The gap in standardized test scores between affluent and low-income students has grown about 40 percent since the 1960s, and the imbalance between rich and poor students in college completion, the single most important predictor of success in the workforce, has grown 50 percent since the late 1980s (Greenstone, Looney, Patashnik, & Yu, 2013). Additionally, while the dropout rates of high school students are decreasing, there is a significantly larger percentage of students who drop out and are from families in the lowest quartile of family income—11.6 percent in 2014 compared to an overall rate of 6.5 percent (NCES, 2015). Education is the most powerful tool for helping students of poverty (Greenstone et al., 2013). Yet the numbers of students from low-income families who enter college after high school is unchanged in comparison to those from high-income families:
The immediate college enrollment rate for high school completers increased from 60 percent in 1990 to 68 percent in 2014. The rate in 2014 for those from high-income families (81 percent) was nearly 29 percentage points higher than the rate for those from low-income families (52 percent). The 2014 gap between those from high- and low-income families did not measurably differ from the corresponding gap in 1990. (NCES, 2016b)
To complicate matters further, the neediest schools experience the most difficulty in attracting and retaining leaders and teachers. A study of Texas administrative data concludes that principal-retention rates are related to both student achievement and student poverty levels, with higher turnover among low-achieving, disadvantaged schools (Fuller & Young, 2009). In addition, these schools lose more than half of their teaching staff every five years (Allensworth, Ponisciak, & Mazzeo, 2009; Hemphill & Nauer, 2009, as cited in Le Floch, Garcia, & Barbour, 2016). The constant change of principals and teachers eliminates the consistent focused efforts necessary to improve schools.
Policymakers and education leaders have sought to improve America’s low-performing schools. The U.S. government has made substantial investments in the form of School Improvement Grants (SIG) and Race to the Top (RTT) grants. However, the current systems and reform efforts are not working. Even considering the increase in graduation rates, approximately 20 percent of students who enter high school will drop out. In the 48 percent of U.S. schools that need improvement, the number of high school dropouts is much greater (Kutash et al., 2010). Schools can predict which students are at risk of dropping out by as early as first grade and identify these students with accuracy by third grade (American Psychological Association, 2012; Sparks, 2013).
Unfortunately, there are serious implications for students who do not succeed in school. In the United States, dropouts are three times more likely to be unemployed and therefore more likely to live in poverty with an estimated annual salary of $20,241 (Breslow, 2012). They will earn thirty-three cents for every dollar a college graduate earns. This is the highest discrepancy in the world (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2011; U.S. Census Bureau, 2006). Also of concern is the fact that dropouts are more prone to ill health and are four times more likely to be uninsured or underinsured. The most astonishing statistic is that the life expectancy for dropouts is an average of ten and a half fewer years for women and thirteen fewer years for men than those with a high school diploma (Tavernise, 2012).
These alarming facts describe the urgency that failing schools face every day. The question is not should our schools improve, but how? The greatest challenge to school improvement is the overwhelming perception that no matter what teachers and administrators do, there seems to be no way out of failing results. Each year brings more state and federal mandates and sanctions to respond to with little hope of making a real difference for students. Failing schools want and need improvement—now!
So why haven’t all the initiatives and reforms produced appreciable results that schools have sustained over time? Because “successful and sustainable improvement can never be done to or even for teachers. It can only be achieved by and with them” (Hargreaves & Fullan, 2012, p. 45). The missing element in all of these efforts is teachers and administrators. They are the only ones who can and do improve schools. Real school improvement occurs when a school harnesses the power within and focuses its efforts on higher levels of learning for all students. No amount of outside pressure will make schools improve; they only do so when the adults who work directly with the students decide it is their job to ensure all students learn at high levels. Helping students learn requires a collaborative and collective effort. Teachers and administrators must be ready to implement any necessary changes so that students can reach proficiency and beyond. Everyone focuses on evidence of student learning, every day, in every classroom—not just before administering a test.
School Improvement for All
The processes we detail in this book harness the power within a school or district to achieve high levels of learning for all students. It does not require years of workshops and professional development before teachers can do the actual work. It requires learning through action—for a staff to roll up their sleeves and start the work immediately. If a patient comes into the emergency room with difficulty breathing, the nurses and doctors do not take the patient’s temperature; they perform immediate triage to save the patient’s life. Failing schools need a triage plan—an immediate course of action to put a halt to the continual-failure cycle.
First and most important, Professional Learning Communities at Work™ (PLC at Work) is the foundation for School Improvement for All. When a school operates as a PLC, real improvement becomes much more possible. Schools that embrace the three big ideas of a PLC as described by founders Richard DuFour, Robert Eaker, and Rebecca DuFour (DuFour, DuFour, Eaker, Many, & Mattos, 2016) understand the following.
1. The school’s purpose is to ensure high levels of learning for all students. Therefore, there is a laser-sharp focus on student learning. In order to ensure high levels of learning, teachers must work together.
2. Only collaborative efforts will improve learning. No one person has all of the knowledge, skill, stamina, and patience to meet all student needs. Teachers have to hold hands and cross the street together because student needs are too great and the consequences of failure too dire to go it alone.
3. Schools must focus on results. Every teacher comes to school with good intentions, but if those good intentions do not materialize into greater learning for students, it doesn’t matter. In the end, the proof is in the tangible results.
The schools and districts featured on AllThingsPLCs (www.allthingsplc.info) are examples of the PLC continuous-improvement cycle in action. Although each of their stories is unique, these schools have demonstrated evidence of effectiveness of PLC implementation that has resulted in higher levels of learning for all students.
How does School Improvement for All address the focus of PLCs that want to create the necessary environment for success for all students? The most distinct way is to use school-improvement efforts to target specific needs—determining the triage plan. Within a PLC, teachers must drive their work with a collaborative audit or needs-assessment process that takes a 360-degree view of a school’s policies, practices, processes, and procedures in light of their effect on student achievement. The focus on data is relentless. The process is a true problem-solving model that leaves no stone unturned in the quest to ensure that all students learn at high levels. The true measure of success in schools that use School Improvement for All as a guide is that more students are learning at proficient or above-proficient levels on typical assessments from the school, district, state or province, or nation. This requires that teachers and administrators exert a focused, cohesive, and consistent effort over time; it demands a commitment from everyone to be all in for student success.
Although we recognize that all schools can and should improve, this book specifically supports schools and districts that are currently at risk or in danger of being designated in need of improvement by state or federal guidelines. It is also geared to support schools that have made few or no achievement gains over a number of years—in other words, schools with data that have