““Socioeconomic factors are clearly not the sole predictor of academic performance…”
These are the words of Trish Williams, executive director of EdSource–organization that just released the report entitled: “Similar Students, Different Results: Why Do Some Schools Do Better?†Here is a description of the four common practices of the successful schools they encountered during the study:
• Prioritizing Student Achievement. Where teacher and principal answers to multiple survey
questions indicated higher expectations for students, their schools had, on average, higher API
scores than schools whose staffs indicated lower expectations. In more-successful schools, both
teachers and principals reported that their school has well defined plans for instructional
improvement and that they put priority on meeting the state’s API goals and the federal adequate yearly progress goals. Teachers and principals also report that their schools set measurable goals for exceeding the mandated API student subgroup growth targets for improved achievement.
• Implementing a Coherent, Standards-based Curriculum and Instructional Program.
Teachers who report the following were more likely to be in higher performing schools:
schoolwide instructional consistency within grades; curricular alignment from grade-to-grade;
classroom instruction guided by state academic standards; curriculum materials in math and
language arts aligned with the state’s standards; in a district that addresses the instructional needs of English learners at their school. Principals were more likely to be in higher performing schools if they reported that: the district has clear expectations for student performance aligned with the district’s adopted curriculum, and the district evaluates the principal based on the extent to which instruction in the school aligns with the curriculum.
• Using Assessment Data to Improve Student Achievement and Instruction. Strongly
correlated with a higher API was the extensive use of student assessment data by the district and the principal in an effort to improve instruction and student learning. For example, principals more often reported that they and the district use assessment data from multiple sources (curriculum program and other commercial assessments; district-developed assessments; the California Standards Tests and the CAT/6) to evaluate teachers’ practices and to identify teachers who need instructional improvement. Principals report using this data to develop strategies to follow up on the progress of selected students and help them reach goals. According to these principals, the district expects all of its schools to improve achievement, evaluates principals based on student achievement, and provides support for site-level planning related to improving achievement.
• Ensuring Availability of Instructional Resources. Where more teachers reported having regular or standard certification for teaching in California, schools had, on average, higher API scores. The same was true of schools where principals more often reported that their districts provide sufficient and up-to-date instructional materials as well as support for supplementary instruction for struggling students and for facilities management. Teachers with at least five years of full time teaching experience were more likely, on average, to be from schools with higher APIs. Principal experience was also correlated with higher school achievement.
