A r c h i v e d I n f o r m a t i o n
Improving Schools From the Bottom Up: From Effective Schools to Restructuring
Analysis and Higlights
Congress mandated that the Department conduct an evaluation of effective schools programs,
supported by Chapter 2 and other efforts. Because this focus on school-level change supports
the vision of educational reform embodied in Goals 2000 and Elementary and Secondary
Education Act (ESEA) programs, the findings from the Study of Effective Schools Programs
should prove valuable for the implementation of these educational reform efforts.
Background
Effective schools programs focus on schools as the appropriate level for decisions to improve
teaching and learning. The programs are based on research by Ron Edmonds and others, who
identified a set of school-based correlates or characteristics associated with higher-than-expected
student achievement. The 1988 Hawkins-Stafford Amendments to the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act (ESEA) established a set-aside of at least 20 percent of the total funds from
Chapter 2, the elementary and secondary education block grant program, for assistance to local
education agencies (LEAs) and state activities to support effective schools programs. The
legislation allowed the requirement to be waived for states that spent twice this amount from
nonfederal funds for effective schools programs.
The Chapter 2 provisions supported effective schools programs promoting school-level planning,
instructional improvement, and staff development designed to increase the academic achievement
of all children, particularly educationally disadvantaged children. Based on Edmonds' correlates,
the legislation identified the following conditions of effective schools: strong school leadership,
emphasis on basic and higher order skills, a safe and orderly school environment, expectations
that all children can learn under appropriate conditions, and continuous assessment of students
and programs.
The purposes of the study were to describe effective schools programs; to examine federal, state,
and district support for these programs; and to provide practical advice for educators and
policymakers. The study examined programs that met all the conditions specified in the
legislation for Chapter 2, as well as other school-based reform efforts. The report presents
findings from surveys of all state education agencies (SEAs) and a nationally representative
sample of LEAs. In addition, the report describes the results of case studies of five states,
sixteen school districts, and thirty-two schools.
Selected Findings
Although only 18 percent of the school districts nationwide reported that their reform
efforts met all the federal criteria defining effective schools, the study found many
additional promising examples of school-based reform. Fully 66 percent of districts reported
having some type of school-based reform. Forty percent of districts reported that their most
comprehensive school-based reforms focused on increasing student learning, improving teaching,
and developing schoolwide planning and problem-solving capacity.
The study identified three common characteristics among the most promising examples of school-based reform:
- First, the most promising efforts focused on the classroom--on raising
expectations for all students, emphasizing problem solving and critical
thinking. For example, to provide students with opportunities to meet higher
standards, staff in one school emphasized depth over breadth through integrated,
interdisciplinary units that combined physical science, math, social science, and
other subjects. Students measured pollutants in local rivers and streams, and then
prepared recommendations for the water commission.
- Second, the most successful schools developed and sustained a culture in
which teachers worked collaboratively and actively participated in decisions
that directly affected their ability to improve classroom practices. With
support from the district, teachers at one school created a school council that
exercised authority over important school decisions, including reassignment of
staff and allocation of funds to support the the creation of collaborative teams of
teachers. The school also established a common planning period and adopted
block scheduling to facilitate collaboration among teachers.
- Third, these schools took a long-term, strategic perspective to build
professional capacity. They involved teachers as decisionmakers and active
participants in professional development and provided opportunities for teachers
and administrators to build their professional capacity in subject matter, classroom
pedagogy, and decision-making strategies. Staff evaluated professional
development needs, resources, and capacity and developed multi-year plans,
instead of relying on disconnected, one-shot workshops. For example, the report
describes one school that formed a partnership with a local university, providing
on-site preservice preparation for university students and on-site inservice
development for classroom teachers.
A combination of conditions was necessary to support reform: leadership to get
reform started and sustain it, new knowledge and skills for staff to make necessary
changes, and opportunities for staff input into decision-making. Two additional
factors facilitated reform: support from parents and the community, and outside
resources, particularly funds to provide teacher release time or buy materials. The
availability of federal Chapter 2 funds was one of the factors reported by States that
encouraged school-based reform.
Implications
The study has strong implications for educators and policymakers involved in Goals 2000
and other educational reform efforts.
- The federal government needs to tie regulations to student learning goals and keep
regulations flexible enough to support a wide range of school-based reform
strategies.
- Educators and policymakers at each level of the system need to instill a vision of
reform, help build local capacity to acquire new skills and knowledge, and
develop policies that encourage reform while providing flexibility for the
development of local strategies to meet local needs.
- It is of crucial importance that teachers have the opportunity to build their
professional capacity, to collaborate with other school staff, and to participate in
decisions that directly affect classroom practices.
Copies of the full report and the summary volume, as well as School-Based Reform:
Lessons from a National Study, a guide for school reform teams that provides practical
advice from the study, can be obtained from the Planning and Evaluation Service, Office
of the Under Secretary, U.S. Department of Education, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W.,
Room 4162, Washington, DC 20202-8240; phone: (202) 401-0590; FAX: (202)
401-3036.
-###-
Return to Elementary and Secondary Education with Title I
This page last modified April 12, 1999 (swz/gkp)