Prichard Committee Unpacks “Black Box” of High-Performing, High-Poverty Schools

In February 2005, the Prichard Committee for Academic Excellence released “Inside the Black Box of High-Performing, High-Poverty Schools.” The study examines eight urban and rural Kentucky elementary schools, both individually and in the context of other high-poverty schools, in an attempt to pinpoint those factors that allow these schools to succeed within such challenging parameters. The researchers found that the schools, selected for high performance on the state’s academic indicators, as well as consistently improving scores and a smaller-than-average achievement gap between disaggregated student groups, all boasted high expectations for teachers and students, high morale, positive and nurturing communities within the schools, a sharp focus on instruction, and careful, constant programs of student assessment.

Low test scores in high-poverty schools is a national problem, but, the researchers write, “There are enough schools that defy the trend to prove that the background of the student body does not have to determine achievement results.” The study sample was too small for the researchers to make any broad policy recommendations, so they instead chose to focus on those elements of the high-performing schools that differentiated them from their lower-performing counterparts. This was accomplished by using both quantitative and qualitative analyses that sought to answer two research questions:

1) What common characteristics that seem to contribute to high student performance are shared by a set of high-performing, high-poverty schools?
2) What characteristics and practices differentiate a set of high-performing, high-poverty schools with a small achievement gap from similar high-poverty schools that are neither high-performing, nor have a small achievement gap? (2)

The researchers had access to extensive state documentation of low-performing schools, gathered in scholastic audits performed by the Kentucky Department of Education. These audits served both as a model for the audits that the researchers would perform at the high-performing schools, and as a basis for comparing high- and low-performing schools facing similar circumstances. A statistical analysis of the numeric findings of these audits revealed several indicators in which the high-performing schools scored significantly higher than the low-performing schools. These indicators are concentrated within the categories of Curriculum and School Culture, and generally serve to reinforce the findings of the more extensive qualitative analyses of the high-performing schools.

The qualitative analysis of the eight high-performing elementary schools combines the audit findings with the impressions formed by extensive visits to the schools and follow-up interviews with the schools’ principals. Through these three steps the researchers compiled a list of the most outstanding characteristics that likely contributed to school success. These included:

School-wide ethic of high expectations for faculty, staff, and students;
Caring, respectful relationships;
Strong academic, instructional focus;
Systems for assessing individual students on a regular basis;
Collaborative decision-making led by non-authoritarian principals;
Strong work ethic and high faculty morale;
Recruitment, hiring, and assignment strategy for teachers. (14)

The researchers describe schools with powerful cultures of mutual respect and learning. Each school shares a special respect amongst faculty members and students that contributes to high morale and is fostered by high expectations and the sincere belief that every student can, and will, learn because every teacher can, and will, help them succeed. These goals are aided by the successful recruitment of skilled and committed teachers, collaboration amongst administrators and faculty members, and coordinated, strong academic programs that feature constant individual assessments. Many of the auditors, accustomed to auditing low-performing schools, were effusive of their praise of these schools, and indeed the study glowingly describes each as a nurturing community of successful learning.

The researchers were surprised by some of their findings. None of the schools boasted particularly forceful principals, instead crediting collaborative decision making and positive guidance with creating strong faculty and staff morale. The schools also exhibited areas of weakness, including lackluster use of technology and failure to produce Comprehensive School Improvement Plans, part of the “state-recommended planning process.” The researchers note that poor scores on these indicators are, at least in part, reflective of the assumption that particular types of leadership and improvement planning will be most successful. Indeed, several of the auditors remarked that the choice to implement, rather than document, comprehensive plans for achievement may have been a decisive factor in the success of those plans.

Though the focus of the Prichard Committee’s study was small, the researchers illustrate powerful examples of schools that succeed in educating “at-risk” children. Though all of these schools went through transition periods, in which recognition of failure inspired the leadership and the faculty to begin making significant changes, none placed particular emphasis on classifying their students as “low-income,” “minority,” or “at-risk.” Instead, these schools turned their commitment to learning into consistent programs of academic achievement, and provide many positive lessons for dedicated educators in low-income schools.

Prepared by Nelly Ward, February 28, 2005