School evaluation and change

¶ … Education

I read, and will summarize here, three recent articles on issues having to do with evaluation and/or change within education. The first, Apples to apples: An evaluation of charter schools serving general student populations, by Green, Marcus & Winter (July 2003), reported results of an empirical study conducted by the authors that compared average test scores of students attending charter schools, with average test scores of students attending public ones. Charter and public school math and reading test scores in eleven states: Arizona; California; Florida; Texas; Michigan; Wisconsin; Ohio; Colorado; North Carolina; Minnesota, and Pennsylvania, were compared. The authors stated that, since charter schools typically serve targeted student populations (e.g., disadvantaged students; at-risk students; juvenile delinquent students) and public schools do not, no empirical study of its type, based on comparing test scores, had been previously conducted. The authors further stated:

One of the most important difficulties in studying charter schools is that many... are targeted specifically at particular student populations...

Although most states require charter schools to have open enrollment policies, charter schools can still target specific populations by describing themselves as schools for a particular kind of student...

The study, however, sought (to the extent possible) to compare "apples to apples -- that is, test scores at charter schools and regular public schools serving similar student populations."

Methodology was to measure "test score improvements in eleven states over a one-year period" (Green, Marcus & Winter, July 2003). Results were that charter schools surpassed public schools on math tests by 0.08 standard deviations, "equivalent to a benefit of 3 percentile points for a student starting at the 50th percentile" (Apples to apples). In addition, charter schools scored better on reading tests by 0.04 standard deviations or 2 percentile points for students beginning at the 50th percentile. In the states of Florida and Texas in particular, average charter school performance showed the greatest difference from average public school performance on both math and reading tests.

Overall, the authors found modest positive difference in charter school test scores. Possible reasons for such differences, they opined, included (1) the fact that charter school are free from many state regulations public ones are not; (2) matching of student needs with schools-of-choice may be better; and (3) charter schools themselves are incentive-driven in attracting and retaining students, while public schools are not.

The second article I read was Essential leadership in the school change process (Cushman, March 1997). The main focus of this article was on the issue of what it takes to lead others through processes of school change, and how and why school leaders should share responsibility for initiating and carrying out school change with others. Specifically, the article focuses on the most effective ways, through building school coalitions, of "pressing the conversation about hard issues, creating a sense of urgency, yet not discouraging those for whom [sic] change means loss, risk, and uncertainty." The author gives the example of how, when Tombaugh Elementary School's principal and faculty in Las Cruces, New Mexico, wanted to find ways to better serve the needs of their Spanish speaking students, which at the time "came perilously close to tracking." But they also had to deal with "existing regulations and the shortage of qualified bilingual staff."

Tombaugh faculty decided to try a new idea. As a solution arrived at by the principal and faculty of the school working together, it was decided that the campus's multi-age language classes would all now have an increased number of regular teachers directly working with Spanish-speaking students. Further, a bilingual faculty member, Emma Castaeda has written a proposal to bring this practice to other schools with Spanish-speaking students throughout the district. Tombaugh's principal, Chris Milyard, has found, based on faculty's working together to solve this problem (one that had earlier been deemed, by a committee from New Mexico's Elementary Network Center for Essential Schools, as one that also implicitly raised a "reflective question" for Tombaugh to consider in applying for membership in that Coalition). By working toward and arriving at a workable and agreeable solution, Tombaugh's principal and teachers together demonstrated the power and effectiveness of collective leadership.

Cushman (March 1997) further points out that in today's changing and increasingly demanding educational environment, with the best, most dedicated faculty often not given much credit for all they accomplish, and with increasing pressure placed on educational leaders and faculty alike due to national standards and emphasis on test score performance nationwide, the traditional school hierarchy of principal as leader and the rest as followers, works far less successfully than in the past. As Cushman states, leadership must instead spring from "reciprocal processes" that help to identify, and work toward, a common purpose. In other words, in today's complex and increasingly demanding educational environment, schools need all the leaders, working together, that they can get. It is also crucial to optimal school success, Cushman adds, that education leaders; faculty; parents, and the community at large be able to foster, and maintain, a supportive problem-solving atmosphere for all concerned, where hard questions can be discussed and solutions worked toward by all for the common good of a school and/or district. The example of Tombaugh Elementary school's solution, arrived at by everyone's working together, to the problem of how to best teach Spanish speaking students, illustrates the efficacy of shared leadership in operation.

The third article I read was: The longitudinal evaluation of school change and performance in Title 1 schools (Turnbull, 2001). The main point of this article was that the longitudinal study described had made a connection between student gains in achievement, within Title I schools, and use of some classroom and/or school practices supported by standards-based reform. However, other practices also supported by standards-based reform, however, appeared not to yield as much increase in student performance.