Creating learning communities in low-performing districts and schools is especially daunting in an era of accountability and standards-based assessment. This article describes research that informed application of Southwest Educational Development Laboratory's Working Systemically model for increased student achievement. The article highlights 4 needs of low-performing districts and schools, and it describes actions to address these needs systemically while promoting a culture of collaboration and professional learning. It focuses on a process for alignment of curriculum, instruction, and assessment to state standards across levels of the local system. Finally, it discusses roles and responsibilities of external change agents in helping districts and schools learn to work systemically.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AirasianP. W. (2004). Classroom assessment: Concepts and applications.Boston: McGraw-Hill.
2.
AndersonS. C., RolheiserC., & GordonK. (1998). Preparing teachers to be leaders. Educational Leadership, 55(5), 59–61.
CaweltiG. (2004). A synthesis of research on high-performing school systems. In CaweltiG. (Ed.), Handbook of research on improving student achievement (3rd ed., pp. 10–24). Arlington, VA: Educational Research Service.
5.
CharlesA., Dana Center. (1999). Hope for urban education: A study of nine high-performing, high-poverty urban elementary schools.Washington, DC: Planning and Education Service, U.S. Department of Education.
6.
CoralloC., & McDonaldD. H. (2002). What works with low-performing schools: A review of research.Charleston, WV: Appalachia Educational Laboratory.
7.
DatnowA., BormanG., & StringfieldS. (2000). School reform through a highly specified curriculum: Implementation and effects of core knowledge sequence. Elementary School Journal, 101(2), 167–192.
8.
ElmoreR. F. (1995). Structural reform and educational practice. Educational Researcher, 24(9), 23–26.
9.
FullanM. (1990). Staff development, innovation, and institutional development. In JoyceB. (Ed.), Changing school culture through staff development (pp. 3–25). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
10.
FullanM. (2001). The new meaning of educational change (3rd ed). New York: Teachers College Press.
11.
FullanM. (2003). Change forces with a vengeance.New York: RoutledgeFalmer
12.
FullanM., & HargreavesA. (1996). What's worth fighting for in your school?New York: Teachers College Press.
13.
GaretM. S., BirmanB. F., PorterA. C., DesimoneL., & HermanR. (1999). Designing effective professional development: Lessons from the Eisenhower program.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
14.
GeiserK. D., & BermanP. (2000, September). Building implementation capacity for continuous improvement.Emeryville, CA: RPP International.
15.
GronlundN. E. (1996). Assessment of student achievement.Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
16.
HallingerP., & HeckR. (1996). Reassessing the principal's role in school effectiveness: A review of empirical research. Educational Administration Quarterly, 32(1), 5–44.
17.
HuieS. B., ButtramJ. L., DevineyF. P., MurphyK. M., & RamosM. A. (2004). Alignment in SEDL's working systemically model.Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.
18.
JohnsonS. M. (1990). Teachers at work: Achieving success in our schools.New York: Basic Books.
19.
JoyceB., & ShowersB. (2002). Student achievement through staff development (3rd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
20.
KannapelP. J., & ClementsS. K. (2005). Inside the black box of high-performing high-poverty schools.Lexington, KY: Prichard Committee for Academic Excellence.
21.
KnappM. S. (2003). Professional development as a policy pathway. Review of Research in Education, 27, 109–157.
22.
KruseS., & LouisK. S. (1993, April). An emerging framework for analyzing school-based professional community. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Atlanta, GA.
LortieD. C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
25.
LouisK. S., & KruseS. D. (1998). Creating community in reform: Images of organizational learning in inner-city schools. In LeithwoodK., & LouisK. S. (Eds.), Organizational learning and school improvement: Linkages and strategies (pp. 17–45). Lisse, Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.
26.
LouisK. S., & MilesM. B. (1990). Improving the urban high school: What works and why.New York: Teachers College Press.
27.
LouisK. S., TooleJ., & HargreavesA. (1999). Rethinking school improvement. In MurphyJ., & LouisK. S. (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational administration (2nd ed., pp. 251–276). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
28.
MarzanoR. J. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action.Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
29.
McEwanE. K. (2003). Seven steps to effective instructional leadership.Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
30.
MitchellC., & SackneyL. (2001, April). Communities of leaders: Developing leadership capacity for a learning community. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA
31.
National Association of Elementary School Principals. (2001). Leading learning communities: Standards for what principals should know and be able to do.Alexandria, VA: Author.
32.
NewmannF. M., SmithB., AllensworthE., & BrykA. (2001). Instructional program coherence: What it is and why it should guide school improvement policy. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(4), 297–321.
33.
O'DayJ. A., & SmithM. S. (1993). Systemic reform and educational opportunity. In FuhrmanS. H. (Ed.), Designing coherent educational policy: Improving the system (pp. 250–312). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
34.
ParsadB. (2001). Teacher preparation and professional development: 2000.Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics and the U.S. Department of Education.
35.
RichardsonJ. (2002, February). No excuses for low learning. Results, 1, 6
36.
RichardsonJ. (2003). From the inside out: Learning from the positive deviance in your organization.Oxford, OH: National Staff Development Council.
37.
RichardsonV., & PlacierP. (2001). Teacher change. In RichardsonV. (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed., pp. 905–947). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
38.
RosenholtzS. J. (1989). Teachers’ workplace: The social organization of schools.New York: Longman.
39.
RustF. O., & FreidusH. (2001). Introduction. In RustF. O., & FreidusH. (Eds.), Guiding school change: The role and work of change agents (pp. 1–15). New York: Teachers College Press.
40.
SengeP. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization.New York: Currency/Doubleday.
41.
SengeP. M., KleinerA., RobertsC., RossR. B., & SmithB. J. (1994). The fifth discipline fieldbook.New York: Currency/Doubleday.
42.
SparksD. (2004). Focusing staff development on improving the learning for all students. In CaweltiG. (Ed.), Handbook of research on improving student achievement (3rd ed.) (pp. 245–255). Arlington, VA: Educational Research Service.
43.
SparksD., & HirschS. (1997). A new vision for staff development.Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
44.
SparksD., & Loucks-HorsleyS. (1989). Five models of staff development for teachers. Journal of Staff Development, 10(4), 40–57.
45.
SpeckM. (1996). Best practice in professional development for sustained educational change. ERS Spectrum (Spring 1996), 35.
46.
TogneriW. (2003). Beyond islands of excellence: What districts can do to improve instruction and achievement in all schools—A leadership brief.Washington, DC: Learning First Alliance.
47.
TogneriW., & AndersonS. E. (2003). Beyond islands of excellence: What districts can do to improve instruction and achievement in all schools.Alexandria, VA: Learning First Alliance.
