How to Fix Our City Schools
"Game Changers"
In the last edition, I wrote that “the necessary teaching and learning principles are well known” and that the path to great schools is in large measure “what we now call Response to Intervention (RTI) or Multi-Tiered Systems of Support (MTSS)… but that to fully implement RTI or MTSS, teachers will require “more and better training, resources, and leadership.” In response, some friends and former colleagues pressed for more details.
The RTI/MTSS tiered school support models are generally defined as including three levels or steps. According to the RTI Network, Tier 1 includes “High-Quality Classroom Instruction, Screening, and Group Interventions. Within Tier 1, all students receive high-quality, scientifically based instruction provided by qualified personnel to ensure that their difficulties are not due to inadequate instruction. All students are screened on a periodic basis to establish an academic and behavioral baseline and to identify struggling learners who need additional support. Students identified as being “at risk” through universal screenings and/or results on state- or districtwide tests receive supplemental instruction during the school day in the regular classroom… Students not showing adequate progress are moved to Tier 2.”[1]
That is the basic theory (for Tier 1). But, does anyone who has spent any time in urban classrooms believe that is actually what happens on anything close to a regular basis?
In How to Fix Our City Schools,[2] I detail a classroom visit a few years ago in Atlanta that exemplifies what many teachers attempt to do each day with the resources available to them. As I related, “In one first grade classroom, the teacher was conducting a whole-group language art lesson with about 15-20 children. The teacher was organized, articulate, and well-prepared. She smiled and encouraged the students and worked hard to engage the entire class. She almost made it look effortless but the task was impossible. At any given point, the same four or five students were fully engaged and participating (e.g., enthusiastically raising their hands in response to every question or request) while at least four or five students were clearly not engaged at all (i.e., bodies turned sideways, eyes wandering around the room, or staring off into space). The remaining students were somewhere in between – sometimes looking at the teacher, sometimes looking elsewhere, but rarely voluntarily or enthusiastically participating. As the lesson proceeded, the teacher remained upbeat, calm, patient, energetic, and working hard to “draw in” those students who were least engaged. When I left the room, I turned to a colleague and said, “There is no way I could do that all day. I would be exhausted.” I wasn’t exaggerating! More importantly, it seemed clear that most of the students in the class were gaining little from the teacher’s exhausting efforts. In a more homogeneous classroom where the large majority of the students are reading at or near grade level, the percentage of students with learning disabilities is low, and behavioral issues are minimal, perhaps, it is efficient and effective to try to teach 15-20 young children simultaneously. However, in a classroom where the majority of the students are reading well below grade level while only a few are “proficient” readers, an effective whole group language lesson with 15-20 students is nearly impossible even if the teacher had the help of a paraprofessional (which this teacher didn’t). In other words, the lesson was a waste of time for more than half of the class.
That is the reality in too many classrooms. Good intentions overwhelmed by reality, poor judgment, and weak support. In spite of her best efforts, the teacher in the above example was trying to do the impossible – i.e., trying to execute a single, whole group lesson with a large diverse group of students. Of course, lessons are not always directed to the whole class; small group instruction is also common. But, the problem is still the same. How to keep 15-20 academically “diverse” students engaged so learning is taking place relatively efficiently and effectively. Again, as Jay McTighe (co-author of Understanding by Design) observed, “It is unrealistic to expect an individual teacher to be able to fully address the wide variety of backgrounds, skill levels, interests, talents, personalities, and learning preferences of the large numbers of students found in many of today’s classrooms.[3]
So, for starters, there are two huge obstacles to implementing RTI/MTSS effectively – ineffective and insufficient training and large classes.
The poor training may begin in the teacher preparation programs, however, at the district level, teacher training typically is not even a major priority. In most districts, “professional development” (PD) is limited to a few days each year and the content is rarely focused on any one priority. As I note in How to Fix Our City Schools, PD funds typically are dispersed among many central office departments and schools often have autonomy over their relatively small PD budgets. I am a big supporter of Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) but, as the late great Rick DuFour (and many others) have pointed out, most school PLCs are little more than a one hour weekly meeting and “In many schools, staff members are willing to collaborate on a variety of topics – as long as the focus of the conversation stops at the classroom door.”[4]
I will discuss teacher training and PLCs at greater length in upcoming newsletters but lack of commitment and focus and poorly run PLCs are not even the biggest weaknesses in districts’ training efforts. In real estate, the mantra is “location, location, location.” In baseball, the experts know that you win with “pitching and defense.” Educators have no such compass or adage. In fact, when it comes to instruction, there seems to be little consensus on anything and, amazingly, teachers are often taught ineffective strategies.
Nowhere is this problem more evident than at the elementary level. The most recent staggering example of this “ineffectiveness” was the admission by Lucy Calkins, one the most influential “experts” in the field of elementary literacy, that for decades she had underestimated the importance of phonics, in particular, and the “science of reading,” in general. Amazingly, the debates about phonics, whole language, and the five “components” of reading long preceded the recommendations made by the 2001 National Reading Panel and are obviously still raging today. And yet, no one goal is more important than early literacy.
How is it possible that after all this time, educators still haven’t figured out how to teach all or most students to read at anywhere near grade level? As one colleague once suggested, is it simply not possible to teach poor and disadvantaged children to read and write (or, for that matter, do basic math)? Of course, the answer is NO! It is absolutely possible! In fact, many schools in high poverty communities across the country have succeeded.
When I press my friends and colleagues on this question, everyone seems to agree that phonics, phonemic awareness, vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension are the critical components and recommendations include word study, decoding strategies, guided practice, independent practice, paired reading, writing workshops, novel studies, formative assessments, data reviews, and so on. And, yet, while “balanced literacy” approaches are now common, more than 80% of black students in the United States still score below the proficient level on the 4th grade National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) in reading.
Imagine for a moment trying to participate in a lesson if you only understood half the words being spoken (or trying to solve multi-step math word problems if you don’t know half of the necessary basic facts or processes). While many “experts” mention “word recognition” as a major component of a balanced literacy program, few single it out as a crucial “game changer.” I find that surprising since we know many students begin kindergarten far behind their peers. Whether the “word gap” between poor and affluent children is 30 million as reported by Hart and Rigley or something less,[5] there is little doubt that there is a large gap.
During my tenure in Austin, only one AISD school, Graham ES (2012), was recognized as a national Blue Ribbon School. Three years later, a second AISD elementary school, Blackshear ES (2015), was also recognized. It was not a coincidence that both schools employed what the former Graham ES principal describes as a “stop-gap” approach in reading and mathematics with the goal of quickly identifying and eliminating gaps in students’ “word fluency”[6] and basic math skills. The “word fluency” programs addressed the 1,000 most commonly used English words – words that account for about 75% of those used in adult reading materials and about 90% of the words in 3rd grade level tests and books. These school leaders saw this approach as a “game-changer” because it immediately gave all the students, including their large English language learner populations, access to the same core curriculum (even if some of the students required more time and repetition) and, simultaneously, increased learning for all the students.
These “game changer” activities only require about ten minutes per day, however, the principals were quick to emphasize that these simple, but crucial, “stop-gap” programs must be a part of a complete well-balanced literacy program that includes daily reading (including reading homework), novel studies, phonics, phonemic awareness, vocabulary development, and the other “science of reading” components. It is also important to note that while the “stop-gap” fluency (and numeracy) programs are remarkably straightforward conceptually, like any effective program, they require the active daily engagement of the principal, meticulous weekly monitoring of students’ progress, and the strategic use of specialists, other staff, and (if available) well-trained volunteers to ensure the stop-gap efforts are religiously implemented.
In my discussions about this approach, one threat or obstacle became apparent. To faithfully implement the stop-gap activities, tiered supports, and a comprehensive balanced literacy program – with regular formative assessments, immediate remediation of skill deficits, differentiation of daily lessons, and timely supports – requires hard work and sustained effort by teachers and administrators. I am confident teachers are up to the task. However, it is an open question whether most school administrators (and district superintendents) possess the vision, patience, and stamina to implement such a program. Coaches talk about “team work and team effort” and “playing hard for the entire four quarters.” I would argue that creating great schools is much harder because maximum effort must be applied not just for four quarters but over months and years. To make matters worse, this work is not likely to be seen as the kind of “shiny object” superintendents and school board members appreciate or local media write stories about. This is the daily “grunt work” – what legendary coach Vince Lombardi called the “blocking and tackling” – of great schools.
It is long past time to view school reform differently. We have tried everything under the sun and we have failed at even the most “elementary” and important goal – i.e., early literacy. It doesn’t matter what the cost or that change is difficult, our communities and our children desperately need better from us. It is critical that we finally get things right and finally tip the balance so past near misses become future successes and today’s failing schools finally become great ones.
As noted above, in upcoming newsletters I will discuss how to improve teacher training, how districts can afford to dramatically reduce primary class sizes (within their existing budget), additional challenges to full implementation of the RTI/MTSS tiers, the characteristics of the great leaders districts desperately need, the only way to create high expectations, the effective use of instructional technology, and many other subjects.
The newsletter is free. My goal is not to theorize, philosophize, or criticize but to offer practical solutions. I hope you find the information compelling and useful. If you do, please share it with friends and colleagues.
Best Wishes for an Outstanding 2022-23 School Year!
Bill Caritj
President and CEO
Capital Schools Consulting Group (CSCG)
925 S. Prospect Street
Burlington, VT 05401
Links to previous newsletters:
Short Bio and 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, in general, 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, I’ve been busy. I have been working on a book, How to Fix Our City Schools, initiated this monthly newsletter, and launched the Capital Schools Consulting Group (CSCG).
[1] RTI Action Network, http://www.rtinetwork.org/learn/what/whatisrti
[2] William Caritj, How to Fix Our City Schools (unpublished), 152 pages (2022).
[3] Jay McTighe, https://jaymctighe.com/a-response-to-differentiation-doesnt-work (2015).
[4] Learning by Doing: A Handbook for Professional Learning Communities at Work, Richard DuFour, Rebecca DuFour, Robert E. Eaker, and Thomas Many, July 1, 2006, Solution Tree.
[5] Conor P. Williams, October 13, 2020, New Research Ignites Debate on the “30 Million Word Gap,”
https://www.edutopia.org/article/new-research-ignites-debate-30-million-word-gap
[6] “Word fluency” is the general term. Depending on the grade level, “word fluency” might include spoken or oral word recognition, written recognition, spelling, definitions, applying the word in a sentence, and so forth.