Schools of Distinction
What Makes Them Distinct?
Greg Lobdell
Kristi Smith, Principal
Director of Research
Stacey Krumsick, Instructional Specialist
Center for Educational Effectiveness
East Port Orchard Elementary
greg@effectiveness.org
South Kitsap SD
C E N T E R F O R E D U C AT I ON A L EF F E CT I V E N E SS , I N C .
C E N T E R F O R E D U C AT I ON A L EF F E CT I V E N E SS , I N C .
Center for Educational Effectiveness
• Field-based research, service, and data-centric
tools to support School & District Improvement
• In WA-- Partnerships with 580 Schools in 115
districts
– What we do & how we do it varies based on serving districts from 80
students K-12, to districts over 30,000 K-12
• The largest WASL “Educational Growth”
repository in the state (2000 – 2008 WASL growth data
(student cohorts) for districts serving 700,000 students)
C E N T E R F O R E D U C AT I ON A L EF F E CT I V E N E SS , I N C .
Center for Educational Effectiveness
• The largest repository of school effectiveness
information in the state of Washington (Nine
Characteristics of High Performing Schools)
– 53,000 Staff, 162,000 Students, and 59,800 Parents (30% from
homes where English is not primary language)
• Assist all schools & districts in OSPI School, District,
& Summit District Improvement programs
• Assist all districts in Idaho’s “Building Capacity” K-12
District Improvement Program
• Active partnerships: OSPI, AWSP, WSSDA,
Leadership Innovations Team (Powerful Teaching &
Learning), West-Ed Regional Ed Laboratory, WSU and
UW
C E N T E R F O R E D U C AT I ON A L EF F E CT I V E N E SS , I N C .
Today’s Outcomes
• Introduction: Schools of Distinction Selection
Methodology- How are the award winners
selected?
• Research Methodology
• Findings
– Highlights: Repeat winners vis-à-vis State sample
– What’s happening at a repeat winner? East Port
Orchard Elementary, South Kitsap SD
• Implications & application
C E N T E R F O R E D U C AT I ON A L EF F E CT I V E N E SS , I N C .
Performance, Improvement, and
Poverty
• Poverty is inversely correlated with
performance
• What about improvement- does the same
hold true?
C E N T E R F O R E D U C AT I ON A L EF F E CT I V E N E SS , I N C .
Poverty and Improvement
HS-Grade 10
1.50
SOD Award Level
1.00
RMLI Change
0.50
0.00
R2 = 0.0032
-0.50
-1.00
-1.50
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
Poverty
HS-Grade 10
Award Winners
Linear-ALL
C E N T E R F O R E D U C AT I ON A L EF F E CT I V E N E SS , I N C .
90.0
100.0
Poverty and Improvement
MS-Grade 7
1.50
SOD Award Level
1.00
RMLI Change
0.50
0.00
R2 = 0.0072
-0.50
-1.00
-1.50
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
Poverty
MS-Grade 7
Award Winners
Linear-ALL
C E N T E R F O R E D U C AT I ON A L EF F E CT I V E N E SS , I N C .
90.0
100.0
Poverty and Improvement
Elems- Grade 4
1.50
SOD Award Level
1.00
RMLI Change
0.50
0.00
-0.50
R2 = 0.01667
-1.00
-1.50
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
Poverty
Award Winners
Elems
Linear-ALL
C E N T E R F O R E D U C AT I ON A L EF F E CT I V E N E SS , I N C .
80.0
90.0
100.0
Why do we see
significantly different
improvement results in
Reading and Math?
C E N T E R F O R E D U C AT I ON A L EF F E CT I V E N E SS , I N C .
Award Winners: Who Are They?
2008 Schools of Distinction
 53 elementary, 21 middle, 20 high
schools and 7 alternative schools
 ESDs: at least 3 winners in all 9
ESDs. 65 from Western WA, 31 from
Eastern WA
 Poverty Ranges: 1% to 82%
 ELL Percentage: 0% to 31%
 % Non-white enrollment: 0% to 70%
 Title I School wide: 40 buildings
 Did Not Meet AYP: 40 buildings
2008 Repeat Winners
 14 elementary, 3 middle, 4 high
schools (no alternative repeat
winners)
 Repeat winners in 7 different
ESDs. 14 from Western WA, 8
from Eastern WA
 Poverty Ranges: 5% to 69%
 ELL Percentage: 0% to 26%
 % Non-white enrollment: 1% to
57%
 Title I School wide: 8 buildings
 Did Not Meet AYP: 10 buildings
C E N T E R F O R E D U C AT I ON A L EF F E CT I V E N E SS , I N C .
Elementary Schools RMLI 2002-03
WA State Grade 4: RMLI '02-'03 Baseline
4.00
Reading / Math Learning Index
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
WA 4th Grade
2008 Schools of Distinction
0.50
0.00
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
Percent Poverty
C E N T E R F O R E D U C AT I ON A L EF F E CT I V E N E SS , I N C .
80.0
90.0
100.0
Elementary Schools RMLI 2008
WA State Grade 4: RMLI 2008
4.00
Reading / Math Learning Index
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
WA 4th Grade
2008 Schools of Distinction
0.50
0.00
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
Poverty
C E N T E R F O R E D U C AT I ON A L EF F E CT I V E N E SS , I N C .
80.0
90.0
100.0
Middle Schools RMLI 2002-03
WA State Grade 7: RMLI '02-'03 Baseline
4.00
Reading / Math Learning Index
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
WA 7th Grade
2008 Schools of Distinction
0.50
0.00
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
Percent Poverty
C E N T E R F O R E D U C AT I ON A L EF F E CT I V E N E SS , I N C .
80.0
90.0
100.0
Middle Schools RMLI 2008
WA State Grade 7: RMLI 2008
4.00
Reading / Math Learning Index
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
WA 7th Grade
2008 Schools of Distinction
0.50
0.00
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
Percent Poverty
C E N T E R F O R E D U C AT I ON A L EF F E CT I V E N E SS , I N C .
80.0
90.0
100.0
High Schools RMLI 2002-03
WA State Grade 10: RMLI '02-'03 Baseline
4.00
Reading / Math Learning Index
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
WA 10th Grade
2008 Schools of Distinction
0.50
0.00
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
Percent Poverty
C E N T E R F O R E D U C AT I ON A L EF F E CT I V E N E SS , I N C .
80.0
90.0
100.0
High Schools RMLI 2008
WA State Grade 10: RMLI 2008
4.00
Reading / Math Learning Index
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
WA 10th Grade
2008 Schools of Distinction
0.50
0.00
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
Percent Poverty
C E N T E R F O R E D U C AT I ON A L EF F E CT I V E N E SS , I N C .
80.0
90.0
100.0
A quick look at a repeat winner
East Port Orchard Elem
South Kitsap SD
Poverty: 48.4%
Students of color: 28%
ELL: 2%
C E N T E R F O R E D U C AT I ON A L EF F E CT I V E N E SS , I N C .
All Schools of Distinction accelerated
Reading and . . .
WASL 4 Reading: Percent of Students by Level
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
25%
36%
28%
33%
45%
49%
48%
-11%
-9%
-19%
-11%
-7%
2008
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
25%
41%
19%
31%
Meeting
Standard
-38%
44%
-23%
-6%
52%
-17%
-5%
-4%
-11%
49% NOT meeting standard to
77% MEETING standard
C E N T E R F O R E D U C AT I ON A L EF F E CT I V E N E SS , I N C .
36%
-20%
-3%
2009
2010
. . .accelerated Math as well.
WASL 4 Math: Percent of Students by Level
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
30%
23%
22%
30%
-33%
-26%
-15%
-22%
2007
2008
39%
33%
30%
30%
-11%
-16%
100%
80%
60%
31%
40%
8%
20%
Meeting
Standard
27%
-30%
22%
25%
31%
-23%
-39%
-16%
-35%
-13%
-19%
65% NOT meeting standard to
63% MEETING standard
C E N T E R F O R E D U C AT I ON A L EF F E CT I V E N E SS , I N C .
-22%
2009
2010
Research Approach
• Guiding Prompt: How are attitudes and
practices different in the Schools of
Distinction
C E N T E R F O R E D U C AT I ON A L EF F E CT I V E N E SS , I N C .
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
For Details:
• OSPI January Conference-2008, WERA-Spring-2008, AWSP/WASA Summer
Conference 2008 Session, OSPI January Conference-2009
• www.effectiveness.org
• Sharratt, G. C., Mills, S., & Lobdell, G. (2008). Schools of distinction: What makes
them distinct? Washington State Kappan, 2(1), 20-22.
C E N T E R F O R E D U C AT I ON A L EF F E CT I V E N E SS , I N C .
CEE Research Focus- Schools of Distinction
"Nine
Characteristics of
High Performing
Schools" OSPI
Characteristics of
Improved School
Districts" OSPI,
Shannon & Bylsma,
2004
"Beat the
Odds, 2006"
Morrison
Institute for
Public Policy,
"Knowing the
"School
Right Things Turnarounds"
to Do", Elmore, Public Impact,
2004.
2007
What Works
In Schools,
Marzano, 2003
Instructional
Leadership
student learning focus
distributed leadership
observes instruction
frequently
√
√
√
√
√
√
High Quality Teaching
and Learning
High expectations
use
of student data
personalized interventions
aligned C & I
√
√
√
√
√
√
Systems Support for
Improvement
effective use of data
parent involvement
professional learning
community
I(2nd ed.)
√
√
√
√
I
Collaboration
communication
addressing conflict
organizational trust
peer
observation
√
√
√
√
√
√
Readiness for
Improvement
belief in student learning
openness to new ideas
problem solving, conflict
management
√
I
√
I
I
I
C E N T E R F O R E D U C AT I ON A L EF F E CT I V E N E SS , I N C .
CEE Research Focus- Schools of Distinction
"Nine
Characteristics of
High Performing
Schools" OSPI
Characteristics of
Improved School
Districts" OSPI,
Shannon & Bylsma,
2004
"Beat the
Odds, 2006"
Morrison
Institute for
Public Policy,
"Knowing the
"School
Right Things Turnarounds"
to Do", Elmore, Public Impact,
2004.
2007
What Works
In Schools,
Marzano, 2003
Instructional
Leadership
student learning focus
distributed leadership
observes instruction
frequently
√
√
√
√
√
√
High Quality Teaching
and Learning
High expectations
use
of student data
personalized interventions
aligned C & I
√
√
√
√
√
√
Systems Support for
Improvement
effective use of data
parent involvement
professional learning
community
I(2nd ed.)
√
√
√
√
I
Collaboration
communication
addressing conflict
organizational trust
peer
observation
√
√
√
√
√
√
Readiness for
Improvement
belief in student learning
openness to new ideas
problem solving, conflict
management
√
I
√
I
I
I
C E N T E R F O R E D U C AT I ON A L EF F E CT I V E N E SS , I N C .
Highlights of Phases I and II
Very High Readiness for Improvement
75% belief that ALL students can meet state
standards
75% willingness to change, and openness to new
ideas
Culture of Collaboration
High trust across staff and with leadership
75% willingness to address conflict
Leadership
Stable – average of 4 yrs in building and 8 years as
principal
Focus on instruction and student learning - 50%
observe classrooms daily
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
System Support for Improvement
80% have release time monthly for professional
development
60% monitor school improvement plans at least
monthly
High Quality Instruction and Supportive
Instructional Practice
92% use assessment data to identify student needs
and instructional intervention
84% use data to guide professional development
80% use collaborative lesson design and analysis of
student work
Teachers engage in PD to learn and apply skills
and strategies
Struggling students receive intervention
Celebrating student success
Teachers integrate literacy and numeracy
High Level of Trust
71% believe there is a high level of trust in their
school
Strength in positive side of Trust
Lower “Trust Erosion” factors
C E N T E R F O R E D U C AT I ON A L EF F E CT I V E N E SS , I N C .
Phase III
• Approach: differential comparison
– By each of the Nine Characteristics
– By each item within the characteristic scales
• Focus on repeat winners
– 2008 repeat winners
– 2008 first year winners
– Comparison with schools across the state
• Instrumentation: Educational Effectiveness Survey v9.0
–
–
–
–
Voluntary participation: Staff self-reflection
Nine Characteristics of High Performing Schools
Readiness to Benefit
Includes views of: Organizational Trust, District Support for
Improvement, and Cultural Responsiveness
C E N T E R F O R E D U C AT I ON A L EF F E CT I V E N E SS , I N C .
Sample Definitions
• SOD EES Overall Sample (non-repeat
winners)
N= 1,710 staff in 55 Buildings
• Repeat Winners
N= 520 in 18 Buildings (out of 21)
C E N T E R F O R E D U C AT I ON A L EF F E CT I V E N E SS , I N C .
Demographics for State Sample
•
•
•
•
EES-Staff surveys from October 2007 to January 2009
N= 16,934 staff
321 unique schools
Geographically, demographically, and achievement fairly
representative of the state (slightly higher poverty, ELL, and
Hispanic representation than state overall)
– WASL Reading slightly higher than state average, WASL Math slightly
lower than state
ESD by Respondents
School Level
Middle / Jr.
High, 3843,
23%
ESD121,
5070, 32%
Elementary,
8461, 50%
High School,
3992, 24%
Other, 87,
1%
K-12, 347,
2%
ESD123,
1860, 12%
Position
ESD171,
1129, 7%
ESD189, 803,
5%
ESD114,
1458, 9%
ESD113, 125,
1%
ESD112,
2406, 15%
ESD101, 724,
5%
ESD105,
2199, 14%
C E N T E R F O R E D U C AT I ON A L EF F E CT I V E N E SS , I N C .
ParaProfessional /
Instr. Aide
12%
Administrator
2%
Classified
Support Staff
14%
Certificated
Support Staff
6%
Certificated
Teacher
66%
Distinction: Repeat Schools of Distinction demonstrate
significant strength in ALL of the Nine Characteristics
High Quality Curriculum, Instruction, and
Assessemnt
4.500
Readiness to Benefit
4.000
Monitor Teaching and Learning
3.500
Effective Leadership
Collaboration for Student Learning
3.000
2.500
2.000
Community & Parent Involvement
Supportive Learning Environment
Focused Professional Development
District Support for Improvement
High Standards and Expectations
Clear and Shared Focus
SOD-Repeats
State Sample
C E N T E R F O R E D U C AT I ON A L EF F E CT I V E N E SS , I N C .
Distinction: The Instructional Core Matters
SOD-Repeats
State Sample
Mean
Mean
Difference:
Repeats vs
State
Monitor Teaching and Learning
3.646
3.341
0.306
1
High Quality Curriculum, Instruction,
and Assessemnt
3.967
3.687
0.280
2
Collaboration for Student Learning
3.825
3.581
0.244
3
High Standards and Expectations
3.664
3.468
0.196
4
Focused Professional Development
3.731
3.537
0.195
5
Supportive Learning Environment
4.128
3.936
0.191
6
Community & Parent Involvement
3.729
3.538
0.190
7
Clear and Shared Focus
4.230
4.068
0.162
8
Effective Leadership
4.189
4.032
0.157
9
Mean: 5=ALMOST ALWAYS TRUE, 1=Almost Never
True
C E N T E R F O R E D U C AT I ON A L EF F E CT I V E N E SS , I N C .
Rank of
diffs
DISTINCTION: Monitoring Teaching and Learning
Reduce isolation and open practice up to direct
observation, analysis, and feedback.
– Make direct observation of practice, analysis, and feedback a
routine feature of work.
Elmore (2000, 2002, and 2004)
C E N T E R F O R E D U C AT I ON A L EF F E CT I V E N E SS , I N C .
Distinction: Monitor Teaching and Learning
SOD-Repeats
Mean: 5=ALMOST ALWAYS TRUE, 1=Almost
Never True
State Sample
Mean
Combined
Positive
Mean
Combined
Positive
Repeats vs
State Means
Repeats vs
State %Pos
3.843
69.6%
3.322
56.0%
0.520
13.6%
3.867
69.0%
3.483
52.6%
0.384
16.4%
We reflect upon instructional practice to inform
our conversations about improvement
3.698
65.7%
3.338
57.2%
0.360
8.5%
Struggling students receive early intervention
and remediation to acquire skills
4.018
73.1%
3.678
58.4%
0.340
14.6%
3.492
58.6%
3.205
50.3%
0.287
8.3%
3.000
47.8%
2.794
41.0%
0.206
6.8%
Assessment data is used to identify student
needs and appropriate instructional intervention
4.175
78.5%
3.985
71.0%
0.189
7.5%
We are encouraged to participate in classroom
observation
3.080
43.6%
2.920
42.8%
0.159
0.8%
Monitor Teaching and Learning
3.646
We monitor the effectiveness of instructional
interventions
We are frequently informed about how well we
are doing
Teachers collaboratively plan lessons
Data from peer observations leads to
meaningful change in instructional practice
3.341
C E N T E R F O R E D U C AT I ON A L EF F E CT I V E N E SS , I N C .
0.306
DISTINCTION: The “VITAL Cycle” of Curriculum,
Instruction, and Assessment
Beat-the-odds-schools are figuring out ways to customize
instruction and intervention so it exactly suits each
student’s needs.
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.
Beat The Odds (2006)
C E N T E R F O R E D U C AT I ON A L EF F E CT I V E N E SS , I N C .
Distinction: High Quality Curriculum, Instruction, and
Assessment
SOD-Repeats
Mean: 5=ALMOST ALWAYS TRUE, 1=Almost
Never True
Common assessments are used to inform
instruction
Instruction is personalized to meet the needs of
each student
Regular assessment is used to monitor student
progress
The reading program we teach is aligned with
state learning standards
Our staff demonstrates a thorough
understanding of state learning standards for
reading
This school provides curriculum that is relevant
and meaningful
Our staff demonstrates a thorough
understanding of state learning standards for
math
The math program we teach is aligned with the
state learning standards
This district uses assessments aligned to
standards and instruction
All teachers integrate literacy and numeracy
concepts into their teaching
High Quality Curriculum,
Instruction, and Assessemnt
State Sample
Mean
Combined
Positive
Mean
Combined
Positive
Repeats vs
State Means
Repeats vs
State %Pos
4.01
76.2%
3.43
59.5%
0.579
16.7%
3.79
68.0%
3.48
55.5%
0.313
12.5%
4.26
85.6%
3.95
76.5%
0.312
9.1%
4.22
81.2%
3.92
69.3%
0.301
11.8%
4.06
78.8%
3.78
64.4%
0.276
14.5%
4.25
85.2%
4.00
74.8%
0.241
10.4%
3.68
64.6%
3.48
52.0%
0.208
12.6%
3.87
69.4%
3.68
60.2%
0.196
9.2%
3.96
74.0%
3.77
63.2%
0.189
10.8%
3.57
61.0%
3.38
48.4%
0.186
12.6%
3.967
3.687
C E N T E R F O R E D U C AT I ON A L EF F E CT I V E N E SS , I N C .
0.280
DISTINCTION: Action-Based Collaboration
Improved districts build a culture of commitment,
collegiality, mutual respect, and stability.
– Professional culture of high standards
– Trust, mutual respect, and competence
– Opportunities for peer support, collaboration, and develop
professional learning communities
Shannon & Bylsma (2004)
C E N T E R F O R E D U C AT I ON A L EF F E CT I V E N E SS , I N C .
Distinction: Collaboration & Communication
SOD-Repeats
Mean: 5=ALMOST ALWAYS TRUE, 1=Almost
Never True
State Sample
Mean
Combined
Positive
Mean
Combined
Positive
Repeats vs
State Means
Repeats vs
State %Pos
4.109
80.4%
3.732
62.3%
0.377
18.1%
4.058
75.0%
3.687
60.1%
0.372
14.9%
3.998
74.2%
3.648
58.4%
0.350
15.8%
3.716
65.0%
3.382
47.0%
0.334
18.0%
4.072
80.6%
3.801
65.8%
0.272
14.8%
3.959
71.5%
3.695
59.5%
0.264
12.0%
4.302
83.5%
4.075
75.7%
0.227
7.7%
3.539
55.6%
3.320
46.5%
0.220
9.1%
3.322
48.8%
3.103
38.2%
0.219
10.7%
3.626
59.4%
3.461
51.0%
0.165
8.4%
3.394
49.8%
3.263
42.7%
0.131
7.1%
Our school meets regularly to monitor
implementation of our school improvement plan
3.804
62.7%
3.801
64.5%
0.003
-1.8%
Collaboration for Student Learning
3.825
Students understand the expectations and
standards of this school
When there is a problem in my school, we talk
about how to solve it
Staff in our building do not manipulate others to
achieve their goals
Parents & community understand the
expectations & standards of this school
Staff in our school are consistently truthful
There is a willingness to address conflict in this
school
Staff at this school collaborate to improve
student learning
We collaboratively plan the integration of
literacy & numeracy concepts across the
curriculum
There is effective, 2-way communication
between the district and our school
Our staff shares learnings from conferences and
seminars they attend
Collaboration between district and schools is
based upon trust and respect
3.581
C E N T E R F O R E D U C AT I ON A L EF F E CT I V E N E SS , I N C .
0.244
Application of Findings
A Quick View by School Level
Why do we see significantly different
improvement results in Reading and Math?
C E N T E R F O R E D U C AT I ON A L EF F E CT I V E N E SS , I N C .
Elementary Staff- Top 10 Differences
Characteristic
Elementary Schools
Stack
% Positive
Rank of % Positive
State
Gap
SOD
Sample
Gap
Instruction is personalized to meet the needs of each
student
CIA
1
74.2%
60.5%
13.8%
We hold one another accountable for student learning
HSE
2
70.0%
57.4%
12.6%
We are frequently informed about how well we are
doing
MTL
3
68.6%
57.6%
11.0%
We monitor the effectiveness of instructional
interventions
MTL
4
75.7%
64.8%
10.9%
We reflect upon instructional practice to inform our
conversations about improvement
MTL
5
73.0%
62.5%
10.5%
Parents & community understand the expectations &
standards of this school
Collab
6
63.6%
53.2%
10.4%
We are provided training to support a culturally
responsive learning environment
FPD
7
47.8%
37.4%
10.4%
Common assessments are used to inform instruction
CIA
8
78.2%
67.8%
10.4%
Students understand the expectations and standards of
Collab
this school
9
78.6%
69.1%
9.5%
Staff members enforce consistent behavior
expectations and consequences in their classrooms
10
77.8%
68.3%
9.4%
SLE
C E N T E R F O R E D U C AT I ON A L EF F E CT I V E N E SS , I N C .
Secondary Staff- Top 10 Differences
Characteristic
Secondary Schools
Stack
Rank of
Gap
SLE
1
77.9%
60.4%
17.5%
Students understand the expectations and standards of
Collab
this school
2
73.0%
55.6%
17.5%
When there is a problem in my school, we talk about
how to solve it
Collab
3
72.2%
55.9%
16.3%
MTL
4
64.9%
49.0%
15.9%
Parents & community understand the expectations &
standards of this school
Collab
5
55.4%
40.7%
14.7%
Staff in our school are consistently truthful
Collab
6
76.7%
62.1%
14.6%
My colleagues welcome new and innovative ideas
RTB
7
67.7%
54.6%
13.2%
Our teachers engage in professional development
activities to learn and apply math skills and strategies
FPD
8
66.5%
53.8%
12.7%
We are frequently informed about how well we are
doing
MTL
9
60.2%
47.6%
12.7%
Our staff believes that all students can meet state
reading standards
HSE
10
57.8%
45.4%
12.5%
Students in this school are engaged in learning
Struggling students receive early intervention and
remediation to acquire skills
% Positive
% Positive
State
SOD
Sample
C E N T E R F O R E D U C AT I ON A L EF F E CT I V E N E SS , I N C .
Gap
Application: Areas of Focus and
Reflection
Successful turnarounds are typically marked by vigorous
analysis of data, identification of key problems, and
selection of strategies to address the central challenges.
Two leader actions fall into this category:
• Collecting and personally analyzing organization
performance data
• Making an action plan based on data
School Turnarounds (2007)
C E N T E R F O R E D U C AT I ON A L EF F E CT I V E N E SS , I N C .
Monitoring Teaching and
Learning
• We monitor the effectiveness of instructional
interventions,
• We are frequently informed about how well we
are doing,
• We reflect upon instructional practice to inform
our conversations about improvement, and
• Struggling students receive early intervention
and remediation to acquire skills.
C E N T E R F O R E D U C AT I ON A L EF F E CT I V E N E SS , I N C .
High Quality Curriculum,
Instruction, and Assessment
• Common assessments are used to inform
instruction,
• Instruction is personalized to meet the
needs of each student,
• The school provides curriculum that is
relevant and meaningful, and
• The district uses assessment aligned to
standards and instruction.
C E N T E R F O R E D U C AT I ON A L EF F E CT I V E N E SS , I N C .
Collaboration & Communication
• Students understand the expectations and
standards of this school,
• When there is a problem in my school, we talk
about how to solve it,
• Staff in our building do not manipulate others to
achieve their goals,
• Parents and community understand the
expectations and standards of this school,
• Staff in our school are consistently truthful, and
• There is a willingness to address conflict in this
school.
C E N T E R F O R E D U C AT I ON A L EF F E CT I V E N E SS , I N C .
A View from the Field…
• What’s happening at East Port Orchard
Elementary- South Kitsap SD
C E N T E R F O R E D U C AT I ON A L EF F E CT I V E N E SS , I N C .
Clear and Shared Focus
Clear and Shared Focus / Vision
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
My performance goals are set based on the
mission/purpose of this school
Staff I work with demonstrate commitment to our
mission
50%
60%
70%
80%
90% 100%
83%
64%
14% 0%
2%
33%
2%
0%
I understand the mission/purpose of our school
76%
21%
2%
0%
Important decisions here are based on the
mission/purpose of this school
76%
21%
2%
0%
My work contributes to the mission/purpose of this
school
81%
14% 0%
5%
This building has a data-driven school improvement plan
79%
17% 0%
5%
The mission/vision of this school and district are aligned
with each other
69%
C EAlmost
N T E RAlways
F O R E DOften
U C ATrue
T I O N ASometimes
L E F F E C TTrue
I V E N Seldom
E S S , I True
NC.
17%
Almost Never True
5%
0%10%
Missing
Systems of Support
• School Improvement Plan
– Data driven
– Everyone participates
– Align BATRP (Building Added Time
Responsibility Pay)
– Aligns with district goals
– On going evaluation and revision of plan by
teams
C E N T E R F O R E D U C AT I ON A L EF F E CT I V E N E SS , I N C .
Systems of Support
• Individual teacher goals
– Align with professional development focus
– Align with SIP goals
• Professional Learning Communities
– Building focus on common subject
– Common Assessments
– Data Analysis to drive instruction
– Student learning targets
C E N T E R F O R E D U C AT I ON A L EF F E CT I V E N E SS , I N C .
Systems of Support
• Schedule
– 90 minutes uninterrupted reading and math
instruction
– Support staff teams with classroom teacher
for daily reading instruction
– Grade levels have common instructional
blocks
– Special Education services are provided at
times that do not conflict with core
C E N T E R F O R E D U C AT I ON A L EF F E CT I V E N E SS , I N C .
Readiness to Benefit
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
I welcome new and innovative ideas
76%
My colleagues are willing to work at changing this
school for the better
74%
My colleagues are willing to be held accountable for
student learning
Our staff believes that all students can meet state
reading standards
Our staff believes that all students can meet state math
standards
I believe that all students can meet state reading
standards
I believe that all students can meet state math
standards
70%
80%
90% 100%
7%0%
24%
26%
52%
43%
45%
48%
57%
50%
0%
2%
0%
2%
10%2%
0%12%
38%
57%
50%
0%
5%
0%
50%
76%
I am willing to be held accountable for student learning
When there is a problem in my school, we talk about
how to solve it
60%
93%
I am willing to work at changing my school for the better
My colleagues welcome new and innovative ideas
50%
12% 2%
0%
26%
31%
19%
26%
7%2%
0%7%
5%2%5% 7%
12%0%
5% 7%
12%0%7% 5%
C E N T E R Almost
F O R Always
EDUCA
T I OTrue
N A L Sometimes
E F F E C TTrue
I V E NSeldom
E S S , True
I N C .Almost Never True
Often
Missing
Resistance Factor- 2007
Resistance: "I" vs. "They" Mindset
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
GAP: Difference between "I"
and "They" Perspective
62%
I welcome new and innovative ideas
36%
2%
0%
0%
50%
100%
50%
100%
29%
My colleagues welcome new and
innovative ideas
21%
I am willing to work at changing my
school for the better
My colleagues are willing to work at
changing this school for the better
Almost Alw ays
Often True
Sometimes True
48%
31%
0%
0%
17% 2%
0%
81%
0%
38%
Seldom True
26%
36%
Almost Never True
0%
Missing
C E N T E R F O R E D U C AT I ON A L EF F E CT I V E N E SS , I N C .
33%
Resistance Factors- 2009
Resistance: "I" vs. "They" Mindset
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
GAP: Difference between "I"
and "They" Perspective
I welcome new and innovative ideas
76%
24% 0%
0%
50%
100%
5%
My colleagues welcome new and
innovative ideas
52%
43%
I am willing to work at changing my
school for the better
5%
0%
0%
7%
0%
93%
0%
50%
100%
0%
My colleagues are willing to work at
changing this school for the better
74%
I am willing to be held accountable for
student learning
76%
We hold one another accountable for
student learning
Almost Alw ays
Often True
Sometimes True
55%
Seldom True
26% 0%
10%
2%
0%
12%
33%
Almost Never True
5%
0%
7%
Missing
C E N T E R F O R E D U C AT I ON A L EF F E CT I V E N E SS , I N C .
0%
50%
100%
• Student learning always the focus
• Developing staff culture to support
collaborative, honest interactions needs to
be addressed so that the focus can remain
on learning
C E N T E R F O R E D U C AT I ON A L EF F E CT I V E N E SS , I N C .
EPO’s Organizational Trust
Comparison Perspective- Organizational Trust
Percent Positive Responses
Note: Further from the center implies more positive responses
Integrity
Competence
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Benevolence / Caring
December 2008
Openness
Reliability
November 2007
April 2007
Copyright © 2006 Center for Educational Effectiveness. All Rights Reserved.
C E N T E R F O R E D U C AT I ON A L EF F E CT I V E N E SS , I N C .
rs
hi
p
Le
ad
e
n
io
ct
ru
st
In
Student
Learning
Organization
The Center for Educational Effectiveness, Inc.
www.effectiveness.org
C E N T E R F O R E D U C AT I ON A L EF F E CT I V E N E SS , I N C .
Implications: Further Research
• So much to do, so little time…
– Regressions and ANOVA across all 9
Characteristics and performance and
improvement are underway
– Level by level, additional demographic views,
characteristics of leadership, instructional
practice, etc.
C E N T E R F O R E D U C AT I ON A L EF F E CT I V E N E SS , I N C .
Comments?
greg@effectiveness.org
Le
ad
e
Student
Learning
n
io
ct
ru
st
In
rs
hi
p
Questions?
Organization
The Center for Educational Effectiveness, Inc.
www.effectiveness.org
C E N T E R F O R E D U C AT I ON A L EF F E CT I V E N E SS , I N C .
References You Can Use
Primary
•
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.
•
Marzano, R. (2003). What Works in Schools: Translating Research Into Action. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
•
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) ).
•
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)
•
School Turnarounds (2007). Public Impact (2007). School Turnarounds: A review of the cross-sector
evidence on dramatic organizational improvement. Public Impact, Academic Development Instituteprepared for the Center on Innovation and Improvement. Retrieved from: http://www.centerii.org/ (aka:
School Turnarounds (2007)).
•
Shannon, G.S. & Bylsma, P. (2004). Characteristics of Improved School Districts: Themes from Research.
Olympia, WA. Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction.
•
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.
•
Sharratt, G. C., Mills, S., & Lobdell, G. (2008). Schools of distinction: What makes them distinct?
Washington State Kappan, 2(1), 20-22.
Secondary
•
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.
•
Elmore, R. (2000). Building a New Structure For School Leadership. Washington, D.C.: The Albert Shanker
Institute.
•
Elmore, R. (2002). Bridging the Gap Between Standards and Achievement. Washington, D.C.: The Albert
Shanker Institute.
•
Tschannen-Moran, (2004). Trust Matters, Leadership for Successful Schools. San Francisco, CA. JosseyBass.
C E N T E R F O R E D U C AT I ON A L EF F E CT I V E N E SS , I N C .
Background
Material
Le
ad
e
Student
Learning
n
io
ct
ru
st
In
rs
hi
p
greg@effectiveness.org
Organization
The Center for Educational Effectiveness, Inc.
www.effectiveness.org
C E N T E R F O R E D U C AT I ON A L EF F E CT I V E N E SS , I N C .
Schools of Distinction Selection
Design Objectives
• Recognize improvement in performance over 5+ years.
• Meaningful – Use a Reading and Math Learning Index to
determine balanced improvement.
• Additional information for stakeholders—not a
replacement for AYP determinations.
• Transparency and openness through the use of publicly
available data.
• Must have at least “adequate performance” in both Math
and Reading.
See: http://www.effectiveness.org/files/SOD_Award_Methdology-2008.pdf
C E N T E R F O R E D U C AT I ON A L EF F E CT I V E N E SS , I N C .
School of Distinction Selection
Methodology
• Learning Index ==
(1 * % at Level-1) + (2 * % at Level-2) + (3 * % at Level3) + (4 * % at Level-4)
• Reading and Math combined as weighted
average
• Improvement from 2002/03 baseline to 2008
• Minimum threshold for consideration: at or
above state average in Reading and Math
percent-meeting-standard
• Top 5%
See: http://www.effectiveness.org/files/SOD_Award_Methdology-2008.pdf
C E N T E R F O R E D U C AT I ON A L EF F E CT I V E N E SS , I N C .
• Reading, Math,
Writing, & Science
• Compensatory
Rigor (Robustness)
- Content coverage
- Systemic (K-12)
SBE Accountability
Index
•Reading &
Math Level
Index
RMLI- Schools of
Distinction
Selection
• Conjunctive
• Improvement
over 6 years
• Status AND
Improvement (over 1
year), AND “Beat The
Odds”
• Risk Adjusted for Low
and non-Low Income
• Systemic- Gr. 3-10
and Extended Grad.
Rate
• Criterion-based
• Grade 4, 7,
and 10 only
• 5% “winners”
Low
Complexity
C E N T E R F O R E D U C AT I ON A L EF F E CT I V E N E SS , I N C .
High
Center for Educational Effectiveness
Screening
Student Achievement
• Status
• Improvement
• Growth
Organizational
Effectiveness
• Status
• Improvement
• Growth
Instructional
Effectiveness
• Status
• Improvement
• Growth
Leadership
Effectiveness
• Status
• Improvement
• Growth
Custom analysis on
relationships between
data sets used for
“screening”
Progress
Monitoring
WASL, WLPT, DiBELs,
MAP, and other
assessment
triangulation
Diagnostic
Summative /
Evaluative
Strand analysis and
analysis of challenges
by different groups of
students (ethnicity,
gender, poverty, etc).
Integration of data from
multiple assessments
• Comprehensive
WASL Analysis
• I3 Analysis- year to
year growth
• Comparative
Cohort (multi year
growth
Educational Effectiveness Survey (EES) Suite:
• Board-Leadership
• Central District Staff (all areas including operations)
• Building Staff, Students, & Parents (available in multiple languages)
EES- Instructional Team Survey: PLC focused instrument for
reflection on Attributes of Effective Instruction in a PLC or
collaborative environment. In-depth professional development
provided by Leadership Innovations Team (i.e. “Powerful Teaching and
Learning Group”- A. Olzendam & H. Knight).
Profiles of Leadership Effectiveness (POLE) – 360: 360degree feedback instrument based on the ISLLC standards for
educational leadership (State wide standard for Ed Leadership
Pro Certification)
C E N T E R F O R E D U C AT I ON A L EF F E CT I V E N E SS , I N C .