|
Comprehensive
School Reform Models
Different
Ways of Knowing •
Making
Middle Grades Work
Making Schools Work • Middle
Start
Success
for All Middle School Program
Talent
Development Middle School Model
•
Turning Points
| AIM
AT MIDDLE-GRADES RESULTS |
| |
| |
Research
Findings
Preliminary
results show that several of AIM's pilot schools have
made significant changes in school organization and
culture. Teachers are actively engaged in inquiry
teams where they examine their practice and look closely
at student work. External observers are beginning
to note improvements in curriculum, instruction, and
assessment, and AIM's Mid-South schools are already
reporting improvements in student performance based
on statewide assessments.
The
AIM design builds on the principles, structures, and
processes of ATLAS
Communities, and it incorporates the latest research
on effective middle-grades education. Relevant evaluation
findings from ATLAS implementation and the research
supporting AIM’s design for quality middle-grades
schools are provided below.
ATLAS
Communities: Results
Since
its inception in 1992, ATLAS Communities has been
implemented in more than 120 schools across the country.
In 1998, the Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory
(NWREL) included ATLAS Communities in its Catalog
of School Reform Models. The catalog states,
Independent
evaluations of ATLAS Communities have focused on qualitative
examination of implementation. In two school districts
that were among the earliest to adopt the model, for
example, researchers found evidence of institutionalization
five years after initial implementation. Multiple
elements of the model had become embedded practices
in both districts, including pathways, project-based
learning, authentic assessment, and a culture of collaboration
and reflection (Rosenblum, 1998).
ATLAS
has gathered and analyzed data on student achievement
from several participating schools in urban, rural,
and suburban communities. Findings from ATLAS elementary,
middle, and high schools show growth in student performance
that often outpaces district and statewide gains.
For example, the Beacon Hill Pathway in Seattle began
implementing ATLAS in 1997. It serves an economically
disadvantaged and diverse student population and was
designated a "focus school" in the district,
given its persistent low performance. From 1997-2000,
the percentage of students meeting or exceeding standards
in writing at this school rose from 22 percent to
42 percent. The percentage of students meeting or
exceeding standards in reading and mathematics also
rose steadily over the four years.
Supporting
Research for AIM’s Design
Effective
Schooling. According to a 1995
research synthesis on Effective Schooling Practices
by Kathleen Cotton, effective schools that help all
students achieve at high levels share the characteristics
and practices around which the AIM model is built.
School
Culture. School culture is a critical factor in
school improvement efforts and affects the behavior
and achievement of students (Deal and Kennedy, 1982;
Sarason, 1982; Patterson, Purkey, and Parker, 1986).
Researchers have found that certain cultural norms
facilitate school improvement, including norms of
critical inquiry, continuous improvement, a widely
shared sense of purpose, and involvement in making
decisions (Barth, 1991: Louis and Miles, 1990; Saphier
and King, 1985). AIM uses a variety of structures,
processes, and facilitation strategies to develop
a culture that supports continuous improvement.
Schools
as Learning Communities. In an extensive review
of the literature on school reform, Boyd (1992a and
1992b) identified a number of indicators that facilitate
school improvement, seventeen focusing on the school
as a learning community (Boyd & Hord, 1994). Other
researchers have also found that a strong learning
community was highly correlated with improvements
in student performance (McLaughlin and Talbert, 1993;
Louis and Miles, 1990). Creating Faculty Inquiry Teams
in which teachers reflect on both teaching and learning
is a critical component of the AIM model.
Collaborative
Leadership that Focuses on Results. School restructuring
involves making major changes in the school’s organizational
rules, roles, and relationships in order to obtain
improved results (Corbett, 1990). While collaborative
decision-making has many benefits in itself, it is
also a means for improving learner outcomes by enhancing
school and classroom practices and creating a shared
focus on student learning (see Corbett and Blum, 1992;
Cuban 1990). AIM develops collaborative leadership
teams that examine data, develop integrated action
plans, and monitor progress in meeting benchmarks.
Interdisciplinary
Teams. According to Flowers, Mertens and Mulhall
(Winter 1999/2000), the single most important factor
influencing student achievement is whether the school
has interdisciplinary teams of teachers who plan and
work together and share the same groups of students
for a significant part of the school day.
Teaching
for Understanding. AIM draws heavily on the work
of Howard Gardner and David Perkins at Harvard Project
Zero who have both
written extensively on this subject.
References
Barth,
R.S. (1991). Restructuring Schools: some questions
for teachers and principals. Phi Delta Kappan.
73(2), pp. 3-7.
Boyd,
V. (1992a). Creating a context for change. Issues
. . . about Change, 2(2). Austin, TX: Southwest
Educational Development Laboratory.
Boyd,
V. (1992b). School context: Bridge or barrier to
change? Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development
Laboratory.
Boyd,
V. & Hord, S.M. (1994). Principals and the
new paradigm: Schools as learning communities.
Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American
Educational Research Association. New Orleans, LA.
Corbett,
H.D. (1990). On the Meaning of Restructuring.
Philadelphia: Research for Better Schools.
Corbett,
H.D. & Blum, R.E. (1992). Thinking Backwards
to Move Forward. Unpublished manuscript, Research
for Better Schools, Philadelphia.
Cuban,
L. (1990). Reforming again, again, and again. Educational
Researcher, 19 (1), pp. 10-21.
Deal,
T. & Kennedy, A (1982). Corporate cultures.
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co, Inc.
Louis,
K.S. & Miles, M.B. (1990). Improving the urban
high school: What works and why. New York: Teachers
College Press.
McLaughlin,
M.W. & Talbert, J.E. (1993). Contexts that
matter for teaching and learning. Stanford: Center
for Research on the Context of Secondary School Teaching,
Stanford University.
Mertens,
Steven B., Flowers, Nancy, and Mulhall, Peter (Winter
1999/2000). Teaming up for Higher Test Scores. Middle
Matters, National Association of Secondary School
Principals.
Patterson,
J.L., Purkey, S.C., & Parker, J.V. (1986). Productive
school systems for a nonrational world. Alexandria,
VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Saphier,
J. & King, M. (1985). Good seeds grow in strong
cultures. Educational Leadership, 42 (6), pp.
67-74.
Sarason,
S.B. (1982). Culture of the school and the problem
of change, 2nd Edition. Boston, MA:
Allyn & Bacon.
<<
Background |
<< Model Design
[top]
View
other Comprehensive School Reform Models
Different
Ways of Knowing •
Making
Middle Grades Work
Making Schools Work • Middle
Start
Success
for All Middle School Program
Talent
Development Middle School Model
•
Turning Points
|
