked to strengthen the teaching
profession by establishing high standards for accomplished teachers. NBPTS
has developed a national voluntary system to assess and certify teachers
who meet these standards. A decade ago, the Interstate School Leaders
Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) was formed to create a new set of standards
to define and guide the practice of school leaders. The national ISLLC
standards were published in l996 and have been adopted by 30
states.

Student standards are to
provide a clear focus, and combined with assessments, are to insure that
every student succeeds academically. The 2002 reauthorization of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act, commonly referred to as "No Child
Left Behind" (NCLB), expands the federal government's role to assure that
every student succeeds academically. This law requires all schools, school
districts, and states to show that students are meeting the achievement
targets in reading and mathematics. Never before in our history has so
much weight been placed on the performance of students on mandated state
tests nor have the stakes ever been higher.

Comprehensive School
Reform

Comprehensive school design
changes focus on research-based solutions to improve student achievement
and success. Also known as "whole school" reforms, comprehensive school
reforms are externally developed school improvement programs adopted by
individual schools. The U.S. Department of Education has identified eleven
components representing comprehensive school reform. Several of the
components are connected to the school's ability to integrate instruction,
assessment, classroom management, professional development, and parental
involvement to raise student academic achievement. Comprehensive school
reform designs can be replicated in numerous schools, although the reforms
require technical assistance for implementation.

One example of a
Comprehensive School Reform approach is the Accelerated Schools Program
(ASP). The primary goal of ASP is to bring children in at-risk situations
at least to grade level by the end of sixth grade. A main feature of ASP
is the structure and application of three guiding principles:
1. unity
of purpose for the school;
2. empowerment of the staff in school
decision-making with the responsibility to follow-through on actions;
and
3. building instruction on student strengths.
Teaching
strategies called "powerful learning" are designed by teachers to provide
a rich, interactive, and constructive classroom for students.

Student-centered
Reform

This reform effort is based
on the notion that school success and student learning are improved by
personalization and strong relationships of teachers' knowledge of and
caring for students. Examples of efforts in student-centered reform can be
seen in establishing new and/or converting existing high schools into
small school environments, or creating ways for teachers to teach the same
group or classroom of students for more than one year. This instructional
practice is called "looping."

Small schools for high
school students are sized for no more than 600 students, and 400 or less
is strongly recommended. Small schools are designed to promote sustained
and positive relationships between students and their teachers, to develop
a strong sense of collaboration among teachers, and to create strong ties
between parents, families, and schools. What is desired is for teachers to
come to know their students well—their interests, strengths, and
weaknesses as learners. In this way, teachers should be far more able to
teach, coach, nurture and demand excellence from each student. Combined
with a common focus on goals and high expectations for students to leave
high school prepared for further education and success in work and
citizenship, small schools tout the "new 3Rs"—rigor, relevance, and
relationships.

The benefits for increasing
personalization in schools have been well-cited in research. Students in
small personalized learning communities come to class more often, drop out
less frequently, encounter less violence in school, and get better grades
than those in regular-sized, traditional high schools. In addition, some
research shows that small schools have the most promising effects on
achievement for ethnic minority students and students from low-income
families.

Closing the
Achievement Gap

A
main focus for all the school reform changes described above is closing
the persistent achievement differences between groups of students.
Achievement test results at all levels – by school, school district, state
and national – show that minority students fall behind white students. The
achievement gap is defined by the U.S. Department of Education as the
difference between how well low income and minority children perform on
standardized tests compared to their peers.

In order to close the
achievement gap, it is clear that what we do and don't do in schools
matters and it matters a lot. Four common elements emerge as promising
efforts to close the achievement gap in schools. They are:
· Clear
Goals: An important characteristic common to schools and school districts
successful in raising achievement is the focus on clear, commonly defined
goals.
· Rigorous curriculum: A challenging and rigorous curriculum
linked to high standards and assessment makes a difference.
· Extra
help for students who need it: Providing assistance for students before
school, after school, and during the summer are all ways to extend
learning time for students in order to achieve well in school.
· High
quality teaching: Recruiting and retaining high quality teachers in the
classroom stands out to make the most difference in closing the
achievement gap in student learning.

Successful school reform
efforts share many common features as described above. In closing, I would
like to emphasize an additional element in school reform – the importance
of building a strong political base of support for quality work in our
schools. Public support for public education continues to rank high on
most opinion polls. School reform and improvement to provide children with
the tools they need to succeed in life rings true for 94 per cent of the
population according to the American Association of School Administrators.
There are strong signals from the public that education really does
matter. A number of efforts in school reform are showing improvement in
student performance. The next steps are to start public support for what
is necessary to improve teaching and learning and to close the achievement
gap.

About the author

Michael
Silver, Ph.D., graduated from Central High School in Omaha, Nebraska in
1966. He went on to complete bachelors, masters and doctorate degrees from
Washington University in St. Louis. Silver was a teacher and served in
school and district office administrative positions in the Parkway School
District in St. Louis from 1972 to 1986.

Silver was
formerly Superintendent of Schools for the Tukwila School District in King
County, Washington, but now is Director and Assistant Professor of the
College of Education- Educational Administration at Seattle University.
His honors include the Arts Education Tribute Award, by the Washington Art
Education Association (2001); Superintendent of the Year Award by the
Washington Library Media Association (2000); recipient of an Excellence in
Educational Leadership Award by the University Council for Educational
Administration (1998), an A+ Award recipient by the Washington Council for
Economic Education (1992); and selection to the Executive Educator 100 by
Executive Educator magazine (1985).

You may
contact him at Loyola Hall 415, Seattle University or via email : [email-masked]

© March 2004 New Horizons
for Learning
http://www.newhorizons.org/

mailto:[email-masked]

For permission to
redistribute, please go to:
New Horizons
for Learning Copyright and Permission Information

Quarterly Journal
| Current Notices
|

About New Horizons for
Learning | Survey/Feedback

Site Index
| NHFL
Products | WABS | Meeting
Spaces | Search