How to Fix Our City Schools
Where is the Outrage?
I am certain it is not a coincidence that the percentage of students in our city schools who are “proficient” in reading at the end of the 4th grade and the percentage of students from our city schools who “persist” and graduate from college are almost exactly the same – about 20 percent.[1]
In my first newsletter, I argued that these poor results were in spite of the fact that educators have tried “everything under the sun.” Here is a quick recap of some of these efforts. Educators have hired more reading and mathematics specialists; implemented “wrap-around” services; developed vacation academies, after-school, before school, and expanded summer programs; paid recruiting and retention bonuses and stipends; designed and purchased new curriculum and instructional materials; implemented phonics, whole language, and everything in-between (i.e., balanced literacy); developed new and better formative and summative assessments and data systems; created school performance indexes, growth models, earned autonomy and various other accountability methods; added professional development days, more and more instructional coaches, model classrooms, and summer training institutes; implemented PBIS, RTI, MTSS, and social-emotional learning (SEL); and on and on.[2]
Why am I repeating this list here? Because although most of these are sound, common-sense ideas, none have actually resulted in significant districtwide gains in achievement. That is important information because it shows that more and more new programs and initiatives are not the solution to our failing urban schools.
This year, a lot of emphasis is being placed on the “learning loss” caused by the COVID pandemic. Recently, I read that one district plans to respond to the instructional time lost with tutoring and individualized instruction. Another district is trying to increase the number of students participating in summer school programs. Another has added 15 minutes to the school day.
Also, this year, many districts are planning to implement balanced “science of reading” literacy programs for the first time and I totally support these efforts to (finally) address all five components of reading – phonics, phonemic awareness, fluency, reading comprehension (text and auditory), and vocabulary.
However, all of these efforts have been tried before. Tutoring and individualized instruction are great ideas but certainly not new. Similarly, efforts to attract more students to enroll in summer school is not new – particularly efforts to target those students with the greatest needs. Extended learning time, again, is not a new idea and many districts have already implemented balanced literacy programs.
In other words, it is unlikely that any of these efforts, by themselves, will have long-term positive impacts on student achievement. That brings me back to the points made in the last several of my newsletters. New programs and magic solutions are not going to solve the systemic problems of our city schools. What is needed is for our educational leaders to figure out how to more effectively implement the fundamentals of teaching and learning.
For example, while I support the implementation of all five of the reading components, a “science of reading” program is just one small (albeit important) step in the right direction. Change is not that easy! I won’t repeat what I said in the last newsletter about the critical roles of principals, superintendents, and school board members or the “six first steps” outlined in the September 16th edition but a few key issues are worth repeating.
First, unless districts commit the resources necessary to dramatically increase reading achievement, they will never be able to transform their failing schools into great schools (or overcome the negative effects of the pandemic). Literacy is the foundation for everything else. Today more than 50% of the students in city schools score “below basic” in reading at the 4th grade level. That is totally unacceptable and it will not change by implementing short-term fixes. The first step toward dramatically improving student literacy is for school and district leaders to recognize and address the huge word fluency and auditory comprehension gaps many students bring with them when they enter kindergarten. Only by aggressively closing the literacy (and math) skill gaps will all students be able to access the on-grade-level core curriculum. (Again, these issues were addressed in detail in earlier newsletters.)
Second, many teachers do not have the resources or the training needed to effectively differentiate instruction or provide the tiered supports many students require. Teachers may try to help those students who learn more slowly or who are already years behind but typically the pressure on teachers is to keep moving – to “cover the curriculum.”
As I have argued before, effective teacher training must be integrated into a school’s daily culture and must be led by a highly-trained, expert instructional leader – i.e., the principal. At the elementary level, many teachers will have to learn how to effectively implement the five components of reading, more effectively differentiate lessons, and learn how to quickly eliminate the skill gaps (in word fluency, auditory comprehension, and basic math). These changes will not be easy and are likely to be met with resistance from many teachers and administrators.
Initially, I believe, smaller primary classes would make these efforts much more likely to succeed. Many districts have tried to reduce class sizes but most primary teachers are still faced with trying to differentiate instruction for 20 or more students each day. For most districts, reducing the size of the primary classes by 50% would cost about $1 million per school. While that is a lot of money, as I have argued in earlier newsletters, many districts waste millions of dollars every year on programs that provide little or no benefit to students. For most of the six large districts I have served in, dramatically reducing the size of the kg-3 classrooms for the ten lowest performing schools (for example) was well within their financial means.
A friend recently told me that during his first year as a principal, it was as if the teachers had just “throw up their hands.” They did not seem to believe it was possible to teach poor kids to read or do basic math. However, after only one semester, the culture had completely changed. Why? Because the principal was actively engaged in the instructional program, closely monitored each student’s progress, and ensured that the students who needed extra supports received them – primarily from the school’s instructional coaches and specialists. According to the principal, it did not take long for the teachers to see the dramatic gains being made by their students.
Educators often talk about high expectations. However, they never appear to be shocked or surprised when test scores continue to be horribly low year after year. Sadly, it is difficult not to conclude that the lack of outrage from parents, superintendents, and board members is because they expect their schools to fail. There is no way to sugar-coat it. Low performance is apparently seen as the norm. But, failure does not have to be the norm and success does not require superstar principals and teachers. What great schools do require are well-trained teachers and administrators, consistent instructional processes and procedures, a commitment to the success of every student, and accountability at every level of the organization.
In successful schools, you can feel the positive climate and culture immediately when you walk through the front door. In these schools, the leaders build a culture of high expectations, pride, success, and accountability that includes not just the academic outcomes but also the social and emotional ones.
How will expectations change? Is outrage enough? Our city schools can improve – when teachers and administrators envision their students succeeding, and when parents, school board members, and the community finally demand the great schools their children need and deserve.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Readers,
I hope you find the information and ideas in my newsletters compelling and useful. They are informed by over 40 years of experience working with twenty superintendents, dozens of future superintendents, hundreds of senior administrators, and thousands of principals. On almost a daily basis, I listened to their complaints, hopes, doubts, excuses, and promises and discussed and debated priorities, philosophies, theories, programs, and plans. If you find the newsletters valuable, please share them with friends and colleagues. Only by informing school board members, educators, parents, and community leaders can be finally create the great schools every child and family deserves. If you have questions or comments please share those as well.
Best Regards!
Bill Caritj
President and CEO
Capital Schools Consulting Group
925 S. Prospect Street
Burlington, VT 05401
Links to recent newsletters:
(October 19, 2022)
(September 16, 2022)
(September 3, 2022)
(August 8, 2022)
(July 22, 2022)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bio/Introduction
For forty years, I was fortunate to lead the assessment, evaluation, and accountability departments of nine public school districts, including six of the largest in the nation – Washington, DC, Baltimore, St. Louis, Austin, Atlanta, and the Department of Defense Education Activity (DoDEA). In almost every instance, my position was relatively independent of the internal and external “politics.” As a result, I am not biased toward or against any particular theory, philosophy, or program. My only loyalty is to results.
Since “retiring” from the Atlanta Public Schools in 2021,[3] I’ve been busy working on a book, How to Fix Our City Schools, publishing a “monthly” newsletter, and launching the Capital Schools Consulting Group (CSCG). The book is part memoir and part handbook and while I am very excited about finally completing a “good” working draft, the process has made me even more acutely aware of the disappointment I feel about the failures of the last forty years and my fear that they will continue indefinitely for future generations of poor and disadvantaged children.
----------------------------------------------------------
CSCG Services
· Data analysis and reporting
· Board training – data analytics, planning, and goal setting
· Executive coaching for new school board members
· Executive coaching and support for new superintendents’ transition team
· Planning and monitoring district reforms
· Logic model and strategy map development
· Major program implementation audits
[1] See the NAEP “Snapshot Report” for any recent administration (before or after the COVID pandemic).
[2] I should also note that many districts have implemented school rezoning, open-enrollment policies, and various transfer approaches in attempts to make access to resources and programs more equitable.)
[3] https://www.ajc.com/news/atlanta-news/accountability-chief-hired-after-atlanta-cheating-scandal-to-retire/GQSBWP445RGCNGPVHDYINEXC6Q/