Schools and Systems

Page 3 of 3

2. On enhancing systemic capacity to support strong schools and act strategically to turn around or replace ineffective schools

We must simultaneously transform education at the federal, state, and local levels to become systems whose policies, funding, and regulatory practices support the development of more effective schools. To do this we will need smart, bold reform that ends failed policies and practices, manages human capital strategically toward performance objectives, and generates and fosters improvement, innovation, and invention to solve persistent problems of achievement gaps and plateaus.

Systems change would ensure that key design principles are in place in every school, and that schools orient their own operations toward managing efficiently, solving problems, and rewarding strong performance. School systems need increased capacity for research and development and for implementing new school models that push the limits of practice at both ends of the instructional spectrum: re-engaging our most disconnected students in academically rigorous science and math education and placing them on pathways to graduation and postsecondary education, and providing opportunities for the most successful students in science and math to accelerate beyond what is traditionally available in high school. Research and development efforts by states and districts can identify students in all of these situations and also identify “beat the odds” schools and programs that are demonstrating success in each of these categories.

A research and development approach to school system design means that innovation and experimentation need to be encouraged within a standards and accountability framework. There is much to learn about the most effective school designs for realizing high levels of achievement in science and math by all. Urban districts including New York City, Chicago, and Los Angeles are closing their lowest performing high schools and replacing them with a mix of small schools designed and developed by charter operators, nonprofit school development organizations, higher education institutions, and scientific and cultural organizations. These schools must meet state standards and are often required to be developed according to “design specifications” based on research on the characteristics of effective schools. Many emphasize science, math, and technology both in their curriculum and in the partnerships they form with scientific and health institutions and industry.

These new urban schools are educating large numbers of high-poverty students and showing substantial gains in academic achievement and graduation rates compared to the schools they replace⁸⁹. Some models are also oriented to identifying students with strong academic skills in science and mathematics and giving them access to intensified course pathways to STEM higher education and STEM careers. These specialized schools are also important developments, for students and their families gain when a variety of models are available. School systems benefit, too, when they have opportunities to learn from a “portfolio” of different school designs. School and systems need opportunities to be thoughtful about tactics and change tactics if something isn’t working.

Redesigned systems would adopt assessments aligned to higher standards and design and deploy accountability systems that reward effective instruction. More effective school systems would make designing and maintaining well-functioning human resource management a high priority. Recruiting, developing, and retaining high-capacity principals and teachers and moving out those who do not meet those criteria are essential to the development of schools that deliver on the promise of excellence and equity. Developing and sustaining research and development capacity would also enable redesigned systems to manage the changes needed to sustain and replicate high-performing schools, improve middle-performing schools, and redesign, turn around, or replace low-performing schools.

We also need to look more systematically at opportunities for learning offered to students beyond the school building and the school day

3. On tapping resources outside the school system to increase educational assets and research capacity

The Commission believes, as well, that achieving greater effectiveness in mathematics and science education will require infusions of fresh ideas, assets, and partnerships. For example, new organizations and types of organizations have entered the field to sponsor public schools over the last several years, often bringing new ideas that overturn conventional assumptions and strengthen public schools overall⁹⁰. This is a trend that could continue to enrich the field, and the Commission would especially welcome new entrants that focus specifically on math and science learning. New partnerships between K-12 and higher education, museums, and community and cultural organizations, as sponsors of or partners to public schools, will also be essential.

System change also requires intentional engagement in new forms of partnership that are focused on raising science and math achievement⁹¹. Scientists and mathematicians, students and parents, scholars and researchers, businesspeople and employers, elected officials, and many others will be needed for a successful national push. Universities, museums and other “science-rich” institutions, after-school and summer programs, and business and professional associations all have resources to add to the endeavor⁹². We also need to look more systematically at opportunities for learning offered to students beyond the school building and the school day. We need a stronger and more accessible infrastructure for supporting out-of-school-time programs, apprenticeships, and other vehicles that increase student motivation, incentivize and reward initiative, and strengthen students’ connections with higher education and employment.

We will also need to cultivate new system functions within and across districts, states, and national networks. Education has long suffered from a lack of high-quality, dedicated research and development capacity. One response is the Strategic Education Research Partnership (SERP), which is attempting to fill the gap through collaborative field clusters focusing on specific locations or research-practice priorities (currently Boston, San Francisco, and minority student achievement⁹³). SERP has begun to work with school districts to select problems in need of investigation; form interdisciplinary teams of researchers, developers, and practitioners; and conduct rigorous scientific evaluation of student achievement. SERP has adopted a set of prerequisites, or conditions that need to be “present from day 1,” that are intended to ensure that research projects are responsive to district needs and likely to gain traction in schools and classrooms:

• Commitment of top district leadership to the field site collaboration

• Focus on problems of importance to the district

• Ability to bring high-quality knowledge resources to the table

• Ability to effectively coordinate and steer the work to maintain productivity

• Ability to “flatten the field” so that all sources of expertise are held in high regard and the culture is one of mutual respect

There has also been an uptick in commitment to management-oriented education research by universities. Public Education Leadership Project, a collaboration between Harvard’s School of Education and Business School, draws on faculty from both schools to study leadership and management practices that support large-scale organizational change in urban school districts⁹⁴.

Finally—and this will be as important as anything to our long-term success—the American educational system must upgrade its own capacity to innovate. We need to get smarter about developing and testing new ideas, tapping and advancing professional knowledge, and putting best practices to use.