Wsu Sod Findings Apr 25 09

599 views

Published on

Published in: Education, Technology
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
599
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
4
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
11
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Wsu Sod Findings Apr 25 09

    1. 1. Schools of Distinction What Makes Them Distinct? Greg Lobdell Co-founder & Director of Research Center for Educational Effectiveness [email_address]
    2. 2. <ul><li>Field-based research, service, and data-centric tools to support School & District Improvement </li></ul><ul><li>Partnerships with 700 Schools in 135 districts </li></ul><ul><ul><li>What we do & how we do it varies based on serving districts from 80 students K-12, to districts over 30,000 K-12 </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Assist all schools & districts in OSPI School, District, & Summit District Improvement programs </li></ul><ul><li>Assist all districts in Idaho’s “Building Capacity” K-12 District Improvement Program </li></ul>Center for Educational Effectiveness
    3. 3. On-going Investment <ul><li>The Repository: >280,000 Educational Stakeholders </li></ul><ul><ul><li>EES-Staff: 55,857 staff </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>EES-Student: 164,029 students </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>EES-Parent: 60,592 parents </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>26% of parents and 30% of students indicate English is not their primary language at home </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Representing </li></ul><ul><ul><li>642 Unique Schools </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>122 Unique Districts </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Open to doctoral candidates for research purposes </li></ul>
    4. 4. Today’s Outcomes <ul><li>Introduction: Who are the Schools of Distinction - How are the award winners selected? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Why does this matter to me? Reflection… </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Findings </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Highlights: Repeat winners vis-à-vis State sample </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Application- What’s happening in my school? </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Implications & application: Reflection on change processes </li></ul><ul><li>Note: SOD == Schools of Distinction </li></ul>
    5. 5. Schools of Distinction: Selection <ul><li>Combined Reading and Math Learning Index </li></ul><ul><li>View of improvement over 5 years (2003 to 2008) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Grades 4, 7, and 10 only </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Winners: Top 5% of each grade band </li></ul>
    6. 6. Performance: Learning Index <ul><li>Based on the 4 Levels of WASL Performance </li></ul><ul><li>Can be applied to any of the WASL Sub-tests </li></ul><ul><ul><li>1 x % at Level-1 2 x % at Level-2 3 x % at Level-3 + 4 x % at Level-4 ------------------------------ = Level Index </li></ul></ul>
    7. 7. For Example Level Index of 2.5 LI= (1 x .25) + (2 x .25) + (3 x .25) + (4 x .25) WASL Math- % of Students by Level
    8. 8. Another Example Level Index of 3.0 LI= (1 x .10) + (2 x .10) + (3 x .50) + (4 x .30) WASL Math- % of Students by Level
    9. 9. Elementary Schools RMLI 2002-03
    10. 10. Elementary Schools RMLI 2008
    11. 11. Middle Schools RMLI 2002-03
    12. 12. Middle Schools RMLI 2008
    13. 13. High Schools RMLI 2002-03
    14. 14. High Schools RMLI 2008
    15. 15. Award Winners: Who Are They? <ul><li>2008 Schools of Distinction </li></ul><ul><ul><li>53 elementary, 21 middle, 20 high schools and 7 alternative schools </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>ESDs: at least 3 winners in all 9 ESDs. 65 from Western WA, 31 from Eastern WA </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Poverty Ranges: 1% to 82% </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>ELL Percentage: 0% to 31% </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>% Non-white enrollment: 0% to 70% </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Title I School wide: 40 buildings </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Did Not Meet AYP: 40 buildings </li></ul></ul><ul><li>2008 Repeat Winners </li></ul><ul><ul><li>14 elementary, 3 middle, 4 high schools (no alternative repeat winners) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Repeat winners in 7 different ESDs. 14 from Western WA, 8 from Eastern WA </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Poverty Ranges: 5% to 69% </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>ELL Percentage: 0% to 26% </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>% Non-white enrollment: 1% to 57% </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Title I School wide: 8 buildings </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Did Not Meet AYP: 10 buildings </li></ul></ul>
    16. 16. In the field this looks like… East Port Orchard Elem South Kitsap SD Poverty: 48.4% Students of color: 28% ELL: 2%
    17. 17. 49% NOT meeting standard to 77% MEETING standard All Schools of Distinction accelerated Reading and . . .
    18. 18. . . . accelerated Math as well . 65% NOT meeting standard to 63% MEETING standard
    19. 20. Reflection <ul><li>Given the Nine Characteristics of High Performing Schools </li></ul><ul><li>Stack Rank Exercise </li></ul>
    20. 21. Stack Rank Your School Stack Rank the following-- from 1 (Best) to 10 Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Characteristic My Building- Positive Reflection by our Staff Repeat Schools of Distinction- Positive Staff Reflection Where's the Largest GAP between My Building and Schools of Distinction Notes Clear and Shared Focus         Collaboration for Student Learning         Community & Parent Involvement         Effective Leadership         Focused Professional Development         High Quality Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessemnt         High Standards and Expectations         Monitor Teaching and Learning         Readiness to Benefit         Supportive Learning Environment        
    21. 22. Stack Rank Your School Stack Rank the following-- from 1 (Best) to 10 Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Characteristic My Building- Positive Reflection by our Staff Repeat Schools of Distinction- Positive Staff Reflection Where's the Largest GAP between My Building and Schools of Distinction Notes Clear and Shared Focus         Collaboration for Student Learning 1        Community & Parent Involvement         Effective Leadership         Focused Professional Development   2        High Quality Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessemnt         High Standards and Expectations         Monitor Teaching and Learning         Readiness to Benefit         Supportive Learning Environment        
    22. 23. Schools of Distinction? Stack Rank the following-- from 1 (Best) to 10 Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Characteristic My Building- Positive Reflection by our Staff Repeat Schools of Distinction- Positive Staff Reflection Where's the Largest GAP between My Building and Schools of Distinction Notes Clear and Shared Focus         Collaboration for Student Learning         Community & Parent Involvement   1      Effective Leadership         Focused Professional Development         High Quality Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessemnt         High Standards and Expectations         Monitor Teaching and Learning         Readiness to Benefit         Supportive Learning Environment        
    23. 24. Where are the gaps? Stack Rank the following-- from 1 (Best) to 10 Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Characteristic My Building- Positive Reflection by our Staff Repeat Schools of Distinction- Positive Staff Reflection Where's the Largest GAP between My Building and Schools of Distinction Notes Clear and Shared Focus         Collaboration for Student Learning         Community & Parent Involvement       Effective Leadership         Focused Professional Development         High Quality Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessemnt         High Standards and Expectations         Monitor Teaching and Learning         Readiness to Benefit         Supportive Learning Environment        
    24. 25. Research Approach <ul><li>Guiding Prompt: How are attitudes and practices different in the Schools of Distinction? </li></ul>
    25. 26. Today’s Focus Data Will Be: Phase I Practices of Improving or Turnaround Schools Oct 2007 – Jan 2008 Phase II EES-Staff Survey Characteristics of High Performing Schools Dec 2007 – May 2008 Phase III EES-Staff with Repeat Winners Oct 2008 – Jan 2009 <ul><li>For Details: </li></ul><ul><li>OSPI January Conference-2008, WERA-Spring-2008, AWSP/WASA Summer Conference 2008 Session, OSPI January Conference-2009 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>www.effectiveness.org </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Sharratt, G. C., Mills, S., & Lobdell, G. (2008). Schools of distinction: What makes them distinct? Washington State Kappan, 2(1), 20-22. </li></ul>
    26. 29. Highlights of Phases I and II <ul><li>Very High Readiness for Improvement </li></ul><ul><ul><li>75% belief that ALL students can meet state standards </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>75% willingness to change, and openness to new ideas </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Culture of Collaboration </li></ul><ul><ul><li>High trust across staff and with leadership </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>75% willingness to address conflict </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Leadership </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Stable – average of 4 yrs in building and 8 years as principal </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Focus on instruction and student learning - 50% observe classrooms daily </li></ul></ul><ul><li>System Support for Improvement </li></ul><ul><ul><li>80% have release time monthly for professional development </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>60% monitor school improvement plans at least monthly </li></ul></ul><ul><li>High Quality Instruction and Supportive Instructional Practice </li></ul><ul><ul><li>92% use assessment data to identify student needs and instructional intervention </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>84% use data to guide professional development </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>80% use collaborative lesson design and analysis of student work </li></ul></ul><ul><li>High Level of Trust </li></ul><ul><ul><li>71% believe there is a high level of trust in their school </li></ul></ul>Reading and Math Beliefs are more important – both in top 10! Collaborative planning for integration of literacy and numeracy across the curric. Leadership facilitate processes for improvement Staff have frequent feedback about how they are doing Teachers engage in PD to learn and apply skills and strategies Struggling students receive intervention Celebrating student success Teachers integrate literacy and numeracy Strength in positive side of Trust Lower “Trust Erosion” factors
    27. 30. Phase III <ul><li>Approach: differential comparison </li></ul><ul><ul><li>By each of the Nine Characteristics </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>By each item within the characteristic scales </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Focus on repeat winners </li></ul><ul><ul><li>2008 repeat winners </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>2008 first year winners </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Comparison with schools across the state </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Instrumentation: Educational Effectiveness Survey v9.0 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Voluntary participation: Staff self-reflection </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Nine Characteristics of High Performing Schools </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Readiness to Benefit </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Includes views of: Organizational Trust, District Support for Improvement, and Cultural Responsiveness </li></ul></ul>
    28. 31. Sample Definitions <ul><li>SOD EES Overall Sample (non-repeat winners) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>N= 1,710 staff in 55 Buildings </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Repeat Winners </li></ul><ul><ul><li>N= 520 in 18 Buildings (out of 21) </li></ul></ul>
    29. 32. Demographics for State Sample <ul><li>EES-Staff surveys from October 2007 to January 2009 </li></ul><ul><li>N= 16,934 staff </li></ul><ul><li>321 unique schools </li></ul><ul><li>Geographically, demographically, and achievement fairly representative of the state (slightly higher poverty, ELL, and Hispanic representation than state overall) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>WASL Reading slightly higher than state average, WASL Math slightly lower than state </li></ul></ul>
    30. 33. Before we get into the findings… “ Bummer of a birthmark” Reflection and sharing without the bullseye
    31. 34. For Interpretation <ul><li>EES scale is 5-pt Likert </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Almost Always True (5), Often True, Sometimes True, Seldom True, Almost Never True(1) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Positive Responses: Almost Always True + Often True </li></ul></ul>
    32. 35. Distinction: Repeat Schools of Distinction demonstrate significant strength in ALL of the Nine Characteristics (further out from center is better)
    33. 36. Distinction: The Instructional Core Matters
    34. 37. DISTINCTION: Monitoring Teaching and Learning <ul><li>Reduce isolation and open practice up to direct observation, analysis, and feedback. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Make direct observation of practice, analysis, and feedback a routine feature of work. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Elmore (2000, 2002, and 2004) </li></ul>
    35. 38. Means vs. Positive Responses <ul><li>Both Schools show 35% Positive </li></ul><ul><li>School A Mean = 2.60 </li></ul><ul><li>School B Mean = 3.43 </li></ul>
    36. 39. Distinction: Monitor Teaching and Learning
    37. 40. DISTINCTION: The “VITAL Cycle” of Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment <ul><li>Beat-the-odds-schools are figuring out ways to customize instruction and intervention so it exactly suits each student’s needs. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>The beat-the-odds schools are putting in place a whole set of interlocking practices and policies geared toward winning a marathon (instead of a sprint). It involves a vital cycle of instruction, assessment, and intervention, followed by more instruction, assessment and intervention. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Beat The Odds (2006) </li></ul>
    38. 41. Distinction: High Quality Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment
    39. 42. DISTINCTION: Action-Based Collaboration <ul><li>Improved districts build a culture of commitment, collegiality, mutual respect, and stability. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Professional culture of high standards </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Trust, mutual respect, and competence </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Opportunities for peer support, collaboration, and develop professional learning communities </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Shannon & Bylsma (2004) </li></ul>
    40. 43. Distinction: Collaboration & Communication
    41. 44. Application of Findings A Quick View by School Level Why do we see significantly different improvement results in Reading and Math?
    42. 45. Elementary Staff- Top 10 Differences
    43. 46. Secondary Staff- Top 10 Differences
    44. 47. Improvement is Contagious <ul><li>East Port Orchard Elementary </li></ul><ul><ul><li>South Kitsap SD </li></ul></ul>
    45. 48. Application: Reflection on Change <ul><li>Successful turnarounds are typically marked by vigorous analysis of data, identification of key problems, and selection of strategies to address the central challenges. </li></ul><ul><li>Two leader actions fall into this category: </li></ul><ul><li>Collecting and personally analyzing organization performance data </li></ul><ul><li>Making an action plan to CHANGE based on data </li></ul><ul><li>School Turnarounds (2007) </li></ul>
    46. 49. Personal Side of Change <ul><li>Planning </li></ul><ul><li>Sense of Urgency </li></ul><ul><li>Support Systems </li></ul><ul><li>Personal Focus </li></ul><ul><li>Effect of Results </li></ul><ul><li>ACTION: Personal Side of Change Worksheet </li></ul>Adapted and revised from Reeves, D. (2009). Leading Change in Your School: How to conquer myths, build commitment, and get results. Alexandria, VA: ASCD: 2009.
    47. 50. Personal Side of Change Directions : For each of your two changes, enter a score of 1 to 10 (in each column), with 1 representing no evidence of the characteristics described, and 10 representing an exceptional reflection of that characteristic. CHANGE Describe PLANNING: I planned in advance the steps I would take and knew clearly how to make the change Sense of URGENCY I know that the price of failing to change was much greater that the price of changing (and could identify each) Personal SUPPORT Family and friends knew I was making this change and supported me Personal FOCUS I devoted time to initiating and maintaining the change despite my busy schedule Effect on RESULTS I can measure the results of the change, and they are clear and significant
    48. 51. Organizational Side of Change Directions : For each of your two changes, enter a score of 1 to 10 (in each column), with 1 representing no evidence of the characteristics described, and 10 representing an exceptional reflection of that characteristic. CHANGE Describe PLANNING: Plans were clear, data-driven, detailed, and effectively communicated Sense of URGENCY Widespread sense of immediate need for the change was apparent Stakeholder SUPPORT Critical stakeholders, staff, and leadership understood and supported the change Leadership FOCUS Senior leadership made the change their clear and consistent focus long after initiation Effect on RESULTS The change had a measurable and significant effect on results
    49. 52. Creating Change- Where are You and Your School? Organizational Change High High Readiness for Learning Ready for Change Ready for Resistance Ready for Frustration
    50. 53. [email_address] Comments? Questions?
    51. 54. Performance, Improvement, and Poverty <ul><li>Poverty is inversely correlated with performance </li></ul><ul><li>What about improvement- does the same hold true? </li></ul>
    52. 55. Poverty and Improvement
    53. 56. Poverty and Improvement
    54. 57. Poverty and Improvement
    55. 58. [email_address] Background Material
    56. 59. <ul><li>Rigor (Robustness) </li></ul><ul><li>Content coverage </li></ul><ul><li>Systemic (K-12) </li></ul>Complexity Low High RMLI- Schools of Distinction Selection SBE Accountability Index <ul><li>Reading, Math, Writing, & Science </li></ul><ul><li>Compensatory </li></ul><ul><li>Status AND Improvement (over 1 year), AND “Beat The Odds” </li></ul><ul><li>Risk Adjusted for Low and non-Low Income </li></ul><ul><li>Systemic- Gr. 3-10 and Extended Grad. Rate </li></ul><ul><li>Criterion-based </li></ul><ul><li>Reading & Math Level Index </li></ul><ul><li>Conjunctive </li></ul><ul><li>Improvement over 6 years </li></ul><ul><li>Grade 4, 7, and 10 only </li></ul><ul><li>5% “winners” </li></ul>
    57. 60. References You Can Use <ul><li>Primary </li></ul><ul><li>Elmore, R. (2004). Knowing the Right Things to Do: School Improvement and Performance-Based Accountability. Washington, D.C.: National Governors Association- Center for Best Practices. </li></ul><ul><li>Marzano, R. (2003). What Works in Schools: Translating Research Into Action. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. </li></ul><ul><li>Beat The Odds (2006). Morrison Institute for Public Policy (2006). Why Some Schools With Latino Children Beat the Odds…and Others Don’t. Tempe, AZ.: Morrison Institute for Public Policy, Arizona State University, jointly with Center for the Future of Arizona. (aka: “Beat The Odds (2006) ). </li></ul><ul><li>Fixen, D.L. et al. (2005). Implementation Research: A synthesis of the literature. Tampa, FL: University of South Florida, Louis de la Parte Mental Health Institute, The National Implementation Research Network (FMHI Publication #231) </li></ul><ul><li>School Turnarounds (2007). Public Impact (2007). School Turnarounds: A review of the cross-sector evidence on dramatic organizational improvement. Public Impact, Academic Development Institute- prepared for the Center on Innovation and Improvement. Retrieved from : http://www.centerii.org / (aka: School Turnarounds (2007)). </li></ul><ul><li>Shannon, G.S. & Bylsma, P. (2004). Characteristics of Improved School Districts: Themes from Research. Olympia, WA. Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction. </li></ul><ul><li>Shannon, G.S. & Bylsma, P. (2003). Nine Characteristics of High Performing Schools. A research-based resource for school leadership teams to assist with the School Improvement Process. Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction. Olympia, WA. </li></ul><ul><li>Sharratt, G. C., Mills, S., & Lobdell, G. (2008). Schools of distinction: What makes them distinct? Washington State Kappan, 2(1), 20-22. </li></ul><ul><li>Secondary </li></ul><ul><li>Center for Educational Effectiveness (CEE) (2005). Longitudinal Change in Staff Perceptions of the 9 Characteristics of High Performing Schools in OSPI SIA Cohort-II and III Schools. Redmond, WA: Center for Educational Effectiveness. </li></ul><ul><li>Elmore, R. (2000). Building a New Structure For School Leadership . Washington, D.C.: The Albert Shanker Institute. </li></ul><ul><li>Elmore, R. (2002). Bridging the Gap Between Standards and Achievement. Washington, D.C.: The Albert Shanker Institute. </li></ul><ul><li>Tschannen-Moran, (2004). Trust Matters, Leadership for Successful Schools. San Francisco, CA. Jossey-Bass. </li></ul>

    ×