Unraveling a Riddle

If poverty is a barrier to educational achievement, why do some elementary schools in Los Angeles’ poorest neighborhoods post significantly higher reading scores than others in similar circumstances?

A four-month study by the Los Angeles Unified School District failed to find a single dominant reason for the gap, but researchers were able to identify four characteristics common to the higher-achieving campuses. Those included the presence of a preschool on campus, experienced teachers and involved parents. Above all else, these schools have committed principals.

Some of those findings were predictable. But other results of the district’s grade three literacy study were surprising and suggest that there is no clear formula for success.

For example, district investigators found no correlation between reading skills and a school’s choice of textbook, a principal’s emphasis on phonics, or financial resources. Even whether or not a school had a library was not directly related to high achievement, the study found.

That’s not to say that libraries, state and federal funding and phonics programs are not important to learning.

“It’s what you do with them, which brings us back to a principal’s leadership skills,” said Susan Shannon, administrative coordinator for the district’s division of instruction.

The study was the district’s first formal investigation into the correlation between poverty and literacy, and its first attempt to explain why some schools in impoverished areas perform better than others at the same socioeconomic level.

The study, which surveyed third-graders at 22 schools in low-income areas, was far from definitive and was not expected to create a mandate for action. However, it has spawned a list of recommendations. They include:

* Increasing principals’ leadership skills by assignment, training, and/or coaching. One method would be to pair principals from low-scoring schools with those from high-scoring schools.

* Improving teaching skills through additional training, and focusing this effort on schools where scores are lowest.

* Encouraging principals to establish parent centers at their schools and use them to support instruction rather than just provide local volunteers with a place to meet and conduct arts and crafts activities.

* Seeking additional state and federal support for preschool and children’s care centers.

“This study was just a small beginning that we hope will lead the district to explore these and other findings in greater depth,” Shannon said. “Our hope is that principals will use our findings when they are planning budgets and professional development time for the year ahead.”

The study began with a list of factors that investigators assumed contributed to literacy, such as principals’ leadership skills, the learning environment, teachers’ skills, staff collaboration and resources.

Principals at 12 higher-achieving schools and 10 lower-achieving schools were asked a series of questions. At the higher-achieving campuses an average of 53% of the third-graders could read at grade level. The average for the lower-scoring schools was 17%.

The study results were largely based on principals’ responses.

“We asked things such as, ‘Can you give an example of using achievement test data to modify your instructional program? What are the most important skills a teacher should have to provide an effective literacy program?’ ” Shannon said. “Their responses told us a lot about the principals, as well as what to look for in successful teachers.”

Schools with seasoned, committed principals and experienced teachers with solid backgrounds in phonics and literature-based reading were more likely to have higher third-grade literacy levels.

Fifty-four percent of the higher-literacy schools had parent centers involved with projects aimed at improving student achievement. Thirty-eight percent of the higher-literacy schools had a children’s center on campus, while none of the lower-achieving schools had one.

There are about 100 preschool centers at the district’s 422 elementary schools.

“We could use many more of them,” said Mark Cutler, a district speech pathologist.

“To get a child communicating and eventually reading, you need children interacting with each other instead of watching television,” he said. “Play introduces kids to social contact even as they learn to label things in their environment and describe their function--all of which can translate into academic achievement later.”

Deborah Stipek, a professor of education at UCLA and director of the Seeds University Elementary School, agreed.

“Preschools can introduce children--especially low-income kids who often enter kindergarten substantially behind their middle-class peers in literacy and math--to reading in systematic and effective ways,” she said.

Ninety-Third Street School, a South-Central campus with a preschool, saw the percentage of its third-graders reading at grade level jump nearly 10 points from 1997 to 1998.

*

Principal Arne Rubenstein is pleased that her school is being held up as a model, but she hopes she is never tapped to mentor another principal.

“I would not like to buddy up with someone who doesn’t want the assistance,” she said. “Besides, mine is a full-time job. My school runs better with me. So if mentoring would mean pulling me away from my job, well, that’s not an attractive idea.”

Another higher performer was Osceola Street School. The Sylmar campus, which has a parent center but no children’s center, saw the percentage of its third-graders reading at grade level rise 11 points over the past year.

“Our parents read to their children every night,” Principal Alexandra Niki Selna said, “and volunteer in the classroom--even read stories to students--so that teachers can be free to devote more time to curriculum,” she said. “Reading is a very big deal at our school.”

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

Studying Poverty, Literacy Link

The following 12 elementary schools are among the 22 companies that participated in the Los Angeles Unified School District’s first study of the correlation betwen poverty and literacy. All of them share a high number of students who qualify for free or reduced-price lunches, and relatively high scores in stadardized reading tests. The schools were selected for the study based on the performance of third-graders

*

School: Ford Blvd.

% students in free/reduced lunch program: 99

% reading at 3rd-grade level 1996-97: 39

% reading at 3rd-grade level 1997-98: 54

% students with limited English skills: 76

*

School: Fair Ave.

% students in free/reduced lunch program: 99

% reading at 3rd-grade level 1996-97: 52

% reading at 3rd-grade level 1997-98: 49

% students with limited English skills: 76

*

School: Griffen Ave.

% students in free/reduced lunch program: 98

% reading at 3rd-grade level 1996-97: 31

% reading at 3rd-grade level 1997-98: 53

% students with limited English skills: 82

*

School: Commonwealth Ave.

% students in free/reduced lunch program: 98

% reading at 3rd-grade level 1996-97: 42

% reading at 3rd-grade level 1997-98: 52

% students with limited English skills: 78

*

School: Park Ave.

% students in free/reduced lunch program: 95

% reading at 3rd-grade level 1996-97: 43

% reading at 3rd-grade level 1997-98: 47

% students with limited English skills: 83

*

School: 93 St.

% students in free/reduced lunch program: 95

% reading at 3rd-grade level 1996-97: 39

% reading at 3rd-grade level 1997-98: 49

% students with limited English skills: 67

*

School: Osceola St.

% students in free/reduced lunch program: 91

% reading at 3rd-grade level 1996-97: 44

% reading at 3rd-grade level 1997-98: 55

% students with limited English skills: 54

*

School: Virginia Road

% students in free/reduced lunch program: 89

% reading at 3rd-grade level 1996-97: 45

% reading at 3rd-grade level 1997-98: 51

% students with limited English skills: 31

*

School: Toland Way

% students in free/reduced lunch program: 87

% reading at 3rd-grade level 1996-97: 25

% reading at 3rd-grade level 1997-98: 49

% students with limited English skills: 54

*

School: Cantara St.

% students in free/reduced lunch program: 86

% reading at 3rd-grade level 1996-97: 41

% reading at 3rd-grade level 1997-98: 46

% students with limited English skills: 70

*

School: Nora Sterry

% students in free/reduced lunch program: 84

% reading at 3rd-grade level 1996-97: 53

% reading at 3rd-grade level 1997-98: 57

% students with limited English skills: 48

*

School: Gault St.

% students in free/reduced lunch program: 81

% reading at 3rd-grade level 1996-97: 41

% reading at 3rd-grade level 1997-98: 48

% students with limited English skills: 65

*

Note: Figures have been rounded to whole numbers.

Source: Los Angeles Unified School District