MinnPost's education reporting is made possible by a grant from the Bush Foundation.

What are successful ‘outlier’ schools doing to close achievement gap?

In the decade since its passage, a river of ink has been spilled decrying the failings of No Child Left Behind. Partisan leanings aside, virtually all of us agree: It’s punitive, based on faulty assumptions, and gives us little to help any given teacher reach any given student.

It’s responsible for epidemic levels of finger-pointing, administrative cheating and, most tragically, teaching to the test. And it has put a lot of money into the pockets of publicly traded education concerns.

It’s easy, then, to lose sight of the fact that until 2003, when the first NCLB-mandated tests were administered, we had no universal measurement of student achievement. The SATs told us something about how the college-bound were faring, and a small cross-section took a national test popularly dubbed “the nation’s report card.”

But overall, we, the public, really didn’t know, in concrete terms, how schools were faring. We had very little idea just how many kids lacked basic skills.

Last week, eight years into this mostly failed experiment, we learned that even the schools that do the best with concentrations of kids in poverty — the so-called beat-the-odds schools — fail a third to a half of their students.

A sense of urgency
The numbers still incite a surfeit of partisan finger-pointing, but there’s also a sense of urgency. And, parsed carefully, they tell us that closing the achievement gap is in fact possible and not just a pipe dream.  

All of which is a very long preface to the point of today’s post: As it did last year, when the results of the 2011 Minnesota Comprehensive Assessments were released, the Star Tribune engaged in the very real public service of identifying statistical outliers.

The most interesting of these top-10 lists identify the schools with high concentrations of poverty that post high test scores — “high” being a relative term. This year’s lists are populated with many of the same names that were on them last year.

Two St. Paul Public schools made the math list; one of those two, Dayton’s Bluff Elementary, was the lone public school to appear on the reading list. Last year it was No. 1 in reading and No. 2 in math. This year it placed at Nos. 9 and 10, respectively. Its scores plummeted — something we will return to in a moment.

One school that showed up both years is guaranteed not to next year: Tarek Ibn Ziyad Academy, better known as TIZA, lost its charter over the summer for reasons unrelated to both its academic performance and the controversy about its Muslim identity.

Many charter schools on lists
Eight of the top-10 math achievers are charter schools, as are nine of the 10 schools that beat the odds in reading. Many of them made appearances last year, too.

Many offer “wrap-around” services that connect kids and parents with health care, mental health care, vision and dental care, language skills, housing assistance and so on.

Five of the top math scorers and four of the reading odds-beaters are members of a network called Charter School Partners that seeks to identify and replicate gap-closing strategies. The exact mix varies from school to school, but all have longer days and years, rigorous expectations for continuous improvement by teachers, strong leaders and a relentless reliance on data.

Let’s pause for a moment to expand on this last point: We’re not talking about MCA data, but about Friday afternoon math quizzes, spelling exams delivered on the fly and other “formative assessments” that tell teachers precisely which skills individual kids need.

Typically, a teacher reaches about 70 percent of students with their first lesson. Some of the remainder require reinforcement and some require a different approach altogether, or they may never get a potentially progress-halting concept like, say, counting by tens.

Teachers in many of these schools work in teams; all team members consider student data together and discuss the best interventions.

‘The genius of charter schools … it’s flexibility’
The magic of the charter isn’t the nature of the school’s legal formation per se, CSP’s Brian Sweeney pointed out: “The genius of charter schools isn’t that they’re going to find a new way to teach kids to read. It’s flexibility.”

Indeed, the mainline public schools that appear on the lists are site-governed.

Mary Donaldson is principal of Concordia Creative Learning Academy, a CSP charter located on St. Paul’s east side, which appeared at No. 4 on the math list and topped this year’s reading list.

Eighty-eight percent of the 400 students are impoverished. There are 96 new kids this year, all of them four or more years behind in proficiency.

Nonetheless, 80 percent read proficiently and almost 63 percent are proficient in math. (Math scores dipped overall statewide this year, the first in which a new, more rigorous test was used. Educators aren’t sure what this means in terms of performance, but among themselves are crediting — or blaming — the new exam for 10 points.)

Donaldson is quite clear about what enables Concordia’s success: “The ability to have the freedom to make decisions to meet students’ needs at any time, immediately and without having to go through a group of people somewhere else.”

12 to 14 extra weeks of school
Concordia’s longer days and school on Saturday translate to 12-14 extra weeks of school per year. They eat breakfast in class and get 45 minutes of physical education every day.

Kids are never away from school for more than two weeks. If a kid doesn’t show up for school, Donaldson sends a van to their home to get them.

And, she added, “I can hire and fire whomever, whenever.”

Leaders of the other top-10 schools can tell similar stories.

It’s a fragile mix, however, as demonstrated by Dayton’s Bluff, which beat the odds this year, but by dramatically less than in the past. Reading scores dropped 10 points, from 69 percent to 59 percent.

Last year, 75 percent of students were proficient in math, compared to 48 percent this year. Even given the 10 percent new test guesstimate of points lost, that’s a 27 percentage-point drop.

Principal Steven Flucas has yet to see individual classroom results, but has a general idea what happened. Partly because of the school’s shiny new reputation and partly because busing rules were changed, enrollment is up — good news, but a challenge.

In 2009-2010, the school had 315 students, according to state records. Last year, there were 360, and this year there are 425. It’s fair to assume most of these kids show up behind, just as they do at Concordia.

Quite a bit of churn
The higher numbers also mask a fair amount of churn, which is particularly problematic because student mobility is highly correlated to low proficiency. Depending on the grade level, 20 percent to 35 percent of each class turns over mid-year.

Partly, this goes hand-in-glove with the school’s 91 percent poverty rate. But the housing crisis also seems to play a factor, in Flucas’ view. There are an awful lot of homes for sale in the neighborhood, which means kids moving both in and out.

Finally, because enrollment is up there are 28 kids in each class, as opposed to 16 last year.

“There’s disappointment, of course,” said Flucas’ predecessor, Andrew Collins, who is now SPPS’s director of turnaround schools. “But there’s also a sense of optimism about what this building can do and what’s possible.”

Which is, in the end, more than any of us knew a decade ago when the tests became the law of the land.

Is it enough? Check back next year.

You can also learn about all our free newsletter options.

Comments (7)

  1. Submitted by Thomas Swift on 09/21/2011 - 01:16 pm.

    How many of these outlying charters feature a union-free work environment, Beth?

  2. Submitted by Thomas Swift on 09/21/2011 - 02:19 pm.

    I’m serious, Beth.

    If the genius is flexibility, is it fair to conclude that flexibility is due, even in part, to the lack of a union steward waving a contract under the administrations nose?

  3. Submitted by Paul Brandon on 09/21/2011 - 03:06 pm.

    Could be….
    But– charter schools do not have to accept all students, and there is also an element of self-selection. Children whose parents are involved enough in their education to enroll them in a charter school would probably do better than average in any school.

    And Thomas–
    Do you actually know any public school administrators?

  4. Submitted by Thomas Swift on 09/21/2011 - 04:09 pm.

    Paul, I’ve explained this on MinnPost at least half a dozen times, but…

    I spent 8 years busting my tail for kids in Saint Paul public schools; as a tutor, grading papers, advocating for kids before the board and ran for board in 2000.

    And this was after I’d pulled my kids the hell out of there.

    Yes Paul, I’ve met “a few” administrators and teachers.

    I do think that kids having parents involved enough to get them into a charter may be part of the answer, but I’d still like an answer to my question from Beth…I’m guessing her silence will have to suffice in leiu of an honest answer that causes discomfort.

  5. Submitted by Ray Schoch on 09/21/2011 - 06:57 pm.

    From Beth’s piece: “…It’s easy, then, to lose sight of the fact that until 2003, when the first NCLB-mandated tests were administered, we had no universal measurement of student achievement. The SATs told us something about how the college-bound were faring, and a small cross-section took a national test popularly dubbed “the nation’s report card.”

    But overall, we, the public, really didn’t know, in concrete terms, how schools were faring. We had very little idea just how many kids lacked basic skills.”

    My not-entirely-rhetorical question is: Why does most of the quote refer fairly specifically to “students” and “student achievement,” and yet the crucial line falls back on “…how SCHOOLS were faring?”

    If it’s STUDENT achievement, why does the SCHOOL get crucified if there isn’t enough of it, and granted temporary sainthood if there is? If the math scores dropped from 75 percent proficiency last year to 48 percent proficiency this year, that’s more than troubling, it’s a disaster. Did math teachers all have a crippling stroke? Was math left out of the curriculum to save time for more reading instruction? Were there no math classes on Monday, Wednesday and Friday? Did all the math teachers forget how to teach math?

    Or, could it possibly be that measuring student achievement is essentially about measuring STUDENT achievement, not principal achievement, not teacher achievement, curriculum achievement, janitorial achievement, or the persistence of an arctic low pressure system over the school on test day? If I’m certified in my instructional field, know my material, present lessons in varied ways, spend time tutoring individuals in and out of class, just like I did last year, adjust for what I see in individual strengths and weaknesses in a kid’s knowledge base, and the test scores show a 27 percentage-point drop, Mr. Swift may want to fire me because I’m a union member, but doing so, I’d like to suggest, isn’t going to fix the problem. Something is going on with the student population, the test, or the curriculum. It seems unlikely that someone would go from being a master teacher one year to an incompetent the next. A response more nuanced than “fire the union members” is required if better student performance is the goal.

    Quite frankly, I’d argue that a huge part of Concordia’s success does not appear to stem from the ability to “…fire whomever, whenever.” Instead, it would seem to come from the fact that, while virtually the entire state likely has a 36-week school year, limited to Monday through Friday, 50-ish minute class periods (I don’t know the specifics of Minnesota Department of Education regulations, having taught in a different state), breakfast often not provided, nor physical education required, Concordia’s classes are longer, their instructional weeks are longer, and their school year is longer. Moreover, that school year is not broken by 8-to-10-to-12 consecutive weeks away from school in a summer vacation for which the rationale dates to 1830, and is no longer relevant.

    Frankly, I’d be astonished if a school year of 48 to 50 weeks versus a school year of 36 weeks did NOT make a huge difference in student achievement, even if all other factors were the same.

    Meanwhile, “churn” is justifiably worrisome. Stability goes hand in hand with individual attention, and both are important factors in learning. That’s why, even though I can’t agree with the often-fundamentalist religious rationale for much of the home school movement, it nonetheless occasionally produces kids who really have their act together academically. That’s not because their parents are brilliant, but because, as learners, they have stability, individual attention, breakfast, field trips, and a lot of other things public schools can’t guarantee, and sometimes can’t provide systematically, especially when the district’s tax base, family incomes, or other primary factors are at the low end of the spectrum.

    What I think most successful schools demonstrate is that it’s often not very much about the school at all, per se. It’s about providing avenues and opportunities – and uniformly high expectations – for students. Those things require time, individual attention, and rigorous standards. A child can – and many, many actually do – get an excellent education in just about any school, if there’s enough support at home, enough stability in both the kid’s life and the faculty, and enough desire for success at both ends of that educational equation.

  6. Submitted by Bill Gleason on 09/23/2011 - 10:22 pm.

    Students from Finland outperform peers in 43 other nations – including the United States, Germany and Japan – in mathematics, science and reading skills. Finland is also ranked top in economic competitiveness.

    What makes education in Finland that good? 10 reform principles are behind that success.

    Link: http://bit.ly/dcNTmM

    If unions are the primary cause of student failure, as Mr. Swift seems to believe, how can Finland, with a fully unionized teaching force, be so successful?

Leave a Reply