Which School-Improvement Approach Works?

June 23, 2010

By Rick DuFour

It seems to me that there are three competing approaches to school improvement in the United States today that are based on very different assumptions.

1. We’re okay; they are not okay.
This approach operates from the assumption that educators are doing a superlative job and need not consider making any substantive changes either to their professional practice or the structure and culture of their schools. The problems lie elsewhere. Society must solve the cycle of poverty. State governments need to pass more enlightened educational policies and provide more funding. Parents need to become more involved in the education of their children. Students need to become more responsible.

The logic behind this approach is that the traditional practices of schooling continue to suffice despite the fact that the purposes of schooling have changed dramatically. Schools in the United States were not created to ensure all students learn: they were specifically created to give students the opportunity to attend school where they are sorted and selected according to their perceived aptitude, ability, work ethic, and likely occupation. The fact that the majority of students dropped out of the K–12 system throughout most of the 20th century was not a concern because there were ample opportunities for employment at a decent wage in agriculture and manufacturing. Clearly this situation no longer exists. Yet, despite the fact that we have dropped from 1st in the world in high school graduation rates to 21st out of 27 advanced economies and from 1st to 14th in college graduation rates, some educators continue to insist that there is no need for them to change. This is a perfectly logical approach to school improvement only if one assumes that educators bear absolutely no responsibility for the current conditions of schooling and no obligation to improve those conditions.

2. Sticks and carrots
The assumption driving this approach is that educators have known how to help students learn at higher levels, but have lacked the motivation to put forth the effort necessary to attain these higher levels of achievement. If this assumption is correct, the solution to the problems of education can be solved by creating sufficient penalties and incentives to elicit the required effort. Thus, No Child Left Behind offered vouchers and charter schools to apply more competitive pressure to public schools. The law also established 37 different ways for schools to fail and threatened increasingly punitive sanctions, including closing schools and revoking the jobs of teachers and principals in those schools. Although those threats have failed to raise student achievement, they continue but are now coupled with financial incentives. Race to the Top (or as I prefer, “Dash for the Cash”) funds are now available for schools and districts that create improvement plans that align with federal guidelines. Merit pay incentives are to be offered to individual teachers to spur them to greater effort. These are perfectly logical strategies if it is true that educators have always had the ability to improve their schools but have been too lethargic to do so.

3. School improvement means people improvement.
The assumption behind this approach is that educators have lacked the collective capacity to promote learning for all students in the existing structures and cultures of the systems in which they work. This strategy recognizes that the quality of a school cannot exceed the quality of its personnel, and so it deliberately sets out to create the conditions that ensure the adults in the building are part of a job-embedded continuous improvement process that results in their ongoing learning. Educators are asked to work collaboratively so they can learn from one another and support one another. They are asked to check for student learning on a ongoing basis, use the evidence of that learning to inform and improve their professional practice, and create a plan of intervention that guarantees students who struggle will be provided additional time and support for learning in a way that is timely, directive, and systematic. Above all, they are asked to work interdependently and to take collective responsibility for the learning of each student.

The first approach contends educators have no responsibility for either the current state of public education or the effort to improve it. The second approach views educators as the cause of the problems of educators and sets out to coerce and cajole them into better performance. The third approach assumes that educators are working hard and doing the best they can in the flawed systems in which they work; however, if that system is to be improved, educators themselves will play the major role in doing so.

Which assumptions and approaches seem most likely to improve schools? Which are driving the improvement efforts in your school?

66 Responses to “Which School-Improvement Approach Works?”

1. rsweber says:

   August 9, 2010 at 11:04 am

   I have worked in schools with all three approaches. Under #1 teachers did not want to collaborate. They were entrenched in the way things were done and didn’t see a need to proceed with anything different. Under #2 again there was an unwillingness to collaborate but if I could give an incentive for a student to do better then it was all up to me. As a media specialist collaboration is key and I provide a great deal of support for staff to increase achievement. However it needs to be integrated into the existing curriculum. Under #3 this is the ideal. As I’ve stated an effective media specialist enhances the curriculum. They also assist in providing resources to make learning engaging. Collaboration is key and all curriculum areas need to be included. The PLC is larger than one subject area. I love collaborating with staff. Thank you.

   Log in to Reply
2. mheadlee says:

   August 18, 2010 at 10:08 pm

   My school is considering developing the PLC model; however, as I read more and more about this approach, I am highly discouraged. We are a very small school and I teach 4 different science preps, from 7th through 12 grade. I am the only teacher for 3 of the subjects. With whom am I supposed to collaborate when I create formative assessments and then analyze these assessments? Other grade levels/subject areas? That doesn’t seem to make sense. What would the biology teacher know about the chemistry assessments? So if I have no one to collaborate with in my subject area, I’ll have to go it alone, and how is that different from what I’m doing now? I like the idea of having more staff collaboration on how to help struggling students. I’ve seen that the model suggests that teachers should meet with their PLCs every day. Again, this doesn’t seem to take a small school’s very limited time and resources into account. Please don’t jump all over me for being a lazy teacher who is making excuses. I want change in my school, but these concerns are very valid. Is there anyone out there from a small school who has implemented this PLC approach and could give some insight? Thanks.

   Log in to Reply
   • apboggio says:

     August 20, 2010 at 5:20 am

     At our school which is grade 6 to 12 we are facing the same small school issues. One approach being considered is to review content covered in your courses with the other science teacher. We will be using our curriculum guides and updating weekly on the material that was taught. Then the next week look at the assessment data for the instruction if it exists. I totally understand what you are saying about the common assessments. What about a virtual team with other schools nearby? Or for that matter far away? What courses do you teach?

     Log in to Reply
   • Rick DuFour says:

     August 23, 2010 at 8:58 am

     Hi, Your question about how you can be a part of a collaborative team if you are a singleton has been addressed many times on the allthingsplc blog. Check out the blog from Bob Eaker and Janel Keating from March 17, 2009 entitled “I’m the Only One Teaching This Course. How Do I Collaborate?” or “Working in Vertical Teams” from December 23, 2008, or “Small School Implementation” from May 7, 2007.

     In terms of common assessments, even if you are the only person teaching a course, you can gather information regarding the learning of your students when you incorporate released items from achievement tests from different state or national testing organizations. For example, if you Google “nation’s report card,” it takes you to the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Click on sample questions, then question tools, then science. You can limit your search to questions for 8th graders and high school. You will have 79 different multiple choice questions, 71 short constructed responses, and 20 extended constructed responses from which to choose. For each it indicates whether the question was easy, medium or difficult and it gives you the percentage of students who got the item correct across the nation. The constructed responses questions come with a scoring guide and examples of student responses.

     So you can learn, for example, that only 28% of the nation’s 8th graders could explain the effect of the depletion of the ozone layer on humans. If you find that 80% of your students can do so on the same assessment, it is a good sign. If for another concept you find that 85% of the nation’s students understand the concept, but only 30% of your students can do so, you know you have a problem to address. Here is where your electronic team, or a vertical team of science teachers could work with you to address the issue.

     So common assessments are powerful when they are used to inform and improve professional practice. By using released assessment items you can be informed of your strengths and weaknesses, and by being a member of a team you can do something about those weaknesses.

     Finally, we do not advocate that collaborative teams meet every day. In fact, we consider that overkill. A weekly meeting of about an hour is great, particularly if once a month or so you can have a more extended meeting – for example on professional development days.

     Don’t be discouraged. Take the initiative to create a meaningful team that can help you become the best teacher you can be.

     Rick DuFour

     Log in to Reply