(Vol. 1, No. 2 - Spring/Summer 1997)

Back to index

JCPS's strategy to retool middle schools
relies on educators' willingness to grow


It's been a tough year for middle schools in Jefferson County.

In October, the KIRIS shock wave reverberated through the school system, jarring the pride and confidence of a dozen schools found to be "in decline" and unnerving many other middle school educators who realized -- some for the first time -- that the state's formidable testing program was no respecter of socioeconomic status or past reputation. (See Note.)

By December, a team of "Distinguished Educators" from outside the system had taken up residence in the declining or "STAR" schools, and principals and teachers were beginning the intensive process of self-examination demanded under the Kentucky Education Reform Act.

In the halls of Van Hoose and other JCPS administration buildings, district leaders were doing some soul-searching of their own. A short-term crisis plan was hastily assembled, and most of the district's instructional specialists were pulled away from regular duties to become part of a "rapid response" team with one clear mandate: Help the D.E.'s get the STAR schools ready for the next round of KIRIS testing in April.

To the district's credit, despite the crisis atmosphere, a few key middle school leaders were encouraged to carve out some time to begin thinking more long-term. Led by middle school advocate Sandy Ledford and middle school reform director Sherry DeMarsh (see interview), a small team of district administrators and middle school principals pursued a core question: How must we change so that we can be sure we will meet the challenge of KIRIS, and ultimately, move beyond its minimum expectations for our students?

Most of the team agreed that the answer was already at hand. Early in 1996, JCPS had accepted a large grant from the Edna McConnell Clark Foundation with the understanding that the district would take aggressive steps to raise the achievement of all middle schoolers through standards-based reform.

That meant, in a nutshell, that schools would move rapidly toward a day when they no longer depended on textbook manufacturers and the inclinations of individual teachers to make sure students gained the skills and knowledge they needed to succeed. Instead, the district would work with teachers and principals to define clear academic standards in every subject and use those standards to change both the ways teachers taught and the way student progress was measured.

The plan made sense. After all, the KIRIS tests were based on such standards. But in the first months of the Clark Foundation grant, the district made little progress on its agenda, for reasons that we summarized in the first issue of Changing Schools in Louisville, published last December.

Clearly, last fall's KIRIS results pumped some new life into JCPS's promise to pursue standards-based reform. Not only did the crisis sharpen the focus of district-level leaders, it softened resistance to reform in the schools. As Ledford and DeMarsh point out in their interview, the district has found itself in a "teachable moment." To risk a warlike metaphor, there appears to be a breech in the wall of status-quo complacency that typifies so many public school bureaucracies. It's time, district leaders say, to rush in.

And district leaders have a plan. They recognize, correctly, that schools will not change unless teachers and principals agree they need to change, and unless they are trained and supported to do things differently.

Strategy for improvement includes both
teacher, principal professional development

In brief, Ledford and her middle school reform team propose a two-pronged, parallel effort: First, expose principals to a fairly intensive professional development experience that will deepen their understanding of how a standards-based school operates and also give them the skills they need to lead teachers in a new direction. Second, create opportunities for teachers to learn about and practice standards-based teaching in their classrooms and to "come out of their classrooms" to work together on the larger task of changing the whole school.

These are sound ideas. They recognize that no reform is possible without strong principal leadership. Even more importantly, as Ledford and DeMarsh both acknowledge, the district's strategy is rooted in a belief that change is not something that happens to teachers but something that teachers must create of their own free will.

Here are the specifics of the plan: All middle school principals will participate in a 12- to 16-month professional development program designed by the district and the National Association of Secondary School principals. Most principals agree they need substantial training in contemporary, standards-based instruction and classroom assessment strategies in order to lead reform.

At the same time, the district will train a "cadre" of teacher leaders -- two from each school -- who will be responsible for modeling and encouraging standards-based teaching and assessment in their schools. The district will supplement the efforts of the cadre with one or more day-long seminars for all middle school teachers, and they will look for other ways to spread the message. This work will be supported by a team of five "Clark Fellows" and other district specialists).

By late fall, middle school reform leaders expect -- or at least hope -- that a reasonable number of teachers in every middle school will be experimenting with new ideas and meeting together to share the products of their efforts, while leadership-enhanced principals coach and support them.

It's tempting to second-guess district planners about the likelihood of their plan's success. We won't do that. But briefly, here are a few questions worth raising as the plan revs up to full speed: Other issues lurk on the edges of the JCPS agenda. Standards-based reform demands teachers who have a deep knowledge of their subject matter. District leaders concede that many middle school teachers don't have enough "content preparation," yet the district has not yet developed a long-range plan to address the problem.

Despite these lingering issues, Jefferson County does have some real strengths, including a talented, committed team of middle school reform advocates and a core group of outstanding principals. The district also has a strong community link through the Middle School Coalition, although it has much work to do in the area of home-school communications. Parent partnerships could be critically important once schools are in the throes of massive reform.

Yes, it's been a tough year for middle schools in Jefferson County. And a tougher year lies ahead. But we have no doubt, after spending time talking with teachers, principals, and administrators across the district, that there is sufficient talent, wisdom, and concern for kids to put Louisville's middle schools, as one principal puts it, "on the road to becoming world-class."

The question, of course, is whether there's sufficient will.

###

NOTE: Since the publication of this story, the Kentucky State Department of Education has reported that contractor errors were made in scoring the 1996 KIRIS examinations. These errors could affect the KERA status of elementary and middle schools in the state, and some schools that were found to be in "decline" or "crisis" could have their designations changed. The scoring problems were limited to arts/humanities and practical living/vocational studies, according to the Department.

The middle schools in the Jefferson County Public School system ranked last in 1996 KIRIS performance among the state's middle schools. Whether the system's middle schools will retain this relative ranking is unknown at this time. (July 15, 1997)