Some Lessons on the Path to Learning for All

School Administrator, June, 1994 by Gary S. Mathews

In December 1982, while working as an evaluation consultant for CTB/McGrawHill, I made a career shift. Having worked as a social studies teacher and administrative assistant at John F. Kennedy High School in New Orleans and as a curriculum coordinator in Jackson, Miss., I was convinced, actually "moved," to act on the writings and findings of Lawrence Lezotte, Ronald Edmonds, Wilbur Brookover, and others.

Edmonds' "five factors" or "correlates" of an effective school especially inspired me. I wanted to return to the schoolhouse as a practitioner, as a principal. I wanted to demonstrate, because I believed, that instructional leadership committed to high expectations for students and staff, a focus on curriculum within a safe and orderly environment, and constant monitoring of results to obtain feedback-to-all was the stuff of real and lasting school improvement-"reform" as was fashionable back in the '80s.

Though it was clear from early writings and findings of effective schools researchers that this body of knowledge reflected elementary school practice primarily, I was convinced that application of the correlates also would bring positive results for secondary schools. In March 1983, I was given the opportunity to find out.

Early Lessons

Superintendent Robert Fortenberry, now retired, but long known for his development of Jackson's Common Body of Knowledge, extended me the opportunity to work in the then approximately 33,000-student Jackson, Miss., Public Schools. This time, however, I was out of the central office and into a school. At age 28, I became principal of Jackson's Callaway High School. My wish had come true!

The school's 1,300 students were 92 percent black and 45 percent received free or reduced lunches. Student achievement results were poor, both on grades and standardized scores. Student discipline was insufficient, and staff morale was declining. It was a school-a high school-ripe for application of the findings on effective schools.

Where to begin? I knew that I as principal-one charged with a responsibility of leadership who desired committed followership-had to come up with an objective framework for improving Callaway High. Without it, I was a young principal flying-by-the-seat-of-his-pants with an experienced staff. And our experienced staff believed they were "doing about the best they could!"

I knew that for Callaway to turn it around, I, as leader, had to use an objective framework that would help commit principal and staff to something bigger than self. I had found such a framework-one that was data driven, research based, and under-girded by a sense of mission of "teaching for learning for all." That teaching was real when it resulted in learning was a powerful hurdle for us, one that provided the impetus for on-going staff development.

We taught each other techniques of random recitation, formative and summative evaluation, process and product feedback, and overall lesson design and delivery. We observed each other in the classroom and in mock lessons, and debriefed to improve practice. That learning was for all took us beyond our professional learnings to the notion that our students-black/white, poor/not-so-poor, male/female-were all to be the benefactors of our new framework and commitment, thus to something selfless, a calling.

Developed by our own staff from our own data, the "Callaway Action Plan for an Effective School" became the focal point for school action, team building, problem solving, short- and long-range celebration and modification. I learned several valuable lessons during my years of guiding the Callaway Action Plan. The greatest buy-in will occur when:

* people understand the data base for school change;

* people understand the research base for school change;

* people help develop a well-articulated mission for school change and a plan of action to make it happen;

* the principal actually values, models, coaches, and monitors for school change;

* the correlates of Edmonds and Lezotte are viewed as real and acted upon by staff and principal; and

* student achievement, discipline, and staff morale improve.

Stark Reminders

In spring 1987,1 became the associate superintendent for instructional services in Spring Branch Independent School District in Houston. Divided north and south by Interstate 10, our 28,000 students were, by the end of my five years, nearly 50/50 in terms of majority/minority composition. More than one-third of our students were on free or reduced lunch. Dozens of languages were spoken. Student achievement was sporadic.

Schools in Spring Branch embarked on the stakeholder development of school improvement plans, not unlike the Callaway Action Plan in Jackson. New superintendent Hal Guthrie had brought the effective schools philosophy of "all children can learn" from Cedar Rapids, Iowa. With extensive staff development, combined with school plans being the driving force for change, Spring Branch made real progress on lessening the infamous learning gap.

We developed a working decision-making matrix to help propel school-based improvement, but then we encountered a major crisis. One of our high schools, attempting some heterogeneous grouping in ninth-grade English, ran into formidable community opposition. Our mission of "teaching for learning for all" suddenly was questioned.