Shame Indeed (Success for All rebuts Kozol)

Speaking of Kozol, he took a cheap and ill-founded shot at Success for All in his latest book.  The co-founder of SFA rebuts his assertions in this well-articulated and data-filled piece.

Mr. Kozol must have known about the outstanding reading gains at PS 65X, because school leaders must have told him. We know that school leaders he interviewed elsewhere told him about the research base behind Success for All. Yet he chose not to inform his readers about this very consequential information. Perhaps he’d argue that improving test scores or even reducing special education placements don’t matter, or that research doesn’t matter. Again, he’d be entitled to have and express those opinions. However, to fail to mention that children in Success for All schools, and specifically the one in which he spent the most time, were making substantial gains, is a disservice to his readers, who should have the opportunity to make up their own minds about whether reading scores matter.

            It is shameful that poor and minority students are segregated in American schools. It is shameful that their schools are underfunded for the job they are asked to do. But to deny these children effective instructional methods would be even more shameful. By failing to tell the whole story of what happened at PS 65X, Mr. Kozol only aids those who believe that improving inner city schools is hopeless. New York City’s Chancellor’s District showed that it is not hopeless, even in the most difficult of circumstances, and research on Success for All and other proven models shows that if we choose as a society to use what we know already, we can make a substantial difference with vulnerable children. Shame on Mr. Kozol for suggesting otherwise.

 

----------------------------------------------

Shame Indeed

 

Robert E. Slavin

Johns Hopkins University

 

December, 2005

 

            In a series of best sellers over a long career, Jonathan Kozol has eloquently described the terrible realities and the fundamental humanity of children in poverty. In his most recent book, The Shame of the Nation¹, excerpted in the December, 2005 PDK, he describes the conditions of apartheid faced by poor minority students in the South Bronx. This time, however, he also takes aim at the Success for All reading program used in the school in which he focused his observations, PS 65X. I am a co-founder of Success for All (SFA), and Chairman of the non-profit Success for All Foundation that developed and disseminates the program. In this article, I respond to his criticism by filling in information that Kozol must have known, but chose not to report.

            Mr. Kozol has a right to his opinion. If he does not like Success for All, he has every right to say so. However, as a reporter he also has an obligation to tell the whole story, not just the parts that confirm his pre-existing biases.

            What Kozol fails to tell his readers is that PS 65X made substantial and meaningful gains in reading achievement using Success for All. The percent of students passing the New York reading test rose from 17% in 1999 to 46% in 2003².

            In 2003, a new Chancellor of the New York City Schools imposed a standard curriculum citywide, and abandoned Success for All. Table 1 shows what happened, according to data from the state’s web site. Reading scores at PS 65X plummeted to 21.6% passing in 2004 and 14.8% passing in 2005.

 

            As a point of contrast, Kozol offers PS 30X as an example of what a good urban school should be like. Yet state data show that PS 30X declined from 30.5% passing in 2001 to 27.8% passing in 2005.

PS 65X was part of the Chancellor’s District, an innovative attempt to provide additional resources and assistance to the very lowest-achieving elementary and middle schools in all of New York City. These schools were removed from oversight by their geographical regions and assigned to the Chancellor’s District, which had its own superintendent and support staff. The Chancellor’s District began with 7 schools in 1996 and gradually added schools, ending with 58 schools by 2002-03.

            The Chancellor’s District offered schools more than Success for All. It provided additional funding to its schools, much of which went to professional development, supplies, on-site coaches, and other resources. Schools used Success for All for reading and a research-based math program called Everyday Math. Teachers had to work longer hours, but in exchange they were paid 15% more than other teachers. Teachers who wanted to teach in these schools were recruited from across the city.

            The Chancellor’s District model worked. It improved children’s reading. Like PS 65X, Chancellor’s District elementary schools in general increased dramatically in reading scores. An independent evaluation of the Chancellor’s District by New York University researchers³ confirmed that the Chancellor’s District was very successful in improving reading scores in comparison to similar low-achieving schools not in the Chancellor’s District. It is important to note that the NYU study did not find the Chancellor’s District to be successful in math. This suggests that it was the reading program, not just the additional resources, that brought about the reading gains.

            The extraordinary reading gains made by PS 65X and the other Chancellor’s District schools would have continued, in all probability, if the Chancellor’s District had not been abolished. The only school continuing to use Success for All in New York City, PS 65Q in Queens (the fact that both schools are “PS 65” is a coincidence. One is in the Bronx, the other is in Queens), had a private grant to implement Success for All at a high resource level, like what was provided to the Chancellor’s District schools.  PS 65Q has continued to show gains on the state reading rest, and this very impoverished school now scores above the state average.

            The success of Success for All has been shown in dozens of rigorous experimental-control comparisons done by many researchers. A recent review by the Comprehensive School Reform Quality Center at the American Institutes for Research⁴ identified 31 “convincing” studies of Success for All, and the program was one of only two put in the highest category for “evidence of positive outcomes” used by CSRQ. An earlier review ⁵ that used different criteria found 46 rigorous studies evaluating Success for All, of which 29 were done by third-party researchers. In that review, Success for All was one of three programs assigned to a category of “strongest evidence of effectiveness.” A national longitudinal study involving 41 schools randomly assigned either to use Success for All or to continue with their existing program once again found significant positive reading outcomes ^6,7. A longitudinal study⁸ found that children who had been in Success for All elementary schools were about half as likely as matched students to have been retained or assigned to special education by the end of the eighth grade.

 

A Pedagogy of Poverty?

            Kozol argues that Success for All is an impoverished pedagogy intended only for schools that serve many disadvantaged students. This is false. There is nothing in the program that would not be appropriate in middle-class communities, and about 100 SFA schools across the country could be described as middle class. However, the mission of our non-profit organization is to help disadvantaged students, so the great majority of the 1200 schools we work with do serve disadvantaged populations. Over the years I’ve visited hundreds of these schools. They are almost invariably joyful, productive, purposeful places. Children work in pairs and small groups, so they are noisy and active. Not every teacher likes SFA; some argue that it limits their creativity. However, most teachers appreciate the tools SFA provides them to succeed with their students, and they are encouraged to be creative within the overall structure.  We usually require a vote by teachers of at least 80% in favor of implementing SFA, so if most teachers disliked the program, it wouldn’t exist. Surveys find 78-92% of teachers in Success for All schools support the program^{9, 10}.  We have quotations, articles, and letters from hundreds of teachers, principals, and superintendents praising the program and its outcomes. Many of these emphasize how the program makes learning fun for kids and teachers, and how it improves staff morale and effectiveness. In 1999, the San Antonio (TX) school district asked teachers to vote whether to continue or drop a variety of school reform programs. Across 24 SFA schools, the average vote to keep the program was 81% positive. Votes for five other programs averaged 37% positive.

            Kozol seems most upset by the fact that elements of Success for All were consistent across the SFA schools he visited around the U.S. Yet this very consistency is what makes the program so effective. After they master the basics, teachers are encouraged to personalize the program and make it their own, but the program’s extensive professional development focuses on practices known from research to be effective: Cooperative learning, rapid pace of instruction, use of metacognitive learning strategies, frequent feedback to students, and so on. Seeing effective practices used consistently across many schools should be a cause for celebration, not criticism. If each school has to create its own path to reform, we will be waiting a very, very long time for education in high-poverty schools to improve. In fact, Kozol describes PS 65X before Success for All as a place in which little instruction was taking place, in which most of the day children were occupied with lining up, watching non-educational movies, and dealing with management issues. Is this really the future he wants for urban schools?

 

Shame of the Nation?

            Mr. Kozol must have known about the outstanding reading gains at PS 65X, because school leaders must have told him. We know that school leaders he interviewed elsewhere told him about the research base behind Success for All. Yet he chose not to inform his readers about this very consequential information. Perhaps he’d argue that improving test scores or even reducing special education placements don’t matter, or that research doesn’t matter. Again, he’d be entitled to have and express those opinions. However, to fail to mention that children in Success for All schools, and specifically the one in which he spent the most time, were making substantial gains, is a disservice to his readers, who should have the opportunity to make up their own minds about whether reading scores matter.

            It is shameful that poor and minority students are segregated in American schools. It is shameful that their schools are underfunded for the job they are asked to do. But to deny these children effective instructional methods would be even more shameful. By failing to tell the whole story of what happened at PS 65X, Mr. Kozol only aids those who believe that improving inner city schools is hopeless. New York City’s Chancellor’s District showed that it is not hopeless, even in the most difficult of circumstances, and research on Success for All and other proven models shows that if we choose as a society to use what we know already, we can make a substantial difference with vulnerable children. Shame on Mr. Kozol for suggesting otherwise.

-------------------------------

References

 

1. Jonathan Kozol. The shame of the nation. New York: Crown, 2005.

2.  These data can be found at www.nycenet.edu/daa/test_results

3. Deinya Phenix, Dorothy Siegel, Ariel Zaltsman, & Norm Fruchter.  Virtual district, real improvement: A retrospective evaluation of the Chancellor’s District, 1996-2003. New York: New York University, 2004.

4. Comprehensive School Reform Quality Center. CSRQ Center report on elementary school comprehensive school reform models. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research, 2005.

5. Geoffrey D. Borman, Gina Hewes, Laura Overman, and Shelly Brown, Comprehensive school reform and achievement:  A meta-analysis.  Review of Educational Research, vol. 73, 2003, pp.125-230.

6. Geoffrey D. Borman, Robert E. Slavin, Alan Cheung, Anne Chamberlain, Nancy A. Madden, and Bette Chambers. The national randomized field trial of Success for All: Second-year outcomes. American Educational Research Journal, vol. 42, 2005,

pp. 673-696.

7. Robert E. Slavin, Nancy Madden, Alan Cheung, Geoff Borman, Anne Chamberlain, and Bette Chambers. A three-year randomized evaluation of Success for All: Final reading outcomes. Baltimore, MD: Success for All Foundation, 2006.

8. Geoffrey D. Borman and Gina Hewes.  Long-term effects and cost effectiveness of Success for All.  Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, vol. 24, 2003,

            pp. 243-266.

9. Jeanine H. Rakow and Steven M. Ross. Teacher survey: Success for All, Little Rock City Schools, 1996-97.  Memphis: University of Memphis, Center for Research in Educational Policy, 1997.

10. Amanda Datnow and Marissa Castellano. Teachers’ responses to Success for All: How beliefs, experiences, and adaptations shape implementation.  American Educational Research Journal, vol. 37, 2000, pp. 775-799.