DFC | Chicago's LSCs: What the Research Says

Findings from "What Makes These Schools Stand Out" (Designs for Change)

While the Consortium's study of Local School Councils (as summarized in previous sections) provides systematic insights about the effectiveness of Local School Councils in carrying out their key responsibilities, the Consortium's study did not analyze whether schools with more effective Local School Councils were more likely to improve student achievement. As described below, a Designs for Change study (which focused on elementary schools) found that elementary schools that improved reading achievement substantially from 1990 to 1997 were significantly more likely to have effective Local School Councils, as rated by the school's teachers.

Key Study Results

The Designs for Change study drew both on data from the Consortium on Chicago School Research about the practices of individual schools and on student achievement data provided by the Chicago Public Schools (Designs for Change, What Makes These Schools Stand Out: Chicago Elementary Schools with a Seven-Year Trend of Improved Reading Achievement).43

The study focused on two groups of schools that were low-achieving on the Iowa Reading Test in 1990 but showed different reading achievement score patterns between 1990 and 1997 (see Table 6 below):

"No Trend Schools," which were low-achieving in 1990 and did not show a substantial trend of improved achievement by 1997. In 1990, 17% of the students in No Trend Schools were reading at or above the national average, while by 1997, only 20% of their students were at or above the national average.

"Substantially Up Schools," which were low-achieving in 1990, but showed a substantial trend of improved reading achievement by 1997. In 1990, 23% of their students were reading at or above the national average, while by 1997, 37% of their students were at or above the national average.44

TABLE 6. Percent of Chicago Elementary Students At or Above the National Norm (1990-1997)

Source: Designs for Change

The researchers used teacher survey data from the Consortium on Chicago School Research to determine whether the Substantially Up Schools used distinctively different practices from the No Trend Schools. Twenty-seven Indicators of particular school practices had been created by the Consortium researchers. These Indicators were used in the Designs for Change study to identify statistically significant differences in practices between the Substantially Up and No Trend Schools.45

As reflected in Table 7 below, "Local School Council Contribution" (as rated by teachers) was one of 14 Indicators of school practice on which Substantially Up Schools scored significantly higher than No Trend Schools. This result was statistically significant at less than the .014 level. (In other words, the odds were less than 14 in 1000 that this result occurred by chance.)

TABLE 7. What Makes Schools With Substantially Improved Reading Achievement Stand Out?

A heavily punitive top-down effort at the center of the probation process did not bring about sustained achievement gains.

The Designs for Change study thus concludes that one distinctive feature of low-achieving schools that significantly raised Iowa Reading Test achievement between 1990 and 1997 is a more effective Local School Council.

Note that the Substantially Up Schools also had significantly more effective principal leadership and more teacher involvement in decision making. Thus, those elementary schools at which reading achievement rose substantially typically had strong leadership from the LSC, principal, and teachers. These findings contradict the viewpoint that school leadership is a "win-lose" process, in which, for example, the principal can be a strong leader only if the LSC and teachers have weak leadership roles. In fact, the study found that "Cooperative Adult Effort" among all the adults involved in the school was a powerful force for improving student achievement.46

Results of Follow-Up Study

In a follow-up study to What Makes These Schools Stand Out, Designs for Change analyzed the subsequent progress of the Substantially Up Schools and No Trend Schools on the Iowa Reading Test for the period from 1997 through 2000.47

The study also analyzed the patterns of Iowa Reading Test achievement of those schools that Chicago's School Board had placed on "probation" in fall 1996 and 1997. These probation schools had lost much of their local decision-making ability, and the LSCs at these schools were typically marginalized.

As reflected in Table 8 below, the elementary schools that were Substantially Up from 1990 to 1997 continued to make impressive sustained gains on the Iowa Reading Test. Although the Substantially Up Schools were, on average, 78% low-income, they had 45% of their students reading at or above the national average by spring 2000 - nearly reaching the national average of 50%.

TABLE 8. Low-Achieving Chicago Elementary Schools with Local Initiative, Leadership, Teamwork, and Creativity Continued to Improve Iowa Reading Test Results from 1977 to 2000

Source: Designs for Change

In contrast, the schools placed on probation in fall 1996 and 1997 moved from about 10% at or above the national average to about 22%, but then flattened out at this low level (see Table 9 below). They still had 78% of their students reading below the national average. A heavily punitive top-down effort at the center of the probation process did not bring about sustained achievement gains.

TABLE 9. Iowa Reading Test Results of Low-Achieving Probation and Non-Probation Elementary Schools

Source: Designs for Change

The sustained gains that continued through spring 2000 in the elementary schools that were Substantially Up from 1990 through 1997 provide further evidence that Local School Council leadership, principal leadership, and teacher leadership must all be nurtured in schools that are going to improve their student achievement over the long term.

continue

return to DFC Home

download a pdf file of this report

Home Page | About DFC | Publications | Resources/ Links