In response to technological innovations and a rapidly changing economy, schools across the nation have increasingly focused on offering curricula and programs centered around the principles of STEM—science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.

While other educational fads have faded, STEM has endured. In December 2018, the federal government released a report on its five-year strategy for increasing access to high quality STEM education. The ACT publishes reports on the condition of STEM nationally and in each state, and it highlighted STEM results in its 2018 report on the condition of college and career readiness. There are no shortage of blog posts and articles about why STEM education is so important.

Ohio is no exception. The Buckeye State has a unique relationship with STEM thanks to state law and a partnership between the Ohio Department of Education (ODE), the Ohio STEM Learning Network, and the Ohio STEM committee. There are nearly seventy schools that have applied for and received Ohio’s STEM and STEAM (which adds an A for arts education) designation. They include traditional district, charter, and private schools that teach a STE(A)M curriculum, focus on “real-world, project-based experiences,” and have well-established partnerships with businesses, nonprofits, and institutions of higher education.

Chances are that most Ohioans are familiar with at least one STEM-designated school; LeBron’s I Promise School in Akron is one. But what most people don’t know is that Ohio is also home to several independent STEM schools—public schools that are not governed or operated by a traditional district and differ from charter schools because of their governing body, academic offerings, or mission. These schools are completely and entirely focused on integrating STEM education into every subject and content area. STEM isn’t just part of who they are, it is who they are.

On its most recent list of STEM designated schools, ODE identifies seven independent STEM schools:

As indicated in the chart above, all of these schools serve middle and high school students. They are geographically diverse; four out of the five regions in Ohio contain at least one independent STEM school. Metro is the largest school, with an enrollment of 926, and Tri-State is the smallest with only sixty-six students. According to the most recently released state report cards, the demographics of each school are pretty similar. They all have a majority white student population with the exception of Metro, where just over 59 percent of its student body is non-white. Only three schools reported an economically disadvantaged population larger than 25 percent: Global Impact (26.3 percent), Metro (34.9 percent), and Valley STEM-ME2 (57.1 percent).

When it comes to student performance, the schools produce varied results. Here’s a look at how each school performed on the major components of the recent state report card.

*Schools were not assigned a Prepared for Success rating if they did not have enough students in the graduating class of 2018 to evaluate.

As you can see, the data are pretty evenly split between high and low performance. Four schools earned an overall grade of A or B, while three schools received an overall D. Two of the schools that earned overall Ds opened relatively recently—Tri-State STEM-M opened in 2017, and Valley STEM+ME2 Academy opened in 2016—which may explain why their overall grades are lower than that of their more veteran peers, who have had longer to implement the wholesale changes called for in being entirely STEM focused.  

None of the schools earned an A on the achievement component, though the majority earned at least a C. It’s worth noting that, as alternatives to traditional district schools, independent STEM schools attract students who are dissatisfied with their zoned school or have been poorly served, and may have fallen behind their peers as a result. Consequently, results on the progress component—which tracks whether all students, including those below grade level, make growth during the year—become even more important. Unfortunately, the progress results are a bit gloomy: iSTEM earned an A, and Metro earned a B, but the remaining schools earned either a D or an F. These low grades indicate that students aren’t learning as much as expected. Most schools fared much better on Gap Closing, though, which shows how well schools meet performance expectations for vulnerable populations of students. The results for schools that were rated in Prepared for Success are also largely positive.

Overall, it appears that Ohio’s independent STEM schools are a microcosm of the state’s larger education sector: Some schools are knocking it out of the park, while others have a bit more work to do before they can be labeled high performing. Like other schools of choice, STEM schools are increasingly in demand. As they expand—and perhaps as additional schools open—the independent STEM model will become more widely known. In the meantime, one thing’s for sure: These schools are a vital part of Ohio’s bevy of school choice options. 

A typical sixth-grade teacher we work with serves a wide range of students. She likely has some who read above grade level, some who are a little behind, a student who doesn’t speak English but has excellent reading and writing skills in another language, and several students—some of whom have diagnosed learning disabilities—who are reading at an early elementary level. Typically, she’ll follow her training and match the work she gives her students to their current academic level—in other words, give many students assignments that are significantly below what they ultimately need to be ready for the next grade.

It’s a strategy with undeniably good intentions and a certain logic, especially when most teachers are left to figure out strategies to support students on their own. But it practically guarantees these students won’t catch up and get back on track for college—a goal that, based on our research, almost all of them have. As their teachers repeat the same approach year after year, they’ll fall even farther behind, despite their big goals and their ability to do much more rigorous work.

It’s a pattern we saw again and again during our three-year study of student experience, The Opportunity Myth, and continue to see in thousands of classrooms across the country.  And it extends beyond just students who are struggling academically: Watered-down assignments are the norm for all students, regardless of ability. The average student spends more than 500 hours each school year on work that’s not grade-appropriate and won’t prepare them to reach their life goals. Urban, suburban, or rural; well-resourced or not; from elementary school through high school: The trend is the same.

The vast majority of those students are doing everything their schools ask of them. In our research, we found that students met the demands of their assignments 71 percent of the time, but met the demands of state standards on those same assignments just 17 percent of the time. That 54-point gap stems largely from assignments that don’t give kids a real chance to meet those standards—occasionally rote test prep, but much more often work that’s far below grade level (think middle school math classes doing third-grade level problems).

On the rare occasions when students get grade-level work, they usually succeed, regardless of their academic level. In fact, when students who started the year behind grade level had access to grade-appropriate assignments, they closed learning gaps with their peers by more than seven months. But because that’s the exception, far too many students will go on to graduate unprepared for the lives they want to lead—not because they couldn’t master more advanced material, but because they were never given a real chance to try.

Before tinkering with the academic bar for students who’ve fallen behind, schools and districts should back up and make sure they understand where they’re setting that bar to begin with. I’m not talking about lists of the standards they’ve signed on to or the textbooks they’ve purchased. Instead, I want to know about the actual assignments and instruction students receive, and the expectations the adults around them hold for their success. 

More specifically, what percentage of students’ assignments are grade-appropriate? How often do they feel truly engaged in their classes? How much of each lesson do they spend owning the intellectual lift—a key to mastering complex material? Few principals or superintendents could answer these questions with anything more than guesses because few school systems collect information about their students’ classroom-level experiences. That was the case when I worked in a district—meaning we were often left to use poor proxies for student experiences like what curriculum had been selected by the central office or what trainings teachers were attending.

Filling this blind spot would give schools a much stronger roadmap to strategies that help all their students, including students who’ve fallen behind. We’re currently working with several schools and districts to do just that by creating “opportunity scorecards” for their schools—snapshots of students’ access to four critical classroom-level resources our research has shown can help them make big academic gains:

• Grade-appropriate assignments
• Strong instruction that lets students do most of the thinking in the lesson
• A sense of deep engagement in what they’re learning
• Teachers who hold high expectations for all students and truly believe they can meet grade-level standards

Creating this snapshot of students’ experiences doesn’t require a big influx of new funding or other resources—just a commitment from school and district leaders to spend more time in classrooms focused on what students are learning and doing. We have a free guide on our website for anyone who needs help getting started.

After collecting this information, schools should share it with families and their community. Greater transparency about students’ experiences would help families better understand whether their kids are really on track to meet their life goals, and would focus educators and system leaders even more closely on making those goals a reality. In the longer run, states should consider incorporating data on these four resources into the annual school report cards required by federal law.

Documenting what’s happening in classrooms won’t magically close the big opportunity gaps we’ve seen in our research, especially among students from low-income families, students of color, those with disabilities, and those who are learning English. Ensuring that every student is ready for college by the time they finish twelfth grade requires long-term strategies to provide greater access to the four resources—better instructional materials, better training for teachers throughout their careers, and changes in beliefs about what students can accomplish. Promising strategies already exist for some grades and subjects, but we’re a long way from solutions that will help all students.

In the meantime, we can’t wait to improve on a situation where most schools have little idea how much time students spend on grade-level work—and where the answer for most students, including those who’ve fallen behind, is “not nearly enough.” Once more school systems take a closer look at what’s happening in their classrooms, they’ll see just how big the gap is between students’ aspirations and the opportunities they’re getting. And they’ll prioritize giving every student—even those who are behind or perceived to be behind—regular access to challenging, engaging, grade-appropriate work instead of “protecting” them from work that might be too difficult. Once that becomes the default, I believe the strategies about how to catch students up will come—because millions of educators will embrace that challenge every day and become more skilled at it with each passing lesson.

What’s the best way to help students who are several grade levels behind? It might sound like a simple question, but as evidenced by disappointing NAEP scores released last week, the answer is complicated, and we obviously haven’t yet figured it out. It boils down to a question about how students spend the majority of their time in school, with some saying it should almost entirely be on rigorous grade-level content regardless of student readiness for that material, and still others who insist that the solution is to meet students where they are and personalize learning to build and grow their skills toward rigor. So which is it? Rigor or personalized learning? Just ask Dr. Seuss.

So be sure when you step.
Step with care and great tact
and remember that Life's
a Great Balancing Act.

This might be a quote from Oh! The Places You’ll Go!, a children’s book by Dr. Seuss, but it can certainly be applied here. If we want to help students who are several grade levels behind, the focus cannot be on rigor or personalized learning, but achieving a “Great Balancing Act” between the two. But how? With the help of Dr. Seuss, I’ll highlight three key strategies utilized by the Learn4Life network of schools that have proven successful in supporting middle school and high school students who are several grade levels behind.

You have brains in your head.
You have feet in your shoes.
You can steer yourself
any direction you choose.

Dr. Seuss knew when writing these words that you can unleash power in people by empowering them to make choices, set goals, and steer themselves toward them. At Learn4Life, we also know this to be true and have developed a student-centric personalized learning model that allows students to determine the schedules that work best for them, and—with guidance and support from teachers—choose from available instructional models, including one-on-one, small group, online, career and technical education, dual enrollment, or experiential learning. When a student enrolls, they work with their teacher to develop an individualized academic plan that is designed to address their unique and diverse learning needs, acknowledge their strengths and interests, and align them with their long-term goals for success in life.

As a primary step in the process, each student is assessed with the NWEA MAP assessment, and this score is used to help create a truly individualized learning plan, connecting them to appropriately challenging courses and informing decisions around referrals to intervention programs that will be necessary for them to be successful in accessing rigorous grade-level content. For example, let’s say that a student, Annie, has NWEA results that show she is really strong in reading and writing and she decides to take an advanced English course online. However, she needs more support in math so she chooses a small group instruction course where she can get additional support in order to fill the gaps and accelerate her toward independently working on rigorous grade-level content. Our personalized learning approach ensures that students feel empowered and have a specific plan for reaching their goals, which increases their engagement and decreases frustration as they work to close gaps in skills and knowledge that have caused them to fall behind.

You won’t lag behind,
because you’ll have the speed.
You’ll pass the whole gang
and you’ll soon take the lead.

Not only do we work with each student to create an individualized academic plan, but another key component in the model is that of mastery-based learning. For students who are several grade levels behind, the traditional model of assigning four or more core academic subjects to students to work on simultaneously can be very overwhelming. Our response is to assign two core courses at a time, so the learner’s attention is more focused. Students take formative assessments at the end of each course module and must demonstrate a minimum level of mastery to earn a grade for the module. Failed modules are assigned again, and students are given additional re-teaching and intervention activities such as small group instruction, tutoring, or the use of technology tools like Math180 and Read180. When students are setting their own pace and not stuck in the pace of a traditional classroom filled with thirty of their peers, they are no longer held back from moving ahead and no longer pushed forward without having attained mastery. In this type of environment where students are all working on different content at different times, students feel less of the social stigma attached with “lagging behind” because, as Dr. Seuss says, they “have the speed.” Being open year-round is another important component that help students stay engaged and make progress during the summer so each can “pass the whole gang and soon take the lead.”

And when you’re in a Slump,
you’re not in for much fun.
Un-slumping yourself
is not easily done.

As Dr. Seuss wisely states, “un-slumping yourself is not easily done.” The reality is that many students who fall behind in school do so because they are experiencing real and challenging things outside of school and often find themselves facing those things seemingly alone. When a student enrolls at Learn4Life, they receive consistent and caring one-to-one engagement with their supervising teacher, which is essential to supporting them as they overcome barriers and develop a plan of action that leads to goal attainment. We strive to remove as many barriers to attending school as possible, providing school supplies, meals, a bus pass or outside services like counseling, stress management, or coping skills. Hunger, homelessness, abuse, illness, bullying, and violence have traumatized many of our students. Our curriculum is infused with trauma-informed practices, and our teachers know that traumatized children who thrive have people in their lives that encourage them and believe in their potential. For many of our students, we are that support, and we make sure that this is a constant part of their experience here. Academic growth will only be as successful as the underlying work of addressing students’ more basic needs.

While the work in catching up students who are below grade level is not easy, there are some simple truths from Dr. Seuss that can help guide us as we push forward in this work. By developing personalized learning plans for students, we help them to develop agency and (with guidance from a teacher) “steer themselves any direction they choose.” Utilizing a mastery-based model where students are able to move at their own pace and receive additional supports needed to access rigorous grade-level content means that we ensure that they “won’t lag behind because they’ll have the speed.” Lastly, a trauma-informed approach and strong one-to-one relationship-building with a supervising teacher gives students a mentor so they never do the work on “un-slumping themselves” alone. These may be fairly broad conceptual strategies, but we believe that they lay a foundation that helps us ensure that more students also find this last piece of Dr. Seuss wisdom to be true:

And will you succeed?
Yes! You will, indeed!
(98 and ¾ percent guaranteed.)
KID, YOU’LL MOVE MOUNTAINS!”

Earlier this month, the Ohio House Finance Committee began hearings on a school funding plan crafted by Representatives Robert Cupp and John Patterson, along with a group of school district administrators. The current cost estimate of a fully implemented plan clocks in at $1.5 billion additional dollars per year, equivalent to a roughly 15 percent increase above the state’s current $9.3 billion outlay on K–12 education. The price tag could escalate even further after several cost studies called for under the plan are completed. Bear in mind, too, that these dollars only represent the state contribution to K–12 education, excluding the $10 billion raised via local school taxes and the $2 billion Ohio receives in federal aid. And it does nothing to ensure equitable funding for children attending schools of choice.

But the disappointment for reformers isn’t just due to the plan’s feeble approach to charter schools and private school choice; it’s also lackluster when it comes to traditional public schools. Given the cost of the proposal, one might think that legislators would be eager to leverage these funds to drive stronger student outcomes. Remarkably, the Cupp-Patterson plan does no such thing. While the plan spreads millions more in state aid to public schools, it demands nothing in return for these funds. It’s a $1.5 billion blank check.

Some may argue that simply pouring more money into the existing system will automatically result in higher achievement. Anything’s possible, but even scholars who disagree about the relationship between school spending and outcomes have asserted that how money is spent matters greatly when it comes to influencing outcomes. A key question, then, is how can lawmakers increase the chances that schools spend this influx of funds wisely, resulting in higher student achievement? Let’s consider three possibilities.

First, strengthen results-based accountability. The state shouldn’t micromanage the way in which schools spend money, but it should insist on satisfactory student results in return. Unfortunately, the Cupp-Patterson plan makes no commitment to maintain even current accountability measures—such as school report cards or interventions in failing districts and schools—let alone offer any new ideas to bolster accountability in Ohio. Instead, both of the plan’s legislative sponsors—and a large number of their House colleagues—would prefer to undo accountability by ditching the state’s academic distress commissions via House Bill 154.

Legislators should also consider further outcomes-oriented mechanisms to ensure that schools use the additional support to benefit students. In Massachusetts, for example, reform- and business-minded groups have insisted that any new education money be paired with robust accountability, including improvement plans—reviewed and overseen by the state—that aim to narrow achievement gaps and increase readiness for college and career. Regrettably, the Cupp-Patterson plan does not follow this model, and would instead give away the goodies, at taxpayer expense, without expecting much in return. 

Second, incorporate structural reforms. Legislators could also consider pairing funding increases with reforms to archaic laws that lead to ineffectual spending. But as with accountability, the Cupp-Patterson plan proposes no reforms to the way schools operate, especially with respect to their staffing and compensation practices (the locus of most spending). The following list offers four potential reforms that might allow Ohio schools to use funds in ways that maximize student achievement.

• Tenure: Granting a lifetime salary and pension to ineffective teachers is not a good use of funds. Ohio legislators could repeal tenure provisions (as Florida has done), or they could at least require districts to award tenure only to teachers who have demonstrated strong performance on their evaluations. 

• Salary schedules. Because single-salary schedules typically base teacher pay on longevity and college credits, rather than performance, the system “overpays” ineffective educators, while “underpaying” those who have an outsized impact on student learning. Removing this policy from state law could enable schools to spend dollars in ways that align pay more closely to performance. Ohio could also consider Texas’s recent move to set aside funds that districts can tap to pay their highest-performing teachers more.

• Licensing. Ohio’s elaborate licensure policies create barriers that likely discourage capable individuals from entering and (in some cases) remaining in the education profession, while offering little benefit in terms of achievement. Legislators could make licensure less onerous. Currently, for instance, mid-career professionals with bachelor’s or master’s degrees seeking an alternative resident educator license must pay up to $1,000 to complete a sixteen-week online pedagogical course. Removing policies such as these would allow districts to hire and pay talented individuals who best fit their mission or educational needs.    

• Benefits. A growing chunk of school spending goes towards paying down pension obligations and healthcare benefits, limiting districts’ ability to raise salaries. Legislators could explore ways to reform these policies—e.g., “defaulting” new employees into Ohio’s defined contribution program—to allow districts to spend more on wages.

Third, beef up performance-based funding. A third option legislators could explore is tying school funding directly to outcomes in an effort to provide an extra incentive to meet performance goals. Indeed, Ohio already does in a few ways. First, the state distributes a small amount of extra aid—$31.2 million statewide, or just $19 per pupil, as of FY 2018—based on third grade reading proficiency and graduation rates. Second, in a new dimension of charter funding, Ohio provides a much heftier $1,750 per economically disadvantaged pupil in supplemental aid to quality schools that meet certain report card benchmarks. Third, starting with the FY 2020–21 state budget, Ohio provides a $1,250 bonus to schools when students earn in-demand industry credentials.

The Cupp-Patterson plan eliminates the third grade reading and graduation bonus, and it’s not yet clear whether it will incorporate the quality charter or credentialing funding.[1] As presently designed, scrapping the third-grade reading and graduation bonus makes sense. The meager funding pool, which is then spread over all districts—providing money to even the state’s worst performers—is unlikely to drive higher results. But the targeted approaches of the quality charter and industry-credentialing programs offer more promising examples that legislators could build on.

• Quality charters: With a high performance bar, the state is able to deliver amounts more likely to motivate schools to a selective group of schools. Moreover, the dollars are targeted for schools serving primarily low-income pupils, easing concerns that the extra money would be steered to more affluent schools. Legislators could consider extending this type of program to quality high-poverty district or STEM schools that are also producing strong report card results, something that Arizona does.

• Industry credentials. This program incentivizes schools to help students attain credentials that can open career pathways. Ohio could build on this model by providing additional funds to schools when students meet other college- and career-ready targets, such as passing AP or IB exams or achieving certain scores on the ACT or SAT. To ensure an equity dimension, policymakers could structure the bonuses in a way that provides more dollars when low-income students reach these goals.

Pouring millions more into the K–12 education system without accountability or reform is a recipe for more of the same—and more of the same isn’t good enough. While there are commendable aspects of the Cupp-Patterson plan, it falls noticeably short on any proposal to ensure that schools leverage dollars to benefit students. On this count, Ohio legislators have more work ahead.

A recent working paper published by the National Bureau of Economic Research looks at the effectiveness of two methods typically used to boost preschool quality—an infusion of funding and an increase in pedagogical supports—and surfaces some eye-opening results.

A group of international researchers studied the rollout of a nationwide program to improve the quality of education in hogares infantiles (HI), the public preschool system in Colombia. The HI program is the oldest public center-based childcare program in the country. It is targeted at families with working parents and enrolled an average of 125,000 children per year in the most recent decade. In 2011, the Colombian government announced a plan to upgrade HI program quality with a cash infusion representing a 30 percent increase in per child expenditures per year. The funding was to be used to purchase learning materials (books, toys, etc.) and to hire more staff, specifically classroom assistants, nutrition or health professionals, and professionals in child social-emotional development. The government provided some guidance for the proportions in which the money was to be spent, but HIs had some discretion within these guidelines. About two-thirds of the funding went to hire new staff.

In 2013, Colombian National University and NGO Fundacion Exito (FE) joined the effort by providing free education courses for HI teachers, including “technical guidelines for early childhood services; child development courses; nutrition; brain development; cognitive development; early literacy; the use of art, music, photography and body language for child development; mathematical concepts during early childhood; and pedagogical strategies during early childhood.” These courses were not mandatory, and HIs were free to participate as they wished.

Researchers were able to take advantage of the rollout structure for the new funding amounts and the free education courses to create three study groups—forty HIs that received only the government money (referred to as HIM), forty HIs that took advantage of the teacher education component and the government money (called HIM+FE), and a control group of forty HIs whose participation in either effort was delayed and thus continued business as usual over the study period.

Baseline data were obtained in mid-2013 from a sample of 1,987 children evenly distributed among the three study groups. Students were tested again eighteen months later, in late 2014. Researchers were able to assess nearly 92 percent of the students at both beginning and end, and the vast majority of those had persisted in the same HI center throughout the study period. Data were gathered in various areas of child development, such as cognitive and language skills, school readiness, and pre-literacy skills, as well as preschool quality and the quality of the home environment.

Compared to the control group, the HIMs saw no additional improvements in their students’ cognitive and social-emotional development despite the sizeable influx of cash. Some of the children in HIMs even lost ground as compared to their HI peers, especially in vital pre-literacy skills. However, in the HIM+FE centers, students realized statistically significant gains as compared to both of the other groups. Students from the poorest families notched the largest gains.

While it stands to reason that more funding and more teacher training would produce noticeable gains over the status quo, the question of how more funding by itself could produce negative results vexed researchers. After digging into teacher surveys, however, it became apparent that the new hires and “learning toys” were supplanting rather than supplementing HIM teachers’ interactions with children, leading to a decrease in actual teaching and learning.

These findings provide important evidence that education systems must spend money thoughtfully and strategically if true benefit is to accrue to the children in their care. Simply getting more funding with few strings attached can be counterproductive to the goal. But even more clear is that effective teacher training and professional development matters a whole lot in any setting.

SOURCE: Alison Andrew, et. al., “Preschool Quality and Child Development,” NBER Working Papers (August, 2019).

1. Thank heavens election day is tomorrow. I am heartily sick of all this campaign junk taking up space in Ohio’s news outlets. But kudos for sure to WVXU-FM in Cincinnati for making sure the crowded field of Cincinnati City School Board candidates are at least asked to respond to some important issues. The quality of the questions is not in doubt, such as this series which includes questions about school choice and Teach for America (yes, they went there!). The quality of the answers, well… That’s up to you to decide, I guess. (WVXU-FM, Cincinnati, 11/1/19)
2. Speaking of school choice, here’s a look at NAEP results for black students in Cleveland. It comes from an unlikely source, but the comparison between black students in Cleveland charters vs. black students in traditional public schools in the CLE are very intriguing. (Bluegrass Institute, 11/1/19)

3. And speaking of charter schools, Toledo School for the Arts is on the grow! Even as their building celebrated its history last week (former Jeep plant, former Owens-Illinois plant), TSA leaders were looking ahead to a planned new expansion that could allow up to 140 additional students per year. Awesome! (Toledo Blade, 11/1/19)
4. Also on the grow? The I Promise mission in Akron. Today, LeBron James announced the development of I Promise Village, a housing initiative aimed at giving a safe, stable, and comfortable home for I Promise scholars and their families who are facing housing insecurity. It is intended to be completed and open in time for next school year in July 2020. Amazing. (WKYC-TV, Akron, 11/4/19)

Did you know you can have every edition of Gadfly Bites sent directly to your Inbox (in case you want to make your choice and sign for such a newsletter)? Subscribe by clicking here.

Editor’s note: This was the third-place submission, out of nineteen, to Fordham’s 2019 Wonkathon, in which we asked participants to answer the question: “What’s the best way to help students who are several grade levels behind?”

Despite enormous effort across the education sector over many years, persistent and pervasive gaps in educational access, engagement, and achievement exist for students across the country. To this day, the majority of black, Latinx, Native American, and low-income students do not receive the education they need to meet grade-level standards and be ready for college or career. Students who fall below grade level rarely catch up, even when schools make concerted efforts to accelerate growth. As the figure below demonstrates, only a tiny minority of elementary and middle schools successfully support low-performing students to achieve gap-closing levels of growth.

Figure 1. Proportion of schools with low-performing students averaging 1.5 years of growth in mathematics

In response, two seemingly competing schools of thought have emerged among education policy leaders and the creators and consumers of instructional materials and curricula—one focused on attaining grade level proficiency for all, and the other focused on individualized student growth.

The proficiency-focused group identifies the problem in the fact that when students enter the classroom performing below grade level, they are too rarely given opportunities to learn grade level content. These students are disproportionately low-income students of color. Proposed solutions from this camp: grade-level materials and rigorous, grade-level aligned expectations, to allow students to rise to expectations and truly catch up. Those in this camp are likely to advocate for curricula aligned with rigorous grade-level standards, or accountability measures focused on communicating high expectations, as well as increased support and direction for teachers on instructional techniques that can bring students to grade level and beyond.

The growth-focused school of thought sees teachers struggling to effectively support students with a broad range of abilities as the problem, which results in students progressively disengaging from work that seems too difficult. They want to enable teachers to understand and address students’ individual needs and to engage students with instructional materials that challenge them from where they are now. They often use technology to help make the process of personalization attainable. And they favor growth-focused policy incentives and school/classroom models that break the mold of grade-level groupings.

To the wonk-o-sphere, this might seem like an intractable clash, especially when it comes to effectively supporting students who enter the classroom far below grade level. But leaders in the field must stop perpetuating the myth of a divide. Our recent research showed us schools and classrooms across the country where educators and students disprove this binary thinking on a daily basis. They know that closing learning gaps requires students to be motivated and engaged to grapple with challenging, grade-level skills and knowledge—while also having their individual learning needs met.

Through our research, we found that three key things are true of schools that succeed at accelerating growth among students who start off below grade level:

1. Students have access to meaningful learning experiences that actively engage and challenge them, and respond to their individual needs, interests, and contexts. This kind of learning experience requires educators to have deep personal knowledge of their students. Knowing a student deeply is not superfluous—it is a foundation on which to build relationships and can be a powerful lever for engagement.


2. Educators and school leaders have supports and professional learning opportunities that are individualized to each teacher, collaborative across grade levels, grounded in student data, and embedded in strong school systems and culture. In successful schools, teachers are prepared to lead dynamic classrooms where students are constantly engaged in rigorous work. Teachers constantly assess and act on students’ strengths, needs, and gaps, leveraging variety of materials and tools to do so. Leaders and administrators in these schools share and communicate clear expectations about how to use and adapt instructional materials in support of students’ goals.


3. Instructional materials are robust, coherent, and actually usable. High-quality core instructional materials and supplemental aligned supports and tools for intervention, often leveraging technology and data, are critical to classroom practice. These materials form the backbone of rigor and personalization across every classroom. The most successful schools spend significant time and effort putting these pieces together and adapting them to meet student and teacher needs.

Sadly, schools where all three realities exist are still a rarity. But by following the lead of these educators, leaders and policymakers can ensure more students achieve their college and career goals.

What needs to change in our policies and systems to bring about these conditions in more schools? The short answer is: a lot. There is no one solution to meet the needs of students far below grade level, or one clear policy barrier standing in the way of progress. For example, the vast majority of states’ accountability systems value both proficiency and growth, which was not the case just a few years ago. The long-term answer must include a peace agreement between the growth and proficiency camps, and moving forward, a shared commitment to improvements in instructional materials and educator development.

The definition of quality in instructional materials and educator development should center on what we know from learning science, educational research, and schools doing this work every day: Facilitating growth and aiming for excellence are entirely compatible goals, and each can reinforce the other.

Right now, teachers are the ones left to navigate the complexity. Teachers are currently on the receiving end of too many mixed messages in preparation programs and professional development about what it means to achieve grade-level rigor and “stick to the standards” while also cultivating deep relationships and personalized learning opportunities for individual students. Within schools, better educator development means creating space for collaboration, building shared understanding of student data, and emphasizing both rigor and personalization. It may be that achieving this kind of learning environment will require new kinds of school and classroom organizational structures.

There is currently a significant amount of work happening in the field to bring high-quality instructional materials into classrooms, but little reason for vendors and content providers to collaborate and make their systems work better together for end users. If we want more schools to adopt the highest-quality instructional materials, those materials ought to be flexible enough to attend to the needs and interests of a diverse group of learners, and should also play nicely with all the other functional components of a classroom and school, from attendance to assessment.

Teachers should be meeting students where they are academically, and supporting students to reach rigorous, grade-level expectations. In order to help them to do this, policymakers at the district, state, and federal level, as well as private funders, can step in to exert pressure via procurement policies, accountability structures, curriculum adoption measures, and other incentives. At the same time, innovation, quality, and impact evaluation all take time, and expecting results in three-year funding cycles can stifle innovation.

Our research efforts lead us to the conclusion that achieving dramatic outcomes for students (especially those who need it most) will require a system-wide and holistic approach. This might not be the simple policy-change answer some wonks hope for, but it is the kind of change students and schools actually need.

What’s the best way to help students who are several grade levels behind? We can’t answer that question without first understanding what “grade level” means. Math and reading are quite different when it comes to assessing grade level, and I’m going to focus on reading.

The concept of grade level—like the concept of an individual reading level—is largely an illusion. Reading tests purport to measure general reading ability, using passages on subjects that may or may not be familiar to students. But, as cognitive scientists have long understood, students’ reading ability depends primarily on their knowledge of the topic. In a study done over thirty years ago, researchers divided seventh and eighth graders into groups according to how well they had scored on a standardized reading test and how much they knew about baseball. Then they gave all the kids a passage to read about a baseball game, followed by a comprehension test on the passage. The result? Kids who knew a lot about baseball all did well, regardless of how well they’d scored on the standardized test. And those who didn’t know much about baseball all did poorly. In fact, the “poor” readers who knew a lot about baseball did significantly better than the “good” readers who didn’t.

The baseball study has been replicated in numerous other contexts, and there’s plenty of other evidence from cognitive science to support the idea that knowledge—rather than generally applicable skill—is the most important factor in reading comprehension. Nevertheless, the vast majority of American schools continue to measure reading ability as though it were a matter of free-floating skills. We administer standardized tests with passages on random topics, turning the tests into de facto assessments of general knowledge—and unintentionally privileging students from educated families, who are the most likely to pick up that kind of knowledge at home.

That content-agnostic approach extends to teaching as well. We spend precious hours every week trying to teach kids supposed skills like “finding the main idea” and “making inferences”—the skills that appear to be measured on the tests. Children then practice these “skills” on books at their presumed individual reading levels, which are also determined without taking into account their prior knowledge of the topic. And we direct students to baskets of “just right” books that, again, cover a random variety of topics—never enabling them to spend enough time on any one subject to acquire knowledge and the vocabulary that goes with it.

To make matters worse, knowledge of the topic doesn’t just enable readers to understand the text better; it also equips them to absorb and retain new information relating to their existing knowledge. Kids who start out with more knowledge and vocabulary are able to read more complex books and thereby acquire more knowledge. Meanwhile, kids who start out at a disadvantage are consigned to simpler books and fall farther behind their more privileged peers every year. And in high-poverty elementary and middle schools, potentially knowledge-building subjects like social studies and science have been marginalized or eliminated in a largely futile effort to boost reading scores. By the time students get to upper grade levels, the gap between what the more and less advantaged kids know is hard to narrow—as is the gap between what we expect kids to know and what some actually do know.

The best way to prevent the phenomenon of students who are several “grade levels” behind is to immerse them in a knowledge-building curriculum beginning in the early grades, as more and more schools are now doing. That’s not to say that such a system would enable all students to perform on exactly the same level—just that we probably wouldn’t see the enormous gaps we do now. But given that our system has inadvertently produced these gaps and will continue to produce them for the foreseeable future, what can we do? I have a few suggestions:

First determine whether the problem is decoding or comprehension—or both. Reading has two basic components: decoding, or sounding out words; and comprehension. In many schools, children are taught to decode in a way that conflicts with an overwhelming body of scientific evidence, with the result that many never learn to read fluently. Standardized reading tests don’t distinguish between decoding and comprehension, so it’s impossible to tell whether a low score means a student couldn’t read the passages or couldn’t understand them. When students have reading difficulties, they should be given tests that specifically assess their ability to decode—and if the problem is decoding, they should be given systematic instruction in phonics and other foundational reading skills, regardless of their grade level.

Give all students access to the same complex content through listening. Students’ listening comprehension exceeds their reading comprehension through middle school, on average. But for the most part, American schools have limited students to the knowledge and vocabulary they can acquire from texts easy enough for them to read on their own. If students are going to acquire knowledge of the world and become familiar with the conventions of written language, it’s crucial for them to hear those concepts and conventions in complex text before they’re expected to understand them independently.

This is a possible role for technology: providing audio books or recordings that students can listen to, perhaps while following along in the text. But especially in classrooms where many readers are struggling, a better approach is to have the teacher read a complex text aloud to the whole class, pausing periodically to ask questions focused on the content and to guide discussions.

Allow students to grapple with common content in ways that are tailored to their abilities—preferably through writing. This is where personalization or differentiation should enter into the equation. Perhaps the most powerful lever for building knowledge is to have all students write about what they’re learning. Writing taps into two phenomena that research shows can provide huge boosts to comprehension and retention: retrieving information that has been slightly forgotten, and putting that information into your own words. But writing is also a tremendously difficult task, and inexperienced writers can be overwhelmed by lengthy assignments—depriving them of both the opportunity to build knowledge and the chance to learn to write coherently.

That means that all students should be exposed to the same content, but they shouldn’t necessarily all be asked to write about it in the same way. All students might read (or listen to) the Gettysburg Address, for example, but some might be asked to write an essay about it, others to outline a paragraph, and others to complete a sentence-starter that focuses their attention on a crucial aspect of the document. This approach to building knowledge should be used not just in English class but across the curriculum, including in math and science classes.

Assess ability through tests tied to content that has been taught. At some point, students need to have acquired enough general knowledge and vocabulary to enable them to understand texts on topics they don’t already know much about, as long as the topics aren’t too abstruse or technical. But in any given case—especially for students who haven’t acquired much sophisticated knowledge outside school—it’s hard to say exactly when that point will be reached. It can be demoralizing for both students and teachers to have achievement measured solely on the basis of general knowledge of random topics. Students may know a lot about Ancient Greece or the human digestive system, but if the passages on the test are on Amelia Earhart or the lives of the Inuit, they may not yet have acquired the critical mass of knowledge and vocabulary that will enable them to demonstrate their “skills.” More states should follow the lead of Louisiana, which is piloting a new kind of reading test in which topics are connected to the state-created curriculum, in both English language arts and social studies.

The bottom line: If we want to help students who are several “grade levels” behind in reading, we need to stop treating the problem as though it were one of decontextualized skills and start recognizing that we need to focus on building—and assessing—students’ knowledge.

The obvious but fundamental question is: Why are the students several grade levels behind? Undoubtedly, the answer is complex and will include, inter alia, insufficient preparation (student and teacher), poor teaching, poverty, inadequate foundation, behavior, and other psycho-social factors.

Clearly, there are no generic answers or panaceas to helping students who are academically deficient because, as we know, what works for one student may not necessarily work for another. However, certain basic strategies have been shown to be relatively effective on a case-by-case basis. One such strategy is a formal, thoughtful, comprehensively designed Individualized Educational Plan (IEP) that’s collectively developed and strictly adhered to by all—for the specific purpose of helping students who are several grade levels behind and in the identified deficient areas. This is not unlike the IEP written for students with disabilities, but it will be a lot more specific to the needs of the students in question. The focus here is not on disabilities, but on the analytical explanation of the learning gaps exhibited by the student followed by a precise documentation of why the gaps exist and how to close them. In other words, a complete diagnosis of each student’s learning gaps accompanied by how the student learns best. Ideally, each student should be directly involved at each stage of the decision. As envisioned, this will be time-consuming but ultimately worthwhile. The direct involvement of the student is critical to the success of this endeavor.

Stage two involves ensuring that conducive conditions prevail at school for the successful implementation of the recommendations outlined in the IEP (intensive treatment). This means at least one to three hours of extended day, of which parents are cognizant prior to student enrollment. This must be a vital part of the enrollment process. Students will spend this time with an assigned instructor in very small student-to-teacher ratios, not to exceed ten-to-one, to work on closing the learning gaps. This is intensive, after-school (extended day) work where the teacher closely monitors each student’s progress toward the target stipulated on his/her IEP. This can be categorized under the broad umbrella of homework. Studies show that students who spent time on homework assignments are on average more successful than those who do not. This proposal calls for a minimum of one hour extended time in school with a pre-assigned tutor hired specifically for this purpose that will function like homework.

Daily personalized journal writing will be an integral part of this process. Regardless of the subject in which students is behind, they must journal each day, during extended, what they are experiencing and what impact, if any, the intervention on that day has had on them. Journaling can be online or manual.

In addition to the one-on-one attention that each student receives during extended day to bridge their respective learning gaps, instructors will be responsible for providing succinct weekly report to parents, students, and school administration. Consistent, feedback with actionable information and adjustments are paramount for success.

Figure 1: Strategic framework for closing academic deficiency

It is not unreasonable to assume that many students who are several grade levels behind may also have challenges in one of four developmental and learning building blocks, as described by AS Masten; adopted with modifications by K. Brooke Stafford-Brizard.

Figure 2: Building blocks for learning

Image Source: Stafford-Brizard, K.B. (2016). Building blocks for learning: A framework for comprehensive student development. Turnaround for Children.

Building on previous research by AS Masten, Carol S. Dweck, Gregory M. Walton, and Geoffrey L. Cohen, K. Brooke Stafford-Brizard surmises that the stronger the Building Blocks for Learning (BBL) as displayed in the pyramidal continuum above, the better the learning. The successful engagement of the learner at school and home depends extensively on healthy relationships formed at home and school, as well as the existence of “critical skills for learning.” With decades of practice in the K–12 environment, I’m convinced about the truthfulness in this statement. Learning gaps happen because there are gaps in one form or the other, in any one or combination of factors, in the above continuum on the part of the learner. Meaningful bridging of the gap requires a thorough examination of both the hidden and not-so-obvious origins of the gap. This is the main rationale for the IEP/extended day/journaling/feedback strategic framework.

We must also address the role of non-academic factors in each students’ academic deficiencies. What role do non-academic factors play in the fact that students are several grade levels behind, and how can the school realistically address/resolve this challenge? This will invariably entail constant communication with both students and parents to continuously address and support the students’ academic and/or emotional needs as they navigate the correction of deficiencies in the extended day program at school.

A critical foundational component for learning is Secure Attachment (SA) to parents (or a positive adult figure in the child’s life, preferably at school). Studies show that SA fosters the emotional regulation needed for self-/social-awareness and executive functioning that allow the child to develop healthy relationships with others, as well as with school fostering perseverance and academic tenacity needed for individual self-direction, independence, and civic identity.

Figure 3: Model showing links between secure attachment to parents and academic achievement

Image Source: Bergin, C. & Bergin, D. (2009). Attachment in the classroom. Educational Psychology Review.

The essence of the IEP/extended day/journaling/feedback strategic framework for helping students close academic deficiencies should remain consistent across subject areas and grade levels, though schools and instructors can tailor it to fit their needs. Sustaining effective communication between parties will involve the use of emails, text, and google classroom—at a minimum. Reaching proficiency is ultimately a function of the coalescing of numerous factors at the center of which is the students and their families. Misalignment or dysfunction in the consistent functioning of these elements can lead to interruptions in student learning. The severity of such disturbance can extend the length of time for a student to attain proficiency even with institutional intervention.