The challenges of instructional leadership school renewal

Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, Wntr, 2002 by Roland G. Pourdavood, Lynn M. Cowen, Lawrence V. Svec

The most controversial and sensitive role for parents and students in this reform process emerged around the state's mandated fourth grade mathematics test. The state mathematics test began about half-way through the reform process in 1996. Results from the state test were used to compare schools within the local district and throughout the state. From 1996 to 1998 (the first three years of the state testing) this school's results were about the same as those of the four other district elementary schools. About 67% of the school's fourth grade students passed the state mathematics test for the first three years. These results were about 12 percentage points higher than the state passage rate (about 55%). However, this school was not ahead of the other four elementary schools in the local school system, and, in the third year of the state testing the school actually was ranked last among the local district elementary schools. These results were surprising to parents and community members because the school had spent so much time and money to reform and improve mathematics instruction. Even though the principals and teachers suggested to parents that the state test was an inappropriate instrument for measuring students' knowledge, many parents became skeptical about instructional reform. Doubts were most noticeable among district administrators and school board members. Constructivist theory was questioned and attacked at local board of education meetings. Same district administrators told the principals at this school that they should avoid the "C word" (constructivism). In the midst of these controversies, the principals and teacher-leaders became even more cognizant that instructional practices guided by constructivist theory required more instructional time. If the goal was to teach all children to understand and do mathematics, then the time structure for mathematics instruction had to be changed (Pourdavood, Cowen, Svec, Skitzki & Grob, 1999).

To meet the challenge of state testing, principals and teacher-leaders created many extra hours of instruction for about 40 third and fourth grade students who seemed to be at risk of failing the fourth grade state mathematics test. These students were nicknamed "Scholars." They attended Saturday morning school, early morning tutoring (three days each week), and after school tutoring (three days each week). After school instruction focused on basic computation skills. Early morning and Saturday school instruction focused on teaching mathematics concepts in a problem-solving context according to constructivist learning theory.

In 1999, after one year of this expanded instruction, passage rate on the fourth grade state mathematics test jumped from 67% to 90%. The same 90% passage rate was repeated in 2000 school year. Many educators and community leaders were especially impressed with the 80% to 90% passage rate of African-American students for two consecutive years. Parental confidence and student pride were renewed.