The Arkansas Blog wisely reminded us yesterday that there is more going on in Little Rock schools than “court and legislative entanglements”, and directed its readers to a draft of a strategic plan that is focused on education and students rather than litigation.  The draft plan is the product of the Little Rock School District’s Strategic Planning Commission, appointed earlier this year by Superintendent Linda Watson.  The group is headed by Former State Senator Jim Argue and community activist Terence Bolden. 

At Mid-Riffs, we would much rather talk about the curriculum than the courts and about learning rather than lawyering.  So, we eagerly dug into to this plan.   Bolden and Argue’s group set the tone immediately by presenting aggressive learning goals for children of all ages, and focused on those persistent achievement gaps plaguing disadvantaged children.  (For example, to meet the plan’s objectives, twice as many African-American students in grade 8 will need to be proficient in math within the next five years.)  Surely, we couldn’t hope for much progress if we didn’t have high expectations. 

While setting lofty goals is a good start, the plan really gets interesting in the next section, where it presents a list of specific strategies and analyses that the Little Rock schools should be undertaking. 

Here’s my Fave Five list of the Best Ideas in the LRSD Plan: 

1. Engage more school faculties in assessing state test results in depth (from section B1)
2. Simplify and reduce the number of interventions (section B8)
3. Conduct an analysis of staff resources in every school (section C3)
4. Begin partnering with groups such as The New Teacher Project, Teach for America, Troops to Teachers, and other groups to obtain more teacher talent (Section D3)
5. Focus on measurable student learning gains in teacher evaluations, principal evaluations, and in awarding bonuses to teachers (section E)

 Don’t look now, but if LRSD officials were to take these Argue/Bolden recommendations seriously, the district could quickly move to the forefront of urban school reform.  What would this new LRSD look like?  

1. LRSD would have a teacher workforce who, instead of criticizing and bemoaning the testing in schools today, would actively utilize the data provided by state (and other) exams to make decisions about how best to teach kids.  If LRSD were to encourage computer-adapted continuous student assessments (such as the NWEA) in its schools, teachers would have a myriad of important information at their fingertips about which students need what type of help in which areas at several points in time throughout the school year.  In this way, testing would be rightfully used as both a diagnostic tool and a summative measure of how much the students learn each year.
2. LRSD would be different than most districts, which regularly pile one new school reform “fad” on top of the other with little thought given to coherence of the disconnected fads.  If LRSD were to follow the Argue/Bolden recommendations, LRSD teachers would be a happier lot because they could avoid the pattern of adopting new and disconnected educational fads year after year. Presumably then, there would be some cost savings that could be shifted toward a coherent and (if needed) expensive educational plan.
3. LRSD would be ahead of the curve by paying careful attention to equitable and efficient resource allocation.  In most districts, teachers are simply sent out to schools to teach for principals who have little say in choosing their faculty.  The inequitable result that occurs in many districts across the country is that the schools in the wealthier neighborhoods attract the more experienced and more expensive.  What this means is that fewer resources get spent in poorer neighborhoods as compared to wealthier neighborhoods — all in the same district.  And these inequities can go under the radar because most financial reporting for schools is at the district level.  LRSD would be wise (and unique) to examine teacher resources at all schools and ensure that they are allocated both equitably and efficiently.   
4. As Michelle Rhee said in Little Rock just last week, teachers are not interchangeable, and the honest truth is that some are more talented than others.  Admitting this truth is the first step … actively seeking the most talented teachers to work with LRSD students is the next!  The Argue/Bolden recommendations are right on in urging the district to break down barriers to attract talented teachers to LRSD.  This is not the “status quo” model of teacher training and recruitment, and some of the old guard actively oppose these programs, but there is simply no denying that are areas (geographic areas and subject areas) in which we have great needs for teaching talent.  LRSD would be wise to be open to all options for finding effective and interested teachers.
5. While leaders in most districts across the country talk about student performance as the ultimate measuring stick, LRSD would be living this out if the Argue/Bolden recommendations were put into play.  To an outsider, rating teachers and principals based on improved student performance seems the obvious thing to do, but that is not the case in most schools.  It would be great to see the LRSD take a lead on making sure evaluations of all district staff are explicitly connected to improved student performance.  Actually providing financial rewards to these effective educators would be icing on the cake!  

Now, we outsiders can wait and see … what will LRSD officials do with these thoughtful and reform-oriented recommendations?