What Effective Schools Do by Lezotte Lawrence W.;McKee Snyder Kathleen; & Kathleen Mckee Snyder

Author:Lezotte, Lawrence W.;McKee Snyder, Kathleen; & Kathleen Mckee Snyder
Language: eng
Format: epub
Publisher: Solution Tree
Published: 2011-08-15T00:00:00+00:00

In the spring of 2009, we conducted an online Reality Check survey that addressed opportunity to learn/time on task. Of the 227 educators who responded, 44 percent were associated with elementary level schools, 28 percent were from middle or high schools, and 28 percent indicated other—mostly central office. The survey included statements about the effect of opportunity to learn on the achievement gap, the extent to which students are engaged in essential learning activities, and use of time within the school. It also included statements about the effect of the standards, accountability, and assessment movement, as well as programs, policies, or practices that supported the correlate. Respondents were asked to indicate their level of agreement with each of the statements.

Respondents were asked to indicate the extent to which they agreed with the idea that the achievement gap between advantaged and disadvantaged students will not be able to be closed until the opportunity-to-learn gap is closed first. Eighty percent agreed or strongly agreed with the statement, while 10 percent were undecided, and 11 percent disagreed or strongly disagreed. This degree of agreement with the idea of closing the opportunity gap strongly suggests that schools should be very focused on understanding and eliminating gaps in opportunity structures and experiences for disadvantaged students.

Forty-one percent of respondents believed that students are actively engaged in essential learning activities about 60 to 80 percent of the time. An additional 35 percent indicated that they thought students were actively engaged in essential learning activities more than 80 percent of the time. The perceptions of the student engagement rate, as seen by these respondents, seems to be much higher than has been reported by research studies over the years.

When asked to indicate their degree of agreement with the statement, “The goal of learning for all cannot be realized without increasing the amount of time available for teaching and learning,” 70 percent agreed or strongly agreed, while 22 percent disagreed or strongly disagreed.

When asked to indicate their agreement or disagreement with the statement that the accountability and assessment movement has “narrowed the curriculum to a dangerous level and important student learnings are being pushed aside,” 65 percent agreed or strongly agreed, and only 24 percent disagreed or strongly disagreed.

When asked to indicate whether the number of standards students are expected to master in a given grade or content area are realistic or unrealistic, 65 percent indicated the number was unrealistic or very unrealistic; only 23 percent believed the number was realistic or very realistic.

A total of 216 individuals responded to this open-ended question: would it be better to have fewer standards and focus more on the quality of instruction rather than the quantity of the content to be learned? By a factor of five to one, the respondents expressed the view that education generally and the learners specifically would be better served with fewer standards. Many suggested that we should place less emphasis on passing the test and more emphasis on mastery of the power standards and essential learnings. Some felt that the focus would be fine if we were to eliminate nonessential learnings.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.