Districts that Work:
Lessons from the Field and Core Practices
February 1, 2010
Ledyard McFadden
President
SchoolWorks
Dr. Wanda Bamberg
Superintendent
Aldine Independent School District
Who we are
The Eli and Edythe Broad Foundation is a national venture
philanthropy established by Eli Broad to advance entrepreneurship
for the public good in education, science and the arts. The Broad
Foundation’s education work is focused on dramatically improving
urban K-12 public education through better governance, management,
labor relations and competition. (www.broadfoundation.org)
SchoolWorks is an educational consulting company based in Beverly,
Massachusetts. Using a research-based rubric for school district quality,
SchoolWorks leads site visit researchers and practitioners to analyze
qualitative Broad Prize finalist district practices. (www.schoolworks.org)
Who we are
The Aldine Independent School District, serving
62,000 students, was a Broad Prize finalist in 2004, 2005
and 2008 and the Winner in 2009, among other honors
such as the Texas Awards Performance Excellence, 2006.
Why Aldine today? Two very good reasons:
1. From 1981 to 2008, went from approximately
16% Hispanic to 64% Hispanic
2. Demonstrates higher average proficiency rates by racial,
ethnic and income subgroups than state counterparts in
reading and mathematics
3
Session Objectives
1. Share a hypothesis to explain why
Broad Finalists Districts, like Aldine,
have made progress in closing
achievement gaps
2. Share key themes of practice across
the Broad Finalist Districts
Session Agenda
1. Quick overview of the Broad Prize Process
2. Presentation of key themes of practice
3. Let Dr. Bamberg tell you the real deal
4. Questions
What is The Broad Prize?
The Broad Prize for Urban Education is an annual $2 million award
that honors large urban school districts demonstrating
the greatest overall student performance and improvement and
reduction in income and ethnic achievement gaps.
sculpture © Tom Otterness, 2002
How it works
Every year:
1. 100 largest urban American school districts are eligible
(list on www.broadprize.org)
2. Student achievement data analyzed
3. Five finalists selected by Broad Prize Review Board (nationally
acclaimed statisticians, researchers and education leaders)
4. Qualitative site visits
5. Winner selected by Broad Prize Selection Jury
(three former U.S. Sec’s. of Ed., former Govs., university presidents,
union leaders, CEOs)
2009 Broad Prize finalist school districts
Quantitative data reviewed by Review Board
and Selection Jury
 Graduation rates (NCES’ Common Core of Data):
–
Average Freshman Graduation Rate (AFGR)
–
Urban Institute Graduation Rate (Cumulative Promotion Index)
–
Manhattan Institute Graduation Rate (Greene’s Graduation Indicator)
 College Readiness data (AP, SAT and ACT)
 Adequate Yearly Progress results
 District demographic data (enrollment, income, language, special education,
ethnicity)
 School-level variance analyses
 Analyses across proficiency levels (i.e., advanced, proficient, below basic)
 District performance and improvement rates on state reading and math tests,
compared with:
–
Prior performance
–
Expected performance for similar districts (based on poverty levels) in the state,
using a regression analysis
 Degree of achievement gap reduction between ethnic groups and between lowincome and non-low-income students, compared to the state
 No formula is used.
Process for conducting qualitative review
of district-wide policies and processes
 Uniform 3-day site visit in each finalist district
 Evidence collected according to SchoolWorks Quality Criteria
as developed for The Broad Prize, i.e., site visit framework
– District documents reviewed
– Focus group interviews conducted with district stakeholders
– Limited classroom observations conducted
 Developmental Rubric provides a multi-dimensional perspective
on the degree to which district systems and practices are effective
and sustainable
Site Visit Framework: SchoolWorks Quality Criteria
Domain 1: Teaching
and Learning
Domain 2: District
Leadership
Domain 3: Operations
and Support Systems
Dimension 1.1 Curriculum
Dimension 2.1 Mission,
Vision and Values
Dimension 3.1
Allocation of
Financial Resources
Dimension 1.2 Instruction
Dimension 2.2 District
Governance
Dimension 1.3 Assessment
Dimension 2.3 Strategic
Planning
Dimension 1.4 Instructional
Leadership
Dimension 2.4 Performance
and Accountability
11
Dimension 3.2
Human Resource Systems
Dimension 3.3
Organizational Structures
and Management
Dimension 3.4
Support for Teaching
and Learning
2009 Broad Prize winner
Aldine Independent School District in Houston, 80% FRSL
Outperformed other similar Texas districts in reading and mathematics
at all grade levels
Demonstrated higher average proficiency rates by racial, ethnic and
income subgroups than state counterparts in reading and mathematics
Narrowed income and ethnic achievement gaps (e.g., 14 percentage point
reduction in gap between African-American students and state average for
White students in middle school mathematics between 2005 and 2008).
How do these districts close the
achievement gap?
The achievement gap is closed one student at a time.
Focus on the individual child. Broad Finalists Districts
thrive on beliefs, policies and practices that individualize
education and emphasize success for all students.
13
To be clear…
Yes. Board Finalists examine how well groups of
students do (English Language Learners, ethnic groups,
socioeconomic groups, etc.)
Yes. Broad Finalists districts consider culture and
language and economic status as important information
that informs programming
No. Broad Finalists Districts do not apply blanket
approaches aimed to cover a whole group based
on its identity.
Yes. Broad Finalists build systems of curriculum,
instruction and assessment that can meet the needs
of each individual child.
14
What are the core practices found across
Broad Prize Districts?
1. Curriculum and assessment
2. Instruction
3. Instructional leadership
4. Performance and accountability
5. Support for teaching and learning
(professional development)
Curriculum and assessment
Broad Prize finalist districts typically have core structure in place
– Alignment to state standards
– Available materials
– Systems to ensure fidelity of curriculum implementation
What’s exceptional
– Continual review and refinement of curriculum through
knowledge capture
Multiple
assessments and
fine-grained analysis
Vertical teams
to review analysis
and make decisions
Living curriculum
documents
Examples of best curriculum and assessment
practices from Broad Prize Districts
 Assessments and analysis
– Diagnostic assessments at school level
– Interim assessments/benchmark assessments district-wide
– Data systems make analysis accessible and useful –
teachers and administrators can understand student performance
on specific knowledge and skills
 Vertical teams
– Long Beach: “Bottom up, Top Down Review”
– Northside, Texas: Specialists Teams
 Living curriculum
– Brownsville, Texas: “Written, Taught and Assessed Curriculum”
(Fenwick English)
– Northside, Texas: Curriculum Management System
Instruction
 Broad Prize finalist districts
typically have core structure
in place
Clear models of instruction
– Planning linked to standards
– Time and resources
– Processes for differentiation
and intervention
 What’s exceptional
– Models
– Link to assessment
– Innovation
Innovation
Tight link to
formative
assessments
Examples of best instruction practices from
Broad Prize Districts
 Instructional models
– Broward, Fla.: “7,8,9 Plan”
 Effective schools, Marzano, Eight-step instructional process
– Long Beach: Essential Elements of Effective Instruction
– Brownsville: 5 E Inquiry model
 Links to assessment
– Clear instruction cycles of approximately 6 weeks
 Innovation
– How did you do that?
– Long Beach: Example of MAP2D
Teaching and Learning
MAP2D: Math Achievement Program
Professional Development
What is the story behind this particular strategy
and its contribution to the success of the district?
Increasing Student Achievement in Mathematics
MAP2D Early Results
Math CST Results for 2005-2006
MAP2D
Group
“Control”
Group
High
Performers
District
Total
15
25
19
59
% ELL
29.8%
28.5%
14.9%
25.2%
% Low SES
84.6%
80.6%
51.5%
73.8%
% Proficient
58.5%
49.4%
61.6%
55.3%
# of Schools


MAP2D schools have higher percentages of ELL and free/reduced lunch students.
After one year in the program, MAP2D schools surpassed the control group and the district
average and approached the proficiency level of high performers.
Narrowing the Achievement Gap in Mathematics
Grade 5 Hispanic Students vs. White Students
80%
70%
P rofic ienc y R ate
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2004
2005
2006
Y ear 1 S c hools (5)
Y ear 2 S c hools (10)
Non-MA P ²D S c hools
W hite S tudents
2007
Y ear 3 S c hools (25)
Implementation Framework
MAP2D
Aspect of Implementation
“The Long Beach Way”
Data Driven Need and Research Based
Approach
Math Facts; Application of skills
Identification of the “Problem”
Limited algebra readiness; correlation between
Math Facts proficiency and CAHSEE passing
rate
Establishing a Pre-K through 12th Grade
Context
Students lacked foundational skills to pass the
CAHSEE; critical grade-level transitions
Stakeholder Engagement
Pilot, expansion, scale up
Shared Decision-Making
Teacher input, teacher delivery, coaching
Resource Alignment / Reallocation
Coaching, training
Professional Development and
Communication
Teacher, principal, parent training
Execution
Coaching, supervision, fidelity
Analysis of Results
Internal program evaluation
Instructional leadership
 Broad Prize Finalist Districts
typically have core structure
in place
– Leadership accessible
to teachers
– Leadership modeling
instructional practice
District
Region
School
– Providing regular, specific
feedback
Classroom
 What’s exceptional
– Distributed leadership
Student
Performance and accountability
 Broad Prize Finalist Districts typically have a core structure
– Goals for staff, schools and district
– Regular cycle of measurement and reporting
– Evaluation
 What’s exceptional
– Very deep alignment of goals vertically through the system,
heavily influenced by Baldrige
– Use of technology to track and communicate progress
Class goal
Student Goal
School Goal
Regional Goal
District Goal
Examples of best performance and accountability
practices from Broad Prize districts
 Alignment
– Aldine, Texas: Aligned teams, roll-up scorecard
– Gwinnett, Georgia: RBES
“Gwinnett County Public Schools (GCPS) has developed an
accountability system for improving schools called the ResultsBased Evaluation System (RBES). RBES fairly and systematically
measures a school’s progress, providing a process that clearly
communicates expectations; reviews, monitors, and supports school
performance; and, evaluates that performance.”
GCPS RBES template
Building Human Capacity
 All previous examples are supported by strong professional
development
 Examples from Brownsville
– All elementary-level teachers in the district are dual-certified in bilingual
education to support immersion program
– Feedback on Bloom’s taxonomy, questioning skills and learner-centered
instruction, using rubrics called “innovation configurations” that serve as
tools for observers to evaluate the quality of instruction
– Strong partnerships with the University of Texas, Brownsville (UTB),
which provides many new teachers to the district. As a result of this
partnership, the Same Page Initiative was created. This initiative aligns
university curriculum with the practices of the district, providing yet-to-be
hired staff insight into district practices.
What’s next?
 Curriculum and assessment
– Global benchmarking
– 21st century learning
– Assessments to match new competitive standards
 Instruction and instructional leadership
– Better measurements of the impact of professional development
on instruction
– More reliance on professional learning communities
to drive instruction
– Greater knowledge capture
 Performance and accountability
– Driving down linked goals to teachers and students in
more explicit ways