Stories from Schools: Case Studies of the California Academic Partnership Program

Citation

Hughes, K.B. and Silva, S.A.M. (2011), "Stories from Schools: Case Studies of the California Academic Partnership Program", Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 49 No. 1, pp. 105-107. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578231111102117

The disparity in academic performance between “disadvantaged” students and their white counterparts has become the impetus which drives lawmakers, districts, schools and teachers in their attempts to reform educational practices. From No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act to the newest entry into the American fray, “Race to the Top”, closing the achievement gap has become the touchstone by which school districts around the country drive their educational reforms. Such is the impetus behind the project known as the California Academic Partnership Program (CAPP) which supports partnerships between K‐12 and post secondary institutions with the aim to close the achievement gap and improve college‐going rates for students in California's under ‐performing schools. Since the 1980s, schools around the country and California in particular (p. 1) with its large, diverse population of more than 6 million students in public schools have struggled with the issue of closing the achievement gap. Most often the academic success of students is determined by how well they perform on standardized tests. Across the US, if any particular subgroup of students continually fails to meet the targeted performance goals, schools are subsequently required to provide supplemental services to help close the gap between students that perform well and those that do not. Like it or not the concept of closing the achievement gap is as much about class as it is about race.

In this sui generis effort by CAPP, Stories from Schools is a thought‐provoking compilation of seven school stories – case studies if you will, highlighting the endeavors of high school educators across the state as they struggle and succeed in their efforts to keep more students from “falling through the cracks”. As editor, Alice Kawazoe indicates (p. 2.) “the whole point of the stories and case studies are not “solutions” or “resolutions,” but a broadening and even heightening of our [collective] struggles”. From all across the state of California, we are privy to amazing leadership efforts in curriculum, instruction, assessment, student support, and professional development. The stories and the perspectives drawn from these efforts may well be the catalyst for needed change in closing the achievement gap. In the end, it is all about our stories. As Kawazoe puts it (see, www.edsource.org/stu_achivegap.html), “We owe it to each other to listen to our stories, to respect and learn from them. Our stories are all we have”.

In “‘I liked it because I did it’: when students find success”, Dorothy Russo, an English language development (ELD) teacher, reminds us that sometimes we need to go back to our roots – those days when we as new teachers were willing to take risks to help our students achieve. Acutely aware of the needs of her English learners and the dictates of her school district, rather than do what she has always done, Ms Russo pulled out a lesson she had used from her earliest teaching days to help her students connect to learning in a way that most of us can only dream of. She had her teenage students ages 14‐18 of mostly boys, capture a special childhood memory by journaling and painting. In doing so, it ignited an enthusiasm and pride in ownership of their assignments by her students. Sometimes as teachers, we lose a certain “je ne sais quoi” that gives us that needed fearlessness to spark the passion of learning in our students. Ms Russo took a leap of faith in trusting her instincts to guide her students to learn in a way that was more creative, interesting, and exciting and in turn, was reminded that academic success takes many forms. As educators, we must continually ask the question, “Who are we to determine what academic success should look like?” Ultimately, it is our students who determine their own academic success – it is about how they feel and connect to their learning. Ms. Russo found a way to guide students to learning success. Bravo!

In “The collaborative for higher education high school mathematics/science enrichment project”, authors Landesman, Randall, and Florendo, highlighted the extraordinary gains that can be made when collaboration is embraced in the truest sense of the word. Collaboration does not merely extend from one subject area to another, but rather to institutions of higher learning and to industry leaders as well. By allowing students to see a connection between course content and career opportunities, the students enrolled in this enrichment project were not only able to close the achievement gap, but envision themselves in professional fields not previously within their reach. Integration of the mathematics and physics curriculum, a summer science camp, summer internships, introduction of an engineering course and visits to local museums, colleges and universities provided the backdrop for an advanced Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) program for “underrepresented” youth at a Northern California high school. Teachers developed critical links between courses and tied their work in the classroom to real life situations to “show” students why they should develop skills in advanced mathematics and science. Utilizing a cohort model for learning, two teachers were able to create a (p. 29) “well‐planned, detail‐oriented, highly connected project.”

Although the project had it challenges and obstacles, it had a clear vision intended to prepare students for careers in STEM related fields. The authors outlined three key components for this program:

1. 1.

   partnerships with higher education, industry and schools;

2. 2.

   the need to engage a student in meaningful work; and

3. 3.

   of utmost importance are a positive relationship and great chemistry among teachers.

Most interesting was that the students involved in this program were 16 and 17 years old and considered “behind” in academic preparation, logic and critical thinking skills, as well as the study skills required to excel in STEM fields. Through a dynamic and inventive program, students were able to acquire the skills needed thus providing evidence that it is never too late for students to reach towards their highest potential. A key lesson for teachers may be: never under estimate your student's abilities, raise the bar and challenge not only them, but also yourself.

In “Reinventing high schools: one deep conversation at a time”, author Nina Moore discusses her work through the CAPP Partnership Initiative (CPI) with four schools over a six‐year period. The end goal was to learn how to move schools from low to high performing. As Moore states so eloquently (p. 71), “This is a journey, a delicate dance of support, and at the same time an attempt to co‐create a vision for something different, for something more”. What we learn from this case study are the essential elements of leadership, professional development (i.e., curriculum, instruction, and assessment) and professional community, collaboration, student support, and family and community involvement. Out of the many conversations with Moore, a commonality of themes emerges – time for collaboration, professional development, and ongoing support for the leadership teams. The myriad of problems in low performing schools within the CPI project is not a new paradigm for most of us. It speaks to a truth and in the end, we must as Moore started, continue to have one deep conversation at a time until we as educators figure it out.

In “The high school Instructional Leadership Initiative (ILI)”, author Kate Jamentz, highlights 16 high schools and their participation in the ILI focused on the Math and English curriculum at their respective schools. The ILI project provided needed planning and development time for the schools to “unpack” their math and English standards. The project emphasized the need for backwards mapping from the assessment to lesson, and that teacher leadership and by in was essential to the success or failure of the initiative. The focus was to assist teachers understand the cognitive demands they place on their students, to design common assessments, to develop a performance standard, to increase access to instructional opportunities for all students, to analyze student work, to reflect on their own professional development, and most importantly to recognize standard‐based instructional practices. Teachers broadened their understanding of the need to teach to the curriculum every minute of every day. It is not about “what do I feel like teaching today” it is about following a well‐crafted, thought out curriculum that is consistent with other teachers within the same school and ideally the district. When teachers are able to fully understand the connection between what and how they teach to student performance, teachers accept responsibility for their student's performance rather than blaming poor performance on past academic preparation, or lack of parental involvement, or myriad other places of blame.

This type of rigorous curriculum development changes the student‐teacher relationship. Teacher expectations are clear and public. As Jamentz states (p. 81), “With explicit goals in sight, the teacher is viewed not as an obstacle to be overcome, but as a support to students”. When students have a clear understanding of the skills necessary to perform “well” in a class, they are able to improve their academic achievement and reach higher standards. Backwards mapping not only allows the teacher to plan thoughtful comprehensive lessons but also encourages increased levels of performance and participation from the students. Instruction continues to be differentiated, and remediation on certain topics may still be required, but lesson plans are constantly being evaluated and improved to address perceived shortcomings. As asserted by Jamentz (p. 100), “As school leaders continue to invest in this work, they should ensure that the school plan includes the necessary commitment of resources not only for initial development of assessments or units, but for their ongoing use as catalysts for professional learning.” Curriculum development is not a one‐time project. It requires constant funding and time for assessment and reevaluation. Jamentz admits that when teachers collaborate, it requires each to be willing to look at their teaching with an openness needed for constant improvement. This type of openness does not come easily. Collaboration requires teachers to be amenable to peer‐review, to clearly verbalize their expectations of students, and to work as a group. Schools discovered the power of collaboration and teachers emerged as instructional leaders and played the most important role in how deeply the work effected instructional practice.

Katrine Czajkowski believes that one leader can make a difference in “Expect success: interventions beyond remediation”. Czajkowski developed a creative tutoring and homework center that emphasized positive reinforcement designed to encourage growth rather than serve as punishment for poor performance. Additionally, she transformed her summer school program from a program for students who had “failed,” to a grade recovery program with acceleration classes, by changing the ideology of summer school and tutoring. The interventions put in place focused on an expectation of success rather than failure. According to the author, the Homework and Tutoring Center served no punitive or disciplinary function and students could not be assigned to go there. It was not about seat time. The Center was a constructive place, with outside teaching assistants and senior tutors who believed in a positive and supportive approach to learning and remediation. Important factors to success were that the Center hired tutors and teachers who could teach math, and kept the hours and location consistent throughout the semester so that students and parents could depend on the support of the after school program. Through reframing, the program designed and implemented by Katrine Czajkowski, changed the culture at her school with regards to remediation and summer school. Ms Czajkowski expected success rather than failure, and that is exactly what her student did, succeeded rather than failed.

Barbara Wells provided intensive on‐site professional development as discussed in “Coaching in mathematics: teachers, departments, and schools”. As part of an ongoing professional development program, Wells details two days of coaching and observations with a high school math department. In a series of intensive professional development common curriculum, goals, and assessments were put in place and teachers agreed to increase the responsibility of students. Wells observed too much teacher talk in the classroom as well as an overall lack of performance precipitated by a negative school culture. The teaching community must come to understand that (p. 147) “… we [do not] have any proof that “telling” is equivalent to “learning” or promotes “knowing”. Teaching must be about student learning, not teachers talking.

Katrine Czajkowski presented commentary on this case study making inciteful conclusions including what good teachers should look like. A good teacher is one who cares for their students as human beings, not objects, has extensive content knowledge and pedagogical expertise, and has the ability and desire to function as a collaborator. Low expectations from teachers negatively affect marginalized students and many schools expect failure rather than promoting success. For any change initiative to succeed, ownership of the change process must come from the teachers themselves. Change cannot be mandated or dictated and if a school culture is that of low expectations, there is little incentive to change the status quo and improve performance. Teacher leaders from within the school are a key component to lasting sustained change. In the school presented in this case, teachers had not embraced the common curriculum and the culture of low expectation prevailed. Teachers did not emerge as instructional leaders and were seemingly unwilling to collaborate for the betterment of the students.

Current research literature (p. 158) presents many definitions of educational leadership, but someone once defined leadership as taking responsibility for what is important to you. This is just a tidbit of what we glimpse in “Women of color leading schools: the journey of three principals”. Unable to find one principal who would best represent women of color, this story is about three uniquely different women of color coming together to be interviewed about their collective experiences as they traversed the paths to true leadership. As the conversations unfold, we are pulled into the fervor and commitment of these women who were determined and committed to change the status quo within their public schools. Their beliefs that you must deal with the whole student if you expect sustainable change, truly resonates in this story. As the reader, you come to understand that sometimes you have to shake things up to effect change. This eye opener into the struggles and challenges faced by women, especially women of color in leadership, reminds us that we need to value all the voices, no matter the gender or color.

The authors of the various sections of this book have selected successful school stories for careful consideration by the readers of its contents. The book is recommended for policy makers, school administrators, teachers, district office personnel, and all those who have a vested interest in searching for strategies to help turn around schools in efforts to provide a quality of education for all children. Conclusions implicate that programs and services must expect success first, making potential failure a secondary concern. Everyone must be held accountable for services to students. They must accept that tracking is a formula for disaster for students, and teachers and staff must nurture creativity and resourcefulness while expanding equity and access to opportunity for all. Administrators and staff must relish challenge, set high expectations, and consider teachers to be professionals and leaders while acknowledging and engaging the cultural context of the school.