How high poverty districts improve: a national study uncovers the policies and practices of high-poverty districts that have improved achievement across multiple schools

Leadership, Sept-Oct, 2003 by Wendy Togneri, Stephen E. Anderson

As a result of these efforts, an understanding of the visions permeated stakeholders in most districts. A principal in Kent explained, "I don't think there is anyone in this district who doesn't understand that our goal is to do what is best for the children."

In Minneapolis, a deep understanding of the vision was clear, particularly at the administrator and principal level. One administrator noted, "[Our strategic plan] has focused" the district, so "it is much clearer today what our goals are and [in which] areas we need to be spending our resources."

Districtwide curriculum

Kent County, Minneapolis, and Aldine began their instructional reform with curricular overhaul. This reconstruction was a response in part to the state standards movement and in part to research that revealed that teachers sought greater curriculum guidance. Leaving curriculum decisions up to individual schools had created difficulty for both teachers and students in these districts. Teachers were uncomfortable with the lack of guidance in how to reach state and district standards. And students, because of high rates of mobility, often encountered a curricular maze as they moved to new schools.

To provide greater clarity on what to teach and greater cohesion from school to school, the districts engaged large cadres of teachers in developing their own curricula, aligned to state standards and district goals. As the process evolved in each district, teachers developed lesson plans and sample strategies to provide instructional guidance in the new curriculum. Administrators and teachers in the districts noted that the new curricula provided coherent instructional guidance that did not exist prior to the standardization.

As one Minneapolis teacher put it: "[Because of the curriculum] we have more types of conversations going on about what we are doing. I might ask another teacher, 'When are you going to do that standard?' so we can coordinate. [Our] department meeting have transformed from what they topics like 'what book are we going to buy?' That was all we cared about, and then we would go back into our rooms and close the door."

Data and accountability

Another important strategy for instructional improvement was extensive use of data. The districts did not just talk about data; they used data to guide important decisions about teaching and learning. Noted a Providence administrator: "Our decisions are made based on data, qualitative and quantitative. We look at student achievement data on an ongoing basis. We address it at principals' meeting.... We used data all the time. The schools have to develop a school improvement plan and allocate their budgets based on data."

In all five districts, staff used data to guide decisions related to instruction, such as budget allocation, staff hiring, and teaching and learning gap identification. At the school level, the degree of data use varied, but there were promising examples in all districts.

Principals and teachers analyzed data to monitor progress, to determine the effectiveness of their instructional approaches, and to figure out where to make adjustments. Teachers looked to data to determine specific learning patterns--for example, whether certain students exhibited difficulties in identifying words by sight, or whether they were still struggling with sounding words out.