We often hear that school performance is linked primarily to parents' background. But the often ignored fact is that frequently the biggest performance gaps are between schools serving similar types of students. This begs the question: If student demographics aren't driving the differential in performance, or the performance gap, what is driving it?
That important question is particularly critical at grades 6, 7, and 8, a period of education that has long deserved greater attention from researchers and policymakers. These middle grades are the last best opportunity to capture struggling students before they fall irretrievably behind and to prepare all students for success in high school and beyond.
Earlier this week, EdSource, a California-based research group, released a report that shines new light on the practices that distinguish high-performing schools from their lower-performing counterparts. For the study, researchers from EdSource and Stanford University administered surveys with over 900 questions combined to nearly 4,000 California teachers, principals, and superintendents. The surveys described a broad range of traditional and newer middle grades practices and policies and asked the educators which ones were in place in their schools. We didn't ask opinions, we asked: which of these are in place at your district or school, how often, to what extent those results were then analyzed against participating schools' performance on the state's standards based tests in English language arts and mathematics.
The No. 1 finding -- and it came out on top regardless of whether the analysis focused on one-year or longitudinal data or the predominant demographics of the student population served by the school -- is that higher performing middle grade schools demonstrate an intense focus on improving student academic outcomes and preparing their students for a rigorous high school curriculum. They set measurable objectives and hold everyone in the system responsible for student learning. That includes superintendents, principals, teachers, students, and parents.
Indeed, the findings reveal that educators at every level play a crucial role. Led by the superintendent, districts are essential to providing user-friendly student data and emphasizing improvement of all students. The principal is a hands-on leader who orchestrates every aspect of school improvement. Teachers work collectively to identify school needs for instructional improvement and students who need extra help.
Not only are these practices consistent through a variety of lenses, but the report shows that the highest-performing low-income schools are performing at the same levels as high-income middle grades schools when these practices are commonplace. "This helps us crack the code about what works at the middle school level," said Robert Balfanz, advising consultant to the study and principal research scientist of Everyone Graduates Center at Johns Hopkins University.
There were other findings that have implications at local, state and federal levels. For example, neither the grade configuration nor internal organization of instruction is all that important when it comes to improving student outcomes. Many educators think that if they get this part right, that the student achievement will take care of itself. This study showed no strong or consistent relationship between student outcomes and grade configuration or a school's choice of instructional organization In fact, the practices found in our study to be significantly associated with higher student outcomes can be implemented in any middle level school regardless of configuration.
And while new federal policy initiatives are fueling a vigorous national debate about how best to evaluate teachers in ways that reflect student performance, this study suggests there should be a similar debate about education leadership. For example, principals and superintendents in higher-performing middle grades schools serving both lower -- and middle-income students reported that student outcomes were factored into their evaluations. And in higher-performing schools that served primarily low-income students, teachers reported that improving student outcomes was part of their evaluations as well.
On Wednesday, Atlanta Journal-Constitution columnist Maureen Downey correctly noted that hormones are often cited as the explanation for underachievement in the middle grades. This new study dispels that notion. The effective middle grades practices reflected in the study can be acted on and replicated. They can serve as a kind of research-based checklist against which schools and communities can compare their own efforts. It provides much-needed research-based ideas to inform and inspire practices to help all middle grades schools become high performers. If we care as a nation about significantly improving the high school graduation rate and substantially increasing the numbers of young people who attend and complete college -- then we need to start giving our middle grades educators and students more support and attention.
Source: http://www.tampaflpsychologist.com/blog/category/self-regulation
Well, the rub is in defining the desired "student outcomes," and in knowing what "a rigorous high school curriculum" is.
My child's middle school fervently believes that "rigorous" = "endless piles of confusing busywork." While there is precious little new material being taught--most of the math, for example, repeats what he already had in 5th grade--he is constantly working. Hours of homework a night. Infinite projects with confusing, often-changing directions and standards for grading. Even with a website that is supposed to keep parents updated on homework, we honestly cannot figure out what he is supposed to do or when he is supposed to turn whatever he did in.
And this is supposed to be a good school. I almost wish he could go to a 'bad" school. He still wouldn't learn anything, but at least we wouldn't spend such copious amounts of time trying to get him through the mountains of work.
I would also take a critical look at my own understanding of what my child is supposed to be learning. If I think it is "busy work", then chances are I do not know what the learning objectives are.
Here's where the parent-teacher partnership is extremely important. Do the parents know what their children are supposed to learn? Do the parents meet with the teachers to find out? Do the teachers communicate the purpose of the take-home work with the parents? How much real help do the parents provide to the students with regards to focusing them on what needs to be learned with each assignment?
If the purpose of the "busy work" is unclear to the parents, there is a breakdown or lack in communication and understanding between the teacher and parent.
Granted, tax dollars are paid to schools and educators to educate; however, unless parents are JUST AS INVESTED in the PROCESS as the teachers, results can be very disapointing.
Is not the above also known as testing?
And we keep aruging about testing?
Kumon testing starts from grade 1.
http://kumon.com/
You seem to have ignored the middle and end parts of what you quoted, "preparing students for a RIGOROUS HIGH SCHOOL CURRICULUM." Also, ". . . and hold EVERYONE in the system responsible for student LEARNING. That includes superintendents, principals, teachers, students, and parents." [empasis added] Preparing for the next grade leve.s (9-12), for high school is NOT the same as preparing for the test at the end of the year. The author also mentioned "everyone" and "learning". Students that are trained to test are not learning. When everyone has a vested interest in the students' learning, they perform better. Why? Because they are focused on their learning and held to learning standards/goals in school and out of school.
So, to answer, "Is not the above also known as testing?" No. Kumon and its ilk are not THE testing that is being debated/argued about.
One of the greatest distractors I've seen are the performanced based funding legislations that have come as a result of NCLB. Instead of teaching our students to understand the concepts and applications of what we are attempting to teach, we find ourselves teaching to the tests. The reason for this is that not only is the funding that comes to the school impacted by poor performance, but also our job security is as risk as well.
As much as many would like us to believe that the tests are not a part of our evaluations, the reallity is inconsistant with the claim.
I say, let teachers teach. Let teachers prepare the students for the challanges they will face in the coming academic years; and, as a result, we will see improved learning and performance in our students.