The most controversial part of our work has been this finding: the overwhelming
importance of the classroom teacher in determining academic growth.
By measuring what I call the dimples and bubbles in each kid's own pathway -
mathematically and simultaneously - we've been able to get a very fair measure of the
school district, the school, and the individual classroom. And we've been able to
demonstrate that ethnicity, poverty, and affluence can no longer be used as justifications
for the failure to make academic progress.
The single biggest factor affecting academic growth of any population of youngsters is
the effectiveness of the individual classroom teacher.
The answer to why children learn well or not isn't race, it isn't poverty, it isn't
even per-pupil expenditure at the elementary level. It's teachers, teachers, teachers.
The teacher's effect on academic growth dwarfs and nearly renders trivial all these
other factors that people have historically worried about.
The second point that surprises some people is that it is not our lowest-achieving
children whom our system serves worst. It's our early high achievers among minorities.
In Tennessee, for instance, the children who are getting hammered the hardest are the
early high-achieving African American children. They do well in the early grades but
decline in later grades. This comes from their higher likelihood of being in a succession
of classrooms where the instruction is geared to lower achievers. Any children who have a
likelihood of being in such an environment will experience what I call a shed pattern:
declining like the roof of a country shed.
The same thing happens in affluent suburbs where a sincere, conscientious teacher
focuses on the two or three poor students and holds back the rest of the class, making the
above-average children more vulnerable. But it disproportionately affects disadvantaged
minorities.
The other big issue is the debate over standards. I'm all for standards, but I propose
looking at them in terms of the rate of academic growth instead of absolute cut-scores for
each grade level.
It's not realistic to expect disadvantaged populations to score at the same level as
suburban children in the early grades. What's important is not where children are in third
grade, but in grades 11 and 12.
I prefer to view the academic process as a ramp instead of stair steps. That way it
doesn't matter where the children are on the ramp as long as they reach the top by the end
of their schooling.
Expecting all children to take the same steps every year is not realistic. If the
height between two steps is too great, a high percentage of children will fail. If too
low, the high achievers will be bored. But with a ramp, you accept the fact that children
will be at different spots on the ramp, but moving up. The point is to have sustained
academic growth for all children, no matter what their starting point.
Of course, those who start low need a faster growth rate. They need to grow at 110
percent or 120 percent. That is, they need to achieve 1.1 or 1.2 years of growth each
year. We find that the top 20 percent of teachers are helping kids do that. They know how
to teach children who are at three different levels on the ramp within the same classroom.
We find inner city and rural schools that are doing a magnificent job. They're on the ramp
at 120 percent.
In short, what's important is the academic progress that each child makes each year,
not his absolute score. The child should be compared to himself, his previous performance,
not to all of his peers. That's what we ought to be holding school systems, schools, and
teachers accountable for.
