RSS Updates
Twitter
Facebook
|
|||||||||||
<< Back to Ask the Expert Home
Building Capacity for High School Improvement at the State, District and School Level
Question 5: I'm wondering if you have any suggestions for strategies to use an existing, targeted, high school initiative to connect and expand into a broader high school improvement agenda. And, I'm particularly interested in strategies that work within the constraints of limited resources and capacity at the state level. |
Setting targets for improving graduation rates is a perfectly legitimate exercise at the school, district and state level (and for that matter-nationally). However the real question is "how can a school(s) build its holding power to keep students engaged in meaningful learning?" In a sense, this reflective question leads to the notion of a more systems related issue which broadens the perspective of developing design strategies which will have an impact on graduation rates. The two-fold problem of student disinterest-disengagement, and dropping out can only adequately be addressed through thoughtful development of a cohesive set of school structures aimed as personalizing learning. But equally as important as developing those structures and processes, is the dimension of explicitly building a "culture of caring" in a school or district. If the protocols for personalization are implemented without a concurrent "re-culturing" philosophy, then in all likelihood, the strategies for personalization will not be sustained. In this respect, educators should be looking at both "result efficacy" and "process efficacy" to achieve their graduation rate goals. Additionally, developing these systemic personalization strategies will no doubt require rethinking resources, but the process for philosophically re-culturing schools is relatively free, and fall more in the category of developing moral will, strong leadership and hard work. In the final analysis, improved graduation rates will be a "RESULT" of effective development of personalization strategies characterized by learning environments which are relevant, supportive, individualized and challenging.
Mapping backwards or "beginning with the end in mind" from improved graduation rates to define a set of personalization strategies is as your question suggests a broader school improvement and systems question. Within that frame however, are some complex issues which should be noted. The following reflect some foundational principles for developing personalized learning structures which should be required and routinely evaluated in schools:
- Establish contextual and relevant learning environments at the middle and high school level which link to career pathways and post secondary school opportunities with specific protocols for connecting course work through "student success/career planning."
- Build individualized instructional support systems which keep students from falling behind such as tiered intervention, personal literacy planning and other "early warning systems" mechanisms
- Infuse the school day (or week) with opportunities for multiple adult/ student contact such as advisories and comprehensive guidance which afford students and families time to develop an understanding of their own learning, social-emotional growth and real world problems.
- Create dialogue focused on purposeful school level re-culturing strategies wherein adults (teachers, administrators and parents) can collaborate about student needs.
- Use the continuous improvement cycle to review programs which promote student engagement and interest, both curricular and co-curricular.
- Ensure the existence of high quality home-school communication protocols which gives families access to the school.
- Local and state policy expectations should require personalized learning structures and explicitly describe how evidence and evaluation of those structures will ensure effectiveness and sustainability.
Improving graduation rates (and reducing dropouts), calls for the development of a carefully thought out set strategies which are a safety net for students, while at the same time serving as a mechanism for all students in terms creating more relevant and rigorous learning environments. Considering that boredom (being under-challenged) and falling behind academically are both drivers of dropping out and disengagement, states and districts should have policy requirements with commensurate resources, which provide for personalized learning. Just as importantly, systemic school improvement measures that build capacity to create a culture of caring in schools must to be part of the equation.
|
||||
