Deborah Jewell-Sherman鈥檚 first year as the superintendent of the troubled Richmond, Va., schools was barely over, and though she had reason to rejoice, she felt she needed to call for help.
The superintendent could have been fired if she hadn鈥檛 led 20 or more of the district鈥檚 55 schools to full accreditation in that first year. But she exceeded that goal by three. Happy and relieved, but far from satisfied, Ms. Jewell-Sherman wanted to lay the groundwork for sustained improvement.
And she knew whom to call: the Council of the Great City Schools. She asked the Washington-based organization to send a team of fellow urban educators to analyze the district鈥檚 curriculum and instructional programs. Within a few months, the nonprofit group had flown in experts for an intensive review and delivered a report. Not only would the report prove pivotal in shaping the district鈥檚 goals, but it also would be accepted by Virginia as the official set of guideposts for what Richmond should achieve.
鈥淚f you鈥檙e striving to move from good to great, you need an honest assessment of the areas in which you have strengths, and where you have weakness,鈥� said Ms. Jewell-Sherman, who began her job in Richmond in 2002. 鈥淚t made it easier for me to make that initial request because I value the council.鈥�
Asking for help can be tough. But Ms. Jewell-Sherman said it was easier because she knew she and her district would be in the hands of accomplished colleagues. 鈥淭hese are people who are doing the work,鈥� she said recently. 鈥淭hey are not business people. They are educators.
鈥淭here is great credibility when you receive their findings. Some of them are painful to hear, but no one can say, 鈥楾hey鈥檝e never done this work, they don鈥檛 know what we鈥檙e dealing with, they鈥檙e not in urban centers.鈥� All these individuals do.鈥�
Peer Assistance
The council, which advocates for large urban school districts, has dispatched 90 support teams to 26 cities since 1998 under its 鈥淐ities Building Cities鈥� initiative. The teams鈥攃omposed of volunteers who are top administrators from other urban districts鈥攊nitially focused only on aspects of management, such as human resources, finance, facilities, or transportation. (鈥淯rban Districts Turn to Their Peers for Hard-Hitting Tips,鈥� Feb. 28, 2001.)
But in 2000, the council added curriculum and instruction teams. Eleven such audits have been performed in nine cities since then. Richmond鈥檚 marks the first time a state has adopted the council鈥檚 findings instead of conducting its own academic review.
In fact, the state of Virginia and the Richmond district are expected to sign an agreement later this month that translates the report鈥檚 recommendations into goals and timelines for the 25,400-student district to abide by.
James Heywood, the executive director of the Virginia Department of Education鈥檚 office of school improvement, said Richmond volunteered for a state review when it became evident that upcoming regulations for low-performing districts might require it. But the state saw the council鈥檚 report as sufficiently authoritative that it could serve the same role.
鈥淚t was very high-quality,鈥� Mr. Heywood said. 鈥淭hey probably put more resources into it than we could have.鈥�
The 110-page report portrayed Richmond as demoralized and fragmented, but possessing the makings of a far better district. Among its many recommendations were that Richmond adopt a uniform, research-based reading program, and hammer out a detailed strategic plan of what it must do, both of which are well under way.
The teams pattern their work after the council鈥檚 2002 report 鈥淔oundations for Success.鈥� That study identified practices in 10 areas鈥攊ncluding governance, goal-setting, curriculum, assessment, and professional development鈥攖hat are common to urban districts improving student achievement. It yielded a strong framework to use in examining other districts, comparing them with improving peers, and guiding their efforts to get better, said Michael D. Casserly, the council鈥檚 executive director.
He said the report encouraged urban educators to analyze dynamics 鈥渉orizontally,鈥� as they apply to all district operations, as opposed to seeing problems as isolated in 鈥渧ertical silos.鈥� That is the way the teams approach districts: They identify problems that often cut across several district functions, such as a lack of coherent goals that affects student achievement, facilities planning, and use of data.
The council鈥檚 work unfolds as consensus builds among urban educators that aggressively managing curriculum and instruction is crucial to academic improvement. Making sure the curriculum is aligned, internally and to state standards, and comprehensive is often one of the council鈥檚 recommendations.
鈥楳anaged Instruction鈥�
Donald R. McAdams, the executive director of the Center for Reform of School Systems, based in Houston, said such 鈥渕anaged instruction,鈥� while controversial, is a powerful tool for districts.
鈥淚t is the wave that is sweeping urban school districts,鈥� he said. 鈥淚ncreasingly, boards and superintendents are recognizing that if they are going to improve student achievement, they have to manage their instruction. If they don鈥檛, they just can鈥檛 move.鈥�
Stephen B. Johnson, Richmond鈥檚 school board president, said the audit helped unify a nine-member panel whose members 鈥渙ften have their own ideas about what should be done.鈥�
鈥淣o one has ever come on board and given us a clear direction of where we need to go,鈥� he said.
Members of the council鈥檚 visiting teams said the experience was rewarding, though exhausting. They usually stay in a city two or three days, often working 12- or 16-hour days sifting through documents and interviewing personnel.
Denise M. Walston, the senior coordinator for mathematics in the Norfolk, Va., public schools, has served on three instructional teams, including Richmond鈥檚. The process of brainstorming with colleagues has benefited her back in Norfolk, she said.
鈥淓very time I go to one of these,鈥� Ms. Walston said, 鈥渋t gives me a valuable lens, [to ask] are we doing comparable things? Are we making similar mistakes?鈥�
