Where should schools focus their improvement
efforts? What changes in school or teacher practices are likely
to offer the biggest “bang for the buck” in terms of
student achievement?
A McREL meta-analysis — a widely accepted
method for combining and analyzing the findings of different quantitative
research studies — of research on the effect of school and
teacher variables on student achievement provides some clear guidance
for educators, policymakers, or journalists considering these questions.
This meta-analysis of quantitative data from
research studies conducted over the last 35 years identifies the
following 11 school and classroom factors as well as student characteristics
that are strongly correlated with student achievement:
Category
Practices
& factors
School
Guaranteed &
viable curriculum
Challenging
goals and effective feedback
Parent and community
involvement
Safe and orderly
environment
Collegiality and professionalism
Teacher
Instructional
strategies
Classroom management
Classroom curriculum
design
Student
Home environment
Learned intelligence
/ background knowledge
Motivation
Although the above chart ranks these practices
according to their impact on student achievement by category, it
is important to note these practices and factors inter-related —
that is, one can augment or hamper the effects of another. Moreover,
their effectiveness in raising student achievement depends on school
context, student characteristics, and previous improvement efforts.
In short, there are no silver bullet strategies
for school improvement. No single improvement effort will have the
same impact in all schools (see school
quality vs. student background for more information on the potential
impact schools can have on student achievement).
That said, these 11 factors can provide a general
blueprint for school improvement efforts — especially because
McREL’s meta-analysis only considered those factors which
can be addressed by schools without a drastic increase in resources.
For example, factors such as increased teacher pay or lengthening
the school year were not considered in the study because they are
not easily carried out by many schools already confronting a lack
of resources.
