Schools of Distinction What Makes Them Distinct?

1
Schools of DistinctionWhat Makes Them Distinct?
Greg Lobdell Director of Research Center for
Educational Effectiveness greg_at_effectiveness.org
Kristi Smith, Principal Stacey Krumsick,
Instructional Specialist East Port Orchard
Elementary South Kitsap SD
2
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)

3
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 Idahos 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

4
Todays Outcomes

• Introduction Schools of Distinction Selection
  Methodology- How are the award winners selected?
• Research Methodology
• Findings
• Highlights Repeat winners vis-à-vis State sample
• Whats happening at a repeat winner? East Port
  Orchard Elementary, South Kitsap SD
• Implications application

5
Performance, Improvement, and Poverty

• Poverty is inversely correlated with performance
• What about improvement- does the same hold true?

6
Poverty and Improvement
7
Poverty and Improvement
8
Poverty and Improvement
9
Why do we see significantly different improvement
results in Reading and Math?
10
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

11
Elementary Schools RMLI 2002-03
12
Elementary Schools RMLI 2008
13
Middle Schools RMLI 2002-03
14
Middle Schools RMLI 2008
15
High Schools RMLI 2002-03
16
High Schools RMLI 2008
17
A quick look at a repeat winner
East Port Orchard Elem South Kitsap SD Poverty
48.4 Students of color 28 ELL 2
18
All Schools of Distinction accelerated Reading
and . . .
49 NOT meeting standard to 77 MEETING standard
19
. . .accelerated Math as well.
65 NOT meeting standard to 63 MEETING standard
20
Research Approach

• Guiding Prompt How are attitudes and practices
  different in the Schools of Distinction

21
Todays Focus Data Will Be
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
Phase I Practices of Improving or Turnaround
Schools Oct 2007 Jan 2008

• 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.

22
(No Transcript)
23
(No Transcript)
24
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
• 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
• High Level of Trust
• 71 believe there is a high level of trust in
  their school

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
25
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

26
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)

27
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

28
Distinction Repeat Schools of Distinction
demonstrate significant strength in ALL of the
Nine Characteristics
29
Distinction The Instructional Core Matters
30
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)

31
Distinction Monitor Teaching and Learning
32
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 students 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)

33
Distinction High Quality Curriculum,
Instruction, and Assessment
34
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)

35
Distinction Collaboration Communication
36
Application of FindingsA Quick View by School
Level

• Why do we see significantly different improvement
  results in Reading and Math?

37
Elementary Staff- Top 10 Differences
38
Secondary Staff- Top 10 Differences
39
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)

40
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.

41
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.

42
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.

43
A View from the Field

• Whats happening at East Port Orchard Elementary-
  South Kitsap SD

44
Clear and Shared Focus
45
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

46
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

47
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

48
(No Transcript)
49
Resistance Factor- 2007
50
Resistance Factors- 2009
51

• 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

52
EPOs Organizational Trust
53
(No Transcript)
54
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.

55
greg_at_effectiveness.org
Comments? Questions?
56
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 Oddsand Others Dont.
  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 Institute-
  prepared 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. Jossey-Bass.

57
greg_at_effectiveness.org
Background Material
58
Schools of Distinction SelectionDesign Objectives

• Recognize improvement in performance over 5
  years.
• Meaningful Use a Reading and Math Learning
  Index to determine balanced improvement.
• Additional information for stakeholdersnot 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

59
School of Distinction Selection Methodology

• Learning Index
• (1 at Level-1) (2 at Level-2) (3
  at Level-3) (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

60

• Reading, Math, Writing, Science
• Compensatory
• 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

SBE Accountability Index

• Rigor (Robustness)
• Content coverage
• Systemic (K-12)

• Reading Math Level Index
• Conjunctive
• Improvement over 6 years
• Grade 4, 7, and 10 only
• 5 winners

RMLI- Schools of Distinction Selection
Low
High
Complexity
61
Center for Educational Effectiveness
Screening Progress Monitoring Diagnostic Summative / Evaluative
Student Achievement Status Improvement Growth Custom analysis on relationships between data sets used for screening WASL, WLPT, DiBELs, MAP, and other assessment triangulation 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
Organizational Effectiveness Status Improvement Growth Educational Effectiveness Survey (EES) Suite Board-Leadership Central District Staff (all areas including operations) Building Staff, Students, Parents (available in multiple languages) Educational Effectiveness Survey (EES) Suite Board-Leadership Central District Staff (all areas including operations) Building Staff, Students, Parents (available in multiple languages) Educational Effectiveness Survey (EES) Suite Board-Leadership Central District Staff (all areas including operations) Building Staff, Students, Parents (available in multiple languages) Educational Effectiveness Survey (EES) Suite Board-Leadership Central District Staff (all areas including operations) Building Staff, Students, Parents (available in multiple languages)
Instructional Effectiveness Status Improvement Growth 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). 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). 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). 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).
Leadership Effectiveness Status Improvement Growth Profiles of Leadership Effectiveness (POLE) 360 360-degree feedback instrument based on the ISLLC standards for educational leadership (State wide standard for Ed Leadership Pro Certification) Profiles of Leadership Effectiveness (POLE) 360 360-degree feedback instrument based on the ISLLC standards for educational leadership (State wide standard for Ed Leadership Pro Certification) Profiles of Leadership Effectiveness (POLE) 360 360-degree feedback instrument based on the ISLLC standards for educational leadership (State wide standard for Ed Leadership Pro Certification) Profiles of Leadership Effectiveness (POLE) 360 360-degree feedback instrument based on the ISLLC standards for educational leadership (State wide standard for Ed Leadership Pro Certification)