A Model for Success

When looking for an alternative to typical staff meetings where activities were simply reported, the Heart of Missouri RPDC staff (MAP regional facilitators, STARR teachers, Missouri Accelerated Schools’ personnel, Reading Consortium consultants, and the RPDC director and assistant director) began monthly staff meetings for the new school year by discussing a piece of writing related to our work. We chose a chapter from Peter Senge’s education field book, Schools That Learn (2000), entitled "Shifting the Burden." The chapter, which focuses on failing schools’ inability to find fundamental solutions to problems and thus to seek "quick fixes," prompted a discussion on our role as professional developers for school personnel.

During that meeting, we raised more questions than answers: Were we enablers by not demanding that schools seek the fundamental solutions no matter how long it may take? Did we have any control over some of the barriers to real school improvement? What could we impact and how would we do it? Most of all, we discovered we were at the beginning of a very long conversation. Did we want to continue? Answering this question meant more than just talking about the issue. It meant we would give up staff meetings as we knew them. It meant we would expand our meeting time in order to get something accomplished. It meant practicing what we preached – long-term, meaningful work. We all answered "yes." Little did we know, in the process of talking about our role with schools and their improvement, we would continue our own professional development, gain a better understanding of the programs in the RPDC, and begin to collaborate on how to work more effectively with schools.

Though we are housed in the same office, most of us operate independently, providing professional development for schools in our own areas of expertise but rarely connecting with other programs in the RPDC. We realized this only too well during a staff meeting the previous spring. Many of us were surprised to learn that each program in our RPDC was servicing the same school district, but there had been no coordination of service. When we began talking about the kind of work we were doing with the district, we discovered ways to reinforce each other’s work. What we lacked was a plan to coordinate the effective use of resources within the RPDC as it applied to a school district.

We decided the first step toward coordination would be to examine our individual and collective practices within the RPDC to gain a better understanding of all provided services. The following goal evolved: to develop a framework for collaboration within the RPDC that results in a model for whole-school improvement that could be applied to a school or school district.

We chose to study some research-based, learner-centered, professional development design principles and discuss the alignment of our work with those principles. These principles are from the work of Willis D. Hawley and Linda Valli, "The Essentials of Professional Development: A New Consensus," in Teaching as the Learning Profession: Handbook of Policy and Practice, edited by Linda Darling-Hammond and Gary Sykes (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1999). First, we read about the design principles. Then, we posted each of the nine principles on chart paper around our meeting room and spent some time recording what we did in our programs related to each of the design principles. Finally, as a group, we were able to visually examine where we were strong and where we fell short. This led to a rich discussion of how we might address the design principles in our own work and, at the same time, create an effective, collaborative model for the RPDC to use when working with schools.

Through even more conversation, our staff has developed a plan that: 1) can be applied to a school district as a whole-school improvement model, and 2) fosters collaboration among services in the RPDC.

We believe this would be a good plan to use for our work with SUCCESS schools. It is systemic and progressive, providing a district with the structure and culture to sustain continuous improvement. Our plan is still in the development stages, but an important piece of the collaboration process is already in place: We want to work together because we’re convinced this is a better way to do business - for schools and for ourselves.

Martha Morgan
Center for Educational Improvement,
a Missouri Accelerated Schools Center 
at the Heart of Missouri Regional Professional Development Center

table of contents

The School Board Plays an Important Role

Last fall, Marilou Joyner and I submitted an article to the Missouri School Boards Association for inclusion in their publication Show-Me Education. Our purpose was to address local school board members regarding the importance of their role in school improvement efforts. As I assume many of our SUCCESS Team members do not regularly read Show-Me Education, I would like to summarize some of the major points from that article.

Unfortunately, we too often see examples of board members either not fully understanding their role, or intentionally acting outside their domain of authority and responsibility. As Success Teams work with local school leaders in analyzing their current status and working to find productive directions for improvement, we really can’t ignore the part played by the local board of education. The board (and/or its individual members) can be a vital and constructive part of the school improvement work or a significant deterrent to progress and can even distract the front-line workers from their important duties. It has been my observation in participating in numerous MSIP reviews that nearly every district that demonstrates constant improvement, a healthy climate, and a culture that places high value on performance, can boast of a good board of education.

As Marilou and I explored the board’s part, we posed the following question. "Do you want your schools to be the very best they can be"? We assumed we knew the answer, so we responded, "Of course you do!" We went on to say that if Missouri schools—your schools—are to be successful in the high stakes game of school improvement, all players must fully understand their respective roles, the rules must be clearly understood, and participants will continuously monitor the scoreboard.

Much has been written about the performance of schools, but one thing is certain: High-performing schools and school districts are likely to have clarity of vision, which emphasizes high expectations for student performance. The focus is crystal clear. These districts hold key players responsible for fulfilling their role, and make effective use of data to measure progress incrementally and frequently. Schools do well when the board of education understands its responsibility and fulfills that role in exemplary fashion. Likewise, the superintendent, building principals, teachers, students and parents play unique but essential roles. In districts exhibiting high performance, there also seems to be a mutual respect and appreciation for that unique role each part of the district plays.

Making a difference
It is clear from research that boards that make a difference are immersed in visioning, goal setting, and are monitoring progress. They are about communicating the community’s beliefs through sound policy. They are about defining the ends not prescribing the means, or as some would say, they aren’t "micromanaging" the district. Effective schools typically have a board and administration that assign first priority to improvement of instruction and become cheerleaders for high standards of performance.

It would be grossly unfair to ask students to show up for an important competitive event, and after they arrive, tell them what game they will be playing (with or without proper equipment and preparation). It would be unfair to make up the rules as the event progresses and wait until after the contest is over to light up the scoreboard and finally tell them how they performed.

CSIP is Critical
Unfortunately, this is sometimes the case when the board and community have not spent sufficient time developing a clear vision and charted the course to the realization of that vision through a strong Comprehensive School Improvement Plan (CSIP). It is important for the board to understand that although the content of the plan is very important, the process used to develop the plan is also critical. If the plan lacks the involvement and support of the community, the future of the district will be tenuously resting in the personality and abilities of the current leadership team. And we all realize the tenure of the superintendent and board members has shortened considerably over the past few decades. The CSIP can ensure continuity in direction for the district over time where systemic, long-range improvement is manifested.

Several years ago, Thomas Shannon, writing as Executive Director of the National School Boards Association, said although individual board members do not have legal authority, there is a "wellspring of power that usually is not recognized. It consists of two elements: the power of the question and the power of persuasion." Board members, both individually and collectively, must ask the right questions and wield influence in the community if excellence in student performance is to be a reality. The Success Team can assist the local administration in framing these questions.

When the local school board puts its governance focus on attaining high student performance rather than on the myriad logistical issues present in school operations, it becomes a good steward of the finite resource of time allocated to its work. Prioritizing issues and areas for improvement makes the board’s use of time produce the most profound and meaningful results. Imbedded in the MSIP Handbook are several key words that deserve discussion relative to roles and responsibilities.

The first such term is "continuous." Too often MSIP is seen as an event that occurs every five years. We would contend that high-performing schools are constant and continuous in evaluating their improvement efforts.

Although it is true that the accreditation aspect of the Missouri School Improvement Program is highlighted every five years, the district and building Annual Performance Reports (APR) provide meaningful benchmarks to assess the status of improvement initiatives specific to the district and individual schools. Additionally, key resource data is available as a result of Core Data entry. Finally, process data can be examined in light of the official MSIP Advanced Questionnaire and feedback solicited periodically from faculty, parents and students through additional questionnaires, focus groups, committees, etc.

It seems important for the board and district administrators to develop a plan to systematically assess progress in reasonable increments of time and prioritize the time needed for study and discussion of this data. Key questions are "does the board have a plan and are board members making analysis of this data a priority?" Looking at data in the areas of student performance, allocation of resources, and processes ensures reality status for the "systematic" term in the MSIP introduction.

Often in the examination of school performance data, the natural tendency is to focus attention on the emerging areas of weakness. The Accelerated Schools model of school improvement makes a real point of also identifying the strengths. Healthy school improvement initiatives will maintain a good balance of identifying weaknesses and planning for improvement with celebrations acknowledging strengths and successes.

Need For Accurate Data
Because of the very nature of an elected board of education, board members will too often be the recipients of complaints and concerns from patrons and seldom hear from the many whom are very pleased with the school system. Many times these concerns are isolated incidents, the result of a misunderstanding, or a lack of factual information. It is easy to become myopic and only see the remaining challenges. A board member equipped with accurate data can become a real champion of the district’s success at addressing identified weaknesses and showcase the areas where it excels. Bill Elder, Assistant Director at the Office of Social and Economic Data Analysis (OSEDA) is often heard saying that "data used as an excuse for poor performance is worthless, but data used to inform decisions regarding improvement are invaluable." It is important for board members to see the tremendous assets in its district and building administrators, its teachers and staff, its parents and, most of all, its students.

Improved student performance results from a focused leadership team including the board of education. As Success Teams, we stand ready to partner with local districts in their efforts to achieve higher student performance. After all, we each have a vital role to play in creating world-class schools throughout the State of Missouri.

Howard Jones

table of contents

How Many Children? 2000 Census Data

Reapportionment Census data are out, and Missouri’s child population stands at 1,427,692. This is an increase of 8.5 percent since 1990. This is slightly less than the 9.3 percent increase for the population overall. Children now account for 25.5 percent of our state’s population versus 25.6 percent in 1990.

Not all counties shared in this population increase. In all, 31 counties experienced declines in the numbers of children during the 1990’s. Seven counties saw declines of greater than 10 percent. These were Holt, Chariton and Nodaway to the north; Mississippi, Pemiscot and New Madrid in the Bootheel area; and, the City of St. Louis, which continues to experience population loss among all ages.

Counties showing the largest gains were Stone, Christian and Taney around the booming Branson area. These counties showed increases of 49.4, 60.4, and 67.8 percent respectively.

Missouri’s children have become more racially and ethnically diverse. While white children accounted for 84.4 percent of the population under age 18 in 1990, this declined to 80.5 percent in 2000. For the first time, census respondents were allowed to choose more than one race to describe themselves. Multi-race children account for 2.5 percent (35,798) of Missouri’s children.

The 2000 Census also, for the first time in history, provides much more detailed data on those who identified themselves or their children as multi-racial. These data are available at the following website: http://mcdc.missouri.edu

Children of Hispanic origin are the most rapidly increasing group. According to the census, Hispanic is considered an ethnicity which may be of any race. The number of Hispanic children more than doubled during the last decade, rising from 21,272 in 1990 to 42,630 by 2000. In 1990 1.6 percent of Missouri’s children were of Hispanic origin. This has risen to 3 percent in 2000 according to these new data. This growth was anticipated by the growing number of children in public schools for which English is a second language (Step-by-Step newsletter, Volume 11, No. 1). More than one of every four of these students speak Spanish according to an annual survey conducted by the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education.

Overall, there was an increase of 21,358 Hispanic children during the 1990’s. This represents a 100 percent increase. Only 5 counties (Worth, Dade, Schuyler, Nodaway and Cooper counties show declines in numbers of Hispanic children. In 1990, only 46 counties had 50 or more Hispanic children. By 2000, this number had jumped to 69 counties. Counties with 50 or more Hispanics in 2000 accounted for 97.6 percent of the total growth among Hispanic children in Missouri.

Historically, children are one of the most difficult groups to count in the census. In 1990, the national percentage of persons missed in the count was 1.6 percent, but the percentage of children missed was 3.2 percent. Children of color were missed more than twice as often as white children (7%). Preliminary figures from the 2000 Census show that fewer persons and children were missed than in 1990, but children are still missed more often than persons in the general population. This has important implications for planning given the increasing diversity of our children.

Tanna Klein

For more information visit: http://oseda.missouri.edu/step

table of contents

The Role of Success Teams in the MSIP Review Process

McREL (Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning) recently conducted interviews of several superintendents of SUCCESS Districts that have completed the MSIP review. These interviews are the first step in a planned comprehensive evaluation of the effectiveness of the work of SUCCESS Teams. The results of the interviews will help guide future evaluation efforts as well as provide immediate information.

District Preparation
The first set of questions covered district preparations for the MSIP review. These included the level of involvement of the Superintendent and others, as well as the process of preparations such as plans, meetings, and training sessions. Superintendents were also asked about the extensiveness of preparations and if the district had used any outside technical assistance other than SUCCESS Teams. Most had. Interestingly, when asked about the constituency of their SUCCESS Team, three districts said they didn’t have one. Responses were used to compile a district preparation score with a range of zero through eleven. Higher scores equal more preparation.

Results of Preparation
Superintendents were next asked what impact preparing for the MSIP review had on the district. Most superintendents reported changes in classroom practices and school policies. When asked to rate the impact of preparations on a scale of one to ten, the average response was eight. Most superintendents felt that review preparations were somewhat supportive of existing improvement efforts and didn’t push them far off track.

Success Team Involvement
SUCCESS Team Involvement was determined by questioning superintendents about the team’s role in supporting special meetings, changing teacher practice, administrator training, and changing district policies and practices. The answers were used to create a SUCCESS Team involvement score with a range of zero to nine. Higher scores indicate more involvement.

Superintendents were asked to rate the usefulness and importance of the Success Team on a scale of one to ten. The average response was seven for both. However, there seemed to be some confusion on the part of the superintendents as to when assistance received was attributable to the SUCCESS Team and when it wasn’t.

Conclusions
Districts with higher SUCCESS Team Involvement Scores tended to have higher District Preparation Scores. However, there was no significant correlation between SUCCESS Team involvement or district preparation and the result of the MSIP review. The small sample size of the study, 27 participants, may be at least partly to blame for the lack of significant relationships. The SUCCESS Team staff believes a more formal relationship with districts, including a plan of action, could help the districts maintain clearer foci.

As stated previously, one purpose of the interviews was to inform future study of SUCCESS Team work. In the present study, there were many confounding factors that were not accounted for, such as differences in district leadership, area supervisors’ roles, and SUCCESS Teams’ roles. These factors need to be considered in future studies. More precise data could be obtained by monitoring district preparation efforts, and by SUCCESS Teams documenting their work with districts. Comparative case study and tracking districts over time are methods that may help identify specific factors leading to success.

Marcie Haws

table of contents

At the Rockwood School District, the Focus is On the Big Picture: Knowing What is Working, What is Not

Ask Asst. Superintendent Kathy Peckron why the Rockwood School District was accredited with distinction, the highest rating granted by the State of Missouri, and she’ll tell you it’s simply because of its clear focus on being accountable for student achievement.

"All our plans are aligned and continue to focus on the same thing (student achievement) and how it’s related to curriculum instruction, staff development, technology — everything we do," she says. As executive director of curriculum for the school district, she ought to know.

The Rockwood district covers approximately 150 square miles in much of western St. Louis and northern Jefferson counties and serves 50,000 households. It claims impressive statistics regarding student achievement; for example, 30 percent of 11th and 12th graders are enrolled in advanced placement courses.

"The more focused we become, the better the principals and teachers are able to focus on what they do in the schools, " she says. "We continue to give the same message to the administrators and teachers again, again and again."

That message is also simple: Teach and test the intended curriculum.

Rockwood views curriculum study and writing as a continuous improvement process. Each curriculum document, which meets MSIP guidelines, is reviewed on an annual basis and is revised and updated on a five-year cycle. Coupled with an accountability plan, which lays out indicators as to whom is responsible, the model leads to a better alignment among the district’s written, taught and tested curriculum. The procedures it uses are:

1) Curriculum coordinators in the district set goals annually in each content area. Then, an on-going review committee is responsible for obtaining feedback and evaluating the curriculum each year before moving the goals forward.

2) Parents, students, staff and principals are surveyed about the effectiveness in meeting student’s needs, and each individual building offers feedback in a "curriculum implementation plan."

3) Student achievement data is analyzed annually, and adjustments are made to the curriculum documents as a result of the analysis.

4) The review team then recommends changes to the curriculum coordinators and presents them to the Curriculum Advisory Council, who recruits and documents feedback from principals.

5) This information is then submitted by the Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction to the superintendent each year in a "State of Curriculum" document and included in a progress report to the Board of Education.

The procedures allow for continuous input and continuous accountability.

"Just two years ago, we were complaining that ‘great, we can do all these things, but we have no way to track the data.’ So, now we have a technology system put together here where we enter the information with each of the plans as we go. Then we are able to track it by activity and data as to what we’re doing," Peckron says. "Everyone can see it, and talk about it. We have many safety nets in place where you can’t get away from it (continuous improvement plan)."

Rockwood administrators also make a lot of decisions based on what the data looks like. Sometimes, for example, pilot projects may be suggested as means of testing the effectiveness of materials or programs.

Staff development is also an integral part of the improvement plan. The district offers more than 100 workshops every summer, which combined with after-school and pull-out training during the school year, guarantee that "we’re sure that we’re all on the same track."

Sometimes, that means the teachers have to look at the curriculum a new way. "It’s just a rethinking of how and what to teach."

That way of thinking also enters into the hiring of teachers and administrators. There are key questions to ask applicants that reflect how they would fit into the structure of the "big picture."

"We have the systems and structure in place for continuous improvement. It’s a good, strong structure," Peckron says. She describes it as tight curriculum, staff development and assessment fitting together with accountability for high student achievement.

"It doesn’t matter what teaching strategies you use or what staff development you do. If the what part – the curriculum part – of it is not clean and tight you will not get there," she adds.

Rockwood’s "Secrets of Success"

• Practices a sound district philosophy of one size does not fit all.
• Aligns intended, taught, and assessed curriculum.
• Identifies essential skills in curriculum documents.
• Requires performance tasks as components of curriculum documents.
• Makes differentiation of curriculum and instruction the primary teaching strategy.
• Aligns staff development to curriculum implementation.
• Reviews and revises annually all schools’ formal school improvement plans.
• Provides organized resources and needed materials to the teaching staff.
• Develops Site Curriculum Implementation Plans.
• Maintains formal review and development process with input from all stakeholders.
• Analyzes constantly student achievement data and tracks progress.
• Reviews curriculum annually.
• Knows ‘what we’re doing and where we’re going.’
• Celebrates success – no matter how small.

Pat Smith

table of contents

Issues Central to Teaching Students From Poverty

I just attended my first seminar presented by Ruby Payne. Until I learned about Ruby’s work, I did not understand how the rules of generational poverty could conflict with the middle class values of most educators. In her book, A Framework for Understanding Poverty, Ruby Payne describes how individuals accustomed to personal poverty think and act differently from people in the middle and upper classes. Economic class differences, in an educational setting, often make both teaching and learning challenging. Teachers don’t always understand why a student from poverty is chronically acting out or is not grasping a concept even after repeated explanations. She discusses the social cues or "hidden rules" that govern how we think and interact in society and the significance of those rules in a classroom. Ruby says it’s the hidden rules that must be mastered by teachers before they can connect with students from different backgrounds.

A Framework for Understanding Poverty is a must read for educators at all levels. Not only does the author present the issues central to teaching students from poverty, she presents tools educators can use immediately to improve the quality of instruction in the classroom for all students. You can learn more about Ruby’s work and order a copy of A Framework for Understanding Poverty from Ruby Payne’s company, aha! Process Inc. by visiting her web site at www.ahaprocess.com

Joyce Butts
Leadership Academy Supervisor

table of contents

Close the Gap Consortium

Missouri Department of Elementary & Secondary Education          

Missouri Regional Professional Development Centers

For additional information contact: Howard Jones, Project SUCCESS Coordinator.

Project SUCCESS is sponsored by The Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

Please report site problems to Deanna Crocker