Reconsidering What Effective High Schools Do, and What Failing High Schools Miss

Credit Recovery Programs Should be Strategic, Selective, Student-Focused, and Not the Only Game in Town

[CLICK HERE for the full Blog message] 

Introduction: What Really is an “Effective” High School?

  I consult with many high schools across the country—sometimes on grants, and many times, because these high schools are in their state’s school improvement program. And for those in school improvement status, the biggest issues often are their low high school graduation rates and students’ lack of proficiency on end-of-course exams (or the equivalent).

  And while these indicators reflect some elements of a high school’s success, they are fluid from year-to-year and, when they trigger a school improvement initiative, they often force schools into “quick fix” solutions that involve “smoke and mirror” band-aides. 

  Critically, even when these quick fixes are “successful,” they typically are short-term in nature, unsustainable, and not in the best interest of at-risk, underperforming, or failing students.

_ _ _ _ _

  Part of the problem here rests with the criteria used to operationalize the school success (or improvement) outcome or indicator.

  For example, why do some states define a high school (or district) as “successful” when it graduates a high percent of its students in four years (as opposed to five years or even six years)?

  No one has a problem when “advanced” students graduate from high school to go to college in three years. Nor are there concerns when high school seniors are dually enrolled— simultaneously earning both high school and college credits.

  So why, conversely, is it problematic when some high school students need or take five or six years to graduate?

 While the answer should be: “It isn’t a problem” . . . it becomes a problem when high school staff push at-risk, underperforming, unsuccessful, or ill-prepared students into courses just to get them “graduated”. . . so that the school avoids being “red-flagged” in the state’s school improvement system.

  But the bigger problem is that, often, these students still fail, many of them drop-out anyways, or some of them “graduate” without the academic or social, emotional, or behavioral skills to be successful in the workplace—never mind in college.

_ _ _ _ _

  So. . . for students who want or need to take more than four years to graduate from high school:

• Why can’t they complete a planned work-study apprenticeship during their junior or senior years—even if it means they graduate in more than four years?
• Why can’t they work part-time during their junior or senior years—because they want to, or because their family needs the income—even if it means they graduate from a community-based adult learning center during their fifth or sixth “high school” year?
• Why can’t they attend a (more than four-year) Career and Technical Education (CTE) high school program—in computer science and technology, health care and medical technology, green energy systems and environmental control technology, or the “traditional” auto mechanics, home construction, and culinary and food service areas—while catching up on their job-embedded academic skill proficiencies?

  And, once again, the answer should be, “They can.”

  But, in my work all across the country, I find that these options, and the programs, centers, and partnerships needed, are few and far between.

  This sometimes is because it takes vision, time, money, knowledge, staff, and a long-term commitment to negotiate, plan, build, and sustain these programs. 

  But, once again, a more compelling deterrent is that many state education departments do not “reward” these initiatives—especially when they use a four-year graduation quotient as part of their school effectiveness/ improvement criteria. When this criterion is present, the entire system is driven to that end. . . thereby, causing student casualties (i.e., drop-outs) even as the school and district concurrently “crashes and burns in school improvement hell” itself.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Credit Recovery as a School Graduation “Solution” 

  Credit Recovery Programs are one of the most-prevalent “solutions” when students fail a number of high school courses and get behind relative to graduating in four years. 

  Critically, these programs vary in format and staffing: 

• Some involve no staffing. They use, for example, distance learning courses in a self- or independent-study format. 
• Others are computer software-based, with a paraprofessional in the room to “supervise.” 
• Others mix the distance learning or software-based approaches with a certified teacher to provide instruction when needed. 
• And still others offer certified instruction in small groups so that more individualization and remediation (as needed) is possible.
• Beyond these variations, some of these programs have standards or criteria for the number of students who can be physically in a classroom or enrolled in a course at the same time (to optimize the student-to-staff ratio). 
• Some programs dedicate specific periods of the day for specific academic course areas (e.g., Period 1 for Algebra I/II, Period 2 for English 11/12, Period 3 for Biology and Chemistry). 
• And some programs “control” the skill levels of the students in a class—so that teachers can comfortably group the students, and are not working concurrently with students with wide and diverse skill abilities and gaps.

  Regardless of program format, staffing or organizational considerations, a recent November 29, 2018 Education Dive article presented data from the Thomas B. Fordham Institute concluding that, “More than two-thirds of U.S. public high schools enroll students in credit recovery programs, but almost 10% of those schools have at least a fifth of their students in these courses.”

  This article goes on to describe a number of concerns with Credit Recovery programs in high schools across the country.

  After a summary and analysis of this article—including our own detailed descriptions of the common reasons why students fail multiple high school courses, this Blog message concludes that high schools need to develop and use Credit Recovery programs strategically— adapting the program(s) to the students, and placing the “right” students into the program(s).

  In other words, Credit Recovery programs need to be a “strategic intervention” used only for the students who can benefit from them. They should not be a “one-size-fits-all” panacea for all failing students.

  In addition, in the same high school, the Credit Recovery approach may differ from subject area to subject area, and from class period to class period—all as a function of both the students enrolled and the course demands involved.

 [CLICK HERE this Blog summary and analysis]

_ _ _ _ _

  The Blog continues by emphasizing that another way to avoid failing high schools, failing students, and the need for Credit Recovery programs is to prevent student failures from the beginning. 

  Indeed, circling back to the beginning of the Blog, more students will be more successful and proficient, and more high schools will graduate higher numbers of skilled and prepared students (thereby avoiding “school improvement” status) if they prepare and provide high quality instructional courses. . . delivered in different settings. . . with diverse options—even for students who need five or six years “in residence.”

  But this preventative approach also necessitates looking at our general education classrooms—from preschool to high school—to ensure that they are identifying, early on, students who are not mastering essential academic and social, emotional, and behavioral skills. 

  To this end, twelve foundational questions—that all teachers (grade levels and schools) need to continually ask themselves relative to their students—are presented. These questions can help teachers both to maximize the impact of their classroom instruction, as well as to help them identify those students who need to enter the multi-tiered assessment-to-intervention process.

  If every teacher and school staff used these questions to organize their multi-tiered systems of supports—based on our experiences in thousands of schools across the country, we would have fewer student failures, fewer high school students entering 9th grade with critical skills gaps, and fewer high schools in improvement status.

 [CLICK HERE to see the Twelve Instructional Questions]

_ _ _ _ _

  In total, this Blog integrates a number of critical needs relative to high school instruction and student programming across the country.

  First is the need for state departments of education to change their high school graduation criteria where present in their “school effectiveness” ratings away from a four-year “graduation clock” to one that allows selected students (a) to take more time to master their skills, (b) to participate in Career and Technical Education—and other—job preparation programs, and (c) to experience both of these things without pressure from parents and teachers, and stigma from peers and others.

_ _ _ _ _

  Second is the need (a) for high schools to give selected students (especially juniors and seniors) more flexibility in how they complete high school over this five- or six-year period of time; and (b) for districts, communities, regions, and states to create networks of work-study apprenticeships, community-based adult learning centers, and Career and Technical Education programs.

  If universities can establish Research, Business, Health, and/or Technology “Centers” or “Corridors” with their community partners, why can’t districts establish the same types of partnerships to address this need?

_ _ _ _ _

  Third is the whole issue of Credit Recovery programs, and how they often are used as “graduation panaceas” for students who have failed multiple courses. As discussed earlier, high schools need to develop and use Credit Recovery programs strategically—adapting the program(s) to the students, and placing the “right” students into the program(s).

_ _ _ _ _

  Fourth is the need to use a functional assessment process for each student who has multiple high school course failures to determine why he or she is failing in school. The root causes of these failures then need to be strategically linked to high-probability-of-success services, supports, interventions, and programs—with a recognition that a Credit Recovery program may be the best option for only a few of these root causes.

_ _ _ _ _

  Finally, fifth is the need for every school and teacher to ask themselves the twelve foundational questions so that classroom instruction maximizes every student’s learning, and so that students who need to enter the multi-tiered assessment-to-intervention process are identified as soon as possible.

_ _ _ _ _

  In many ways, this entire discussion is about student mastery, school success, and continuous school improvement. Under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, districts and schools have more flexibility than ever in how to improve their schools and serve their students.

Read the entire Blog. What do you think?

[CLICK HERE for the full Blog message]