Raising Expectations To Improve Student Learning. Urban

ED 378 290

AUTHORTITLE

INSTITUTION

SPONS AGENCY

PUB DATECONTRACTNOTEAVAILABLE FROM

PUB TYPE

EDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS

ABSTRACT

DOCUMENT RESUME

UD 030 270

Bamburg, Jerry D.Raising Expectations To Improve Student Learning.Urban Monograph Series.North Central Regional Educational Lab., Oak Brook,IL.

Office of Educational Research and Improvement (ED),Washington, DC.94RP9100200738p.

North Central Regional Educational Laboratory, 1900Spring Road, Suite 300, Oak Brook, IL 60521 ($5.95,order number UMS-REI-94).Reports Evaluative/Feasibility (142)

MF01/PCO2 Plus Postage.*Academic Achievement; Beliefs; *Disadvantaged Youth;Education:1 Change; Elementary Secondary Education;Instructional Leadership; Low Achievement; ParentParticipation; *Teacher Expectations of Students;Teacher Role; Teaching Methods; Testing; *Test Use;*Urban Schools; Urban Youth

The issue of low teacher expectations of students isaddressed, bearing in mind that any effort to address low teacherexpectations for students that does not address the broader issue ofschool change will fail. The first section of the monograph exploresthe relationship between teacher expectations and studentachievement. The second section identifies and discusses the factorsthat contribute to low teacher expectations for students that existboth within the classroom and beyond the classroom door. Theseinclude: (1) misuses of testing; (2) misdiagnosis of students'potential to learn; (3) teacher efficacy beliefs; (4) classroom andinstructional strategies; (5) lack of resources; (6) lack of parentinvolvement; and (7) lack of vision and the issue of leadership. Thefinal section describes the changes that must occur in order toresolve the problem of low teacher expectations. Urban educators needto change their beliefs about the abilities of students and theircapacities for learning. (Contains 49 references.) (SLD)

***********************************************************************

Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be madefrom the original document.

***********************************************************************

\

Urban Monograph Series

Raising Expectationsto Improve Student Learning

iU.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOffice of Educationai Research and improvement

EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION

ICENTER (ERIC)

-A This document has been reproduced as: received from the person or organization

originating it

0 Milo: changes have been made toimprove reproduction quality

Points of view or opinions stated in thisdocument do not necessarily representofficial OERI position or policy

URBAN EDUCATION PROGRAM

2

s

AL.

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

Dr. Jerry D. BaniburgUniversity of Washington at Seattle

2

:SI

tfk,w-

NCREL

1'915;,4 So -4-

NCREL10th ANNIVERSARY

North Central Regional Educational Laboratory1900 Spring Road, Suite 300Oak Brook, IL 60521(708) 571-4700, Fax (708) 571-4716

Jeri Nowakowski: Executive Director

Lynn J. Stinnette: Director, Urban Education

Robin LaSota: Program Coordinator, Urban Education

Robin Fleming: Program Assistant, Urban Education

Lenaya Raack: Editor

John Blaser: Editor

Stephanie L. Merrick: Production Coordinator

Melissa Chapko: Graphic Designer

Mary Ann Larson: Desktop Publisher

Holly Jovanovich: Assistant, Urban Education

NCREI, is one of ten federally supported educational laboratories in the country. It works with education

professionals in a seven-state region to support restructuring to promote learning for all studentsespecially those most at risk of academic failure in rural and urban schools.

The Urban Education Program's mission is to improve education for urban children and youth, especially

those who are underaChieving and historically underserved. We provide products and services that con-

nect superintendents, principals, and teachers from nearly 5,000 urban schools to research and best practice.

We work in partnership with schools and districts to build capacity for (1) teaching advanced skills to all

students, (2) implementing multicultural education, (3) leading school change and innovation, and (4)

supporting professional development that promotes whole school change.

0 1994 North Central Regional Educational Laboratory

This publication is based on work sponsored wholly or in part by the Office of Educational Research and

Improvement (OERI), Department of Education, under Contract Number RP91002007. The content of

this publication does not necessarily reflect the views of OERI, the Department of Education, or any other

agency of the U.S. Government.

UMS-REI-94, $5.95

Dear Colleague:

We are pleased to introduce the Urban Education Monograph Series, a new initiative of the North CentralRegional Educational Laboratory (NCREL) that works to connect practitioners and policymakers to important

research and promising practices.

Throughout the region's urban centers, children and youth continue to achieve at levels significantlybelow national norms. While many urban students complete school and make a successful transition tohigher education, increasing numbers of poor and minority youth in the region's urban centers either dropout of school or finish school lacking the skills and knowledge needed to continue their education success-fully and to participate fully in today's high-tech, information-service economy.

NCREL believes that connecting practitioners and policymakers to knowledge about what works inurban schools is an important step in crafting effective solutions to the achievement gap between the region'surban children and others. Traditionally, solutions to problems of urban schools have focused on isolatedprograms or single subjects, such as reading, and have relied heavily on knowledge from one field--educa-tion. The achievement gap between urban children and others is the result of many factors (e.g., social,cultural, and economic). Solutions that draw on a broad knowledge base are more likely to be effective inattacking the problems that impede urban children's success'in school than solutions that rely solely onknowledge about schooling.

The Urban Education Monograph Series connects practitioners and policymakers to important information

about what works in urban schools by drawing on knowledge from the fields of education, sociology, cultural

anthropology, and others. This series, which is being published during 1994 and 1995, addresses suchissues as the following:

Building a Collaborative School Culture (Kent Peterson, University of Wisconsin at Madison,with Richard Brietzke, Purdy Elementary School, Fort Atkinson, Wisconsin)

Raising Expectations to Improve Student Learning (Jerry Bamburg, University of Washington at Seattle)

Synthesis of Scholarship on Multicultural Education (Geneva Gay, University of Washington at Seattle)

Cultural Diversity and Academic Achievement (Barbara Bowman, Erikson Institute, with anintroduction by John Attinasi, California State University)

Multicultural Education: Challenges to Administrators and School Leadership (Carol Lee, NorthwesternUniversity, with an introduction by John Attinasi, California State University)

Developing Resilience in Urban Youth (Linda Winfield, University of Southern California)

Organizational Structures to Promote Teacher Engagement in Urban Schools (Karen Seashore Louis,University of Minnesota at Minneapolis)

III Getting Ready to Provide School-Linked, Integrated Services (Jeanne Jehl, San Diego Public Schools)

We welcome your comments on the Urban Education Monograph Series and your suggestions aboutother issues that you would like addressed in the future.

Sincerely,

nn J. t(i ette

Director, Urban Education

Raising Expectationsto Improve Student Learning

by Dr. Jerry D. Bamburg

Introduction

The teachers and school administrators

who work in America's large citiesface the daily challenge of educatingchildren who are poor, usually minority,and often labeled disadvantaged. Whenthe public tries to assess the performance

of urban schools, it finds that achieve-ment is invariably lower for studentswho are labeled poor or minority. Often,the initial reaction is to blame the schools,

and more specifically the teachers whowork with the students on a daily basis.

This monograph addresses the issueof low teacher expectations for studentachievement. Clearly, it is not acceptablefor teachers, consciously or uncon-sciously, to engage in behavior thatcauses children to be academically unsuc-

cessful. However, little can be gainedby demanding that teachers change whatthey do in the classroom until educatorsalso commit themselves to change whatschools do and how they do it Any effortto address low teacher expectations forstudents that does not address thebroader issue school change will fail.

This monograph has been organizedinto three sections. The first sectionexplores the relationship between teacher

expectations and student achievement.

The second section identifies and dis-cusses the factors that contribute to lowteacher expectations for students thatexist both within the classroom andbeyond the classroom door. The finalsection describes the changes that mustoccur to resolve the problem of lowteacher expectations for students.

Some of the recommendations in thismonograph are addressed primarily toteachers. Others focus on schoolwidefactors that are often beyond the directcontrol of individual teachers but exert asignificant influence on teachers' beliefs,their sense of efficacy, and their willing-ness to change.

This monograph is based on the beliefthat the goal of public education is toensure that every child is educatednotmerely to enable all children to attendschool. It is with this goal in mind thatthis monograph was written.

Is There a Relationship BetweenTeacher Expectations andStudent Achievement?

Beginning with Pygmalion in theClassroom (Rosenthal and Jacobson,1968), an extensive body of research hasbeen developed that describes how

teachers' expectations can influence stu-dent performance. While it wculd bemisleading and inaccurate to state thatteacher expectations determine a student'ssuccess, the research clearly establishesthat teacher expectations do play a signifi-

cant role in determining how well andhow much students learn.

Although "teacher expectations" hasmany definitions, this monograph con-centrates on three general types (Cooper,

1984). The first refers to the teacher'sperceptions of where a student is "at thepresent moment." While not really astatement about expectations of futureperformance, it does help identify expec-tation effects. For instance, it has beennoted that teachers who believe that they

are interacting with bright studentssmile and nod their heads more oftenthan teachers who believe that they areinteracting with slow students. Teachersalso lean toward and look into the eyesof smarter students more frequently(Chaikin, Sigler, and Derlega, 1974).Behaviors such as these are predicatedupon how the teacher "perceived" thestudent initially.

The second type of expectation involves

a teacher's prediction about how muchacademic progress a student will makeover a specified period of time. It appears

that "expected" improvement is only

weakly correlated with a teacher's presentassessment of the student However, Beez

(1970) found that students labeled "slow"

may receive fewer opportunities to learnnew material than students labeled

2

"bright" and that slow students typicallyare taught less difficult material. The effect

of such behavior is cumulative, and, overtime, teachers' predictions of studentachievement may in fact become true.

The third type of expectation is the degree

to which a teacher over- or underestimatesa student's present level of performance.This type of expectation results from ateacher's estimate of student ability basedupon some formal assessment of that stu-dent's performance. It is most often driven

by the use of a test that is perceived toprovide an accurate measure of studentability.

The types of expectations describedabove result in two "effects" upon studentperformance. The first is called the self-fulfilling prophecy or the PygmalionEffect. The second is called the sustain-ing expectation effect.

The Pygmalion Effect

Research into the ways in which teachers

interact with their students and the relation-ship between those interactions and stu-dents' academic performance (Brophyand Good, 1978; Douglass, 1964; Rowe,1969; Mackler, 1969; and others) shedconsiderable light on how teachers formexpectations about their students and,more important, how teachers' expecta-tions influence their behavior towardtheir students. Particularly noteworthyare the findings of Douglass (1964) andMackler (1969), which are summarized

as follows:

6

Raising Expectations to Improve Student Learning

Teachers' expectations about astudent's achievement can be affectedby factors having little or nothing todo with his or her ability, and yetthese expectations can determine thelevel of achievement by confminglearning opportunities to those avail-able in one's track.

One should not ignore the importanceof these findings, particularly in light ofthe evidence that the student often inter-nalizes teachers' expectations over time.When this internalization occurs, thestudent's self-concept and motivation toachieve may decline over time until thestudent's ability to achieve to his or herpotential is damaged.

Sustaining Expectations Effect

The second type of expectationobserved in classrooms is the "sustaining

expectations effect." The sustainingexpectations effect "occur[s] when teach-ers respond on the basis of their existingexpectations for students rather than tochanges in student perfornance causedby sources other than the teacher" (Cooper

and Good, 1983). When a teachermisses an opportunity to improve student

performance because he or she respondsto a student based on how the teacherexpects the student to perform ratherthan on other indices showing improved

studentpotential, a sustaining expectations

effect has occurred.

The evidence is clear that low teacherexpectations for students can negativelyaffect student performance. Meanwhile,

7Raising Expectations to Improve Student Learning

the evidence that high expectations forstudents can also have an impact hasbeen clearly documented. A study byEdmonds and Frederiksen (1978) foundthat teachers in instructionally effectiveinner-city schools had "high expectations"

for all of their students. Other studieshave yielded comparable results (Brophy

and Evertson, 1976; McDonald andElias, 1976; Rutter, et x1.,1979; Andrews,Soder, and Jacoby, 1986; Bamburg andAndrews, 1989).

Teacher Expectations and StudentAchievement: The Evidence

During spring 1992, the Center forEffective Schools (CES) at the Universityof Washington surveyed the staff of 87elementary and secondary schools infour urban school districts (Chicago,Detroit, Indianapolis, and Milwaukee)as part of the data collection activitiesof the Academy for Urban School Leaders,which was sponsored by the North CentralRegional Educational Laboratory(NCREL). The surveys, based on CESresearch, were designed to assess staffperceptions of their school on nineschool variables (instructional leadershipof the principal, staff dedication, highexpectations for student achievement,frequent monitoring of student progress,early identification of students with speciallearning needs, positive learning climate,multicultural education, and sex equity).

The survey results on the high expec-tations for student achievement variableindicated that a large percentage of the2,378 teachers who responded did nothave high expectations for the academicachievement of students in their schools.

3

Table I

High Expectations for Student Achievement (N=2,378 staff in 87 schools)

Item #

31. Most students in my school will per-

form at about the national averagein academic achievement.

Percentage of staff members who:

Strongly AgreeAgreeUndecidedDisagreeStrongly Disagree

322164019

36. Most students in my school are capa-ble of mastering grade level academic

objectives.



124913

206

43. Teachers in my school generallybelieve most students are able tomaster the basic read/math skills.



124914196

44. I expect that most students in my. school will perform above the

national average in academicachievement.



124914196

46. Nearly all of my students will be ator above grade level by the end of this

year.



624173815

71. I expect most students in my schoolwill perform below the nationalaverage in academic achievement.



41717

4122*

* Total percentage not equal to 100percent due to rounding.

4 Raising Expectations to Improve Student Learning

These results raise an important question:

Do the expectations for student achieve-ment expressed by teachers in theseurban schools diffPx from the expecta-tions generally found in schools? Oneway to answer this question is to com-pare the mean score on the high expecta-tions for student achievement variablefor all of the schools that CES has sur-veyed during the past seven years (N ofschools = 800) with the mean score forthe schools surveyed in this project (N ofschools = 87). On a five-point scale (1 =low, 5 = high), the mean score for allschools was 3.61, while the mean scorefor the 87 schools in this project was3.01. Pe- centile norms established bythe Center show that the average meanscore for the 87 schools in this studywould place them at the seventh percen-tile in comparison with all schools. Thisresult suggests that teachers in urbanschools regardless of grade levelhave lower expectations for their students.

A content analysis of the items included

in Table I concludes that they fall into twobasic categories. One category of items(item numbers 36 and 43) asked teachers

to assess their students' potential forlearning. The responses are almost identi-cal for both items: 61 percent of therespondents (combining Strongly Agreeand Agree) indicated that their studentsdid possess the potential to achieve.

The other items (31, 44, 48, and 71)have a very different focus. Althoughthe wording varies, each of these itemsseeks to assess the staff's beliefs about

C


how their students will actually performin relationship to specific criteria. The

teachers' responses to these items weremarkedly different from their responsesto items 36 and 43. Space does not allowfor a detailed discussion of the results oneach of these items, but the evidencesuggests that, to a large degree, staff didnot believe that their students will perform

well in school.

These results, which include responses

from both elementary and secondary teach-

ers, suggest that the teachers in these urban

schools do not believe their students will

be successful even though they believe that

the students possess the potential to learn.

Low Expectations:Why Do They Exist?

While the effects of low te.cher expec-

tations are clearly observable in theclassroom, the factors that contribute tothese expectations may be less obvious.For instance, while some expectationsresult from the actions and beliefs ofteachers, others occur as a result of factors

that exist both inside and outside of theclassroom. The following section willexplore severaOf the factors that appearto contribut(fn significant ways toteachers' low expectations for studentachievement.

The Misuses of Testing

One of the most significant issues con-fronting public education in the UnitedStates today is the lack of understandingabout standardized tests and the appro-

5

priateness of their use in placing students

in academic programs. Contributing tothis misuse is the persistent belief thatnorm-referenced standardized achieve-ment tests are an accurate gauge of astudent's potential to learn.

The fundamental assumption underlying

the use of such tests is that intelligenceis stable and unchanging, rather thandynamic and malleable. In the UnitedStates, the testing community has his-torically embraced the view that intelli-gence is fixed and that through theadministration of such tests it is possible

to rank subjects accurately into categories

such as gifted, average, and retarded(Hilliard, 1988).

Unfortunately, large segments of theeducation establishment have accepted

this view and used such instruments todetermine which students would benefitfrom a particular kind of education.Many school systems administer IQtests to students and use the results tomake decisions about the kind of educa-tional programs that students need inorder to succeed. These decisions, oftenmade very early in students' educationalcareers, play a significant role in the type

and quality of education that studentsreceive during all of their years of formal

education. Keeping Track: HowSchools Structure Inequality (Oakes,1985) found abundant evidence thatsuch tests are routinely used to placestudents on an educational "track" at anearly age. From that point on, studentswho have been categorized according to

6

these tests often receive a substantiallydifferent level and caliber of instruction

than other students. Unfortunately for thelower-track students, the education thatthey received is often of lesser quality

because of the teachers' sincere beliefthat the test provided an accurate assess-ment of their capacity to learn.

Misdiagnosing Students'Potential to Learn

A second factor that often contributesto teachers' low expectations for theirstudents is an emphasis on ability ratherthan effort in assessing the academicpotential of students. How our society

has confused these concepts is clearly

described in The Learning Gap (Stevenson

and Stigler, 1992).

The authors compared Japanese andChinese educational practices with thosefound in the United States. They foundthat people in the two Asian countriesacknowledged differences in individuals'innate abilities (no one would claim thatall people are born with the same abilities),

but considered hard work to be a moreimportant factor than ability in students'academic achievement. In contrast,American children, teachers, and parentsemphasized innate abilities as the major

component of academic success.

The result is that for many Americanstudents the preoccupation with innateability has resulted in a belief tantamount

to "educational predestination." Thal: is,innate abilityrather than effort, theamount and quality of instruction, and

ICRaising Expectations to Improve Student Learning

parental involvementis believed to bethe key to academic success (Walberg,1988).

This belief means that many American

school children who perform poorly onstandardized tests are perceived (andeventually perceive themselves) to havelow ability. In turn, they believe that,regardless of how hard they work, theywill not be able to master their lessons.In stark contrast, Chinese and Japanesecultures do not regard low scores as asign of low ability, but rather as evidencethat the student has not yet achieved hisor her potential through persistence andhard work.

Of course, to some degree, these dif-ferences between Chinese and Japaneseeducation and American education are cul-

tural. The Chinese and Japanese belief inthe value of effort is demonst.-ated by a

Chinese children's story about Li Po, apoet who lived over a thousand yearsago. Li Po saw an old woman sitting bya stream grinding a piece of iron. Whenasked what she was doing, she responded,"Making a needle." When Li Po askedhow a piece of iron could possibly beground into a needle, her answer was,"All you need is perseverance." Unfor-tunately, American students often missthe importance of this lesson. Ironically,

while Americans have historicallyviewed themselves as rugged individual-ists who could accomplish whateverthey wanted, this attitude does not

appear to carry over into academic pursuits,

where the belief is that either you have it

or you don't and, therefore, either youcan or you can't.

It also should be noted that the differ-ences between the Chinese and Japaneseand Americans in their perception of therelative importance of innate ability andeffort are not limited to students' experi-ences at school. A study sought to deter-mine whether these differences extendedto mothers' beliefs about the factors thatinfluenced children's success. Mothersfrom China, Japan, and the U.S. were

asked which factor influenced their chil-dren's performance the most: effort,ability, difficulty of the task, or luck.All three groups ranked effort as themost important, but Chinese and Japanese

mothers gave more points to effort thandid the American mothers. Furthermore,American mothers gave substantiallymore points to ability than did the Chinese

and Japanese mothers. Thus, evidenceindicates that, in America, ability is alsoseen as being more important than effortoutside the school setting.

Americans' tendency to rate innateability more highly than effort manifestsitself in many areas other than academicperformance. The way Americans teachart to children reflects a widely heldview that proficiency in art depends oninnate talent. For instance, many Ameri-cans blame their failure to draw a credible

representation of an object on lack ofability, explaining, "I am just no good atdrawing." In Chinese and Japanesecultures, the response to a person who had

Raising Expectations to Improve Student Learning 1 1

difficulty drawing would be, "Isn't it ashame that no one taught you how to draw."

Tracking persists in American educa-tion and is supported by the myth that IQtesting is van+)

Americans' attitude toward mathe-matics is perhaps the most striking indi-cation of the emphasis upon abilityrather than effort and its negative effectson student performance. According toone American researcher, American chil-dren appear to believe that if a mathe-matics problem is solvable, one shouldbe able to do it in less than ten minutes.The unfortunate result is that Americanstudents are likely to give up before they

reach genuine understanding. When thishypothesis was tested, researchers finally

had to terminate the experiment becausethe Japanese children, refusing to giveup, kept working on the problem longbeyond the time that had been allotted.

In stark contrast to these findings isthe experience of math teacher Jaime Esca-

lante at Garfield High School in LosAngeles. Escalante provides strong evi-dence that emphasizing effort (and prac-tice) can pay off, particularly when ateacher who believes that the studentscan succeed provides support to thestudents. When asked about hisapproach to teaching, Escalante said:

"I do not recruit these students byreviewing test scores or grades, norare they necessarily among the"gifted" or on some kind of "high IQ

8

track," because I believe that trackingis unworkable and unproven as aguarantee that students will be chal-lenged into the program of classesbest suited to them. My sole crite-rion for acceptance in this programis that the students want to be a partof it and sincerely want to learn math."

Tracking persists in American educa-tion and is supported by the myth that IQtesting is valid. This belief is often bol-stered by the arguments of many educa-

tors that education is most effectivewhen it is tailored to the needs, interests,

and abilities of the children as measuredby a test. Putting aside for the momentthe question of whether tracking is moraland ethical in a system of public education,

educators also need to question the appro-priateness of placing students in groupsbased on ability when the test itself ispredicated upon faulty assumptions aboutthe nature of ability. Perhaps the mates/inequity of all, however, is that manyeducators use the results of these tests toestablish their expectations for the students

in their classes.

Teacher Efficacy

One important factor contributing tolow teacher expectations for students isthe level of expectations that teachers have

for their own performance. For instance,

one of the difficulties that teachers con-front ij that the number of importantgoals that they can pursue exceeds thenumber they can accomplish withintheir available time and energy. To sur-vive, many teachers simplify the problem

1 2

Raking Evedations to Improve Student Learning

by concentrating their efforts on thegoals that they deem most important.

However, once the classroom door isclosed, the goals that teachers actuallyact upon are often very different fromthe goals that they espouse, which leadsto important differences in studentachievement. In practice, this meansthat despite rhetoric implying a commit-ment to student achievement, someteachers emphasize "survival and con-venience" goals, passing time in waysthat are as pleasant as possible for them-selves and their students. When such abargain is "struck," the result is a com-promised curriculum (Sedlak, et al.,1986; Powell, Farrar, and Cohen, 1985).At the other extreme are teachers whodo not clearly focus upon any goals andtry to accomplish everything that every-one wants. Unfortunately, the net resultof such efforts is that they, too, accom-plish very little of substance.

A major component of teacher efficacyis the issue of classroom control. Inmany urban schools, teachers experience

a significant frustration about the gapbetween their expectations for studentsand the nature of the interactions thatoccur. Consequently, many teachersengage in classroom management prac-tices in order to gain control over theirstudents, even when they know thatsuch behavior decreases students' oppor-tunities to learn. Such a decision oftenleads to an internal conflict and a resultinglack of efficacy within the student. Thisresult creates a dichotomy between behav-

Raising

0

Expectations to Improve Student Learning

for that enhances teachers' feelings ofcontrol while decreasing the students'responsibility for their own learning andbehavior that reflects good pedagogywhile decreasing teachers' feelings ofcontrol. Such a conflict is intensified ifthe teacher works in a school that valuesorder and control over the academicachievement of its students.

Such decisions are particularly onerousbecause of the substantial evidence thatteachers are more willing to relinquish"control" over classroom interactionswhen working with students who possess

high expectations for their own perform-ance than they are when working withstudents who possess low expectations(Cooper, Burger, and Seymour, 1979;Cooper, Hinkel, and Good, 1980).Stated differently, teachers are usuallymore willing to work with students whoare thought to be high in ability been econtrol is not perceived to be an issue.In contrast, teachers may limit their inter-

actions with students who are perceivedto be low in ability in order to maintaintheir feelings of control. If students areto be motivated to do well in school,they must believe that they can influence

their own academic success (Ugurogluand Walberg, 1979). Their opportunitiesare substantially limited, however, whenteachers have low expectations.

In conclusion, many teachers appearto have little faith in their students andeven less in themselves. Hilliard (1991)states, "Just as there is a vast untappedpotential, yes, genius, among the children,

9

there is also a vast untapped potentialamong the teachers who serve children."He believes that the intellectual andprofessional potential of teachers hasbeen drastically underestimated by theeducation community as a result of thesame mindset that has caused teachersto underestimate the intellectual poten-tial of their students.

Classroom andInstructional Strategies

Research in urban education suggeststhat much of the curriculum developmentconducted in schools is driven by thebelief that certain skills are "basic" andmust be mastered before students can goon to achieve more "advanced" skillssuch as reading comprehension, writtencomposition, and mathematical reasoning.

The result is that many students, particu-larly those who are deemed to be "atrisk," receive instruction centered onbasics such as phonetic decoding andarithmetic operations to the exclusion ofreasoning activities, reading for meaning,

and written communication (Means,Chelemer, and Knapp, 1991).

Research in cognitive science suggests

that educators should discard old assump-

tions about how children think and proc-ess new information and view children'scompetencies as evolving both withinand outside of the schools. Such amodel contends that teachers shouldstart with what students know and usethis knowledge as a beginning point inproviding educational experiences. Italso is based on the belief that students

10

possess the capacity to engage in higher-order thinking.

Similar concerns about the curriculum

and pedagogy employed in urban schools

were described in an article entitled"The Pedagogy of Poverty Versus GoodTeaching" (Haberman, 1991). Theauthor states that the following set ofteaching acts constitute the core functions

of urban teaching:

III giving information

asking questions

giving directions

making assignments

monitoring seat work

reviewing assignments

giving tests

reviewing tests

assigning homework

reviewing homework

settling disputes

punishing noncompliance

marking papers

giving grades

According to Haberman, any one ofthese 14 acts might have a beneficialeffect. However, when performed to the

1 4Raising Expectations to Improve Student Learning

systematic exclusion of other acts, theyconstitute a "pedagogy of poverty" thatis predicated upon four syllogisms:

Teaching is what teachers do. Learningis what students do. Therefore, students

and teachers are engaged in differentactivities.

Teachers are in charge and responsible.Students are people who still need todevelop appropriate behavior. There-fore, when students follow teachers'directions, appropriate behavior isbeing taught and learned.

Students represent a wide range ofindividual differences. Many studentshave handicapping conditions andlead debilitating home lives. Therefore,ranking of some sort is inevitable;some students will end up at the bottom

of the class while others will finish atthe top.

Basic skills are a prerequisite for lean-ing and living. Students are not neces-sarily interested in basic skills.Therefore, directive pedagogy mustbe used to ensure that youngsters arecompelled to learn their basic skills(Haberman, 1991).

This section has presented several per-spectives suggesting that the curricularand pedagogical models found in mosturban schools are driven by a conceptualview of disadvantaged students as pos-sessing deficiencies that must be cor-rected. This view is based upon anassumption that the children who attend

urban schools come from impoverishedhome environments that have providedfew of the skills and little of the knowl-edge that students need in order to expe-rience academic success. Many urbanschools have sought to address this"deficit" by developing a curriculumand using pedagogical strategies basedon a set of expectations holding thatpoor and minority students possess alimited capacity to learn until the deficithas been eliminated.

Lack of Resources

A major contributor to many of theproblems facing urban schools is theirappalling lack of resources. JonathanKozol's Savage Inequalities (1991)eloquently describes the financial inequi-ties that face many urban school districtsin this country. As an example, an urban

newspaper recently reported that thecity's elementary schools often run outof money for supplies prior to the end ofthe year and local parent organizationsare asked to fill tli6tap. Unfortunately,those schools with students from pre-dominantly low-income neighborhoodsfind it more difficult to obtain theneeded resources, and the students inthose schools simply have to do without.

Similar problems exist with regard totextbooks and other instructional materi-als and equipment. Recently, a localurban elementary school received agrant from a private foundation to installand network computers in all of theschool's classrooms. Now that it has the

computers, the school has been waitingsix months for the district to send some-

1JRaising Expectations to Improve Student Learning 11

one out to install the wiring, despiterepeated pleas that it do so.

In many urban schools, the problemof creating an appropriate learning envi-ronment often takes a back seat to morefundamental issues of health and safety.Maintenance is a major problem,particularly in cities, because many ofthe :schools are old and outdated. Theability to provide adequate heat, sanita-tion, and safety for the students and staffin urban schools is a major challengethat is largely ignored. Such problemsmust be addressed if schools are tobecome places in which teaching andlearning are going to occur, but they can-not be addressed until schools possessadequate resources.

... the teachers who work in ournation's cities have the greatest needfor advanced training, yet they receivethe fewest opportunities.

Perhaps even more critical than theneed for additional resources for facilities,

supplies, and instructional materials isthe need for sufficient resources fortraining and staff development. As stu-dent populations become more diverse,their needs become more complex.Meanwhile, as increased knowledgeabout innovative strategies becomesavailable, the need to provide increasedopportunities for staff developmentbecomes more critical. Guskey (1982)investigated whether teacher expectations

might change if teachers were givenopportunities to improve their instruc-

12

tional effectiveness. The results suggestedthat changes in teacher expectations didoccur and that high-quality staff devel-opment could be a significant factor inattaining the twin goals of teacher efficacy

and student success. Unfortunately, thelack of resources in many urban schooldistricts and the constraints on timemean that such training is rare. Theresult is that the teachers who work inour nation's cities have the greatest needfor advanced training, yet they receivethe fewest opportunities.

Parent Involvement

Ninety percent of a student's life isspent outside of school, and yet, inmany urban schools, the involvement ofparents and community members is prac-tically nonexistent. One of the factorsthat appear to contribute to early studentsuccess in school is the acquisition ofthe intellectual tools and social skillsneeded to function effectively in aschool environment prior to the student'sentry into school. In the eyes of manyurban educators, the knowledge that somany children come from environmentsin which these tools and skills are nottaught indicates that parents have littleinterest in the education of their children.

When elementary teachers have toteach these readiness skills at the sametime that they are trying to introduce theregular curriculum, they often becomevery frustrated. If not addressed, thesefrustrations will i ot end in elementaryschool. Secondary teachers oftenconfront the nearly insurmountable task

16


of trying to overcome these deficits byplacing such students in remedial programs

that are poorly designed and taught. Insuch a situation, student attendanceoften becomes sporadic, discipline prob-lems frequently increase in numberand/or severity, and little educationalprogress is made. Teacher frustrationsare compounded when parents are seenas unwilling to take an active role in sup-porting the school's efforts to educatetheir children.

Confronted with a lack of parentalinvolvement and/or support (both real and

perceived) in many urban schools, it ishard for educators to accept that: (1) theparents of poor and minority childrenvalue education, (2) the home environ-ments of poor and minority familiesmay include experiences that are condu-cive to student success in schools, and(3) the reluctance of many parents tobecome "involved" may result morefrom their insecurity about interactingwith school officials than from a lack ofinterest in their children's welfare.Unfortunately, even when teachersunderstand these concepts, their personal

frustrations may blind them to the needto find ways to involve parents.

Historically poor and minority parents

often have been viewed as part of theproblem rather than part of the solution.We need to remember that it is the chil-dren who suffer from this unnecessaryestrangement. Parents do care abouttheir children, and schools in today's

society need to take the lead in fosteringpartnerships with them.

Educators often ask what type ofparental involvement they should seek.It is not the purpose of this monographto present a detailed description of howschools might involve parents. However,the following example describes howone school chose to respond.

It took over a year of hard work bythe staff to assist in establishing a parentorganization that could op ,i.ate inde-pendently, but their efforts have clearlypaid off and they are actively and con-structively involved in their children'seducation.

The principal and staff of one urbanelementary school determined that asignificant level of parental involvementwas needed if the school was to be suc-cessful in addressing the needs of theirstudents. Because many of the parentswere too poor to join a PTA, the schoolConed its own parent group that requiredno membership. This school brought incorporate executives to halp the parentgroup write several successful grants tofund parent activities, and when parentmeetings are held child care and hotmeals are provided. As a result, as manyas 75 percent of the parents/guardians ofthe school attend parent meetings. Ittook over a year of hard work by thestaff to assist in establishing a parentorganization that could operate inde-pendently, but their efforts have clearlypaid off and they are actively and con-structively involved in their children's

.17Raising Expectations to Improve Student Learning 13

education. Success stories such as thisone demonstrate that parents do want tobe involved and will participate whengiven the opportunity.

Lack of Vision andthe Issue of Leadership

One of the most challenging issues inschools is the lack of clarity about whatis important in the school. A relatedissue is the confusion about what rolethe principal should play in helping toshape the school's vision.

The schools that have been most ric-cessful in addressing and increasing theacademic achievement of their studentshave benefited from a clarity of purposethat is grounded in a shared set of corevalues and beliefs.

Lack of clarity about purpose manifests

itself in a myriad of ways. It may appearas a lack of commitment to a clearlydefined set of core values. Or the corevalues and vision that do exist may bethe principal's only. A third possibilityis that the school contains no sharedcore values and therefore no sharedvision. When faced with a lack of clarityabout the school's vision, regardless ofthe reason, most teachers retreat to theclassroom. Such behavior often leads toa school that in reality is not a school atall but a collection of cottage industriesoperating in isolation under the sameroof. As a result of this isolation, theschool may contain as many differentsets of expectations for students as thereare teachers in the school.

14

Related to the issue of vision is thatof leadership. Unfortunately, in manyschools leadership is either: (1) absent;(2) viewed as the personal prerogativeof the principal, which emphasizes the"leader" rather than "vision"; or (3) sowidely dispersed among various stake-holders that the school is actually adriftwithout any leadership. Schools, likeany organization, function best whenstaff have a clear idea about what isimportant. The schools that have beenmost successful in addressing and increas-ing the academic achievement of theirstudents have benefited from a clarity ofpurpose that is grounded in a shared setof core values and beliefs.

Primary among the beliefs that sche91staff must share are high expectationsfor all students and for themselves.Such beliefs are not the personal domainof the principal. Successful schoolsshow a distinct movement away fromthe concept of principal as leader towardthe concept of leadership by all staff.This concept is driven by the belief thatall members of a school, regardless oftheir title or area of responsibility, possess

the capacity to influence those aroundthem. Depending upon how they dem-onstrate their influence and promotetheir beliefs, they exert leadership. Insuch a school, this type of leadershipensures that the day-to-day activities areconsistent with the core values and vision.

Unfortunately, in too many schoolssuch leadership simply does not occur.

16


What Can Be Done About LowExpectations in the Classroomand in the School?

Overview

The previous discussion identifiedseveral factors and conditions that con-tribute to low teacher expectations forstndents. Consideration of these issuesinevitably leads to the question, "Whatcan be done?" Despite the complexityof the issue, encouraging evidence sug-gests that much can be done if the issueis approached thoughtfully and compre-hensively. If educators are truly seriousabout addressing this issue, they mustrecognize that interventions need to occurat multiple levels simultaneously. Theymust focus on interactions (1) inside theclassroom between the teacher and stu-dents; (2) between the classroom and theschool and/or district; and (3) between theschool and the parents. It is importantto note that the interventions describedin this section should not be approachedin a sequential fashion. For instance, itis unreasonable to expect major changesin a teacher's expectations for studentswithout addressing factors that are outsidethe influence of the teacher's behaviorbut affect teacher performance.

Ma Hilliard describes many of thecurrent reform efforts as "rearrangingthe technical and logistical chairs on theeducational Titanic" (Hilliard, 1991).He goes on to explain that fundamentalchange will occur only if we are committed

to "deep restructuring," which, in turn,will occur only when we:


"...draw up an appropriate visionof human potential, and the designof human institutions, of the creationof a professional work environment,of the linkage of school activitiesand community directions, of creating

human bonds in the operation ofappropriate socialization activities,and of aiming for the stars for thechildren and for ourselves academi-cally and socially."

In short, the kinds of changes that areneeded will take place only when webegin to view schools as complex systems

in which every decision has long-termimplications. Peter Senge, professor inthe Sloan School of Business at MIT,describes just such a way of viewingorganizations in The Fifth Discipline(1990). According to Senge, a "learningorganization" creates conditions thatallow everyone to be a learnee and aleader simultaneously Hilliard'sdescription of deep restructuring is con-sistent with this concept:

They need to experience the joy ofcollaborative discussion, dialogue, critique,

and research. An enriched academicfoundation is definitely a prerequisitefor an enriched pedagogical foundation,

and together the two provide a level ofcomfort for the teacher who supportsprofessional dialogue as well as teacher-student dialogue. The primary roles thatthe teacher ought to play in service tochildren are enhanced by the development

of the teacher's intellectual power andprofessional socialization (Hilliard, 1991).

15

If educators are truly committed tocreating schools in which expectationsare high for all children, then it is incum-bent upon them to recreate schools aslearning organizations in which teachers,

administrators, students, and parentswork together to create the kinds ofschools they desire.

The importance of recognizing theexistence of our mental models is not toreplace our traditional assumptionswith new ones. Rather, it is importantto develop the capacity to suspend ourbeliefs in order to question what we doand why.

In the Classroom

The Acquisition ofNew Knowledge and Skills

Evidence clearly indicatei that manyteachers use teaching strategies that donot promote learning. A major contrib-uting factor is the lack of training aboutpromising practices in curriculum andinstruction. However, it is important torecognize that among the biggest obstaclesto new learning are our beliefs abouthow people learn. One way to thinkabout these beliefs was described inThe Fifth Discipline as "mental mod-els"implicit assumptions that deter-mine how we view the world and howwe make decisions. In education, these"theories-in-use," which may differ consid-

erably from our espoused theories, deter-mine how we view our students as wellas how we make decisions about how toteach them.

16

The importance of recognizing theexistence of our mental models is not toreplace our traditional assumptions withnew ones. Rather, it is important todevelop the capacity to suspend ourbeliefs in order to question what we doand why. As an example, when weexplore the tremendous amount ofresearch in cognitive learning from thepast decade, we find significant reasonsto change how we educate children.This research implies that we have beenengaging in instructional strategies thatare inappropriate. As educators, wemust make a personal commitment topursue new knowledge and to allow thatknowledge to influence what we believeand what we do as educators.

Brain Research

A major contributing factor to lowteacher expectations for students is thetraditional belief we hold about how stu-dents learn. During the past ten years,our understanding of the brain and howit worksas well as of the kind of envi-ronment in which it works most effec-tivelyhas increased significantly. Thefollowing material adapted from anASCD publication, Teaching and theHuman Brain (Caine and Caine, 1991),summarizes some of what we now knowabout how humans learn and some impli-cations for educators.

The brain is a parallel processor.Thoughts, emotions, imagination, andpredispositions operate simultaneously

and interact with other modes of infor-mation proceoirig ai.ci with the expan-

CL


sion of general social and culturalknowledge.

Implications for education: Goodteaching means that teachers must usemethodologies that enable them toorchestrate the learner's experience sothat all aspects of the brain's operation

are addressed.

Learning engages the entirephysiology. Learning is as natural asbreathing; however, its performancecan be negatively affected by stressand threat (Ornstein and Sobel, 1987).

Implications for education: Aware-ness of the need for stress management,

nutrition, exercise, and relaxationmust be built into the learning process.In addition, there can be a five-yeardifference in maturation between anytwo children of the same age. Expect-ing equal achievement on the basis ofchronological age is inappropriate.

The search for meaning is innate.The search for meaning (makingsense of our experiences) and theneed to act on our environment areautomatic.

Implications for education: Thelearning environment needs to provide

stability and familiarity. At the sametime, provisions must be made to sat-isfy the brain's curiosity and hungerfor discovery and challenge. Lessonsneed to be exciting, meaningful, andoffer students abundant choices. The


more lifelike, the better. For manyprograms for gifted children, theseimplications are taken for granted andthe children are provided with a richenvironment with complex and mean-ingful challenges. These strategiesshould be applied to all students.

The search for meaning occursthrough patterning. The brain isboth artist and scientist. It is designedto perceive and generate patterns, andit resists having meaningless patternsimposed upon it (Hart, 1983; Lakoff,1987). Meaningless patterns are iso-lated pieces of information that areunrelated to what makes sense to astudent.

Implications for education: Learnersare patterning or perceiving and creating

meanings all of the time in one wayor another. We cannot stop them, butcan influence the direction that theirlearning takes. Although we selectmuch of what students are to learn, the

ideal process is to present the informa-tion in a way that allows brains toextract patterns, rather than try toimpose patterns.

Emotions are critical to patternirg.What we learn is influenced andorganized by emotions and mind setsbased on exivations, personal biasesand prejudices, degrees of self-esteem,

and the need for social interaction.Emotion, and cognition cannot beseparated (Halgren, Wilson, Squires,Engel, Walter, and Crandall, 1983;

2117

Ornstein and Sobel, 1987; Lakoff,1987; McGuiness and Pribram, 1980).

Implications for education: Becauseit is impossible to isolate the cognitive

from the affective domain, the emo-tional climate of the school and class-room must be monitored on aconsistent basis, using effective com-munication strategies and allowingfor student and teacher reflection andmetacognitive processes.

The brain processes parts andwholes simultaneously. There is evi-dence of brain laterality, meaningsignificant differences between leftand right hemispheres of the brain(Springer and Deutsch, 1985). In ahealthy person, the two hemispheresare inextricably interactive, whether aperson is dealing with words, mathe-matics, music, or art (Hand, 1984;Hart, 1985; Levy, J., 1985).

Implications for education: Peoplehave enormous difficulty learningwhen either parts or wholes are over-looked. Good teaching necessarilybuilds understanding and skills overtime because learning is cumulativeand developmental. However, partsand wholes are conceptually interac-tive. They derive meaning from andgive meaning to each other.

Learning always involves consciousand unconscious processes. Most sig-nals that are peripherally perceivedenter the brain without the learner's

18

awareness and interact at unconsciouslevels. Thus, we become our experi-ences and remember what we experi-ence, not just what we are told. Forexample, a student can learn to singon key and learn to hate singing at thesame time.

Implications for education: Muchof the effort that we put into teachingand studying is wasted because students

do not adequately process their experi-ences. What we call "active process-ing" allows students to review howand what they have learned so thatthey begin to take charge of learningand the development of personalmeanings.

We have at least two different typesof memory: a spatial memory systemand a set of systems for rote learning.We have a natural, spatial memorysystem that does not need rehearsaland allows for "instant memory" ofexperiences. It is always engaged andis inexhaustible. We also possess aset of systems designed for storingrelatively unrelated information. Thegreater the separation of informationand skills from prior knowledge andactual experience, the more we mustdepend on rote memory and repetition.

Implications for education: Teachersare adept at teaching strategies thatemphasize memorization. Althoughsometimes memorization is importantand useful, teaching devoted to memo-rization does not facilitate the transfer

Raleng Expectations to Improve Student Learning

of learning and probably interfereswith the subsequent development ofunderstanding. By ignoring the per-sonal world of the learner, educatorsactually inhibit the effective function-

ing of the brain.

We understand and remember bestwhen facts and skills are embeddedin natural, spatial memory. Ournative language is learned throughmultiple interactive experiencesinvolving vocabulary and grammar.It is shaped by internal processes andby social interaction (Vygotsky, 1978).Language is an example of how spe-cific "items" are given meaning whenembedded in ordinary experiences.All education can be enhanced whenthis type of embedding is adopted.

Implications for education: Theembedding process depends on all ofthe other principles. Spatial learningis generally best invoked throughexperiential learning. Teachers needto use a great dell of real-life activity,including classroom demonstrations,projects, field trips, viral imagery ofcertain experiences and best perform-ances, stories, metaphor, drama, andinteraction of different subjects.

Learning is enhanced by challengeand inhibited by threat. The braindownshifts under perceived threat andlearns optimally when appropriatelychallenged. The central feature ofdownshifting is a sense of helplessness.

The learner becomes less flexible and


reverts to automatic and often moreprimitive routine behaviors.

Implications for education: Teachersand administrators need to create astate of relaxed alertness in studentslow in threat and high in challenge.

Each brain is unique. Although weall have the same physiological systems,

these systems are integrated differently

in every brain. Moreover, becauselearning actually changes the structure

of the brain, the more we learn, themore complex our brains become.

Implications for education: Teachingshould be multifaceted and allow allstudents to express visual, tactile,emotional, and auditory preferences.To accomplish these goals, we needto recognize that the need for funda-mental change in schools themselves.

New Thinking AboutEducating Children of Poverty

In addition to research on cognitivethinking, many assumptions about thecurrent deficit model for educating dis-advantaged students have been rethought.

The following are some of the traditional

beliefs about such students:

The Learner: Stereotypical ideasabout the capabilities of a child whois poor and who belongs to an ethnicminority detract from an accurateassessment of the child's real educa-tional problems and potential. Byfocusing on family "deficiencies,"

19

educators may miss the strengths ofthese students' cultures.

An Alternative View: While recog-nizing that disadvantaged students'experiences may contain gaps, theeducator builds on the experiencebases of these students and at thesame time challenges them to expandtheir repertoires of experiences andskills. This perspective gains supportfrom a decade or more of cognitiveresearch, which portrays the learneras an active constructor of knowledgeand meaning rather than a passiverecipient of information and skills.

The Curriculum: The conventionalcurriculum reveals two basic traits.First, it breaks up reading, writing,and mathematics into fixed sequencesof discrete skills, ordered from thesimplest (the basics) to the more com-plex (higher-order skills). Second,instruction typically promotes mastery

by linear progression through thesequence. There is broad agreementamong experts in mathematics andliteracy that such curricular assump-

tions and structures are critically lim-ited in several important respects.They often (1) underestimate students'

capabilities; (2) postpone more chal-lenging and interesting work for toolong; (3) fail to provide a context forlearning or for meaningfully using theskills that are taught; and (4) reinforceacademic failure over the long term.

An Alternative View: In contrast,

20

the available evidence suggests thatcurricula should (1) focus on meaningand understanding from the beginning;

(2) balance routine skill learning withnovel and complex tasks; (3) providea context for skill learning that estab-lishes clear reasons for learning theskills and helps the students relate oneskill to another, (4) influence attitudes

and beliefs about academic contentareas, as well as skills and knowledge;

and (5) eliminate unnecessary redun-dancy in the curriculum.

The Role of the Teacher: Since the1970s, direct instruction has been thepredominant mode of instruction forteachers who work with disadvantaged

students. Typically, this strategy hasincluded (1) teacher-controlled instruc-tion with considerable time spent pre-senting information and directlysupervising students' work; (2) exten-sive opportunities for practice andfrequent corrective feedback; (3) care-ful structuring of academic tasks sothat content can be introduced insmall, manageable steps; (4) rapidpacing; and (5) whole-group orhomogenous group formats. Whileevidence suggests that direct instruc-tion does contribute to the acquisitionof basic skills, educators are expressing

a growing dissatisfaction with theability of direct instruction Zo providethe more integrated, challenging cur-riculum that is needed.

An Alternative View: Much evidencerecommends the central role of the


teacher in instruction, but researchalso suggests that the most effectivelearning occurs when a balance existsbetween teacher-directed and student-directed instruction. This balancebecomes particularly important whenthe goal of the instructional process isto engage students in activities thatare intellectually challenging. Toachieve this balance teachers should

Explicitly teach the underlyingthinking processes along withskills

Encourage students to use eachother as learning resources andstructure their interaction accordingly

Gradually turn over responsibilityfor students' learning to the students

across the school year as theybecome more accustomed to con-structing knowledge and applyingstrategies on their own

The Relationship Between ClassroomManagement and Academic Work:Traditional thinking about classroommanagement has stressed the need forestablishing an appropriate classroom"tone" and clear routines, with appro-priate remediation for disruptivebehavior. While these strategies ace agood place to begin, they omit a criti-cal element: the relationship betweenclassroom management and the actualacademic work that occurs in theclassroom.


An Alternative View: It is moreappropriate to retain two elements ofconventional thinking: (1) the teacherestablishes general ground rules at thebeginning of the year and (2) theteacher maintains order over timethrough vigilant monitoring and on-going problem solving. However, itis also recommended that the teacherfind a basis for order that emanates asmuch as possible from academicsrather than generic rules, incentives,and consequences for misbehavior.

Classroom Organization: The threetraditional patterns for groupingstudents for instruction are: (1) ability-based reading groups in the primarygrades; (2) formal or informal tracki, g

in literacy and mathematics in theupper elementary grades; and (3)group-based supplemental services inboth literacy and mathematics. Thesestrategies appear to match studentswith appropriate learning tasks. Butthese "solutions," while appearing toaddress the needs of the students,exacerbate other problem=. As anexample, low-achieving students tendto become permanently segregated.As a result, student self-esteem prob-lems become magnified, and the useof a more limited curriculum perpetu-ates the student's inability to demon-strate the academic proficiency that isneeded to be placed' in a regular program.

An Alternative View: The researchdoes not support eliminating ability-based grouping strategies altogether.

21

Schools should, however, consider(1) using heterogeneous grouping andensuring that group arrangements areflexible and temporary; (2) integratingsupplemental services into the regularclassroom as often as possible; and(3) maximizing individual help tolow-achieving students on an ad hocbasis rather than with long-term,group-based arrangements.

Minority Studentsand Affective Dissonance

The students in most urban schoolsare predominantly minority. A growingbody of evidence suggests that for manyof those students complex cultural obsta-cles to school success go far beyond anyproblems they experience because oflanguage barriers, learning styles, or anyof the other factors often cited as inhibit-ing their academic achievement. Fordhamand Ogbu (1986) proposed that:

"...one major reason black stu-dents do poorly in school is that they

experience inordinate ambivalenceand affective dissonance in regard toacademic effort and social success.This problem arose partly becausewhite Americans traditionallyrefused to acknowledge that blackAmericans are capable of intellec-tual achievement, and partly becauseblack Americans subsequently began

to doubt their own intellectual ability,

began to define academic success aswhite people's prerogative, and began

to discourage their peers, perhapssubconsciously, from emulating

22

white people in academic striving,i.e., from 'acting white.' Because ofthe ambivalence, affective dissonance,

and social pressures, many black stu-dents who are academically able donot put forth the necessary effort andperseverance in their schoolworkand, consequently, do poorly inschool. Even black students who donot fail generally perform well belowtheir potential for the same reasons."

Some minority groups generally expe-rience much more academic successthan others. This difference is often per-ceived as evidence that those who arenot successful do not value education.In Ogbu (1984) and Ogbu and Matute-Bianchi (1986), the authors suggest thatsuch a perspective is overly simplisticand ignores the circumstances thatbrought certain minority groups to thiscountry, how they were treated upontheir arrival, and how they haveresponded. The authors explain that itmight be more useful to consider thatthere are three types of minorities:autonomous minorities, who are minori-ties primarily in a numerical sense;immigrant minorities, who came moreor less voluntarily with the expectationof improving their economic, politicaland social status; and subordinateminorities, who were involuntarily andpermanently incorporated into Americansociety through slavery or conquest.

These distinctions arc significantbecause, while the authors' researchfocuses on black students, it provides

'2


important evidence about why certainpopulations of minority students (Afri-can-Americans, Mexican Americans,Native Hawaiians) experience the lackof success in schools that they do. Italso suggests that educators need tounderstand this phenomenon anddevelop "programs to help studentslearn to divorce academic pursuit fromthe idea of acting white." In addition,their research suggests important waysin which the black community canrespond by "developing programs toteach black children that academic pursuit

is net synonymous with one-way accul-turation into acting white." This messagealso needs to be carried to other minority

communities so that they, too, canaddress this issue among their youth.

In the School

Knowledge of Current Reality

Increased knowledge about currentresearch is important in making decisions

about new strategies or innovations.However, as important as this knowledge

is, teachers also need a clear under-standing about why change is needed.For example, the survey data presentedearlier in this monograph indicated thata majority of the teachers in the schoolssurveyed for NCREL did not expect their

students to be successful even thoughthey believed their students possessedthe capacity to be successful. Is thatconclusion accurate? What kinds ofadditional evidence could be collectedthat would confirm the accuracy of that


conclusion or provide information thatwould lead to a different conclusion?This kind of information is seldomsought out.

Perhaps the simplest way of charac-terizing the importance of collectinginformation about "current reality" andsharing it with teachers is that until edu-cators know where they are, they cannotfigure out which way they need to go.

Only when schools develop a sharedunderstanding of current reality can acommitment to change be initiated andsustained.

How does this relate to the issue oflow teacher expectations? The hope isthat after reviewing the survey resultsthe school staff will seek additionalinformation that will lead them to under-stand why they said what they did.Examples of the kinds of questions thatmight need to be asked are: What isknown about student performance?What kind of academic growth arestudents experiencing over time? Whatpercentage of students are dropping out?What is the average attendance eachday? 1st period? 6th period? Whatpercentage of students master gradelevel objectives? What percentage ofstudents are suspended or expelled eachyear? each month?

Only when schools develop a sharedunderstanding of current reality can acommitment to change be initiated andsustained. Deming (1988) refers to this

'1

23

cc,

kind of knowledge as "profound knowl-edge" and explains that only as organiza-tions acquire profound knowledge willcontinuous improvement be possible.

Providing teachers with informationabout the school's present performanceincreases the likelihood that they willbe willing to use the information tomake the needed changes.

The research on implementation ofeducational innovations teaches us thatwhen innovations are imposed from theoutside they do not last. Educators alsohave learned that when teachers are pro-vided with information about what theyare doing in a nonthreatening, noncoer-cive environment, they are much morelikely to make changes that are beneficial.Providing teachers with informationabout the school's present performanceincreases the likelihood that they will bewilling to use the information to makethe needed changes.

One caution is that the effort to collectinformation must be driven by a sinceredesire to understand how well theschool is doing and to produce a sharuiunderstanding of what is and is notworking. If information is used to pointfingers or place blame, the school wouldbe better off not to ask the questions at all.

Rethinking the Role of Leadership

Senge begins The Fifth Discipline bystating that many of the problems facingorganizations can be traced to a lack ofleadership. W.E. Deming, a leading

24

advocate for total quality management(TQM), is even more adamant on thispoint. He states that 85-90 percent of anorganization's problems are due to thedecisions made by leadership. There isno reason to think that education is anydifferent. If teachers are to change theirexpectations for students significantly, itis unreasonable to assume that the class-room is the only place where change isneeded. This conclusion is particularlyevident when a careful examination ofthe factors contributing to low teacherexpectations shows that many of thesefactors reside outside of the classroom.

For years, education has subscribedto the notion that it was administrators'responsibility to provide leadership.Those who hold this belief have failedto recognize that such leadershin, whileheroic, is not necessary or even effectivein organizations as loosely coupled asschools. In contrast, Senge proposesthat we not only need a different defini-tion of leadership, we also need to thinkdifferently about the kinds of things thatleaders should do. He proposes that aleader's "new work" should include acommitment to:

Being the organization's architect

Providing stewardship

Being a teacher

Leader as Architect: To explainwhy leaders need to be architects, Sengeuses the analogy of trying to turn a largeship. He asks, Who is most important in

0 C


ensuring that the ship can be turned suc-cessfullythe captain, the first mate,the navigator, or the engineer down inthe engine room? Senge suggests thatthe single most important person inmaking sure that a ship can be turnedsuccessfully is the architect who designed

the ship. If it is not well designed, itwill be nearly impossible to maneuver.This ship, regardless of its other features,will be effectively useless. It is vitalthat the design be made with a clearunderstanding of the ship's purpose. Ifthe purpose of schools is to provide aquality education for all students, thenleaders should design the organizationwith that purpose in mind. Yet consider-able evidence suggests that schools ascurrently designed are not operating inthe best interest of either the studentsthey seek to educate or the people whowork in them. The failure of schools toeducate students is particularly acute inurban cities.

Earlier in this monograph, I quotedAsa Hilliard as saying that current reform

efforts were like rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic. It is an appropriateanalogy. If, as Senge suggests, many ofthe factors and conditions that affectteachers' expectations are beyond theircontrol, then perhaps what is needed isthe fundamental redesign of schools aswe know them. If so, then leaders havea responsibility to get on with the task.

Leader as Steward: The seconddimension of leadership, according toSenge, is providing stewardship. By


stewardship, Senge means that someone(or perhaps some grout:) within the organi-

zation needs to accept responsibility forensuring that everyone who works in theorganization is clear about why it exists.For example, schools give a lot of lipservice to the belief that "all childrencan learn." It is important that the steward

makes sure that this belief is put intopractice and that day-to-day decisionsare consistent with these beliefs. Theact of stewardship means being entrusted

with the responsibility for something.In education, one cannot assume thateveryone has a clear picture of theschool's purpose, and therefore the roleof stewardship is critical.

Leader as Teacher: The centralpremise of The Fifth Discipline is thatthe only organizations that will exist inthe future will be those in which everyone

is a learner. This prediction contains apowerful message for education. If weare truly committed to the belief that "allchildren can learn," then we must neces-sarily be committed to learning for all,and the word "all" has to mean justthateveryone.

For schools to become learningorganizations, the school's leader(s)must accept responsibility for creatingconditions that promote and enhancelearning for everyone. Principals mustcreate opportunities for teachers toacquire information about what is occur-

ring in the school. Until teachers havesuch opportunities, no one will have aclear understanding of "current reality."

Principals need to create opportunitiesfor teachers to learn about current re-search and to apply that research in theirclassrooms in an environment that pro-motes learning. Perhaps most importantof all, principals need to create a climatethat promotes risk taking and eliminatesthe fear of failure. If this process is suc-cessful, schools will be able to developa shared vision about what needs to bedone and engage in the kinds of activities

that are needed to make this shared vision

a reality.

School Climate

Underlying all of the concepts dis-cussed in this section is the assumptionthat the climate of the school supportssuch efforts. However, the presence ofeffective communication skills is not areality in many schools. Similarly, anyeffort to engage in team learning or todevelop a shared vision is also highlydependent on a school climate that isconducive to such efforts.

It would be both short-sighted andfoolhardy to undertake efforts to identify aschool's current reality, introduce thenew knowledge that educators need, orrethink the role of leadership unless con-ditions such as a productive, positiveschool climate are present or emerging.The effort to develop a shared under-standing of a school's "current reality"is built upon an assumption that thepeople who work in the school possessthe communication skills that will allowthem to engage in the necessary dialogue

with each other.

26

Below is a brief discussion aboutsome of the kinds of climate issues thatmust be addressed if the expectationsthat teachers have for students are tochange.

Communication: When effectivecommunication is discussed as a necessary

condition for change, educators tend todisengage from the conversation. Becausethey spend their entire day talking topeople, they assume that the one thingthey do well is communicate. However,we are talking about the kind of conver-sation that occurs in schools in a climateof "collegiality" rather than "congeniality."

Judith Warren Little (1981) explainsthat the norm of collegiality is typifiedby the presence of four specific behaviors:

Adults in schools talk about practice.

Adults in schools observe one anotherengaged in the practice of teachingand administration.

Adults in schools engage one anotherin work on curriculum by planning,designing, researching, and evaluating

curriculum.

Adults in schools teach one anotherwhat they know about teaching,learning, and leading.

These behaviors are very differentfrom the norm of congeniality in whichthe most important thing is that everyone

get!, along. Why is the norm of congeni-ality so strong? Part of the an wer liesin the following observations:

3


Nowhere in the training and profes-sional preparation of teachers oradministrators is a significant amountof time invet td in preparing them towork with adults.

Teachers spend the bulk of their timeworking in isolation from one another.

The kinds of verbal interactions thatadults have with one another tend tobe short and usually are focused onresolving an immediate problem orcrisis.

These statements, if accurate, implythat it is possible for teachers to gothrough entire days without engaging insignificant conversation with one another

about teaching, learning, and leading intheir school. Consequently, the issuesthat need to be addressed may nevercome up for discussion.

I am reminded about how one highschool math department determinedteaching assignments. The departmenthead, who served in that capacity because

he had the most experience and the mostyears of college education, decided whathe wanted to teach. Then the schedulewas passed to the next most senior mem-ber of the department, who made his orher choice, and so on until each teacherhad made his or her choice. Whethersuch a strategy was in the best interestof students was never a topic for discus-sion because of the potential for disagree-

ment, even though everyone knew thatthe result of such a decision was that themost experienced teachers taught the


best students and the least experiencedteachers taught the most difficult ones.

Collegial conversations focus on whatis occurring in the school and, in particu-lar, on what needs to be done to improvethe quality of education for students.Barth (1990) recognizes that such conver-

sations may, by their very nature, causethe people who work in a school to comeinto conflict with one another on occasion.

r.lowever, he also believes that untileducators move beyond the need to get.along and begin to act as professionals,they will continue doing themselves andtheir students a grave disservice.

Team Learning: Senge states thatwhen groups of people in organizationsget together to make decisions, whatpasses for communication is advocacy.He believes that "inquiry" needs to hap-pen before real team learning can occur.He explains that when a group of peoplecome together, they typically come tothe meeting ready to defend or advocatefor a position or viewpoint. In such situ-ations, very little actual learning occurs.In contrast, if the same group of indi-viduals could come to that meeting in a"spirit of inquiry"the willingness tosuspend one's own position longenough to listen to the other person'sthen something very different couldoccur. In this kind of communication,everyone grows in understanding, andwhen the time comes to make a decision,

the participants have a much greaterunderstanding of what they are deciding.

3127

The collegiality that Barth describeswould not be rancorous nor create illwill if it occurred in the spirit of inquiry.One should assume that there is a placefor advocacy in the decision-makingprocess. The premise is that by beginningwith inquiry advocacy becomes lessadversarial, because everyone involvedin making the decision is better informedabout the other viewpoints and is moreaware of where commonalities exist.

Until the skills of effective communi-cation exist and team learning is val-ued, changes in teachers' expectationsare unlikely to occur.

What does this approach have to dowith teacher expectations? Many of theissues that confront schools are neverreally addressed precisely because theclimate of the school (e.g., communica-tion and team learning) is not conduciveto addressing them. Any discussion aboutchanging education practices that nega-tively affect student performance is not aneasy conversation to have. Until theskills of effective communication existand team learning is valued, changes inteachers' expectations are unlikely to occur.

Shared Vision: When writing foreducators, one hesitates even to mentionterms such as shared vision, becausewhat passes for a school's vision often isnothing more than someone's personalvision that has been superimposed uponthe school. All of the preceding topicsdescribed in this section presuppose thatthe school does in fact seek to develop ashared vision. The key word in the phrase"shared vision" is the word "shared." The

28

reality is that everyone in a school has avision of what the school should looklike and the kinds of things it should do.The problem for schools is not the lackof vision, but the existence of severalvisions all strongly held and all compet-ing with one another.

Educators need to develop the internalcapacity to engage in inquiry and advocacybased upon the norms of collegiality. Thisattitude leads to the ability to develop ashared understanding of "current reality."

Only then will those who work inschools be able to sit down and create a"shared vision" of what they want theschool to look like and accomplish.

Conclusion

The focus of this monograph is therelationship between teacher expectationsand student achievement. The reality isthat low teacher expectations for studentachievement exist in America's urbanschools to a much greater degree thanthey do elsewhere. It is important thateducators address this issue now, becauseof the significant cumulative effect thatsuch expectations may have on studentsduring their educational careers and ulti-mately during their lives. That 40 percentof the students in our cities never makeit to high school graduation is testimonyto the urgency of this issue.

It is important to note, however, thatclear evidence indicates that the childrenwho attend urban schools do possess thecapacity to learn and that many teachersbelieve that the students in their classescan learn. Perhaps most important of allis that entire schools can be found in

3 2


which all of the students experienceacademic success.

Several years ago, Ron Edmondsmade a commitment to fmd schools thatwere successfully educating all children.He reasoned that if he could find oneschool in which all children weresuccessful, then success should be possi-ble for all schools. For Ron Edmonds,the belief that all children could learnwas nonnegotiablea clear demonstra-tion of high expectatiOns.

This monograph is predicated on thissame belief and also on the belief thatthe kinds of expectations we shouldhave for the students who attend urbanschools must also extend to the teachersand administrators working in thoseschools.

Urban educators will be able toaddress the issue of low teacher expecta-tions for students only to the extent thatthey can fundamentally change theirpresent ways of thinking about whatschools are for and how they are organ-ized. We need to change our viewsabout the abilities of our students andtheir capacity to learn. We need toexpand our thoughts about all of the con-ditions that promote learning. We needto think differently about the teachers ofthose students and recognize that theythemselves have needs that are not being

met. We must move beyond viewingthe teacher as the problem and createschools in which teachers can becomepart the solution.

The reality in many schools is thatmany of the conditions that are neededfor teachers to act differently do not exist.

Ma Hilliard concluded a recent article(1991) with the following statement:


"The risk for our children inschool is not a risk associated withtheir intelligence. Our failures havenothing to do with poverty, nothingto do with race, nothing to do with lan-guage, nothing to do with style, noth-ing to do with the need to discovernew pedagogy, nothing to do withthe development of unique and dif-

ferentiated special pedagogues, noth-ing to do with the children'sfamilies. All of these are red her-rings. The study of them may ulti-mately lead to some greater insightinto the instructional process; but at/present they serve to distract atten-tion from the fundamental problemfacing us today. We have one andonly one problem: Do we truly willto see each and every child in this na-tion develop to the peak of his or her

capacities?

If our destination is excellence ona massive scale, not only must wechange from the slow lane into thefast lane; we literally must chargehighways. Perhaps we need to aban-don the highways altogether andtake flight, because the highest goalsthat we can imagine are well withinreach for those who have the will to

excellence."

29

Bibliography

Andrews, R.L., Soder, R., & Jacoby, D. (1986). Principal roles, other in-schoolvariables, and academic achievement by ethnicity and SES. Paper presented at theannual meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA), San

Francisco, CA.

Bamburg, J., & Andrews, R. (1989). School goals, principals, and achievement. SchoolEffectiveness and School Improvement, 2(3), 175-191.

Barth, R. (1990). Improving schools from within. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Beez, W.V. (1968). Influence of biased psychological reports on teacher behavior andpupil performance. Proceedings of the 76th Annual Convention of the AmericanPsychological Association, 3, 605-606.

Brophy, J., & Evertson, C. (1976). Learning from teaching: A developmentalperspective. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Brophy, J., & Good, T. (1974). Teacher-student relationships: Causes andconsequences. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Caine, R.N., & Caine, G. (1991). Making Connections: Teaching and the human brain.Wheaton, MD: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD).

Chaikin, AL Sigler. E., & Derlega, V. (1914). Nonverbal mediators of teacherexpr,ctancy effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30(1), 144-149.

Cooper, H. (1984). Models for teacher expectation communication. In J.B. Dusk, V.C.Hall, & W.J. Meyer (Eds.), Teacher expectancies. Hinsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Cooper, H., Burger, J., & Seymour, G. (1979). Classroom context and student ability asinfluences on teacher perceptions of classroom control. American EducationalResearch Journal, 16(2), 189-196.

Cooper, H., & Good, T. (1983). Pygmalion grows up: Studies in the expectationcommunication process. White Plains, NY: Longman.

Cooper, H., Hinkel, G., & Good, T. (1980). Teachers' beliefs about interaction controland their observed behavioral correlates. Journal of Educational Psychology, 72(3),345-354.

Deming, W.E. (1988). Out of the crisis. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute ofTechnology.

34


Douglas, J. (1964). The home and the school: A study of ability and attainment in theprimary school. London: MacGibbon and Kee.

Edmonds, R., & Frederiksen, J. (1979). Search for effective schools: The identificationand analysis of city schools that are instructionally effective for poor children.Cambridge, MA: Harvard Center for Urban Studies. (ERIC DocumentReproduction Service No. ED 170 396).

Escalante, J., & Dirman, J. (1990). Jaime Escalante math program. Washington, DC:National Education Association (reprinted from the Journal of Negro Education,59(3)).

Fordharn, S., & Ogbu, J. (1986). Black students' school success: Coping with the"burden of acting white." The Urban Review, 18(3), 176-206.

Guskey, T. (1982). The effects of change in instructional effectiveness on therelationship of teacher expectations and student achievement. Journal ofEducational Research, 75(6), 345-349.

Haberman, M. (1991). The pedagogy of poverty versus good teaching. Phi DeltaKappan, 73(4), 290-294.

Halgren, E., Wilson, C.L., Squires, N.K., Engel, J., Walter, R.D., & Cranial, P.H.(1983). Dynamics of the hippocampal cintribution to memory: Stimulation andrecording stories in humans. In W. Seifert (Ed.), Molecular, cellular, andbehavioral neurobiology of the hippocampus. New York: Academic Press.

Hand, J.D. (1984). Split brain theory and recent results in brain research: Implicationsfor the design of instruction. In R.K. Bass & C.R. Dills (Eds.), Instructionaldevelopment: The state of the art. Vol. 2. Dubuque, IA: Kendall and Hunt.

Hart, L. (1983). Human brain, human learning. New York: Longman.

Hart, L. (1975). How the brain works: A new understanding of human learning,emotion, and thinking. New York: Basic Books.

Hilliard, A. (1988). Testing and misunderstanding intelligence. Paper presented atPuget Sound Educational Consortium, Seattle, WA.

Hilliard, A. (1991). Do we have the will to educate all children?, EducationalLeadership, 49(1), 31-36.

Isaacson, N., & Bamburg, J. (1992). Can schools become learning organizations?,Educational Leadership, 50(3), 42-44.

Raising Expectations to Improve Student Learning 31

Kozol, J. (1991). Savage inequalities: Children in America's schools. New York:Crown Publishers, Inc.

Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things. Chicago, IL:. UniversityofChicago Press.

Levy, J. (1985). Right brain, left brain: Fact and fiction. Psychology Today, /9(38),pp. 38-39.

Little, J.W. (1981, April). School success and staff development in urban desegregatedschools: A summary of recently completed research. Boulder, CO: Center forAction Research.

Mackler, (1969). Grouping in the ghetto. Education and Urban Society, 2(1), 80-96.

McDonald, F., & Elias, P. (1976). The effects of teaching performance on pupillearning, Vol. I: Beginning teacher evaluation study, Phase 2. Princeton, NJ:Educational Testing Service.

McGuiness, D., & Pribram, K. (1980). The neuropsychology of attention: Emotionaland motivational controls. In M.D. Wittrock (Ed.), The brain and psychology. NewYork: Academic Press.

Means, B., Chelemer, C., & Knapp, M. (Eds.) (1991). Teaching advanced skills toat-risk students: Views from theory and practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-B ass.

Oakes, J. (1985). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality. New Haven, CT:Yale University Press.

Ogbu, J. (1984). Understanding community forces affecting minority students'academic effort. Paper prepared for the Achievement Council, Oakland, CA.

Ogbu, J., & Matute-Bianchi, M. (1986). Understanding sociocultural factors ineducation: Knowledge, identity, and adjustment. In Beyond language:Sociocultural factors in schooling, language, and minority students. Los Angeles,CA: Evaluation, Dissemination, and Assessment Center, California StateDepartment of Education.

Ornstein, R., & Sobel, D. (1987). The healing brain: Breakthrough discoveries abouthow the brain keeps us healthy. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Powell, A., Farrar, E., & Cohen, D. (1985). The shopping mall high school: Winnersand losers in the educational marketplace. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

36


Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. (1968). Pygmalion in the classroom: Teachers'expectations and pupils' intellectual development. New York: Holt, Rinehart

and Winston.

Rowe, M. (1969). Science, silence, and sanctions. Science and Children, 6(6), 11-13.

Rutter, et al. (1979). Fifteen thousand hours: Secondary schools and their effects onchildren. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Sedlak, M., Wheeler, C., Pullin, D., & Cusick, P. (1986). Selling students short:Classroom bargains and academic reform in the American high school. New York:

Teachers College Press.

Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learningorganization. New York: Doubleday.

Springer, S., & Deutsch, G. (1985). Left brain, right brain. 2nd ed. New York:

W.H. Freeman.

Stevenson, H., & Stigler, J. (1992). The learning gap: Why our schools arefailingand what we can learn from Japanese and Chinese education. New York, NY:Summit Books.

Ugutoglu, M., & Walberg, H. (1979). Motivation and achievement: A quantitativesynthesis. American Educational Research Journal, /6(4), 375-389.

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Walberg, H. (1988). Synthesis of research on time and learning. EducationalLeadership, 45(6), 76-85.

37

Raising Expectations to Improve Student Learning 33

NCRELNorth Central Regional Educational Laboratory1900 Spring Road, Suite 300Oak Brook, IL 60521-1480(708). 571-4700Fax (708) 571-4716

3 id

Documents

Raising Expectations To Improve Student Learning. Urban