0.7 Gallegos, c., & Wise, d. (september 2011). leadership for  (Page 5/18)

While recent reports show that all subgroups of students are performing better on standards-based assessments, they also show that the gap persists between the subgroups of those who speak English as a primary language and those who do not (Parker-Burgard, 2009). The data strongly suggest that while schools continue to make changes that generally support student learning, the changes do not necessarily support all groups of students in achieving equally. The result is that the gap in achievement widens over time or continues to exist even though all groups are achieving at higher levels than previously (Murphy, 2010).

To make matters worse, children who enter some schools already “behind,” make less progress than their more advantaged peers. As a result, the longer they spend in school, the further behind they become (Haycock&Chenoweth, 2005; Murphy, 2010). This is because, once students are behind, the curriculum these students experience is often more basic than the curriculum offered to their more advantaged peers. This lack of rigor translates into lower expectations and achievement and a vicious circle where students continue to fall further and further behind. Lack of growth in achievement is often coupled with low expectations for these students. Rather than examining the specifics of data and the academic program, parents, poverty, and the students themselves are somehow blamed for poor academic achievement. This attitude makes it seem as if schools and students are powerless to change this destiny. Educational leaders must not only focus efforts to close the gap between student groups but also work to change existing paradigms of deficit thinking.

In spite of the increasing achievement targets of NCLB, some schools are turning student achievement around and exiting program improvement status. In these schools, all students have the opportunity to learn and leaders focus the school on all students succeeding. Yet a common program among the schools does not appear to exist other than they have chosen to ensure that the curriculum addresses two important things: 1) academic English language development and 2) curricular alignment with the content standards (Carr&Harris, 2001; Marzano, 2003; O’Shea, 2005; Squires, 2009). While these are not the only changes made, they are often a part of the change formula.

A focus on standards is essential, but Haycock (2001) notes that standards are not enough. In addition to standards, a rigorous curriculum aligned to the standards, assistance for students who are struggling, knowledgeable teachers, and a belief that all students can achieve are also essential elements. One way to align instruction to standards is to align assessments to the content of the standards. Common assessments provide the fuel for leaders to promote teacher collaboration in order to increase teacher capacity for teaching at a rigorous level and pace. This does not just happen, it happens by design with capacity building for students, teachers, and leaders (DuFour, DuFour, Eaker,&Many, 2006; Huff, 2008; Littie, Gearhart, Currie,&Kafka, 2003; Martin-Kniep, 2008; Marzano, 2003; Wiggins&McTighe, 2004).