0.6 Ward, c. (july 2009). implementing success against all odds:  (Page 8/9)

Although there are numerous factors at each site that may have contributed to the increase in student performance, the findings indicate that the implementation of the RM ² model may have had some impact on increased student achievement in the area of mathematics. In this study, principals embraced the math model and provided structures to facilitate high quality instruction in the area of mathematics. Teachers were provided with regular release time for training, planning and data analysis; monthly support from math coaches; common unit and benchmark assessments; and math supplies such as student notebooks and whiteboards.

Even though principals reported observing math instruction only once monthly, they provided a structure for success and additional support through both the instructional and administrator coaches. Moreover, principals monitored learning outcomes monthly.

Teachers in the three schools also embraced the math model. They consistently implemented key instructional components, used assessments to modify instruction, and implemented consistent instructional delivery structures across the grades. They provided students with multiple opportunities to demonstrate the learning. Teachers embraced assessments and used the findings to guide their teaching.

Findings from this study support the current literature and research addressing instruction and leadership as well as confirm that schools can be successful against all odds with appropriate leadership. Schools looking to have similar results might want to focus on direct instruction, standards focused content, instructional and administrator coaches, regularly scheduled common assessments aligned to the standards, built in regularly scheduled times for teachers to collaboratively analyze assessment results and plan next steps, and a system for principals to monitor student achievement monthly.

References

Algozzine, B., Ysseldyke, J.,&Elliot, J. (1997). Strategies and tactics for effective instruction . Longmont, CO: Sopris West.

Bakunas, B.,&Holley, W. (2004). Teaching organizational skills. The Clearing House , 77(3). Retrieved February 20, 2008, from ERIC database.

California Department of Education (2009). Accountability progress reporting . Retrieved on March 18, 2009, from (External Link) .

Carter, S. (2000). No excuses: Lessons from 21 high performing high poverty schools . Washington D.C.: The Heritage Foundation.

Darling-Hammond, L.&Ball, D. (1997). Teaching for high standards: What policy makers need to know and be able to do. New York: The National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future.

DuFour, R., DuFour, R., Eaker, R., Karhanek, G. (2004). Whatever it takes . Bloomington, Indiana: National Educational Service.

Gail L. Sunderman, J. K. (2004). Inspiring Vision, Disappointing Results: Four Studies on Implementing the No Child Left Behind Act. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The Civil Rights Project, Harvard University.

Holloway, J. H. (2006, Spring). Connecting professional development to student learning gains. Science Educator , p. v15 n1, p. 37–43.