Home | Back
to the Hayes Mizell Reader Index
Remarks of Hayes Mizell on October 29, 2001 at a conference of the
Edna McConnell Clark Foundation's Program for Student Achievement grantees.
The conference was held at the Kellogg West Conference Center in Pomona,
CA. Approximately 90 representatives of the Corpus Christi, Long Beach,
and San Diego school systems participated, along with Foundation-assisted
intermediaries and guests. The school system teams included superintendents,
central office leaders, principals, and teachers. Mizell is Director of
the Program for Student Achievement.
All Children Well
Note: A version of this speech that includes data from the
Clark-supported
school districts can be downloaded
at the EMCF website in PDF format.
See the heading "All Children Well."
Six years ago, the Program for Student Achievement launched a systemic,
standards-based reform initiative to improve the academic performance of
middle school students. Our plan was for the Foundation to support a few
urban school systems to implement reforms they believed would have a positive
impact on the achievement of students in the middle grades.
We asked the school systems to establish performance targets that would
specify the proportion of eighth graders who would perform at standard in
mathematics, science, language arts and social studies by June 2001. To
support the school systems in their reforms, we also provided them with
some technical assistance and evaluation resources.
But we never conceived this initiative as one focused solely at the local
level. We knew that across the nation the middle grades were not, generally
speaking, producing satisfactory results for students.
There was a pervasive culture among middle school educators that disproportionately
emphasized personal support for students over developing students' knowledge
and skills to a high level. It was clear to us, therefore, that the Program
for Student Achievement also needed a national focus to advocate for greater
academic purpose in the middle grades. Towards this end we supported national
and regional initiatives that forced this issue, raised the expectations
of middle school educators, and created new resources to assist them.
This has been an intensive six years. In fact, it has been so intense that
at the oddest times I find myself thinking about you, your school systems
and schools, and our own efforts.
Much of what is in the popular culture often seems to speak to our experience
in this initiative. Driving from Atlanta, Georgia to Anderson, South Carolina
I hear the musician John Hiatt sing about a personal relationship that did
not quite work out. The chorus says: "We were shooting for the sun;
I guess the darkness finally won." That line grabs me because there
are times when it seems it is an accurate distillation of our reform initiative.
Yes, we were shooting for the sun and I do not apologize for it, but, no,
I do not think darkness won. That is much too bleak a characterization for
what has been a useful growth experience for so many educators and students.
Old Dogs and New Tricks
It is true that what we asked you to do has not been easy. I know it has
been and continues to be difficult for many of you. I think about that as
I stand in the hallway of the primate research center at Bucknell University.
An office door is covered with cartoons cut from various magazines. One
of these is by Gary Larson. It shows Rex the circus dog, under the big top,
in the center ring, on a highwire, without a net, far above the upturned
faces of the crowd. Rex is at the center of the highwire, halfway between
the platform where he started and the platform towards which he is headed.
Rex is precariously perched on a unicycle, trying to keep his balance while
peddling the unicycle. He is also holding a cat in his teeth, using two
of his paws to juggle three balls, he has a clay jar on his head, and a
hula hoop spinning around his waist. The caption to the cartoon reads: "High
above the hushed crowd, Rex tried to remain focused. Still, he couldn't
shake one nagging thought: He was an old dog and this was a new trick."
I know that many times that is how you feel and like Rex, you wonder if
you will make it to the platform at the end of the highwire or if you will
fall to the center ring.
Like Rex, some of you get stuck. I think about that when I am sitting on
an airplane, waiting for it to take off, listening to the piped in music.
Otis Redding is singing "(Sitting on) The Dock by the Bay" and
one verse seems to come from some of your teachers and principals:
Looks like nothin's gonna change;
Everything still remains the same.
I can't do what ten people tell me to do,
So I guess I'll remain the same.
For teachers and administrators on the front lines of middle school reform,
the most expedient course of action often seems "to remain the same."
I think there is abundant evidence that the educators who have remained
the same during the past six years have produced the least impressive results.
We have emphasized throughout this initiative that effective school reform
requires significant change at many different levels -- institutional, professional,
and personal. These changes are more difficult than the public appreciates
and the degree of difficulty is one reason reform has proceeded incrementally,
with such mixed results.
I think of all our shortcomings when I am church and this line from the
Confessional strikes home: "Lord, forgive us for those things we have
done that we ought not to have done, and for those things we have not done
that we ought to have done." In that spirit, I apologize for the times
when my words were harsh, my attitude was arrogant, and my requests were
intrusive and inconsiderate. I am sorry for the times I did not listen when
I should have, when I did not act when I should have, and when I was so
focused on the half empty glass that I did not celebrate the fact that it
was half full.
There is much to feel good about
There is, in fact, a great deal to feel good about. I will not recite all
your quantifiable accomplishments because we have posted them around this
room for all to see (Appendix). These positive outcomes are the result of
your hard work and dedication. Your qualitative achievements are more difficult
to capture. Unfortunately, your school systems are good at documenting activities
but make little effort to reflect on, identify, and document qualitative
achievements that are truly significant.
I am satisfied, however, that many middle school teachers and administrators
in your school systems are performing at higher levels today than they were
six years ago. There are at least two reasons for this. Your school systems
recognize to a greater extent than they did six years ago that middle school
educators need and deserve much higher quality professional development.
Also, it has become clearer to you that the performance of students is directly
proportional to the performance of teachers and administrators. There are
still plenty of middle school educators in your school systems who have
neither the skills nor the self-efficacy to prepare all students to perform
at standard, but most of your school systems have recognized this problem
and are demonstrating greater resolve in addressing it.
I also know that the middle level in your school systems is no longer ignored.
School boards and central office staff understand that education in middle
schools is just as important as in elementary and high schools. Among middle
school educators there is a greater collective consciousness and esprit
than there was six years ago. These educators are less isolated and within
their respective school districts they frequently meet and work together
to share experiences and seek to improve. Also, your middle schools are
much more committed to an academic focus, even though they are struggling
to translate that focus into more substantive, deeper, and engaging content
and instruction.
What about the students? After all, the purpose of our reform initiative
is to benefit them. Again, the data on the poster boards around this room
provide evidence of student growth. But as far as I know, beyond collecting,
analyzing, and reporting test scores, none of your school systems make an
effort to describe how either individual or groups of students perform
as a result of your interventions.
The pressure on you is to produce "tofu data" that on the
one hand is dry and tasteless and on the other hand can absorb nearly any
flavor of interpretation.
This is not surprising because all the pressure on you is to produce
"tofu data" that on the one hand is dry and tasteless and on the
other hand can absorb nearly any flavor of interpretation. It is no wonder,
then, that the quantification of student performance prevails and that there
continues to be so little understanding of what students really know
and can do, or what makes a difference in their learning.
I am confident that there are compelling stories in your schools of how
students are responding to the challenges that standards present, and how
standards-based instruction is causing them to raise their performance levels.
I hope that one day your school systems will devote as much effort to documenting
these stories and learning from them as you do to collecting quantitative
data that only a few people understand. Your students and teachers deserve
that.
Two Big Chickens
At the beginning of our standards-based reform initiative I frequently said
that one day the chickens would come home to roost, meaning that there would
be a final accounting. That time is here, but it turns out that there are
many chickens, too many consequences and results for me to mention here.
For that reason, let me briefly address only two of the big chickens.
We encouraged you to develop and use standards to provide a greater academic
focus for the middle grades. You did that, though because we were somewhat
ahead of the curve of the national standards movement, your standards were
subsequently eclipsed by those that came down from the state level. Nevertheless,
I believe that your engagement in developing standards was a productive
experience and positioned you to respond more positively to state standards,
and to understand how to use them. It is clear, it seems to me, that the
standards have been one factor that has increased the academic focus of
your middle schools and helped spur reforms as well.
We also asked you to establish student performance goals by delineating
the percentage of students completing the eighth grade in 2001 who would
perform at standard. This assumed that your school systems had the technical
expertise to set realistic performance targets, and that the state of the
art of establishing such targets was more sophisticated that it was.
In addition, we had hoped that your school systems would use the performance
goals, consistently and over time, to mobilize middle school educators and
the community to make the reforms and provide the supports necessary for
students to meet the performance goals. In other words, we hoped your school
systems would use the performance targets to hold themselves accountable
for improving student performance. On all counts we were wrong.
The performance targets were neither realistic nor did you use them consistently
to focus and motivate internal and external constituencies. Consequently,
only one school system came close to meeting its goal. In that case the
goal was linked to the school system's state assessment. This was a strategic
and useful approach, but even in that case it appears that satisfying the
state's minimum requirements for improving student performance does not
necessarily mean that students are performing high quality work.
I confess, however, that I am so close to this initiative that it is difficult
for me to identify and fairly assess all its outcomes, positive and negative.
For that reason, we have retained a consultant to write the final, official,
public report of our efforts and yours. We are all looking forward to the
publication of that report when school starts next year.
Will your commitment to middle school reform be sustained?
The purpose of this conference is to reflect but not linger on the past
six years, and to consider how to use the years past as the foundation for
your school systems' middle level reforms during the forthcoming years.
There are important questions to consider: When your school systems no longer
have a relationship with the Foundation, will their commitment to middle
school reform falter? How can your school systems develop, in the near term,
the institutional commitment and infrastructure that will support middle
school reform beyond the current superintendent and school board?
Given your experience of the past six years, and what you now know, what
are the two or three critical issues your school systems must address to
raise the performance of your middle school students to higher levels? If
these issues are so important, why are your school systems not addressing
them effectively now and what must your school systems do to have
a greater impact?
These are questions only you, as leaders of your school systems, can answer.
There will be no more requests for proposal from the Foundation to provoke
you or serve as catalysts for reflection and planning. While some Foundation-supported
consultants and intermediaries will be working with you for the next two
years, making good use of them is your responsibility.
Even our quantitative and qualitative evaluators will not be around much
longer, and you cannot look forward to receiving their insightful reports
bearing at least some analysis you would rather not see in writing. My questions
for you are: "What will you do with what you have learned? Now that
you have had a taste of reform, and understand how difficult it is and what
it requires of you professionally, personally, and politically, what additional
reforms are you committed to, for what purpose, and to achieve what results?"
"Common sense" reform
As you think about the future, please consider how you will move forward
in relation to three levels of reform. The first level, we might call it
"common sense reform," is one with which you are familiar. You
have it within your power to achieve and sustain this reform, but it is
still challenging you.
For example, it is a truism that the quality of a school depends to a great
extent on the principal and the quality of leadership he or she provides.
Research proves it and experience demonstrates it. Yet, school systems often
act in ways that are contrary to what they know. They assign new principals
to schools without providing the principal strong, consistent support and
oversight. School systems continue to expand the roles of principals rather
than fighting to redefine those roles so that instructional leadership and
student performance are the priorities, and principals have the time to
address them.
School systems provide little or no professional development that causes
principals to become deeply knowledgeable about instruction. Central offices
cough up streams of memoranda and directives, again and again sending the
wrong signals about where principals should focus their energy and how they
should use their time. And each year school systems shift principals from
school to school, acting as though principals are interchangeable parts
that can come and go with little consequence to schools. In some of your
school systems this is beginning to change, but it is not yet clear to me
that systemically you have a philosophy and practice that values principals
as critical variables in the pursuit of students performing at standard.
Central offices cough up streams of memoranda and directives, again
and again sending the wrong signals about where principals should focus
their energy and how they should use their time.
This is only one example of common sense reform that school systems
could implement but are slow to do so in the face of long standing cultural
and bureaucratic practices. Another is that over and over school systems
select curricula or instructional programs or interventions with only cursory
attention to quality implementation. Someone or some group seems to believe
that if only they select the "right" program, then teachers will
implement it effectively.
Experience demonstrates this is not the case. Even a quality program is
only as effective as teachers' understanding of and preparation for how
to implement the program to achieve the desired results. Yet, school system
leaders often seem to be in a "wind it up and watch it go" mode,
devoting little effort and few resources to the gritty challenges of what
happens when the program reaches the classroom. It is not surprising, then,
that even quality curricula and programs often fail to have the effects
hoped for by the persons who selected them.
I am sure you can cite many other examples of first level reform, actions
your school systems could take that would have a significant impact
on student performance but which they do not take. There is much of this
work that remains to be done and as you consider how you will proceed during
the next few years, I urge you to address first the obstacles of your own
making.
"The Hammer"
Second level reform, perhaps we can call it "the hammer," consists
of policies and practices that are broad in scope. Many school systems leapfrog
to these second level reforms, bypassing the first level, because in some
ways they are easier to put into place. They permit school systems to avoid
coming to grips with entrenched policies and practices because the second
level reforms are new. Examples of second level reform are standards, standards-based
report cards, multi-faceted literacy initiatives, and grade level retention
policies. School systems often use these second level reforms as an indirect
way to address first level issues.
However, it has been interesting to me that none of your school systems
has chosen another second level reform, drawing on whole-school reform models
as a strategy to improve persistently low-performing schools or even those
that year after year are not among the best schools and not among the worst,
but could be much better than their average performance.
Even though there are now 20 or more such models of great variety, apparently
your school systems have not seen these as potential resources for school
improvement. Perhaps there are good reasons for this. Your school system
may believe that a model is too expensive, or its outcomes unimpressive,
or its requirements too intrusive. Certainly none of the reform models is
principal-proof or teacher-proof or school culture-proof. All of them require
at least a modicum of will and good faith to have a chance of succeeding.
Yet, I think it is a mistake to ignore the potential benefits of drawing
on the advances in school reform technology that have occurred during the
past 15 years. If over time a school system's own interventions have proven
to be ineffective, reform models are worth serious consideration as a means
to prompt and support school improvement. But whether it is this approach
of some other second level reform, your school systems should continue to
consider broad strategies that have potential to strengthen the performance
of middle level schools.
"Big Idea" Reform
The third level, or "big idea reform," is probably the most difficult
because it represents a vision that seems beyond how education and political
leaders think school systems should function. Currently, the mission of
school systems is to provide a free education to all children whose families
choose to send them to public schools. This is a massive and complex enterprise,
helping millions of children develop knowledge and skills prescribed by
the state. First and foremost, school systems exist to provide this public
service.
Most people who are now adults were educated by this public system, most
of them survived the experience, most of them have been able to keep themselves
and their families out of poverty because of their public education, and
many other adults have succeeded in life as a result of their public schooling.
On the other hand, this system has often fallen short in educating students
to levels commensurate with their native talents and abilities. After many
years of experience, the public education system is skilled in the mechanics
of how to educate all children, but it is does not know how to educate
all children well. The past 35 years have seen increasing
demands that public school systems make changes necessary to educate all
children to higher levels, but the systems have been responded at a glacial
pace. They are slowly learning that meeting this challenge is not just about
providing more services, it is about more seriously and substantively attending
to the fundamentals of education: curriculum, instruction, assessment, and
results.
After many years of experience, the public education system is skilled
in the mechanics of how to educate all children, but it is does not
know how to educate all children well.
How, then, do public school systems reform themselves? If their primary
mission, day in and day out, is to educate all children, how do school systems
learn how to educate all children well, and translate that learning
into routine practice? The truth is that most school systems have not figured
this out. They find it very difficult to provide basic education services
while also learning and practicing new skills that will increase student
performance. This is made all the more difficult by the fact that institutions
that should help them, like higher education, are of little practical use.
It also difficult because school systems have virtually no capacity to learn
and apply that learning to improve student results on a large scale. To
compensate for this lack of capacity, school systems seek knowledge and
expertise elsewhere by purchasing special programs, hiring consultants,
contracting for technical assistance, partnering with external funders,
and requiring teachers and principals to work harder and smarter. These
strategies may prove to be helpful or they may produce little change, but
none of them are permanent. In the end, if a school system is lucky, some
of its staff know more and improve their practice as a result of their relationship
with outside experts, but even then the school system has only incrementally
increased it capacity.
This suggests that school systems need to finally come to grips with the
reality that reform is a continuous process. It cannot be limited to the
few years a foundation may fund it or a President may emphasize it. Turning
large numbers of emergency certified teachers into productive professionals
or turning large numbers of limited English proficient young adolescents
into students who perform at standard is not a temporary challenge.
School systems may need their own R&D -- and tougher skins
One possible way to address this need is for school systems to create their
own research and demonstration capacity. I am not suggesting that school
systems become institutions of higher education, but they do need to recognize
they are in the business of knowledge development and utilization, not just
for children but for themselves. This is the only way they can develop their
own capacity to understand systematically, over time, what works and does
not work, and how to grow and inculcate effective practice. Using the tools
of ethnography, qualitative and quantitative evaluation, project management,
and even journalism, a research and demonstration office could help a school
system become a true learning organization.
Whether school systems are willing to admit it or not, they are giant laboratories.
Individual teachers are constantly trying new ways to help students learn
better, but school systems understand almost nothing about these teachers'
effective practices, or how to help other teachers learn and apply them.
There is an increasing wealth of student performance data that reveals which
teachers are the most successful with the most difficult to educate students,
but school systems make little or no effort to identify these teachers and
learn from them. Though unions may balk, some teachers are much more
effective than others and it is a waste of the valuable resource they represent
not to learn from them and use that learning to shape policy and practice
on a larger scale. And even though school systems invest hundreds of staff
hours and large amounts of money in launching new initiatives, they make
virtually no effort to assess the implementation and results of these initiatives.
A prerequisite for school systems allocating resources, personnel, and time
for research and demonstration is for school systems to develop much tougher
skins. Maybe we should make this a sub-category of level three reform called
"get over it!" reform.
School systems not only do not try to learn systematically from what they
are already doing, they resist learning that reflects negatively on their
practice. School system leaders seem congenitally unable to receive and
use critical feedback, interpreting it as an assessment of their person
rather than as an opportunity to identify and correct problems that impede
more effective performance. If these attitudes prevail, then there is no
point in mounting a research and development effort because school systems
are not really ready to learn.
School systems not only do not try to learn systematically from what
they are already doing, they resist learning that reflects negatively on
their practice.
Learning is all about not getting it, screwing up, falling on your face,
and trying not to make the same mistakes again. School systems, on the other
hand, seem to turn a blind eye to their own experience and repeat the same
fundamental mistakes over and over. Unless they are prepared to direct a
research and demonstration office to root out and document the truth and
nothing but the truth, and unless they want to learn from and use all the
information it produces, good and bad, then school systems should not go
through the charade of pretending to increase their capacity for learning.
This relates to another dimension of level three reform. On many occasions
you have been kind enough to say how much you value the Foundation as an
external critical friend. If this is true, who or what entity will be your
critical friend once your relationship with the Foundation ends? As I have
suggested, school systems are not known for creating or soliciting relationships
with critical friends. Yet, if this role has value, why not sustain it in
some form?
There is potential to do so in your own communities. This is another opportunity
to increase your school systems' capacity by increasing your community's
capacity both to support the school system and, when appropriate,
to provide it with critical feedback.
There may already be one or more organizations in each of your cities clearly
committed to public education and increasing its effectiveness, but with
enough independence from the school system to speak honestly about the system's
needs and weaknesses. Such an organization may be an advocate, maybe at
times even a pain in the neck, but there is no question about its integrity
and commitment to improving public education.
Perhaps your school systems are not now reaching out to such an organization
because you fear more criticism. As I said, get over it. School systems
need all the friends they can get, and they should not keep their distance
from some potential friends just because on occasion they might be critical.
Indeed, in a true friendship each person is quite aware of the virtues and
limitations of the other but this fosters open, honest communication that
strengthens the bonds between the two parties. This kind of friendship is
possible between a school system and a community-based organization as well,
but it too requires frequent communication, sharing of information and experiences,
and honest dialogue. If each of your school systems does not have a local
organization that is a true critical friend, not just a slavish supporter,
then I encourage you to find or help develop one. It can be one more means
for strengthening your school system and your community.
What if your purpose was intellectual development?
There is at least one more big idea reform you might consider. What if you
re-conceived the purpose of your school systems as the intellectual development
of both students and educators? This would not, of course, replace a school
system's basic mission of helping students develop the knowledge and skills
they need to become productive and independent adults. It would place this
mission in a larger framework, one that asserts that the role of the school
system is the intellectual development of all those who participate in the
enterprise of public education.
This approach, if more than mere rhetoric, would send the message that developing
minimum skills, no matter if that minimum is higher than it once was, is
not sufficient. Intellectual development is about complex thinking and its
application, aiming for mastery, and valuing and communicating and using
ideas, and that should be your school systems' priority.
And what if a school system makes it clear that it expects this of teachers
and administrators as well? What if your school systems said to each new
teacher or principal:
"We are glad to have you. We believe you have talents and
abilities that can foster the intellectual development of this community's
children. But you should be aware that we expect you to also develop intellectually.
No matter how much you think you know, it is not enough. Even if you know
more and are smarter than the students you teach, it is not enough.
For starters, we expect that each year you will keep learning more about
the content you teach and how to engage students more successfully in learning
that content. We expect more. We expect you to engage your colleagues in
figuring out how to improve classroom instruction, curriculum, assessment,
and results. We expect you to seek out and test promising new ideas from
your colleagues and from others outside this school system. We expect you
to pursue your own new learning aggressively, and to apply what you learn
to help your students perform at standard and to improve your school.
We will support you and periodically we will be interested to see how your
intellectual growth is making you a more effective teacher. And, by the
way, if you ever have reason to believe that this school system or your
school is doing anything that gets in the way of your intellectual development,
or that of your students, you are obligated to let us know about it. If
you are not prepared to do these things, then perhaps you would be happier
in another school system."
Developing the intellectual capital of your school systems' staffs will
be the best investment you can make, but it will take courage to re-conceive
and re-design your school systems to make that happen.
Most students in your communities are depending on you
As I have done on so many previous occasions, I want to conclude by reminding
you why we are all engaged in this noble endeavor of reforming public schools.
We are not doing it because of the competition of alternative forms of schooling,
we are doing it because we know that most students in your communities depend
now and will depend in the future on your school systems. Each day, parents
of these students send them to your schools as an act of faith. There, their
children encounter myriad relationships and experiences, some remarkably
affirming and others incredibly hurtful. Somehow, most students take these
relationships and experiences and learn from them and use them to become
the bedrock of this nation.
There are many educators who are satisfied with this result but I hope those
of you in this room are not among them. You know students who have abilities
and talents their schools do not recognize or seek to discover. You know
students who are satisfied with achieving the minimum because their schools
establish that as the maximum. You know students whose intelligence is devalued
because their teachers do not know enough to tap it. You know principals
and teachers who drag themselves to school each day because they understand
their job to be one of disseminating their own limited knowledge. You know
that if your schools were truly performing at high levels, nearly all your
students would be performing at high levels.
This is why we are here again, but we will not always be here, or places
like this, together. You have learned a lot, you have accomplished a lot,
but there is much more to be done. Learn from the past six years, but do
not be a captive of them. Look towards the future and determine how you
want it to be different from the past. Most of all, be resolute, be brave,
be determined, be tenacious in creating school systems that serve all
children well.
Thank you.
Back
to the Hayes Mizell Reader index