In 2010-11, the results of our short cycle assessments were staggering.  The number of students who became proficient in our inaugural year in Reading and Language Usage doubled from roughly 33 percent to nearly 70 percent, and Math proficiency rose from 7 percent to 81 percent!  In addition, roughly 50 percent of our students are re-classified freshman and all of those who completed the freshman year matriculated to becoming a sophomore (80 percent of those present on the first day of school).  These scores and passing rates may be counter-intuitive because we have not implemented any of the traditional approaches that one might find in schools that serve low income students of color.  We do not rely on carefully constructed text books or canned curriculum that is aligned with our state’s benchmarks and standards.  We have not created an extra Math or Reading block, our students do not get much homework, and we have no zero tolerance discipline policy.  These are the practices that are so common in the “no excuses” school reform movement and we subscribe to none of them.

While I appreciate the impressive gains we have made, I must admit that I am skeptical of standardized tests.  First, we are doing so much more than teaching basic skills at ACE Leadership High School and I think that standardized tests that measures Math, Reading and Language Usage significantly understate our impact on our students.  Also, there is plenty of research documenting the imperfection of standardized tests and the ways in which they are simply snapshot of performance on any given day.  In fact, so many schools have invested so much time in gaming the tests that I have discounted them as a measure of whether they reflect anything meaningful at all.

Instruction 

We administer our short cycle assessments which measure basic skills at the beginning, middle, and end of the year.  We put no time or effort into developing the student’s “test taking skills” and we did not hype the tests as a reflection of who they are, or as a way to justify our existence.  However, we did use the scores from the beginning of the year as a diagnostic tool that could help us refine our practice.  We held data-based inquiry sessions with faculty where we examined their performance early in the year and then made some changes.  For example, we grouped students differently and we re-enforced skill development across the content areas.  However, these were tweaks to our practice and none of our curriculum is driven by these tests.

So what accounts for our student’s improved performance?  How is it possible for so many students to improve so much in one year?   I do not have an easy answer to that question, but if one examines the framework and structures of the school the answer becomes clear.  First, the instruction is engaging and supremely relevant.  It is project-based and it has a purpose in our student’s lives.  We are an Architecture, Construction and Engineering (ACE) high school and our students never ask “when am I ever going to need this?”  Our mantra is “learning by doing,” and we are committed to the overwhelming number of tactile learners in our school which undoubtedly propels our performance.  However, no project by itself is sufficient to educate our students and we know that “learning by doing” must happen within a framework of care and concern if it is improve their overall performance.

We have stripped away much of the noise associated with grades (tardiness, homework, class participation, rigid time lines) in favor of a “mastery” based assessment system the at asks students to prove if they have learned an important skill or concept.  The means to demonstrating mastery is differentiated based on the learning style of the student and we base our grades on whether a student can prove whether they have learned.  Sometimes the proof is written, other times it is spoken, and many times it is encompassed in a project.    The mastery approach is the right complement to the Positive Youth Development (PYD) framework described below because it is rooted in personalized approach for each student.  Although I cannot prove it, I hypothesize that it is also the reason for our higher test scores because we reach more students than schools with less differentiated approach toward instruction, assessment and their development as human beings.

Positive Youth Development

We think of our students as assets to be nurtured rather than problems to be fixed and they achieve because of our nurturing culture.  We hire teachers who are terrifically patient and they are the keepers of hope for many of our students.  ACE Leadership is a human institution where the elders (teachers) understand the journey to adulthood and they allow our students to stumble and sometimes fall.  They appreciate that young people are as passionate as they are impulsive and when they work with them they ask “who can this young person be in four years.”  Below is a description of the way in which we consider the attributes of traditional schooling compared to the experience of a student at ACE Leadership High School:

Attributes of School		Traditional School	ACE Leadership High School
Frame of Reference —		Education—“The process of receiving or giving systematic instruction, esp. at a school or university” (Websters)	Positive Youth Development—“deliberately enhancing a student’s interests, skills, and abilities into adulthood”  (Wikipedia)
Learning —		“sit down and pay attention”	“get your hands dirty”
Proving students are learning —		“take this quiz”	“solve this problem”
Following the rules —		“obey the dress code”	“safety matters”
Moving to adulthood —		“follow the directions”	“learn from your mentor”
Taking responsibility —		“do what it takes to pass the class”	“build your reputation”

 

The emphasis on PYD is part of the ethos of our school.  It is a frame of reference that helps our faculty understand the programs we offer and the overall structure of our school.  For example, all of our teachers serve as an advisor to a cohort of no more than 15 students.  They work deliberately at developing the Emotional IQ of their advisees by building their language skills so that they can express their emotions and develop compassion for the feelings of others.  This is critical development for our students if they are going to become self-actualized and have the capacity to lead the organizations in which they work.

When we hire new teachers we evaluate whether they believe that it is a school’s responsibility to empower young people to form their own identity.  We also see if they are willing to co-parent and create a school culture that is not only caring but also structured and orderly with clear limits.  We do not explain away an adolescents behavior, instead we understand that they are seeking a place to belong and be accepted—a place where they can realize their potential because the elders have taught them how to be responsible adults.

Sizer Fellows, 8/12/11

Submitted by Tony Monfiletto, Principal ACE Leadership High School