With the enactment of NCLB, schools across the nation are now more accountable for student performance than ever before. Funding and other support for failing schools has increased. Low performing schools are spending thousands of dollars annually on professional development, programs, and interventions to improve student outcomes (Reeves, 2003).

Yet for many schools, there is little or no improvement in student achievement. During the 2004–2005 school year, over 2,000 Title I public schools were identified as having failed to make adequate yearly progress for five or more years. This number represents 23% of all Title I eligible schools. What is most alarming is that to meet the NCLB criteria for adequate yearly progress in 2005, only 16% of a school’s tested population had to be proficient in reading and only 18% in math (Lips, 2006). Today, roughly 45% of the population must be proficient to meet the federal mandate, and the number of failing schools has dramatically increased.

Failing schools serve a disproportionately high number of low-income Black and Latino children. In the large school districts of New York City and Los Angeles, as many as 300,000 children attend the most persistently underperforming public schools (Lips, 2006). Furthermore, according to The Harvard Civil Rights Project, Black and Latino students comprise 96% of the students in schools identified for improvement in Illinois and 80% of the students in California (Sunderman & Kim, 2005).Of the roughly 20 million low-income children in K-12 schools, 12 million are not even learning the most elementary skills and have little hope of mastering the responsibilities of citizenship or the rigors of global competition (Carter, 2000).

In the midst of the perpetual despair, there are a small number of schools quickly moving large numbers of low income and minority children to proficient levels. The objective of this paper is to highlight three such schools and to describe how each school implementing the same math model was able to move significant numbers of students to proficient levels in less than one year. These schools continued to increase student proficiency levels in the second year of the model implementation and to exceed the goals of NCLB which require schools to increase the number of proficient students by roughly 10% annually.

High-performing, high-poverty schools have strong leadership, a clear purpose, and clearly defined curriculum (Carter, 2000). In high-performing schools, teachers are well trained, acknowledge the difficult findings, spend most of their time teaching, and ensure that learning is happening (Carter, 2000; Schmoker, 2006). In this brief literature review, we examine the factors found in high performing schools that are also prevalent in the schools of this study: namely the impact of instruction, teacher training, leadership, use of assessment data, and instructional coaches for student achievement.

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).

Data from the Oct. 2007 CBEDS data collection, the 2008 STAR Program Student Answer Document 2007-2008 School Accountability Report Cards.

In October, 2006, two schools in the district, School 1 and School 2, elected to pilot a math model i.e., Results driven Math Model1 (RM²). In September of 2007, another school piloted the program. School 1 and School 2 are both K-5 schools and School 3 is K-6. The three schools are all within a mile radius of each other and serve similar demographics.

In 2007, just after 6 months of using the math model, the number of proficient students at School 1 increased from 26 to 44% in math. At School 2, the number of proficient students grew from 42% to 51%. In 2008, the number of proficient students at both schools continued to grow with 55% of the students proficient in math at School 1 and 57% proficient at School 2. In August of 2008, after one year of using the math model, School 3 increased from 31% to 48% proficient students in the area of mathematics (California Department of Education, 2009). The figure below shows state content standards test results based on AYP trend data for each of the sites over a five year period in the area of mathematics. RM² was implemented in schools 1 and 2 in November of 2006 (for test years 2007 and 2008) and at school 3 in September of 2007 (for test year 2008).

Figure 1. Five Year AYP Math Overall Trend Data for School 1, School 2, and School 3.

The nine pedagogical components of the math model include: seven step lesson design, direct instruction including teacher modeling, active student engagement, on-going spiral review, standardize note taking, common lesson delivery, on-going professional development, common pacing, and the use of common assessments aligned to the pacing guides. The focus of the model is on lesson delivery, pacing order, use of common assessments, data driven instruction, and ongoing coaching for teachers and administrators.

In November of 2006, second through fifth grade teachers at School 1 and School 2 elected to adopt the math model. Principals were assigned an administrative coach, and teachers at each site were provided with a math coach. Teachers were given 1.5 days of training in November and half-day trainings monthly from December to April. When the model was first introduced, teachers were trained in the implementation of each component of the model and the math strategies. Pacing guides were created for teachers in grades 2–6 linking district adopted textbooks to the state content standards and the RM² order of content delivery. Additionally, teachers were trained in an approach to teaching basic math skills and given basic facts books with scripted lessons, math problems, and assessments to ensure all students were able to compute basic operations of addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division with automaticity. The explicit teaching of basic skills added an additional 30 minutes of math instruction and provided students with a structure to memorize basic facts and apply them in real problems.

Each month, math coaches provided teachers with professional development in new math strategies, pedagogy, and remediation techniques. Every two months, teachers were provided with unit and benchmark assessments aligned to the pacing. Additionally, they were trained in developing grade level appropriate weekly formative assessments.

The administrative coaches met with principals individually in November of 2006 to establish a clear set of achievable math goals such as doubling the number of students proficient in math by May of 2007. Each principal had to determine and to gain staff agreement about the percentage of students they expected to become proficient in math by testing time. A monitoring system to ensure that agreed upon next steps between the principal and coach was established. Coaches and principals discussed common assessment timelines, how to use assessments to improve instruction, and how to conduct assessment conferences with individual teachers. Additionally, a schedule for monthly walkthroughs with the administrative coaches and each principal was developed.

The purpose of this paper is to answer the following questions: 1) What components of the model were used by each school? 2) To what degree did each school implement the components? and 3) What are the teacher perceptions about the math model and student achievement?

To help determine the extent to which aspects of the RM² model were implemented, surveys were distributed in the fall of 2008. One survey was sent to principals and another to 40 teachers. Of the 40 teachers, 31 responded. Of the three principals, two returned the completed survey. It should be noted that one principal has been a principal for 5 years; all five at the same site. The other principal has 30 plus years with the last six in the building.

The teacher survey consisted of 33 multiple choice questions and two open-ended questions, while the principal survey consisted of 33 open ended questions and two selected response questions. The questions were designed to answer questions about which aspects of the math model teachers were using, the frequency with which they were using them, and which aspects the teachers felt were having the most impact on students’ success. The surveys were hand delivered to each site and were returned anonymously in an envelope.

Most components of the math model were used routinely with the student engagement components being used less frequently (see Tables 2 and 3). Both teachers and principals reported that the math model provided more structure and continuity. As one teacher noted, “The consistency of having this model each year will solidify the way students learn math. They will know what to expect. We appreciate that as teachers.”

Although there is no direct way to determine the impact of coaching on the schools, the principals reported that administrator coaches helped to keep them focused on classroom instruction and assessment results. These comments are similar to other school leaders who have coaches. Killion (2002) points out that school leaders with coaches repeatedly remarked that because of the coaching they were able to remain focused and stand firm on issues related to the academic success of their students.

Teachers reported receiving support from instructional coaches generally on a monthly basis and having instructional coaches was useful. More importantly, teachers reported implementing the instructional practices of the math model on a regular and consistent basis. According to Kowal and Steiner (2007), more relevant than teacher’s opinions of their coaches are the changes made in teachers’ practices and strategies in the classroom as a result of the coaching. The emerging body of empirical research on coaching indicates that instructional coaching has great potential to influence teacher practice and, ultimately student performance (Kowal & Steiner, 2007).

Findings suggest teachers routinely used the assessment results to inform instruction after implementing the model, and teachers assessed students frequently. Structured grade level teams, called professional learning communities (PLCs), met regularly to analyze results and discuss next steps. When asked about the success of PLCs, one principal reported, “1) They have focused the teachers on student results, 2) They have made practice more public. 3) They have made our planning sessions more focused.” Another principal stated, “the teachers indicated they have found the meetings extremely helpful in guiding their instruction, for reteaching content in which their students struggled and to be on the “same page” as the other grade level teachers.”

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 RM² 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.

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 http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ar/.

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.

Killion, J. & Harrison, C. (2007, December). Coaching teachers to help students learn. Education Week. Retrieved January 20, 2009 from http://www.cea.org/newsinfo/inthenews/coaching-teachers.cfm.

Knight, J. (2005, May). A primer of instructional coaches. Principal Leadership Middle School Edition, 5, No 9.

Kowal, Julie & Steiner, Lucy (2007, September). Instructional coaching. Washington D.C.: The Center for Comprehensive School Reform and Improvement.

Leithwood, K., Seashore L., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). How leadership influences student learning. University of Minnesota: Center for Applied Research and Educational Improvement & Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.

Lips, D. (2006, May 30). America's opportunity scholoarship for kids: School choice for students in underperforming schools. Backgrounder, No. 1939, pp. 1–6.

Marzano, R. (2003). What works in school: Translating research into action. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Perez, L., Uline, C., Johnson, J., James-Ward, C., & Basom. M.. (2008). Foregrounding fieldwork: Preparing successful school leaders through data-driven inquiry and coursework aimed at improving student achievmeent. Paper presented at UCEA, Orlando, Florida.

Reed, B. (2004). Reading apprenticeship framework. Northwest Education, volume 10 number 1. Retrieved February 8, 2009 from www.nwrel.org/nwedu/10-01/read/.

Reeves, C. (2003). State support to low performing schools. Washington, D.C.: Council of Chief State School Offices.

Reeves, D. (2004). Accountablility for Learning: How teachers and school leaders can take charge. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Sammons, P. M. (1987, September). New evidence on effective elementary schools. Educational Leadership , p. 45 (1), 4–8.

Schmoker, M. (2006). Results Now. Alexandria, VA: Association for Curriculum and Supervision Development.

Stiggins, R. (2005). From formative assessment to assessment for learning: A path to success in standards-based schools. Phi Delta Kappan. 87, pp. 324–328.

Strong, J., Ward, T., Tucker, P. & Hindman, J. (2008). What is the relationship between teacher quality and student achievement? An exploratory study. Springer Science, LLC 2008.

Sunderman, G.L. & Kim, J (2005). Teacher quality: equalizing educational opportunities and outcomes. The Civil Rights Project at Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.

Thurston, D. C. (2008, September). Effects of continuuing professional development on group work practices in scottish primary schools. Journal of In-service Education , v34 n3, pp. 263–282.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 

Wallace, A. O. (2003, August 6). Leveraging teacher pay. Education Week, 22(43), 64.

Waters, T., Marzano, R.., & McNulty, B. (2003). Balanced leadership: What 30 years of research tells us about the effect of leadership on student achievement: A working paper. Aurora, CO: Mid-Continental Regional Educational Lab.

Yoon, K. S., Duncan, T., Lee, S., Scarloss, B., & Shapley, K. (2007). Reviewing the evidence on how teacher professional development affects student achievement (Issues & Answers Report, REL 2007-No 033). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Southwest. Retrieved November 12, 2008 from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs