<< Chapter < Page | Chapter >> Page > |
Another component necessary to improve student achievement is data. If schools are in the business of helping students learn, then data used to guide decisions should relate directly to student achievment (Marzano, 2003, p. 56). The instructional program must be aligned with the sequence of assessments that report on the regular progress of students. There has to be constant assessment in place that demonstrates mastery of what teachers are teaching (Carter, 2000). Moreover, teachers need regulary scheduled times to collaborate about findings and to determine next steps for instruction (DuFour, DuFour, Eaker,&Karhanek, 2004). In accordance, schools with the greatest gains in student achievement constantly use and analyze assessments (Carter, 2000; DuFour, DuFour, Eaker,&Karhanek 2004; and Reeves, 2004).
The final factor in this literature review is the impact of instructional coaching on student achievement. Teacher coaching is fast becoming a tool of choice for striving districts (Killion&Harrison, 2007). Instructional coaching has been adopted as a central professional development strategy in Boston, Dallas, New York, and Philadelphia public schools. Several school reform models, such as America’s Choice, High Performing Learning Communities, and the Breaking Ranks framework rely on instructional coaching to support successful reforms (Kowal&Steiner, 2007). Coaches model teaching in classrooms and help teachers identify when to implement interventions. Principals work with instructional coaches to strengthen their own knowledge and identify teachers who will receive the greatest benefit from coaching (Knight, 2005). In comparing instructional coaching to other programs that purport to increase student learning, education economist Eric A. Hanushek (as cited in Killion&Harrison, 2007) analyzed school data from Washington State and found gains from coaching were be about six times more than those for class-size reduction. Accordingly, instructional coaches can significantly impact the quality of teachers and hence instruction.
The three schools identified are part of a large urban school district in northern California encompassing wealthy, impoverished, and high crime communities. The crime rates in some neighborhoods of the district consistently exceed the national average and are listed as some the most unsafe neighborhoods in the nation. Several of the lowest performing schools in the state are in this district. In 2006, the district became a Program Improvement district due to the increasing number of program improvement or low performing schools within its jurisdiction (see Table 1).
Demographics | School 1 | School 2 | School 3 |
Student Enrollment | 596 | 463 | 327 |
African American | 4% | 13% | 32% |
Asian | 5% | 8% | 2% |
Filipino | 1% | 4% | 0% |
Hispanic or Latino | 86% | 72% | 64% |
White | 2% | 3% | 0% |
Socioeconomically Disadvantaged | 99% | 100% | 98% |
English Learners | 78% | 61% | 65% |
Students with Disabilities | 12% | 6% | 6% |
Fully Credentialed Teachers | 35/35 | 23/23 | 17/23 |
Parents Graduating from HS | 29% (STAR Parent Self Reporting Data) | 31% (STAR Parent Self Reporting Data) | 29% (STAR Parent Self Reporting Data) |
Notification Switch
Would you like to follow the 'Ncpea education leadership review, volume 10, number 2; august 2009' conversation and receive update notifications?