:: The Leadership and Learning Center ::

From a D to an A

The only way to outdo a story is with a bigger, more powerful story. - John Alston

The name of the school, Pleasant City Community Elementary belies the reality of the conditions I encountered when I was appointed its principal in July of 2006. Located in an impoverished African American community, Pleasant City has an enrollment of 330 students. With 99% children of color and 96% of them on free or reduced lunch, the school was identified as chronically low performing and rated a “D” by the state of Florida for the past two years. More rigorous state standards implemented last year resulted in it being labeled a projected “F” school. School reports revealed extremely high suspension rates and retentions.

That summer day I first arrived with my husband, the surroundings looked unremarkable. Camp program children were excitedly playing. These children did not look like low achievers, unmotivated, or behaviorally disordered. While sauntering through the building, my husband and I were struck by its attractiveness. It was clean with bright engaging colors of yellow and purple. The tile floors glistened. Computers were in all classrooms. State of the art LCD video projectors, audio enhancers, and fancy bright red document cameras adorned every room. My husband turned to me and commented, almost with an air of sadness in his voice, “There’s nothing wrong with this school. It’s beautiful and it has everything it needs for kids to learn. It’s the adults that are the problem here.” This observation from a non-educator left me momentarily dumbstruck. He was right. What I had been thrust into was a perfect storm of failure on the part of the system. Failure created and sustained by adults who had unwittingly done a better job of putting together a recipe for failing these children than if they had purposely sat down and planned it out step by step.

The next few days I immersed myself in the school’s test data. None of which was good. In every tested content area except writing, 70% to 80% of 3rd, 4th, and 5th graders were below proficient levels on the FCAT. Surely, I thought 80% of these students are not cognitively impaired. After reviewing the data I scheduled individual interviews with every teacher. Under a special agreement between the school board and the Union, teachers had been allowed to opt out of the school. Those who remained would be required to work an additional hour a day, spend more time instructing students, and participate in required staff development. In return, teachers would receive a 20% increase in their base salary. All but one teacher had opted to remain. After my interviews, three additional teachers decided to transfer out.

Interviews with teachers revealed a battle weary staff, demoralized, and frustrated. They variously blamed students, uninvolved parents, community problems, poverty, and other teachers for the school’s poor performance. Many expressed resentment against central office for “bombarding” the school with failed intervention programs. It was evident that this faculty worked mostly isolated from one another. Collaboration was virtually non-existent. Instructional decisions were based solely on teacher preferences. The curriculum taught was either teacher or textbook determined rather than the state standards. If children performed poorly, the intervention was to retain them.

Every story, however grim has another side to it. Further conversations with teachers revealed that other side, one of hopefulness. Caring, thoughtful teachers painfully shared their hopes for Pleasant City. These teachers clearly loved their students and wanted to do right by them. Some teachers who remained had undoubtedly done so for the money; but there were others who were clearly committed to the children. These committed, dedicated teachers shared their practices with other receptive kindred spirits. Then they would retreat into their classroom silos to maintain their sanity in a dysfunctional system that placed greater emphasis on what was expedient for adults, rather what was in the best interest of children.

A year later, the story has dramatically reversed. The projected “F” school jumped three letter grades to earn an “A” rating. Additionally, Pleasant City met 100% AYP. Students made significant gains in all tested areas: reading, math, and science. Gains ranged from 67% to 84%. Proficiency levels in reading and math doubled over the previous year. What happened during that school year to cause these dramatic results to occur? What happened was a change in culture as result of BELIEF and FOCUS.

Getting the right people in the right places was critical. An analysis of the data and extensive interviews helped me ascertain which teachers had the potential and the right attitude. I reassigned a number of teachers. Three decided to leave the school.
Sharing the data with the staff was absolutely necessary. We analyzed data by school, content areas, grade levels, and AYP groups. There was very little good in these numbers. However, you can’t know where to go if you don’t have a clear picture of your starting point.
Setting clear, specific targets was the next step. I encouraged the teachers to THINK BIG; it was not enough to just not be a “D” or “F,” we wanted to earn grade of “B”. Focusing our targets by setting incremental benchmarks made our goal less overwhelming. We set school targets for each content area, grade level, classroom, and individual students based upon baseline data.
Accept no excuses became our mantra. Everyone was on notice that if students were not performing, the cause was inadequate, inappropriate, or imprecise instruction, not because of the students. Examining our practice became a way of doing our work.
Collaborative planning and learning was non-negotiable. No longer could teachers work in isolation. Weekly grade level learning meetings centered on student learning rather than the “blame game” conversation.
Active involvement of the school leadership in every aspect of this culture change shift was a necessity. Except when called off campus for district meetings, I attended every grade level learning team meeting. Faculty meetings focused on student learning and pedagogy. I visited almost every classroom daily. Students and teachers became so accustomed to my presence that after a while no one looked up when I entered.
Sharing of effective practices and calling out ineffective practices was a must. By constantly being in classrooms I was able to observe the good things that were happening and share them with the staff. Areas of concern were shared with the individual teacher. Wide scale issues were discussed at faculty meetings. This allowed for timely feedback and intervention.
The willingness to intervene when something was not working was stressful and difficult. I moved teachers who continued to exhibit performance difficulties. I dissolved one class and reassigned those students to different teachers. I changed what subjects teachers’ taught based upon teacher skill sets. These were difficult decisions to make that had to be handled delicately; however children can not be left to the mercy of incompetence.
Relentless focus on the target became the conversation of the school. The focus was shared with students so they could set goals and chart their progress on formative assessments.
Mobilizing all available resources by using my most effective teachers as coaches and models became the norm. I also requested expert teachers from other districts. These teachers modeled lessons and participated in after school debriefing sessions.
Teaching the standards, not the teacher’s edition clearly made a significant impact on student gains. At times it was a painstaking process as the teachers and I struggled to ensure that we clearly understood the essential learning that the standard required.
Reading and writing was incorporated across content areas. Flexible student groups focused on skill deficits and differentiating instruction. Teachers became “experts” in certain skills and the students would rotate among “expert” teachers to receive small group instruction.
Believing our goal could be reached emerged as a result of the organizational changes and our focus on student learning. Teachers began to realize that what they did in the classroom on a daily basis really did have an impact on student motivation and learning.

I began the Pleasant City story with a quote about the power of stories and how a more powerful, compelling story can overshadow another. As our school community looks forward to a new year we know that we still have a way to go. There are not enough students who have met proficient levels. But the results of last year’s efforts clearly demonstrate that if you teach them, they will learn. Someone once said to me that when you put good people up against a bad system, the bad system will win every time. The system that propagated the shameful failure for students at Pleasant City Elementary School has been replaced with one of efficacy, accountability, and a belief that excellence can not only occur, but prevail in an poor inner city school. This is ultimately a more powerful story than the one that I started this paper with because it is the story of a realized dream that will not only be the impetus for the transformation of a school, but hopefully for the resurgence of a once strong and proud community – Pleasant City.