لخّصلي

AFEW decades ago, leaders in the field
of school reform introduced the concept of
"effective schools" as a way to identify
what works best in educating children and
to provide models for struggling schools
to use for improvement. The effective
schools movement is frequently attributed
to the work of the late Ronald Edmonds In
a speech delivered to the National Confer-
ence of the Teacher Corps in 1978, Ed-
-monds defined the five characteristics
consistently evident in effective schools:
strong leadership, clear emphasis on
learning, positive school climate, regular
and appropriate monitoring of student
progress, and high expectations for stu-
dents and staff. From these straightfor
ward principles, an entire belief system has
evolved that offers a variety of solutions
that are designed to improve schools. -
However, the effective schools move-
ment, like most other reform efforts, has
developed philosophical and political
schisms along its major fault line the cen-
tral tenet that children's learning can be
improved if schools adopt effective prac-
tices. At its heart, this belief is positive,
useful, and practical-but it does engender
strong opinions and political reactions.
The initial understanding that school
practices and policies can make a differ-
ence, even for children from homes in
which parents have few educational or fi-
nancial resources, has now been translated
into the popular mantra "all children can
learn." This phrase sometimes confuses
the public and deters the possibility of sub-
stantially helping disadvantaged children
obtain a high-quality, resource-rich educa-
tion. In our view, because of the simplistic
acceptance of this phrase at face value, the
effective schools movement as currently
promoted is contaminated with a series of
fallacies and a number of unintended con-
sequences. We offer the following ideas as
a starting point for further, in-depth discus-
sions that can lead to more thoughtful
school policies.
The Fallacies
When we look at many of the poten-/
ually harmful policies and practices being
implemented in schools today, we can only
assume that they have been inspired by the
following fallacies, which do not bear
careful scrutinyy
• the fallacy that all children can learn-
at the same level and in the same
amount of time;
• the fallacy of the principal as sole in-
structional leader,
• the fallacy of setting standards on the
basis of exceptions: and
→
• the fallacy of uniform standards for all
children.
The fallacy that all children can
learn-at the same level and in the same
amount of time. All children can learn, at
some level, and most children, as Ronald
Edmonds stated, can learn the basic curric-
ulum if sufficient resources are provided.
The fallacy, however, is the belief that all
children can learn the same curriculum, in
the same amount of time, and at the same
level. The problem with such an unexam-
ined belief is that it may be used to deny
differential financial support for those who
come to school with environmental disad-
vantages. Not all children have high-
quality nutrition, stimulating homes, and
extensive learning opportunities prior to
entering school.
Research in cognitive brain develop-
ment shows that formation of synaptic
contacts in the human cerebral contex oc-
curs between birth and age 102 and most
of the brain gets built within a few years af-
ter birth. Environment matters greatly in
brain development The period of early
childhood is critical in brain development,
and those who have high-protein diets and
lots of sensory stimulation tend to have
more synaptic connections /Brains that do
not get enough protein and stimulation in
their environments lose connections, and
some potential neural pathways are shut
down. These facts help to explain what
educators have long observed: children
from impoverished environments, in
which they do not receive good nutrition
and stimulating experiences, generally
achieve at lower levels than children from
more enriching environments.
This concrete evidence should be
enough to convince us that we should con-
centrate on improving the lives of children
before they come to school and not simply
proclaim that "all children can learn" with-
out enacting proper public policy to pro-
vide economic opportunity for families,
health care for all children, and parenting
education for young mothers.
If we as a society can summon the cour-
age and will to do these things, then maybe
all children can learn at higher levels and
the gap between low-income and more-
privileged children can really be narrowed.
The fallacy of the principal as sole in-"
structional leader. Promoting the principal
as the sole instructional leader may demean
teachers. The principal may be a leader, but
accountability for effective instruction be