萝卜AV视频

President's Corner

When I was a middle school principal, academic intervention and summer school were frequent topics of conversation. This was early in No Child Left Behind, when the idea was that underperforming schools could be rescued by outside leaders and teachers. I always wondered: Who were these miracle workers waiting to save the day?

During this time, we constantly pondered the best way to support students. Should we pull students from an elective course to provide a 鈥渟econd scoop鈥� of reading and/or math? How much additional time was appropriate? Was additional support in reading and math worth being pulled from all elective courses, risking removal from the reason a student enjoyed school? Finally, if we were required to intervene with students who were underperforming, would parents have the right to opt their child(ren) out of these services?

There was also a discussion about where our limited resources were best spent. Should we focus on the students who were just below the proficiency threshold, or should we prioritize students who were farthest behind, recognizing their greater need, even if this approach is less likely to produce measurable year-over-year improvements?

Selecting instructional materials and strategies for support courses was cause for serious debate. Should we use the same materials as the grade-level course, helping students complete daily assignments? Or should we layer in material from previous courses to fill in gaps? I vividly remember the arguments teachers and administrators had about how to best serve this population of students.

One summer, I conducted an informal study using NWEA math data to evaluate the impact of three summer math programs. Each served a different group of students:

Traditional summer school. Below-grade-level students retook grade-level content with an experienced teacher.

Self-paced online program. Another group of below-grade-level students worked independently through prior-grade material, supervised by a non-math teacher.

Accelerated learning. At- or above-level students paid a fee to take the next course in sequence, taught by the teacher of that course.

The results were surprisingly informative. Students in the traditional model showed no measurable gains compared to peers who didn鈥檛 attend summer school. Those in the self-paced program experienced less summer-learning loss, and some even showed growth. The students in the acceleration group made the most significant gains from spring to fall.

I think back to this informal research project often, and a few lessons stand out.

Stop doing what doesn鈥檛 work. Reteaching the same material the same way hasn鈥檛 worked. If it hasn鈥檛 worked before, it鈥檚 unlikely to start working now.

Choice matters. When students choose their learning path, they鈥檙e more likely to be motivated and engaged. Autonomy isn鈥檛 just a buzzword 鈥� it鈥檚 a driver of real outcomes.

New content keeps things fresh. Blending in new material increases engagement and helps students stay mentally invested.

Personal gain drives investment. Students who saw a clear benefit, such as moving ahead in coursework, were the most committed and showed the most growth. When the why is personal, the effort follows.

We have a moral obligation to provide our students with foundational skills needed to access the opportunities that will come their way. We also must monitor student progress frequently.

We can鈥檛 focus solely on students鈥� deficits. We must see students鈥� strengths and interests as the meaningful pathways to growth that they are.

David Law is 萝卜AV视频president for 2025-26.