Schools and Systems: Designing for Achievement

The Commission recognizes that calling upon the United States to bring far greater numbers of young people to much higher levels of mathematics and science learning represents a challenge higher than our educational system has ever committed to as a goal or come close to realizing as an achievement. The goal of dramatically upgrading math and science education aligns with similar calls and efforts for transforming American education to bring all students to “college readiness⁷⁷.” Mathematics is both a critical gateway subject and competence for college preparation and technical careers and a foundation of higher-order thinking. The sciences provide both methods for problem solving and core knowledge needed in our complex society for carrying out key civic responsibilities such as serving on a jury (which increasingly involves weighing science-based evidence) or voting on social issues such as stem cell research.

Daunting as this goal may be, it is essential to our national well-being. As a practical matter, therefore, we must make crucial decisions regarding changes to make, innovations to seek, public policies to craft, and investments to budget for and prioritize. We will need transformation at every level: systems, schools, and classrooms.

Objectives

• Build high expectations for student achievement in mathematics and science into school and classroom culture and operations as a pathway to college and careers
• Enhance systemic capacity to support strong schools and act strategically to turn around or replace ineffective schools
• Tap a wider array of resources to increase educational assets and expand research and development capacity

Discussion

Schools must become more powerful learning organizations, where students engage in the practice of mathematics and science to build their knowledge and skills and incorporate prowess in math and science as part of their developing identities. This is especially clear for middle and high schools, which many American students enter already significantly under-prepared for academically rigorous work. These students have traditionally been relegated to a lower-track curriculum, resulting in their earning a second-class diploma or dropping out of school. This dual track exists in some states and districts even today. For these students, math and science education typically ends before they have had a chance to study algebra and any lab science.

In the current wave of high school reform, new schools have been created, and existing schools redesigned, where students who entered under-prepared are successfully studying curricula that can effectively prepare them to succeed in college⁷⁸. A visitor to these schools will see that they have certain characteristics in common. Most immediately noticeable is an ethos of high expectations, engagement, and effort—a combination that enables teaching practices that bring students with diverse assets, needs, and competencies to high levels of science and math knowledge and skills. These schools also focus squarely on teaching and learning in all functions, including instruction, assessment, and professional development. They are personalized to engage students, motivate them to achieve, and meet their learning needs. They promote positive student culture and family engagement focused on student attainment of key goals, including college and career success⁷⁹.

Another lesson from schools that are succeeding with under-prepared students is the importance of organizing more coherently to promote professional communities of principals and teachers—communities that build internal capacity and facilitate internal accountability. It is also common to find that these schools have taken steps to increase their intellectual and social capital through partnerships with scientific and cultural institutions, businesses, higher education, and community organizations; their boundaries are more “porous,” and the entire school community benefits from stronger connections to the world outside the conventional schoolhouse walls. They are far more entrepreneurial about establishing pathways to higher education and careers and more receptive to collaboration. Their operations are transparent and accountable.

This is a high bar to set for individual schools, but such expectations are not unreasonable. Effective schools are already meeting them, at least most of the time, and working hard at doing even better. Providing an effective school for every student is a challenge we must meet, but doing so will require stronger systems—and systemic change.

School designs that produce more powerful learning environments focus the school’s assets on student learning and achieving the core mission.

At the ground level, many school districts lack the capacity to set objectives, focus disparate resources, and prioritize their efforts—necessary conditions for supporting higher school-level performance⁸⁰ Rather, a combination of inefficient policies, bureaucratic rules and practices, outdated collective bargaining rules, and multiple disjointed initiatives weaken mid-performing schools and leave low-performing schools to flounder. Improving these crucial management capacities is essential to our country’s success in developing schools that can bring large numbers of under-prepared middle and high school students to high levels of math and science achievement. Redesigned school systems would build the capacity of individual schools, protect school-level educators from distractions, and provide them with management support. More effective school systems would also close persistently failing schools and replace them with new promising models, encouraging educational entrepreneurship, innovation, and accountability. Every school would receive support in accessing the resources, tools, and incentives they need to bring all students to the higher levels of achievement defined by new, higher standards.