Contrary to many people's glum assumption, urban school systems are not all education disaster zones. Nor are they all alike. Some, in fact, are far more effective than others at educating children-and we're beginning to understand why that is and what might enable other urban school systems to turn themselves around. A smashing new study being released today by the Council of the Great City Schools (CGCS) provides a major boost to that understanding. At a time when the U.S. is seeking to "leave no child behind," the study is very welcome indeed.
We've known for ages that good schools occasionally flourish within even the most decrepit school systems. The "effective schools" research of the 1970's and 1980's contributed much to that knowledge. It helped us describe the usual characteristics of effective schools. It helped us to spot them hither and yon. The great frustration was that nobody knew quite how to replicate them. They were more like wild flowers, turning up on their own, than a crop to be cultivated.
We've also known for some time that, while many efforts at systemic urban school reform get nowhere-see Frederick Hess's Spinning Wheels for one perceptive analysis-others lead to real change and measurable gains. (See Don McAdams's Fighting to Save Our Urban Schools&and Winning! for an account of Houston's successful effort to turn itself around.) But, like the "effective schools" research, those explanations have been situation-specific and hard to generalize.
CGCS set out to find more easily generalized-and replicable-explanations for why some urban systems make greater progress than others. Assisted by the Manpower Development Research Corporation with funding from the Ford Foundation and the U.S. Department of Education, CGCS sought districts that, in executive director Mike Casserly's words, "had improved in both reading and math in over half of their grades, had done so at rates faster than their respective states, and had simultaneously narrowed their racially-identifiable achievement gaps."
They settled on four such systems- Charlotte-Mecklenberg, Houston, Sacramento and the "Chancellor's District" within New York City-and studied them to determine "what districts can do to boost performance citywide rather than waiting for the turn-around of individual schools." They also examined some (unnamed) "comparison districts" of similar size and demographics.
What distinguished the higher-performing school systems? The analysts identified a half-dozen "preconditions for reform," and nine "strategies for success"-and stressed that all of these things must happen together. This is no menu from which to pick and choose one or two favorite or politically convenient items.
The preconditions for reform turn out to be these:
- A new school board not attached to the status quo that pursues reform with a singular focus on raising student achievement.
- A shared vision of reform-and a superintendent willing to be held accountable for results.
- An ability to identify instructional problems that could be solved system-wide.
- The capacity to sell the school system's reform vision to the larger community.
- A central office imbued with a sense of customer service and able to operate effectively and scandal-free.
- A willingness to use new funds to improve instruction rather than for other programs, across-the-board raises, etc.
With those conditions in place, the higher-performing school systems deployed these strategies:
- Develop instructional cohesion by aligning the system's curriculum with state standards.
- Create accountability systems that exceed state requirements and hold district personnel and school-level leaders personally responsible for producing results.
- Focus attention on the lowest performing schools.
- Centralize and standardize curricula and instruction across the system, especially in reading and math.
- Centralize professional development and focus it on helping teachers meet state standards.
- Drive reforms into the classroom by concentrating on building-level implementation and classroom-level instructional improvement.
- Base decisions on data, not hopes or hunches. Use data to analyze problems, monitor progress and refine strategies.
- Target initial reforms at the elementary level to stop the flow of students into higher grades who lack basic skills.
- Provide struggling middle and high school students with intensive instruction in basic reading and math.
It's not a complete formula for urban school reform, to be sure. Casserly notes, for example, that even these relatively successful districts have so far accomplished little by way of reforming their high schools. And he's well aware of all the things that can go wrong, beginning with the turmoil produced by revolving doors in the superintendent's office and abrupt shifts on the school board. Doing all these things well demands time, sustained focus and stable leadership.
It's also about hard work. In the higher-performing systems, administrators and teachers reported that their jobs became much more demanding and stressful than in the past. They worried that the strain would take the joy out of being educators and working with children. District leaders dealt with this anxiety by improving facilities and materials while providing professional development that emphasized the importance of the mission of educating young people. Teachers, principals and school administrators were also given the opportunity to celebrate successes along the way-and those who were not committed to seeing the mission through were asked to leave.
Not everyone will welcome this approach, with its emphasis on centralization, uniformity and command-and-control. It's not the only approach to education reform that America should be trying. But it's exceedingly hopeful, nonetheless. The case studies reported in Foundations for Success suggest that effective reform can be initiated, managed, and driven from the top in an urban school system-so long as the conditions are right, the full set of reform strategies is pursued simultaneously, and leaders stay the course. This is a significant message of hope for those struggling across the land to improve urban education. It also suggests that the systemic cures assumed by No Child Left Behind are not pipe dreams.
"Foundations for Success: Case Studies of How Urban School Systems Improve Student Achievement," Council of the Great City Schools, September 2002, http://www.cgcs.org/reports/Foundations.html
Terry Ryan is program director at the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation.
