Four Characteristics of Top-Performing Schools
What makes a school "good"?
One year ago, I was thinking about my own school's next steps for improvement. We do well on our state report card, but there is always room for growth. What are other schools, like us but reaching higher levels of achievement, doing differently? I know comparing ourselves to others can be unhealthy, but pursuing this information through a sense of inquiry seemed fine.
So I went through our state’s database, looking for schools with high marks on their report card (test scores, attendance, growth over time). Then I filtered out the schools with different demographics than our building, such as being a charter or a magnet, if a school has high open enrollment from other districts, not Title I like us, etc.
From there I was able to reach out and have a conversation with the leaders from three elementary schools similar to mine. I asked them the following questions:
What do you attribute to your results?
How would you describe your ELA philosophy?
Do you have a common ELA program or resource?
Anything else you would like to share that seems relevant?
After reading through their responses, I was able to tease out a few common characteristics. I realize this is a small sample size, more a case study, but I think the information is meaningful to any leader as we continue to pursue excellence.
#1 - They Use an Inclusion Model for Response to Intervention and Special Education
As much as possible, students identified with various needs are receiving services in the classroom. This happens in a few ways.
In all three schools, the special education teacher is either co-teaching and/or pushing in services. They support the students within the general classroom. Common planning time is provided so classroom teachers and special education teachers can communicate about upcoming instruction.
How much inclusion was practiced varied. One school had a full push-in model: all interventions took place in the general classroom. Another school estimated around half of their interventions were in the classroom.
#2 - They Have High Expectations + High Support
In all three schools, the principal expected every student to reach grade level expectations. If a student’s assessment results revealed they were significantly behind their peers, then the goal was to accelerate student learning so they made over one year’s worth of growth within one school year.1
Some principals did share that they experienced initial pushback from a teacher or two about these expectations. They responded in two ways.
They provided as much as support as they could for teachers and students to be successful. For example, book studies and other more personalized approaches to professional development were facilitated. Teachers appeared to have at least some discretion in their own learning, based on what they believed they needed. Nonclassroom staff, such as guidance counselors and school psychologists, were also available.
If teachers continued to resist, they were kindly but firmly encouraged to consider teaching in another school. One principal recalled “tough conversations” with a few staff members, particularly around limiting beliefs that special education students’ learning trajectories could not be accelerated.
One important point to make here: these schools seem to meet students where they are at. They appear to have a nice balance of challenge and support.
#3 - Leadership is Shared
While the principals I spoke with fulfilled the political visionary role, such as publicly advocating for all students to succeed, they also had a practical visionary to facilitate much of the professional learning.2
In one school, the lead literacy interventionist had 50% of her day devoted to preparing professional development and coaching teachers in the classroom. Coaching was not just one-on-one inquiry cycles. In grades 2-4, she co-taught with the classroom teachers during their daily intervention block. The interventionist does a formidable amount of “coaching” through modeling and shared demonstration in the classroom.
In another school, teachers are invited to join an instructional leadership team3 for monthly meetings. Together they developed their common vision (“Every Child, Every Possibility, Every Day”) and collaborate around immediate issues, such as what professional learning was needed for teachers regarding small group reading instruction.
#4 - Each School Uses Different Curriculum Resources
This was the clearest distinction between the three schools: each building had adopted difference ELA resources and materials. One school utilized Super Kids and Wonders; another school primarily taught with Units of Study.
Yet while there was a difference in materials, what all three schools had in common is they did not seem attached to any resource. If they found that a program was not meeting their students’ need in an area, based on assessment results, they agreed as a team to adapt the resource.
Students’ needs were not the only consideration. One school was finding the Units of Study to be overwhelming. So they paired it down so teachers could be more responsive and feel more successful in the classroom.
When it came to curriculum resources, professional discretion was encouraged and expected.
My Reflections
None of this information was surprising. I think we all know at a deep level that students should be the focus when leading schoolwide improvement, especially for literacy. Yet it was affirming to see this philosophy surface as I spoke with the leaders of the three schools.
I still have questions.
First, if the principal left, would their success sustain? That is, have the beliefs and values become institutionalized and a part of their culture, “the way we do things around here”? All three leaders have been in their respective schools for several years, either as the principal or a teacher leader prior.
Second, how authentic was their curriculum? I did not hear a lot regarding “project-based instruction”, or students able to engage in self-directed learning experiences such as Genius Hour. It kind of comes back to the first question…like the teachers, have students reached a level of independence? Will their high test scores transfer to lifelong success as readers, writers, thinkers, and communicators?
Finally, what is their response to new initiatives with yet-to-be determined results, such as the “science of reading4”? Positive results on state assessments can lead to chasing test scores if a school forgets about their student-centered philosophy while staying current by examining research to inform their beliefs and practices.
I plan to do two things with this information:
When safe to do so, ask one or more of these schools to visit their site with building leaders and learn more.
Continue to engage in classroom visits every day5, to celebrate our strengths and to engage in professional conversation about how we might continue to grow.
What characteristics have you observed about top-performing schools? Share your perspective in the comments.
See Dr. John Hattie’s Visible Learning website for more information about teaching strategies that have shown to result in more than one year’s worth of student learning growth within one school year.
The terms “political visionary” and “practical visionary” come from the article “When Change Has Legs” by David Perkins and James Reese (Educational Leadership).
Check out Read, Write, Lead: Breakthrough Strategies for Schoolwide Literacy Success by Regie Routman for more information on instructional leadership teams.
Reading Research Quarterly (International Literacy Association) has been essential to developing my understanding around the science of reading discussion.
I developed a course on instructional walks for Choice Literacy. Learn more below.