Join the conversation

The equation is missing several critical pieces.

First, it's missing the coefficients-- not all of these things effect student outcomes equally. So it's gotta look more like

a(Family) + b(Student) + c(School) + d(Policy) = Student Success

Second, it has a peculiar order. Personally, I would look at it like this:

a(Policy) + b(School) + c(Student) + d(Family) = Student Success.

The driving force of this ordering is that now the variables are listed in the order of our ability to change/improve/tamper with the cause. We control (to a far greater extent than the other things on this list) the policies that exist and the schools we build and how they're run. Motivating students and getting them to do their part is easier than families because 1) they spend hours and hours of their days within the school and our policy context 2) we have meaningful control/they have less autonomy. Adjusting the family, even through policy intervention, is the most challenging and expensive approach with the greatest likelihood of falling short of truly penetrating and changing lifelong habits/beliefs/actions/abilities in perpetuity.

The final thing to remember is that not only are some of these elements easier to "reform", "improve", "tinker with", etc, but that the coefficients in front of each of these factors CHANGES depending on the context.

Sometimes the schools are so poor that it's clear improving what happens there will be far more effectual. Sometimes the family conditions weigh heavy on an otherwise successful school, etc etc.

Writing rules was out of date in the day of Horace Mann. Setting some goals, metrics, and a process to renew them is how we do things now, even in the age of NCLB and RTTT. I strongly suggest (not mandate) that you look into Arnold Packer's Verified Resume system - GOOGLE IT! to avoid the spam filter.

Packer, of the SCANS Report of the 1990's, and "inventor of the soft skills," formulated eight categories of skills: responsibility, teamwork, coping with diversity, inquiry, creativity, listening, work with tech, and planning. He then urged scoring on a five point scale from "never" to "all the time," and that scoring take place at regular intervals.

We adapted that to self-scoring and group comparing times, both to accommodate new classes and members, and to build self-assessment into a routine, regular, and frequent activity in any subject, any project, any event. And, since that self-assessment was in the context of the group, it also built the group, and addressed, in only positive terms, issues like attendance - so you can help and be helped by others - that are usually the retreat of failed communication.

Ironically enough, almost all your 10 points (or 11 or more for quibblers) can fit comfortably within Packer's 8, and the process is at least as important - critical to - the product. Our challenge now is to explore whether self-assessment changes variables like attendance, grades, aspirations and those pesky test scores. Probably.