1.++Moving+From+Good+to+Great

=//Moving From "Good to Great"--A Focus on Classroom Instruction//=

Educators, researchers, policymakers, and the general public continue to find much about which to disaggree when it comes to improving schools in America, but three propositions enjoy nearly universal acceptance--that quality teaching is the key to quality schools, that there is presently considerable variation in the quality of teaching across and within schools in this country, and that teacher leadership is essential if we are to successfully address the troubling dilemma produced by the first two of these propositions. The Lancaster Central School District in western New York is one of only a few districts in the country that has recognized the power of the relationship among these three propositions and embarked on a strategic journey toward capitalizing on it. Before turning to the specifics of the Lancaster plan, it is important to briefly review the research literature on teacher quality and teacher leadership.

A virtually uncontested conclusion from the research on school improvement, a conclusion many would label as simple common sense, is that significant school improvment depends first, last, and foremenost on improving the quality of classroom instruction (Elmore, 2003; Haycock, 1998; Nye, Konstantopoulos, and Hedges, 2004; Marzano, 2007;). In his analysis of research, Stanford economist Eric Hanushek concluded that "teacher effects dwarf school effects: your child is actually better off in a "bad" school with an excellent teacher than in an excellent school with a bad teacher. Teacher effects are also much stronger than class-size effects. You'd have to cut the average class almost in half to get the same boost that you'd get if you switched from an average teacher to a teacher in the eighty-fifth percentile" (reported in Gladwell, 2008). Michael Fullen (2008, p. 81) argues that "to make a substancial difference in [school] outcomes, the next phase of reform must focus on what has typically been the 'black box' in education refrom: classroom instruction." And a recent report by McKinsey & Co. sums up the centality of teacher quality to school improvement with the conclusion, "The quality of an education system cannot exceed the quality of its teachers" (reported in Olsen, 2008).

As Wallace et al. (2008) so eloquently point out, "In education, teachers are the intervention." Schools that go from good to great, from getting results one would predict based on demographics to getting extraordinary results from a full range of students, embrace this proposition. On this we agree.

A second proposition on which we generally agree is that there exists in schools, even "good schools," consideralble variations in the quality of teaching from classroom to classroom. Fullen speaks to this issue as well. "I speak here of the well-researched finding that variations in student achievement are greater across classrooms within a school than across schools" (2006, p. 55). Sawchuk (2008) found the same pattern when examining the extent to which teachers focused on state standards and new teaching strategiies following the passage of No CHild Left Behind--responses varied more within individual schools than they did between schools or districts. A two-year study of the black-white math achievement gap in Pittsburgh involving nearly 200 teachers found that the best predictor of student achievement, regardless of race, was who the teacher was (Wereschagin, 2007). Robert Pianta arrived at that same conclusion following the analysis of data from his extensive study. "Yet the variations we observed across classrooms were striking--even at the same school, at the same grade level, and using the same curriculum students had very different opportunities to learn based on the abilities of their teachers. One teacher might have routinely failed to capitalize on opportunities to deepen and extend her pupils' knowledge, while another coaxed more-complex skills and understandings from the same lesson" (2007, p. 30).

Thus far then we have established that effective teaching is the single most important determinant of student achievement over which the school has control and that the quality of teaching varies dramatically across classrooms, even within the same school. Left unaltered this dynamic ensures uneven quality and effectiveness, with only some students having access to the most effective teachers. So much for the much-touted twin goals of excellence and equity.

What prompts teachers to change what they are doing in the interest of increaing student achievement? Post-graduate coursework and degrees? Not really. A recent study by the Center on Reinventing Public Education (CRPE) concluded that "on average, master's degrees in education bear no relationship to student achievement" ( Wasley and Rosa, p. 26). What about feedback from principals as a by-product of the standard teacher supervision and evaluation process? Not likely. Marzano and DuFour (2009, p. 64), reflecting on the findings of a 2006 Teaching Commission report write, "The hours that principals devote to formal teacher evaluation and walk-throughs contibute little to the overall improvement of a school. When the Teaching Commission examined ways to improve schools through improved teaching, it dismissed teacher evaluation as 'arcane and ineffective.' Principal evaluation of teachers is a low-leverage strategy for improving schools, particularily in terms of the time it requires of principals." So what works in closing the teacher quality gap?

Teachers are influenced, in ways that lead to changes in behavior, by other teachers. In an article titled "Nodes, Hubs, and Superhubs," Doug Reeves (2006) points out that the change process in schools is dominated by the belief that rational argument changes teacher behavior. In other words, all that is necessary to produce lasting change in classrooms is for the principal, superintendent, or an outside expert to explain what the research says about a particular initiative, program, or strategy. Having heard the gospel, teachers will go forth and implement. Experience and common sense tell us that that is not the way it works. Teachers change their practices based on the recommendations and experiences of respected colleagues--the hubs and superhubs in their buildings. This proposition was confirmed in a study by researchers C. Kirabo Jackson and Elias Bruegmann (2009) which concluded that good teachers influence other teachers. Adding a highly effective teacher to a team of four teachers, the reaearchers found, increased student achievement by .86 of a standard deviation, an increase equivalent to a 31 percentile point gain.

Enter teacher leadership. Reeves (2009, p. 85) defines teacher leadership as "The act of influencing the classroom practices of professional educators." To close the teacher quality gap in America's schools, teaching must become a profession. In a profession, leadership and quality control come from within. Significant improvement in our schools will come about as a result of teachers learning from other teachers, and of teacher leaders in every school stepping up to the plate to model effective practice.

District leaders and teachers in the Lancaster Central School District understand the cause-and-effect-relationship between teacher leadership and student achievement and have done something about it. Their work is grounded in a district vision for improving student achievement.