Community consolidated school district181 · Community Consolidated School District 181 (the...

Community Consolidated

School District 181 2016 Supporting Evidence

Community

Consolidated

School District 181 2016 Supporting Evidence

DRAFT

1

Table of Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 2

Methodology ................................................................................................................................................. 3

Research Findings ....................................................................................................................................... 10

Vision for the Future ............................................................................................................................... 11

Student Success ....................................................................................................................................... 15

Employee Excellence .............................................................................................................................. 38

Communication and Involvement ........................................................................................................... 45

Finances and Facilities ............................................................................................................................ 50

Conclusion .................................................................................................................................................. 53

Appendix ..................................................................................................................................................... 55

Parent Survey .......................................................................................................................................... 55

Employee Survey .................................................................................................................................... 62

Community Survey ................................................................................................................................. 69

EPAS Scores by Graduating Class.......................................................................................................... 73

Introduction

2

Introduction Community Consolidated School District 181 (the “District”) serves approximately four thousand students from Hinsdale, parts of Clarendon Hills, Oak Brook, Burr Ridge, and Willowbrook. The District includes seven elementary schools and two middle schools and is located 20 miles southwest of Chicago. CCSD 181 has a proud history as one of the highest performing elementary school districts in the state, with many residents moving to the community specifically for the schools. Stakeholders are well-educated and value education, and the community expects that high achievement and school quality will continue to positively impact their property values. Students come to school ready to learn, and parents are involved in their children’s education. Community-based schooling is deeply ingrained in the community, and the resulting school cohesiveness is highly valued. During the 2015-2016 school year, the District partnered with ECRA Group, Inc. (ECRA), a third-party research firm, to develop a strategic plan to document the current state of the District and determine a future direction based on stakeholder values and best practices. Involvement of stakeholders from every corner of the community resulted in the establishment of a strategic plan to support decision-making and align workforce and resources around student outcomes. The strategic planning process was designed to authentically engage stakeholders – including students, parents, teachers, administrators, staff, and community residents without children enrolled in the District – in articulating organizational priorities and stakeholder values. Stakeholders participated in interviews, focus groups, and surveys. In all, over twelve hundred stakeholders provided input during the process. In addition, archival reports and student achievement data were analyzed. ECRA based its findings upon themes that emerged across data sources collected in the research phase of the strategic planning process. Results across data sources were synthesized to support the development of a framework for planning and decision-making. The following document details the methodology, data sources, and key findings.

Methodology Inference and Reporting

3

Methodology The methodology section includes an explanation of ECRA’s inference and reporting standards as well as a description of the data sources, collection, and analysis incorporated in the supporting evidence document.

Inference and Reporting ECRA followed the major principles of Standards for Reporting on Empirical Social Science Research, published by the American Educational Research Association (AERA), when reporting research findings. AERA was founded in 1916 and is considered a premier authority related to educational research, best practices, and standards for reporting research grounded in the empirical traditions of the social sciences. The following are from Standards for Reporting on Empirical Social Science Research. AERA defined two overarching principles that underlie the development of reporting standards:

1. Reports of empirical research should be warranted, that is, adequate evidence should be provided to justify the results and conclusions.

2. Reports of empirical research should be transparent, that is, reporting should make explicit the logic of inquiry.

ECRA adhered to the first principle by providing evidence in the form of data, statistics, and information from a variety of analyses that supported findings contained in this document. This is considered best practice by AERA, which states: ECRA adhered to the second principle by clearly articulating the rigorous analysis employed. AERA states: ECRA used the process of triangulation, as described by AERA, to arrive at the findings contained in this report. Triangulation yields accurate findings because it incorporates multiple methods (quantitative and qualitative) and sources to verify results. ECRA identified themes across stakeholder groups that arise from archival reports, assessment data, interviews, focus groups, and surveys.

“WHILE MANY STATISTICAL ANALYSES MAY BE CARRIED OUT IN A STUDY, TYPICALLY ONLY A

SUBSET IS CRITICAL TO THE EVENTUAL RESULTS AND INTERPRETATIONS. IT IS IMPORTANT TO

REPORT THE RESULTS OF ANALYSES THAT ARE CRITICAL FOR INTERPRETATION OF FINDINGS.”

“IT IS THE RESEARCHER’S RESPONSIBILITY TO SHOW THE READER THAT THE REPORT CAN

BE TRUSTED… THE WARRANT FOR THE CLAIMS CAN BE ESTABLISHED THROUGH A

VARIETY OF PROCEDURES INCLUDING TRIANGULATION OR COMPARISON OF EVIDENCE

FROM DIFFERENT SOURCES.”

Methodology Data Sources

4

Data Sources Data were collected from multiple sources. The following tables highlight the archival reports, interviews, focus groups, surveys, and assessment data used to develop the CCSD 181 Strategic Plan.

Table 1: Archival Reports Incorporated

Table 2: Interview Participants

* Hinsdale Township High School District 86, the high school district CCSD 181 graduates attend.

Archival Reports (Sorted Alphabetically) Board Report: Engagement and Research Report (2015) CCSD 181 2015 Community and Staff Online Research Study (2015) CCSD 181 2015 Community Telephone Research Study (2015) CCSD 181 Annual Report (2014) CCSD 181 Profile (2014-2015) Digital Learning Initiative (2015) District 5-Year Plan (2013-2018) Facilities Master Plan Development (webpage) Facilities Podcast (2015) Hinsdale CCSD 181: Illinois Youth Survey Results (2014) Learning for All Plan (2015) Math Pilot Presentation (2014) Philosophy of Teaching & Learning (2012) Social Emotional Learning for Academic Success (webpage) Spring Survey Presentation (2015) Strategic Plan (2014-2015) Superintendent Candidate Profile (2014)

Stakeholder Group Number of Participants CCSD 181 Board of Education Members 7 CCSD 181 Superintendent 1 CCSD 181 Foundation Member 1 D86* Board of Education Members 2 D86* Administrators 3 TOTAL 14

Methodology Data Sources

5

Table 3: Focus Group Participants

Table 4: Survey Respondents

* The parent response rate was calculated for unique households. In all, 779 parent surveys were completed. ** Community members refers to residents in CCSD 181 enrollment boundaries who do not currently have students enrolled in District schools.

Table 5: Student Assessment Data

Stakeholder Group Number of Participants Parents 36 Students (Current and Former) 34 Teachers 30 Administrators 24 Support Staff 6 Community Leaders 6 TOTAL 136

Stakeholder Group

Survey Responses

Number of Invitations

Response Rate

Parents* 708 2,306 31% Employees 313 586 53% Community Members** 65 ---- ----

Assessment Sources Illinois State Report Card data 2013-2015 AIMSweb assessment data 2013-2015 NWEA Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) assessment data 2007-2015 EPAS (EXPLORE, PLAN, and ACT) assessment data

Methodology Data Collection and Analysis

6

Data Collection and Analysis The following section details the data collection efforts employed to allow stakeholders the opportunity to provide individual input in the strategic planning process.

Archival Reports

A broad spectrum of archival data and documents related to planning and operations were reviewed throughout the strategic planning process.

Interviews

Key CCSD 181 and District 86 administrators, Board of Education members, and a foundation member participated in structured interviews. Each CCSD 181 interviewee was asked to share their opinions on a variety of topics including expectations of the strategic planning process, mission statement, district strengths, areas for improvement, quality of education, financial state, facilities, communication, and vision for the future. Each District 86 interviewee was asked how well prepared CCSD 181 students are for high school, areas of strategic focus for CCSD 181, and current or upcoming changes in District 86 that should be considered as part of the CCSD 181 strategic planning process. All interview transcripts were coded to identify recurring themes.

Focus Groups

Seventeen focus groups were conducted with district stakeholders. ECRA worked with the District to identify key stakeholder populations, including parents, current and former students, teachers, administrators, support staff, and community leaders. In all, 136 stakeholders participated. Participants were asked to share their opinions on desired characteristics of a CCSD 181 graduate, strengths, areas for improvement, and vision for the future. All focus group responses were transcribed and coded to identify recurring themes.

Survey

Strategic planning survey data were collected during October and November of 2015. Administrators, teachers, staff, parents, and community members (residents without children enrolled in the District) were surveyed online. Multiple communications were sent inviting stakeholders to share their input regarding experiences with the District to ensure all stakeholders had the opportunity to participate. A range of questions were asked on the survey including perceptions of the quality of education, learning environment, social emotional wellness, work environment, communication, community relations, governance, operations, and priorities for the future.


7

Survey (Continued)

On the survey, participants were asked to rate the District in a number of areas on a scale of 1 to 5: Unsatisfactory (1), Poor (2), Average (3), Good (4), and Excellent (5). For the purpose of this document, a respondent was considered to rate the District favorably if the respondent selected either Good (4) or Excellent (5). Results were reported based on the percentage of respondents in each stakeholder group who selected Good/Excellent on each survey question. Participants were asked to rate their agreement with various aspects of the District on a scale of 1 to 5: Strongly Disagree (1), Disagree (2), Neutral (3), Agree (4), and Strongly Agree (5). For the purpose of this document, a stakeholder was considered to agree with a statement if they selected either Agree (4) or Strongly Agree (5). Results were reported based on the percentage of respondents in each stakeholder group who selected Agree/Strongly Agree on each survey question. Participants were also asked to prioritize areas for future planning on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 signified lowest priority and 5 signified highest priority. Results were reported based on the percentage of respondents in each stakeholder group who selected a 5, signifying highest priority. Where an “All” column is present, responses from each stakeholder group were averaged. Every stakeholder group was considered of equal importance, and so each stakeholder group was assigned equal weight in the calculation. When employee responses were disaggregated by position, the “All Employees” column counted each employee equally instead of taking an average of administrator, teacher, and support staff responses. The ECRA Survey Benchmark The ECRA Benchmark was included, where available, to provide a comparison to industry norms. The benchmark was compiled based on the survey responses of approximately 85,000 stakeholders in the ECRA database. The benchmark was provided for the following survey items:

The overall quality of education in the District. District schools are safe. The District is a great place to work. I have adequate opportunities for relevant professional development. There is transparent communication across the District. The Board of Education represents my needs and expectations. The District is fiscally responsible. District facilities support student learning.


8

Color-Coding Key A consistent color-coding key for survey questions, seen below, was used throughout the report to illustrate relative strengths and areas for improvement. The key was based on the percentage of stakeholders who rated an area Good/Excellent or Agreed/Strongly Agreed with each statement about the District. For this survey, positive ratings were considered percentages greater than or equal to 80, mixed ratings as percentages including or between 65 and 79, and lower ratings as percentages less than or equal to 64.

Achievement Analysis

Achievement analyses were conducted to examine both student growth and status. The growth analysis examined how much students learned, or grew, between standardized assessments. The analysis of student attainment (status) examined the performance of each student on standardized assessments compared to the nation as well as to students from other District 86 Hinsdale Central High School feeder schools. ECRA’s Local Student Growth Model The local student growth analysis provided a comparison within the District of how much students learned, or grew, over the course of a year. MAP and AIMSweb data from 2013 to 2015 were used to build a local growth model reflective of typical student growth in the District. Through this model, each student with data from the previous year was assigned a propensity (a composite achievement score) based on his or her historical assessment scores. The propensity indicated the expected achievement for that student during the 2014-2015 school year. To evaluate student growth, students’ actual spring 2015 MAP and/or AIMSweb test scores were compared to the expected values provided by the prediction model. The model was built at the individual student-level and aggregated to examine growth by grade, subject, and student demographic information (see Table 8 through Table 10). NWEA MAP Local Percentile versus National Percentile Analysis The national percentile for students enrolled in CCSD 181 on the spring NWEA MAP assessment for the 2014-2015 school year was examined at different local percentile ranks to understand how student achievement at the District compared to that of students across the nation in reading and math. The NWEA MAP scores were identified for students at the 5th, 25th, 50th, 75th, and 95th local percentiles. The corresponding national percentiles for each of these district-level scores were identified and presented in graphs (see Figure 2 and Figure 3).

Positive rating (≥ 80%)

Mixed rating (65%-79%)

Lower rating (≤ 64%)

Key


9

Achievement Analysis (Continued)

EPAS Examination The average EPAS (EXPLORE, PLAN, and ACT) tests scores of students attending Hinsdale Central High School were examined for the high school graduating classes of 2011 through 2015. The average EPAS test scores of graduates of CCSD 181 were compared to those of students from other feeder schools (see Figure 4 through Figure 9). For the high school graduating class of 2019, projected ACT scores for graduates of CCSD 181 were compared with projected ACT scores for students from other feeder schools (see Figure 10). The projections were based on local historical norms for Hinsdale Township High School District 86.

Research Findings

10

Research Findings This section describes the findings that emerged through the research phase of the strategic planning process. Findings were summarized across multiple methods and stakeholder groups. Data from archival reports, student assessment data, interviews, focus groups, and surveys were incorporated. The remainder of the document is organized around the areas below. Vision for the Future

Portrait of a Graduate Vision of the District Stakeholder Priorities

Student Success

Academic Achievement Quality of Education Curriculum Differentiated Instruction Well-Rounded Experience Social Emotional Learning Safety Instructional Technology

Employee Excellence

Teacher Quality Work Environment Initiatives Professional Development Use of Assessments Resources

Communication and Involvement

Communication Parent Involvement Decision-Making

Finance and Facilities

Finances Facilities Facility Referendum

Research Findings Vision for the Future

11

Vision for the Future This section summarizes stakeholder priorities and their preferred vision for the future. The findings are presented to assist in the development of a vision and goals aligned to stakeholders’ values and priorities.

Portrait of a Graduate

CCSD 181 recognizes the need to prepare students to be successful in a fast-paced, global world. In addition to academics, stakeholders see value in the development of key skills and characteristics. Stakeholders were asked to describe the skills and characteristics they would like students to acquire by graduation. Figure 1 illustrates the desired Portrait of a Graduate, with the characteristics mentioned more frequently displayed in larger fonts.

Figure 1: Portrait of a Graduate


12

Portrait of a Graduate (Continued)

Additional detail on the most common responses to the skills and characteristics stakeholders would like students to acquire upon graduation include the need for students to develop:

Social and emotional skills, including the ability to work with others and respect diversity Self-discipline, independence, and responsibility Organization, time management, and study skills Grit and perseverance in order to overcome future challenges Problem solving and critical thinking skills Strong verbal and written communication skills Academic competencies competitive with graduates from surrounding districts The academic preparation necessary to excel in high school and beyond Creativity and the ability to innovate


13

Vision of the District

Stakeholders recognize the need to have a common vision to provide direction for the District. When asked which statement best reflects their vision for the future, over one-third of stakeholders indicated that their primary vision of the District was grounded in strong academics, while another third of stakeholders indicated that their primary vision included schools that focused on developing critical thinkers and innovative problem solvers (see Table 6). Employees’ survey responses indicated a preference for educating the whole child.

Table 6: Which of the Following Statements Best Reflects Your Vision for the Future?

ALL Parent Employee Community Grounded in strong academics, D181 is a leading school district in Illinois and among the best in the US. 39% 47% 19% 51%

D181 develops critical thinkers and innovative problem solvers. 34% 29% 36% 38%

D181 educates the whole child by preparing students socially and emotionally, as well as academically. 27% 24% 45% 11%

In focus groups, parents, students, teachers, administrators, support staff, and community leaders were asked to visualize 10 or more years in the future and describe their preferred picture of the District’s future. Responses across focus groups are provided below, with the most frequent responses presented first. In the future, the District will:

Incorporate student-driven instructional strategies, such as project-based and cooperative learning.

Give students opportunities to develop and pursue their passions and creativity through interdisciplinary and in-depth exploration of content.

Provide the ideal classroom environment, which includes movable furniture that allows for flexible grouping and for students to move around the classroom easily.

Support personalized and on-demand learning through a one-to-one technology program and provide state of the art technology.

Be a “light-house” district with world class, nationally recognized educators and innovative schools.

Maintain, and improve where possible, its reputation. Provide students access to the appropriate level of academic rigor through an individualized

curriculum that allows each child to reach his or her highest potential. Integrate global learning into curriculum and instruction, including opportunities for foreign

language instruction and the development of social awareness, citizenship, and volunteerism.


14

Stakeholder Priorities

This section summarizes stakeholders’ priorities for the future. The percentage of stakeholders overall and in each stakeholder group who rated each survey item as highest priority is detailed in Table 7. Stakeholders were asked to rate each survey item on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 signified lowest priority and 5 signified highest priority.

Table 7: Percentage of Respondents Who Selected Each Priority Area as Highest Priority

Sorted Descending by ALL ALL Parents Employees Community Hiring and retaining quality teachers. 75% 79% 80% 65% Developing students’ critical thinking and problem solving skills. 66% 66% 59% 73%

Ensuring that all student populations maximize their academic potential. 65% 60% 64% 71%

Hiring and retaining quality administrators. 58% 42% 70% 61% Providing science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) programs. 52% 59% 37% 59%

Providing differentiated instruction for students. 48% 51% 56% 38% Ensuring fiscal health. 40% 33% 28% 58% Providing the education needed for students to place into advanced classes in middle/high school. 40% 56% 20% 43%

Developing students’ social and emotional skills. 37% 39% 49% 24% Ensuring a well-rounded experience for students (e.g., fine arts). 37% 29% 42% 40%

Ensuring consistent programming across district schools. 37% 31% 36% 44%

Ensuring relevant communication to parents. 37% 37% 31% 43% Incorporating real-world learning experiences in the classroom that integrate multiple subjects. 37% 39% 45% 26%

Ensuring facilities support student learning. 36% 39% 43% 26% Integrating technology into teaching and learning. 31% 38% 21% 33% Offering full day kindergarten. 25% 24% 32% 19% Decreasing class sizes. 19% 24% 24% 9% Ensuring a strong foundation of world languages. 17% 22% 12% 16% Ensuring students are prepared for standardized assessments. 17% 24% 10% 16%

Five Areas Selected as Highest Priority Least Often Five Areas Selected as Highest Priority Most Often

Overall, ensuring consistent programming across district schools, decreasing class sizes, and offering full day kindergarten were among the survey items that were rated lowest priority most often. The complete list of priorities can be viewed in the Appendix (Tables C, N, and W).

Research Findings Student Success

15

Student Success This section summarizes findings that emerged through the synthesis of research findings related to academic achievement, quality of education, curriculum, differentiated instruction, well-rounded experience, social emotional learning, safety, and instructional technology. Results from this section summarize the current state of the District and support discussions regarding student success within the strategic planning framework. Academic Achievement

Both academic growth and attainment analyses were conducted for the District. Growth examined how much students learned, or grew, between standardized assessments and was compared to historical district norms utilizing ECRA’s Local Student Growth Model. The academic attainment, or status, analyses examined the performance of each student on a standardized assessment compared to a benchmark. Status was benchmarked against the nation on NWEA MAP and against other Hinsdale Central High School feeder schools on EPAS (EXPLORE, PLAN, and ACT). Analysis by subgroup was also conducted. Academic Growth The following section summarizes an examination of how much students grew, or learned, in a single school year compared to the growth of students with similar historical achievement. Students in kindergarten through eighth grade achieved growth consistent with local norms, as seen in Table 8. Expected growth on spring MAP and AIMSweb was observed in both math and reading.

Table 8: 2015 NWEA MAP and AIMSweb

Math and Reading Grade-Level Local Growth Summary

Grade Sample Size Math Growth Metric

Reading Growth Metric

K 321 -0.02 -0.06 1 332 *** -0.01 2 388 0.00 0.00 3 353 -0.02 -0.01 4 400 +0.01 0.00 5 432 +0.02 +0.01 6 431 -0.01 +0.01 7 465 0.00 0.00 8 457 +0.03 -0.01

*** Growth could not be calculated for math in this grade as there were no universal spring assessments.

Unsatisfactory Growth ≤ -0.60

Lower than Expected Growth is -0.59 to -0.30

Expected Growth is -0.29 to +0.29

Higher than Expected Growth ≥ 0.30

Student growth metrics represent the magnitude of the difference between actual and expected achievement. Each deviation from zero indicates more (or less) than expected growth observed in the District. A negative growth score does not indicate a student lost knowledge, but rather that the student did not learn as much throughout the school year as his or her peers with the same historical achievement. A positive growth score indicates a student learned more throughout the school year than his or her peers with the same historical achievement. Expected growth falls from -0.29 to +0.29.


16

Academic Achievement (Continued)

Achievement Status The following section includes a summary of district student achievement compared to students across the nation and students from surrounding districts. Overall, students had high academic achievement and performed better than both national averages and students from surrounding middle schools that feed into Hinsdale Central High School. In reading, students at the 50th percentile in the District had higher achievement than students at the 75th percentile across the nation, as seen in Figure 2. Similarly, students at the 25th percentile in the District had achievement comparable to students at the 60th percentile across the nation, while students at the 5th percentile in the District had achievement closer to students at the 25th national percentile.

Figure 2: Local on National Reading Percentile by Grade 2014-2015 Spring NWEA MAP

98% 98% 98% 98% 97% 98% 97%

89% 90% 91% 93%90% 91% 91%

78% 79% 79%83%

79% 78% 78%

56%60% 62%

66%62%

59% 60%

24%

18%22%

35%

26% 27%

20%

2nd Grade 3rd Grade 4th Grade 5th Grade 6th Grade 7th Grade 8th Grade

Sprin

g 20

15 R

eadi

ng N

atio

nal P

erce

ntile

95th Percentile

75th Percentile

50th Percentile

25th Percentile

5th Percentile

Local Percentile Level


17


In math, students at the 75th percentile in the District had higher achievement than students at the 90th percentile across the nation, as seen in Figure 3. Students at the 50th percentile in the District had achievement comparable to the 80th national percentile. Students at the 25th and the 5th local percentile had achievement comparable to students at the 60th percentile and 25th percentile respectively across the nation.

Figure 3: Local on National Math Percentile by Grade 2014-2015 Spring NWEA MAP

Throughout the research phase of the strategic planning process, stakeholders expressed concern regarding the performance of advanced learners. Specifically noted was concern about the academic growth of advanced learners compared to learners in other achievement bands. As the strategic planning process continues, the analysis of student growth and achievement will go deeper. In the implementation phase, we will further examine the special education and advanced learner student populations. The ECRA team is already working to incorporate PARCC results into the District’s proprietary student performance models and looks forward to examining specific student populations and programs to identify areas for improvement during implementation.

99% 99% 99% 98% 99% 99% 98%

93% 95% 96%92% 92% 93% 93%

82%86% 88%

79% 80% 78% 79%

62%65%

68%63% 61%

58% 58%

31% 29%

23%

34%

25% 24% 26%

2nd Grade 3rd Grade 4th Grade 5th Grade 6th Grade 7th Grade 8th Grade

Sprin

g 20

15 M

ath

Nat

iona

l Per

cent

ile

95th Percentile

75th Percentile

50th Percentile

25th Percentile

5th Percentile

Local Percentile Level


18


In reviewing longitudinal high school records, it was found that CCSD 181 graduates in the high school graduating classes of 2011 through 2015, who were eighth grade students from 2007 through 2011, achieved an average score of 19 on EXPLORE. Students in the same graduating classes achieved an average score of 27 on the ACT in eleventh grade, as detailed in Figure 4.

Figure 4: Average EPAS Score by Assessment and Subject CCSD 181 Graduates, 2011-2015 High School Graduating Classes

To further understand how the high school achievement of graduates of CCSD 181 compared to graduates of other Hinsdale Central High School feeder schools, average EXPLORE, PLAN, and ACT scores for the high school graduating classes of 2011 through 2015 were examined. As illustrated below, CCSD 181 graduates achieved higher ACT scores than graduates from other Hinsdale Central feeders. Students previously enrolled in CCSD 181 achieved comparable EXPLORE scores but higher ACT scores than students from other feeder schools, as seen in Figure 5 through Figure 9. For an examination of average EXPLORE, PLAN, and ACT scores compared to other feeders for each graduating class separately, please refer to the Appendix (Figures A-Y).

Figure 5: CCSD 181 vs. Other Feeders Average EPAS Composite Score 2011-2015 High School Graduating Classes

18.722.0

27.0

18.521.0

27.3

18.9

22.9

27.1

17.921.4

26.8

19.222.3

26.3

EXPLORE (N = 3,701) PLAN (N = 3,242) ACT (N = 3,218)

Composite English Math Reading Science

18.7

22.0

27.0

18.5

21.3

25.3

EXPLORE PLAN ACT

Graduates of CCSD 181 Graduates of Other Hinsdale Central Feeders

Grade 8 Grade 10 Grade 11


19

Figure 6: CCSD 181 vs. Other Feeders Figure 7: CCSD 181 vs. Other Feeders Average EPAS English Score Average EPAS Math Score

2011-2015 High School Graduating Classes 2011-2015 High School Graduating Classes

Figure 8: CCSD 181 vs. Other Feeders Figure 9: CCSD 181 vs. Other Feeders

Average EPAS Reading Score Average EPAS Science Score 2011-2015 High School Graduating Classes 2011-2015 High School Graduating Classes

18.5

21.0

27.3

18.520.5

25.4

EXPLORE PLAN ACT

Graduates of CCSD 181

Graduates of Other Hinsdale Central Feeders

18.9

22.9

27.1

18.6

22.2

25.8

EXPLORE PLAN ACT



17.9

21.4

26.8

17.5

20.4

24.8

EXPLORE PLAN ACT



19.2

22.3

26.3

19.121.4

24.7

EXPLORE PLAN ACT




20


In addition, the 2014-2015 eighth grade cohort, the high school graduating class of 2019, was projected to achieve ACT scores that are comparable with the actual ACT scores of CCSD 181 graduates in the high school graduating classes of 2011 through 2015.

Figure 10: Projected vs. Actual Average ACT Scores of CCSD 181 Graduates

Achievement Gaps The following section includes a summary of district student growth and attainment by subgroup across the District in order to examine achievement and growth gaps. Achievement gaps are a challenge nationally. The percentage of students meeting or exceeding state standards by subgroup indicates achievement gaps are also present in CCSD 181. For example, 69 percent of students identified as Limited English Proficiency (LEP) met the equated state math benchmark compared to 89 percent of students not identified as LEP (see Table 9). When examining growth, students identified as LEP achieved higher than expected growth in math (+0.33), indicating the District is making strides toward addressing discrepancies in math attainment between students identified as LEP and those who are not.

27.0 27.1 27.326.4

27.3 27.1 26.8 26.3

English Math Reading Science

CCSD 181 Graduates, Class of 2019 (Projected)

CCSD 181 Graduates, Classes of 2011-2015 (Actual)


21


Table 9: 2015 Spring NWEA MAP and AIMSweb Math

Subgroup-Level Local Growth Summary

Subgroup Sample Size Percentage of Students Who Met

Equated State Benchmark* Math Growth Metric

Asian 338 96% +0.26 Black 31 69% -0.19 Hispanic 197 74% 0.00 Other 124 93% -0.05 White 2,545 89% -0.02 Female 1,582 88% -0.01 Male 1,653 90% +0.02 IEP 320 47% -0.21 No IEP 2,915 94% +0.03 Low Income 106 59% -0.06 Not Low Income 3,129 90% +0.01 LEP 84 69% +0.33 Not LEP 3,151 89% 0.00

Table 10: 2015 Spring NWEA MAP and AIMSweb Reading

Subgroup-Level Local Growth Summary

Subgroup Sample Size Percentage of Students Who Met Equated State Benchmark*

Reading Growth Metric

Asian 367 92% +0.11 Black 32 64% -0.57 Hispanic 219 79% -0.09 Other 150 93% +0.01 White 2,770 89% -0.01 Female 1,723 91% +0.08 Male 1,815 86% -0.09 IEP 347 48% -0.16 No IEP 3,191 93% +0.01 Low Income 114 69% -0.12 Not Low Income 3,424 89% 0.00 LEP 96 63% +0.24 Not LEP 3,442 89% -0.01

Unsatisfactory Growth ≤ -0.60

Lower than Expected Growth is -0.59 to -0.30

Expected Growth is -0.29 to +0.29

Higher than Expected Growth ≥ 0.30

* For the NWEA MAP and AIMSweb assessments, scale scores were equated to state standards, allowing for the reporting of the percentage of students who met or exceeded a state equivalent, equated benchmark.


22


Among students identified as low income, 69 percent of students met the equated state reading benchmark compared to 89 percent of students who were not identified as low income. Students identified as low income are growing at rates consistent with local trends in math (-0.06) and reading (-0.12). Expected growth is also observed among other historically lower achieving subgroups, including students with IEPs in math (-0.21) and reading (-0.16). Typical growth among historically lower achieving subgroups indicates achievement gaps will persist. Lower than expected growth, as seen in reading among students identified as Black (-0.57), indicates that the achievement gap is widening. To reduce achievement gaps, these students must experience higher than expected growth.


23

Quality of Education

Overall, 86 percent of stakeholders rated the quality of education in CCSD 181 as good or excellent compared to 76 percent in the ECRA Benchmark (see Figure 11). In focus groups and interviews, stakeholders expressed pride in the learning environment. Eighty-nine percent of employees agreed that District 181 prepared students to succeed in high school, and in interviews, high school personnel described District 181 students as academically well prepared for high school. Stakeholders shared that schools have a strong sense of community and rich traditions. Teachers are proud of the culture of excellence and the District’s continued drive towards excellence, which has resulted in high rankings and a positive reputation for the District.

Figure 11: The Overall Quality of Education in CCSD 181 Parent, Employee, and Community Respondents, Percentage Good/Excellent

In focus groups and survey responses, parents, administrators, and teachers reported frequent curriculum changes and expressed concern that the curriculum may not provide the appropriate level of rigor for all students. Parents and administrators reported that the quality of education varied across schools and classrooms. On the survey, 61 percent of employees agreed that education resources were equitably distributed between schools and classrooms (Appendix, Table M). Parents and employees reported successful initiatives were implemented in some schools but not all. Parents and employees would like to see successful programs and instructional strategies shared more consistently across the District. Both middle and high school students requested additional support for transitions from elementary to middle school and from middle to high school such as strategies for handling increased coursework and developing studying and organizational skills. On the survey, 61 percent of parents agreed that schools prepared their children to transition from elementary to middle school, and 63 percent agreed that District 181 prepared students to succeed in high school (Appendix, Table B).

87%97%

74%

86%76%

Parents Employees Community ALL Benchmark

E C R A


24

Quality of Education (Continued)

Figure 12 shows stakeholder agreement that the District is heading in the right direction. In open-ended survey comments, community members reported concern that the quality of education in the District had decreased. Parents and employees also indicated a decline in the quality of education in conjunction with comments regarding frequent administrative turnover.

Figure 12: The District is Heading in the Right Direction Parent, Employee, and Community Respondents

Percentage may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding.

45%

13%

17%

23%

23%

22%

32%

64%

62%

Community

Employees

Parents

Strongly Disagree/Disagree Neutral Agree/Strongly Agree


25


Stakeholder ratings of the overall quality of education may be influenced by many factors. Looking at responses to other survey questions provides context to how stakeholders view the quality of education. Understanding the relationship between stakeholder ratings can be useful in maintaining or improving perceptions. Correlations measure the relationship between two variables. Possible correlations range from -1.00 to +1.00. A zero correlation means there is no relationship between the variables. The higher the absolute value of the correlation, the stronger the association between the variables. A key is provided at the bottom of the page to assist in the interpretation of the correlation coefficients. The top five parent survey questions that are most strongly related with perceptions of overall quality are displayed in Table 11. Survey items with high correlations and low or mixed ratings may be areas for strategic focus. For example, parent agreement that District 181 prepared students to succeed in high school had lower ratings and was highly correlated with ratings of the overall quality of education.

Table 11: Parent Correlations with Overall Quality

Correlation Coefficient*

Favorable Ratings**

My child(ren)’s school is preparing my child(ren) to be successful in life.

0.71 72%

The quality of the English/Language Arts program. 0.71 78% Teachers provide quality instruction to students. 0.69 80% District 181 prepares students to succeed in high school. 0.69 63% The District provides a well-rounded educational experience for all students (e.g., fine arts).

0.63 73%

* All correlations were significant (p < .01). ** Percentage of parents who rated the survey item good/excellent or agree/strongly agree

Small Correlation Coefficient 0.10 – 0.29

Moderate Correlation Coefficient 0.30 – 0.49

Large Correlation Coefficient 0.50 – 1.00




Key


26


Correlations between employees’ perceptions of the overall quality of education and other survey items are detailed in Table 12. The five survey items most highly correlated with perceptions of the overall quality of education are provided. Overall, employees rated areas that are significantly correlated with perceptions of the overall quality favorably.

Table 12: Employee Correlations with Overall Quality


Favorable Ratings**

The quality of the math program. 0.50 87% The quality of the English/Language Arts program. 0.50 84% District 181 prepares students to succeed in high school. 0.50 89% The quality of the fine arts program. 0.49 95% The quality of the PE/Health program. 0.46 93%

* All correlations were significant (p < .01). ** Percentage of employees who rated the survey item good/excellent or agree/strongly agree







Key


27


Correlations between community members’ perceptions of the overall quality of education and other survey items are detailed in Table 13. The five survey items most highly correlated with perceptions of the overall quality of education are provided. Survey items with high correlations and mixed or low ratings, such as agreement that the District is heading in the right direction, may be areas for strategic focus.

Table 13: Community Correlations with Overall Quality


Favorable Ratings**

The District provides students with a strong foundation to be successful in high school.

0.81 60%

The District provides a well-rounded educational experience for all students.

0.70 56%

Teachers provide quality instruction to students. 0.67 75% Administration makes decisions in the best interest of students. 0.66 26% The District provides community members ample opportunities to get involved. 0.54 38%

* All correlations were significant (p < .01). ** Percentage of community members who rated the survey item good/excellent or agree/strongly agree







Key


28

Curriculum

In focus groups, interviews, and open-ended survey comments, parents, students, community members, and the Board identified the need for a consistent, high quality curriculum. Favorable survey ratings of core programs and services for special populations (e.g., students identified as English Language Learners (ELL) or advanced learners) ranged from 55 to 87 percent, as seen in Table 14. The quality of the English/Language Arts program was rated most favorably, with 81 percent of parents and employees rating the program good or excellent. Among parents and employees, 63 percent rated the quality of the science program favorably.

Table 14: Quality Ratings of CCSD 181 Core Programs and Services for Special Populations Parent and Employee Respondents, Percentage Good/Excellent, Sorted Descending by ALL

ALL Parents Employees The quality of the English/Language Arts program. 81% 78% 84% The quality of the math program. 78% 68% 87% The quality of special education services. 74% 68% 80% The quality of the social studies program. 69% 76% 61% The quality of the District’s program for advanced learners. 69% 62% 75% The quality of programs for English Language Learners (ELL).* 64% 59% 68% The quality of the science program. 63% 70% 55% * Fifteen parent respondents reported their child received English Language Learner services.

Stakeholders identified math and science as curricular areas in particular need of attention, including integrating science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) content. The District recently implemented a new math program and is in the process of reviewing the science curriculum.1

1 District 5-Year Plan (2013-2018)




Key


29

Curriculum (Continued)

Program for Advanced Learners Fifty-seven percent of parents who self-identified as having a child who was academically above grade level rated the quality of the District’s program for advanced learners favorably, as seen in Figure 13. In focus groups and open-ended survey responses, parents expressed concern that the District was not adequately meeting the needs of students identified as advanced learners and would like to see more personalized learning and course offerings specifically designed for students identified as advanced learners.

Figure 13: The Quality of the District’s Program for Advanced Learners Parent and Employee Respondents, Percentage Good/Excellent

Special Education Services Among parents of children who received special education services, 73 percent rated those services good or excellent. In focus groups and interviews, teachers and administrators expressed concern that the District was not meeting the needs of students identified for special education services. Teachers shared in focus groups that many students needing special education services did not have access to adequate resources, such as staffing, or an appropriate continuum of services, and concern was expressed that students were over-identified for 504s.

Figure 14: The Quality of Special Education Services Parent and Employee Respondents, Percentage Good/Excellent

62% 57%

75% 69%

All Parents (n = 678) Parents Who Identified aChild as Above Grade

Level (n = 411)

All Employees (n = 280) ALL (Average of AllParents and All

Employees) (n = 958)

68% 73%80% 74%

All Parents (n = 506) Parents of Children withDirect Experience (n = 81)

All Employees (n = 292) ALL (Average of AllParents and All

Employees) (n = 798)


30

Curriculum (Continued)

In addition to academic content, employees and parents commented on the importance of integrating opportunities for students to develop critical thinking, problem solving, and communication skills, as well as the ability to work with individuals from diverse backgrounds. Employees agreed more often than parents that students were developing those skills, as seen below. Parents and employees rated the development of critical thinking, written communication skills, and oral communication skills favorably compared to the 55 percent of respondents who agreed their schools prepared students to work with individuals from diverse backgrounds.

Figure 15: Real World Skill Development Parent and Employee Respondents, Percentage Agree/Strongly Agree

* Employee survey questions used the word educators instead of teachers.

** Employees were asked to respond regarding their school/district.

55%

80%

79%

79%

58%

85%

87%

86%

52%

74%

70%

71%

My child(ren)’s school** prepares students to work with individuals from

diverse backgrounds.

Teachers* facilitate the developmentof oral communication skills in

students.

Teachers* facilitate the developmentof written communication skills in

students.

Teachers* facilitate the developmentof critical thinking skills in students.

Parents Employees ALL


31

Differentiated Instruction

Fifty-four percent of parents agreed that teachers differentiated instructional strategies to address individual learning needs compared to 83 percent of employees who agreed with a similar statement, as detailed in Figure 16.

Figure 16: Teachers* Differentiate Instructional Strategies to Address Individual Learning Needs Parent and Employee Respondents, Percentage Agree/Strongly Agree

* Employee survey questions used the word educators instead of teachers. When asked about ability grouping in math, 72 percent of middle school parents and 63 percent of elementary school parents agreed that their children were grouped in a way that appropriately challenged them, as seen in Figure 17. In open-ended survey responses, parents requested smaller class sizes, particularly in elementary school, so teachers could more effectively differentiate instruction for all students.

Figure 17: My Child(ren) is Grouped in a Way that Appropriately Challenges Him/Her in Math Parent Respondents, Percentage Agree/Strongly Agree

54%

83%69%


63%72%

67%

Parents of Elementary School-AgedStudents

Parents of Middle School-AgedStudents

All Parents


32

Among employees, 56 percent of elementary employees compared to 60 percent of middle school employees agreed that ability grouping (versus inclusive classrooms) allowed educators to tailor the pace and content of math instruction to meet the needs of students (see Figure 18).

Figure 18: Ability Grouping Allows Educators to Tailor the Pace and Content of Math Instruction to Meet the Needs of Students

Employee Respondents, Percentage Agree/Strongly Agree

56% 60% 56%

Elementary School Employees Middle School Employees All Employees


33

Well-Rounded Experience

On the strategic planning survey, employees were more likely than parents to rate the quality of the fine arts program and PE/Health program favorably. As seen in Figure 19, ninety-five and 93 percent of employees respectively rated the programs as good or excellent, while 77 percent of parents rated both programs favorably. In focus groups, students, parents, and teachers expressed pride in the District’s encore classes and specials, including fine arts, PE, and world language instruction. However, there are some discrepancies between parent and employee ratings.

Figure 19: The Overall Quality of the Fine Arts, PE/Health, and World Languages Programs Parent and Employee Respondents, Percentage Good/Excellent

Sixty-seven percent of employees rated the quality of the world languages program favorably, while 50 percent of parents rated the same program good or excellent. Stakeholders commented that the District was behind in regards to world language instruction and should be offering students opportunities to learn a second language earlier in their education. The District began world language curriculum development in the 2014-2015 school year; full implementation is planned for the 2016-2017 school year.2 In a review of the District 2014 Illinois Youth Survey Results, ninety-seven percent of eighth grade students self-reported involvement in at least one extracurricular activity, such as sports teams (88 percent), faith-based youth groups (54 percent), and service or volunteer programs (53 percent).3 On the strategic planning survey, 70 percent of parent survey respondents agreed that their children’s schools offered an appropriate variety of extracurricular activities (Appendix, Table B). Both current and former students expressed an interest in a greater variety of extracurricular activities and sports in middle and elementary school when describing areas for improvement during focus groups.

2 District 5-Year Plan (2013-2018) 3 Hinsdale CCSD 181: Illinois Youth Survey Results (2014)

59%

85%

86%

67%

93%

95%

50%

77%

77%

The quality of the world languagesprogram.

The quality of the PE/Health program.

The quality of the fine arts program.



34

Social Emotional Learning

Ninety percent of employees and 73 percent of parents agreed that educators facilitated the development of students’ social and emotional skills, as seen in Figure 20. In focus groups, parents shared that they were happy with the District’s emphasis on social emotional learning in the schools, including a focus on developing organizational and study skills.

Figure 20: Teachers* Facilitate the Development of Students’ Social and Emotional Skills Parent and Employee Respondents, Percentage Agree/Strongly Agree

* Employee survey questions used the word educators instead of teachers. Social and emotional skills were identified in focus groups and open-ended survey responses as one of the primary characteristics stakeholders would like to see students develop. Educators want students to graduate from the District self-aware and empathetic with the skills to develop positive relationships and make responsible decisions. Throughout the 2014-2015 school year, the District has been working on the alignment of programs with Illinois State Standards for social emotional learning, considered tools and resources to assess students’ social and emotional skills, and identified related professional development needs.4

4 Social Emotional Learning for Academic Success (webpage)

73%

90%82%



35

Social Emotional Learning (Continued)

Seventy-eight percent of respondents agreed the District had reasonable expectations for students’ academic performance. Among parents, 84 percent agreed that their children felt capable of accomplishing what was expected in school (Appendix, Table B). In focus groups, students, teachers, administrators, and support staff expressed concern about student test anxiety, psychosomatic illnesses, and mental health. In interviews, administrators from Hinsdale Township School District 86 expressed interest in working with CCSD 181 to better identify and provide early interventions and services to students in need of support. In focus groups, students discussed the need for additional study hall time or fewer assessments and homework assignments that were not aligned to learning strategies.

Figure 21: The District Has Reasonable Expectations for Students’ Academic Performance Parent and Employee Respondents, Percentage Agree/Strongly Agree

Eighty-five percent of parents and employees agreed that there were high expectations for positive student behavior, as seen in Figure 22. Fifty-two percent of parents and 56 percent of employees agreed that student bullying was not an issue at their schools (Appendix, Table B and Table M). On the 2014 Illinois Youth Survey, 37 percent of eighth grade students self-reported that they had been bullied by another student at school.5

Figure 22: There Are High Standards and Expectations for Positive Student Behavior Parent and Employee Respondents, Percentage Agree/Strongly Agree

5 Hinsdale CCSD 181: Illinois Youth Survey Results (2014)

75% 80% 78%


85% 85% 85%



36

Safety

Among parents, employees, and community members, 88 percent agreed district schools were safe compared to 72 percent in the ECRA Benchmark. Stakeholders described the safety of the school and the larger community as one of the District’s strengths.

Figure 23: District Schools Are Safe Parent, Employee, and Community Respondents, Percentage Agree/Strongly Agree

85%91% 88% 88%

72%


E C R A


37

Instructional Technology

Seventy nine percent of parent survey respondents agreed that their children used technology in class to support learning, while 78 percent of employees agreed technology was integrated in curriculum and instruction to support student learning, as seen in Figure 24. In addition, 91 percent of parent respondents agreed that their children had the technology needed at home to complete homework (Appendix, Table B).

Figure 24: Agreement with Technology Integration Questions Parent and Employee Respondents, Percentage Agree/Strongly Agree

Stakeholders identified technology as an area for improvement with the potential to enhance instruction, assist in the meeting of Common Core expectations, and support differentiation. In survey comments, parents and employees identified integrating technology and STEM as one of the most significant issues they would like the District to address in the next three to five years. Stakeholders shared in focus groups and survey comments that students had access to technology, but devices were inconsistently distributed and used. In addition, stakeholders reported that teachers varied in their professional development and utilization of technology to support student learning. Stakeholders expressed in focus groups the need for a technology plan that was aligned with the high school, integrated in the curriculum, included a maintenance plan, and built digital literacy. During the 2014-2015 school year, the District and foundation formed a collaborative partnership to develop a comprehensive technology plan with full implementation planned for the fall of 2017.6

6 Digital Learning Initiative (2015)

79% 78%

Parents (My child(ren) uses technology in class tosupport learning.)

Employees (Technology is integrated in curriculumand instruction to support student learning.)

Research Findings Employee Excellence

38

Employee Excellence This section summarizes findings that emerged through the synthesis of research related to teacher quality, work environment, initiatives, professional development, use of assessments, and resources. Results from this section summarize the current state of the District to support discussions regarding employee excellence within the strategic planning framework. Teacher Quality

Eighty percent of parents agreed that teachers provided quality instruction to students, as seen in Figure 25. Stakeholders shared that district teachers are dedicated, enthusiastic, and high performing. Teachers have a students first mentality, are willing to meet with students outside of class, and work collaboratively with other teachers. Seventy-four percent of teachers have a master’s degree or higher, and the District has an 86 percent teacher retention rate.7 District leadership expressed appreciation for what they described as teachers’ flexibility and willingness to try new approaches to instruction. In open-ended comments, parents and employees identified hiring and retaining quality educators as one of the most significant issues on which they would like the District to focus.

Figure 25: Teachers Provide Quality Instruction to Students Parent and Community Respondents, Percentage Agree/Strongly Agree

7 Illinois State Report Card data (2015)

80%75% 78%

Parents Community ALL


39

Work Environment

Seventy-eight percent of administrators, teachers, and support staff agreed CCSD 181 was a great place to work, as seen in Figure 26.

Figure 26: CCSD 181 is a Great Place to Work Administrator, Teacher, and Support Staff Respondents, Percentage Agree/Strongly Agree

Although the majority of employees rated CCSD 181 as a great place to work, trust in the District was not rated favorably as seen below. Both teachers and administrators reported not feeling trusted to perform their jobs in a manner consistent with their educational training and professional experience. Trust was also highlighted as an area for improvement in the District’s 2014-2015 goals.8

Figure 27: There is a Strong Sense of Trust in the District Administrator, Teacher, and Support Staff Respondents, Percentage Agree/Strongly Agree

8 Strategic Plan (2014-2015)

78% 78% 78% 78% 75%

Administrators Teachers Support Staff All Employees Benchmark

45%34%

28% 32%

Administrators Teachers Support Staff All Employees

E C R A


40

Work Environment (Continued)

Administrators, teachers, community members, and support staff also expressed concern regarding the impact the current climate is having on student learning and district reputation. The relationship between educators and the wider community has reportedly been stressed in recent years. Educators shared in focus groups that they did not feel comfortable taking the risks necessary to innovate. Teachers and administrators also reported the lack of trust in the workplace has negatively impacted their ability to support students. Administrator retention was described as both a necessary component to achieve excellence and a challenge in the District.9 Focus group participants believed that the current climate discouraged high quality administrators from staying in the District for fear of damage to professional reputations. Since 2004, the District has employed five superintendents, five assistant superintendents of curriculum, and 23 principals.10 At the school-level, the District has averaged two principals per school over the past six years.11 Stakeholders expressed that current administration attrition has resulted in a lack of stability and trust throughout the District. Increasing trust in the workplace is an area for improvement.

9 Superintendent Candidate Profile (2014) 10 Math Pilot Presentation (2014) 11 Illinois State Report Card data (2015)


41

Initiatives

Employees and parents shared that the District attempts to implement too many initiatives at once, not allowing new initiatives adequate time to be fully implemented, supported, and evaluated before moving on to another initiative. This is consistent with current perceptions illustrated in Figure 28.

Figure 28: Employee Agreement with Initiative Questions

Percentage may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding.

32%

30%

30%

34%

38%

36%

Implementation of new initiativesallows for a full cycle of roll out and

evaluation.

When new initiatives are introduced,I have sufficient training and support

to implement them successfully.

Strongly Disagree/Disagree Neutral Agree/Strongly Agree


42

Professional Development

Among teachers, 66 percent agreed that they had adequate opportunities for relevant professional development, and 74 percent agreed that they had opportunities to collaborate with their colleagues to enhance student learning. Seventy-seven percent of teachers, and 71 percent of employees overall, agreed that they had sufficient training and support to meet the needs of students in their classrooms (Appendix, Table M). In focus groups, teachers expressed a desire for more collaborative time with grade-level and subject-specific teams. On the spring 2015 survey, employees expressed interest in more professional development around technology, differentiation, content knowledge/curriculum, grouping practices, the workshop model, and advanced learner characteristics.12

Figure 29: Employee Agreement with Professional Development Questions Administrator, Teacher, and Support Staff Respondents, Percentage Agree/Strongly Agree

In 2014-2015, the District restructured professional development to include job embedded coaching and mentoring in addition to establishing a multi-year professional development plan and beginning professional development in the first phase of the curriculum renewal cycle.13 The District also integrated elements of Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) to guide collaboration among employees and increase the effectiveness of professional development.14

12 Spring Survey Presentation (2015) 13 CCSD 181 Profile (2014-2015) 14 Learning for All Plan (2015)

89%81%

66%74%

51% 56%63%

69%66%

I have adequate opportunities for relevant professionaldevelopment.

I have opportunities to collaborate with my colleagues toenhance student learning.

Administrators Teachers Support Staff All Employees Benchmark

E C R A


43

Use of Assessments

At the classroom level, 86 percent of teachers agreed that educators used assessment data to improve instruction, while 45 percent of teachers agreed that classroom time devoted to preparing for and administering assessments was appropriate, as detailed in Figure 30.

Figure 30: Employee Agreement with Assessment Questions Administrator, Teacher, and Support Staff Respondents, Percentage Agree/Strongly Agree

Teachers, administrators, and students commented on what they considered excessive testing. Educators would like a greater focus on student learning versus grades or testing, including developing the whole child and utilizing assessments that are aligned with instructional strategies. For instance, teachers and administrators pointed out the current district-wide assessment NWEA MAP assessed the breadth of student knowledge, which was not aligned with current instructional strategies that focused on providing students opportunities to explore and understand content in greater depth. Parents also commented on what they described as too much emphasis on standardized testing. Administrators from District 86 shared that they are now using MAP for student course placement. District 86 administrators hope that the universal use of MAP in the high school and across feeder districts will lead to greater consistency and collaboration around decisions such as interventions.

69%81%

45%

86%

70% 75%

52%

84%

Classroom time devoted to preparing for andadministering assessments is appropriate.

Educators use assessment data to improve instruction.



44

Resources

Seventy-three percent of teachers and 66 percent of support staff agreed that they had the resources and materials needed to do their job. In survey responses, employees requested access to appropriate resources, tools, and support, so they could provide the highest quality education to students. Specific requests included hiring additional instructional aids, more consistent access to substitute teachers, and additional support for students identified as requiring special education services.

Figure 31: The Resources and Materials I Need to Do My Job Are Available to Me Administrator, Teacher, and Support Staff Respondents, Percentage Agree/Strongly Agree

88%

73%66%

71%


Research Finding Communication and Involvement

45

Communication and Involvement This section summarizes findings that emerged through the synthesis of research related to communication, parent involvement, and decision-making. Results from this section summarize the current state of the District and support discussions around communication and involvement within the strategic planning framework. Communication

Forty-eight percent of stakeholders agreed there was transparent communication across the District. As seen in Figure 32, parents rated the transparency of communication favorably more often than employees and community members. As part of the District’s 2014-2015 goals, the need to focus on greater transparency, employee and parent involvement, and improving trust in the workplace was highlighted.15

Figure 32: There is Transparent Communication from the District* Parent, Employee, and Community Respondents, Percentage Agree/Strongly Agree

* Employees were asked their agreement with the statement “There is transparent communication across the District.”

15 Strategic Plan (2014-2015)

64%

49%

31%

48%53%


E C R A

Research Findings Communication and Involvement

46

Communication (Continued)

Among community members, newspaper and neighbors/friends were the most common sources of information, as detailed in Figure 33. On the strategic planning survey, community respondents were encouraged to select their TWO most important sources of information. Only sources selected by 10 percent or more of respondents were reported in the figure below.

Figure 33: What Are Your TWO Most Important Sources of Information about the District? Community Respondents, Percentage Selected

60%

32%28%

23%

15% 13%

Newspaper Neighbors/friends Districtpublications

District website District socialmedia

School meetingsand events

Research Finding Communication and Involvement

47

Parental Involvement

Among parents, 77 percent of respondents agreed that the District provided ample opportunities to get involved, as seen in Figure 34. At the same time, 80 percent of employees agreed that their interactions with parents supported student learning (Appendix, Table M). Among community members, 48 percent agreed that the District provided community members ample opportunities to get involved (Appendix, Table V). In focus groups and interviews, parents and educators recognized the positive impact of parent involvement and support of district schools. Parents value education and make sure students come to school ready to learn. Educators and parents shared that the District provided plenty of opportunities for parental involvement and regularly requested feedback.

Figure 34: The District Provides Parents Ample Opportunities to Get Involved Parent and Employee Respondents, Percentage Agree/Strongly Agree

77%

89%83%



48

Decision-Making

Stakeholders expressed a desire for a commonly-held, focused vision for the future that would allow for the prioritization of initiatives and effective decision-making. On the survey, 42 percent of respondents agreed that district leadership made decisions in the best interest of students, as seen in Figure 35.

Figure 35: Agreement with Decision-Making Questions Parent, Employee, and Community Respondents, Percentage Agree/Strongly Agree

* Community respondents were not asked their agreement with this question. Thirty-eight percent of parents and community members agreed that the Board of Education represented their needs and expectations, as seen in Figure 36. In addition, 37 percent of survey respondents agreed that the Board of Education provided clear direction for the District, and 47 percent agreed that the Board of Education and Superintendent worked together as a team in operating the District (Appendix, Tables B, M, and V). Parents and employees emphasized the importance of making decisions in the best interest of students. Some employees believed that the District could operate more efficiently if policies were put in place that allowed greater employee autonomy. Employees would like the Board to focus on creating a vision and direction for the District and trust educators to manage their responsibilities in the schools.

Figure 36: The Board of Education Represents My Needs and Expectations. Parent and Community Respondents, Percentage Agree/Strongly Agree

49%43%

51%60%

26%

42%52%

District leadership makes decisions in the best interest ofstudents.

District leadership makes decisions based on researchfrom similar districts and student populations.*

Parents Employees Community ALL

46%

31%38%

46%

Parents Community ALL Benchmark

E C R A


49

Decision-Making (Continued)

Sixty percent of teachers agreed that they were appropriately involved in decisions that affected their work, while 100 percent of administrators agreed with the same statement. There was concern expressed by employees that parent and community input disproportionately impacted district decisions. Educators would like decision-making processes to place more weight on educators’ professional knowledge and educational best practices. Some parents and teachers expressed that teachers could have more of a positive impact with greater autonomy and trust. Employees would like to see greater transparency in how and why decisions are made.

Figure 37: I Am Appropriately Involved in Decisions that Affect My Work Administrator, Teacher, and Support Staff Respondents, Percentage Agree/Strongly Agree

100%

60%50%

59%


Research Findings Finance and Facilities

50

Finances and Facilities This section summarizes findings that emerged related to finance and facilities. The following section describes the current state of the District to support discussions regarding financial stewardship within the strategic planning framework.

Finances

Sixty-one percent of stakeholders agreed the District is fiscally responsible, as detailed in Figure 38. The District has a strong financial base and has historically had great community support. The District earned an Award of Excellence for their Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) for nine consecutive years. 16

Figure 38: The District is Fiscally Responsible Parent, Employee, and Community Respondents, Percentage Agree/Strongly Agree

Community members and parents commented on the need to keep costs low and maintain fiscal health. District leaders expressed concern about the state’s fiscal instability and potential challenges on the horizon, such as discussions about changes in how pensions are funded. Concern was also expressed that teacher salaries were increasing at a faster rate than the tax base, which may pose a challenge in the future.

16 CCSD 181 Annual Report (2014)

60%

82%

42%

61%52%


E C R A

Research Findings Finances and Facilities

51

Facilities

Seventy percent of stakeholders agreed that district facilities support student learning. Administrators and the Board of Education expressed pride that schools were well maintained and conducive to learning. During the 2014-2015 school year, the District completed a facility audit, developed a multi-year master facilities plan, and implemented safety updates, including limiting building access.17

Figure 39: District Facilities Support Student Learning Parent, Employee, and Community Respondents, Percentage Agree/Strongly Agree

While schools overall are well maintained, stakeholders expressed concern about facility issues at Hinsdale Middle School. In addition to water intrusion at the middle school, mobile classrooms were added as a temporary solution to space constraints. Additional space for meetings, wider hallways, and adequate parking were some of the areas stakeholders reported must be addressed at HMS. In September of 2015, the District selected an architectural firm to design a new middle school to address the previously mentioned concerns.

17 CCSD 181 Annual Report (2014)

68%

80%

62%70% 71%


E C R A

Research Findings Finance and Facilities

52

Facility Referendum

The Board of Education is considering placing a referendum to rebuild HMS on the ballot for March 2016.18 The figure below details the percentage of parent, employee, and community member survey respondents who are likely to support the referendum. Responses were only reported for employees who indicated they resided in CCSD 181 enrollment boundaries. All parent and community member responses were included. The majority of employee respondents who reported residing in the District would definitely support a referendum to rebuild Hinsdale Middle School, while 43 percent of parent respondents indicated they would definitely support a referendum. Among community respondents, the largest percentage indicated they would definitely not support a referendum, which indicates additional district effort is necessary for residents to support a potential referendum.

Figure 40: How Likely are You to Support a Referendum to Rebuild Hinsdale Middle School? Parents, Employees (Residents Only), and Community Members

18 Facilities Podcast (2015), Board Report: Engagement and Research Report (2015)

35%

7%

8%

21%

9%

14%

29%

30%

35%

15%

54%

43%

Community

Employees

Parents

Definitely No Probably No Probably Yes Definitely Yes

Conclusion

53

Conclusion The findings in this document emerged through a comprehensive research process that included an extensive review of archival reports, analysis of assessment data, and synthesis of stakeholder feedback gathered through structured interviews, focus groups, and surveys. Results are reported around the areas detailed below.

Vision for the Future

Stakeholders want district graduates to develop social, emotional, and executive functioning skills (i.e., organization).

When asked their vision for the future of the District, stakeholders indicate a desire for both strong academics and a focus on developing critical thinkers and innovative problem solvers.

Across stakeholders groups, hiring and retaining quality teachers, developing students’ critical thinking and problem solving skills, and ensuring that all student populations maximize their academic potential are the highest rated priority areas.

Student Success

CCSD 181 graduates are well prepared for high school and outperform both the nation on NWEA MAP and their peers at Hinsdale Central High School on the ACT.

Students enrolled in the District achieve academic growth consistent with historical, local norms. Achievement gaps are present in CCSD 181; students who historically achieved at lower levels

must experience higher than expected growth in order to reduce existing achievement gaps. Eighty-six percent of stakeholders rate the overall quality of education in CCSD 181 as good or

excellent. Stakeholders expect the District to implement a consistent, high quality curriculum. The quality

of the English/Language Arts program is rated favorably, while the science program has areas that require improvement.

Students, parents, and employees are proud of the District’s encore classes and specials. However, some stakeholders would like to see additional emphasis on world language instruction.

Stakeholders would like CCSD 181 students to develop social and emotional skills upon graduation.

School safety was rated highly among stakeholders. Technology is often cited as an area for improvement with the potential to enhance student

learning.

Conclusion

54

Employee Excellence

Teachers are perceived as dedicated, enthusiastic, and high performing. Parents agree that teachers provide quality instruction to students.

Employees agree that CCSD 181 is a great place to work. Trust and communication in the workplace are key areas in need of focus. Educators use assessment data to improve instruction. However, educators and students are

concerned that too much time may be devoted to preparing for and administering assessments. Employees would like greater access to resources, tools, and support, so they can provide the

highest quality education to students. Communication and Involvement

Approximately half of stakeholders agree there is transparent communication across the District. Parent-employee interactions support student learning. Parents agree they have ample opportunities to get involved. Stakeholders express a desire for a commonly-held, focused vision for the future that would allow

for the prioritization of initiatives and effective decision-making.

Finances and Facilities

The District has a strong financial base. A new middle school and regular maintenance on all buildings are necessary to create positive

learning environments. Nearly half of parents report they will definitely support a referendum to rebuild Hinsdale Middle

School. Among community respondents, the largest percentage indicate they will definitely not support a

referendum.

Results provide a picture of the current state of the District and represent shared values across stakeholder groups. The Board of Education will utilize the themes summarized in this document in the development of the CCSD 181 Strategic Plan, which will serve as a framework for future decision-making.

Appendix Parent Survey

55

Appendix

Parent Survey

Table A: Parent Quality Questions (n=779)* Higher Means Indicate More Favorable Ratings, Sorted Highest to Lowest Mean

(Scale 1-5, 1=Unsatisfactory to 5=Excellent) Item # Question Unsatisfactory Poor Average Good Excellent Mean

1 The overall quality of education in the District.

1% 2% 11% 48% 39% 4.22

11 The quality of the PE/Health program.

1% 3% 19% 42% 35% 4.07

8 The quality of the fine arts program. 1% 4% 19% 42% 35% 4.06

3 The quality of the English/Language Arts program.

1% 4% 18% 45% 33% 4.05

6 The quality of the social studies program. 1% 3% 20% 47% 29% 3.99

13 The quality of student support services (e.g., counseling, social work).

2% 5% 22% 40% 32% 3.95

12 The quality of special education services. 4% 4% 25% 39% 29% 3.87

2 The overall quality of education in the District compared to the past.

3% 6% 20% 42% 28% 3.85

5 The quality of the science program. 3% 6% 22% 44% 26% 3.82

4 The quality of the math program. 5% 7% 19% 42% 26% 3.77

10 The quality of programs for English Language Learners (ELL).

2% 4% 35% 38% 21% 3.74

9 The quality of the District’s program for advanced learners. 8% 10% 20% 39% 23% 3.58

7 The quality of the world languages program. 9% 14% 28% 32% 18% 3.37

*Percentages may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding.


56

Table B: Parent Agreement Questions (n=779)* Higher Means Indicate More Favorable Ratings, Sorted Highest to Lowest Mean

(Scale 1-5, 1=Strongly Disagree to 5=Strongly Agree)

Item # Question Strongly Disagree

Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

Mean

24 My child(ren) has the technology needed at home to complete homework.

1% 2% 7% 34% 57% 4.45

46 District schools are safe. 2% 3% 11% 39% 46% 4.23

35 There are high standards and expectations for positive student behavior.

1% 4% 11% 44% 41% 4.21

38 My child(ren) feels capable of accomplishing what is expected in school.

1% 3% 12% 47% 37% 4.16

18 Teachers provide quality instruction to students. 1% 5% 14% 45% 35% 4.09

23 My child(ren) uses technology in class to support learning. 1% 5% 15% 46% 33% 4.04

43 The District provides parents ample opportunities to get involved.

2% 4% 17% 45% 32% 4.01

34 Teachers facilitate the development of students’ social and emotional skills.

1% 7% 19% 45% 28% 3.92

22 Teachers facilitate the development of oral communication skills in students.

2% 6% 19% 47% 27% 3.91

37 The District has reasonable expectations for students’ academic performance.

2% 7% 17% 49% 26% 3.91

17 My child(ren)’s school is preparing my child(ren) to be successful in life.

2% 6% 19% 43% 29% 3.90

15 The District provides a well-rounded educational experience for all students (e.g., fine arts).

2% 7% 19% 44% 29% 3.89

20 Teachers facilitate the development of critical thinking skills in students.

1% 6% 21% 44% 27% 3.88

33 My child(ren)’s school offers an appropriate variety of extracurricular activities.

2% 7% 21% 41% 29% 3.88



57

Table B (Continued): Parent Agreement Questions (n=779)* Higher Means Indicate More Favorable Ratings, Sorted Highest to Lowest Mean




Mean

21 Teachers facilitate the development of written communication skills in students.

3% 8% 18% 42% 28% 3.83

44 The District provides parents ample opportunities to engage in a dialogue about the District.

5% 8% 19% 40% 28% 3.79

28 District 181 prepares students to succeed in high school. 3% 7% 26% 38% 25% 3.75

45 District facilities support student learning. 6% 9% 18% 39% 29% 3.75

19 My child(ren) is grouped in a way that appropriately challenges him/her in math.

7% 10% 17% 39% 28% 3.70

29 My child(ren) feels prepared for standardized testing (e.g., MAP, state test).

4% 9% 25% 40% 22% 3.66

41 There is transparent communication from the District.

7% 11% 19% 37% 27% 3.66

27 My child(ren)’s school prepares students to transition from elementary to middle school.

6% 9% 25% 36% 25% 3.65

47 The District is fiscally responsible. 4% 9% 26% 37% 23% 3.65

42 Teachers communicate my child(ren)’s progress effectively. 4% 12% 22% 38% 22% 3.62

14 The District is heading in the right direction. 6% 11% 22% 42% 20% 3.60

25 My child(ren) is assigned an appropriate amount of homework.

6% 14% 18% 39% 22% 3.57

26 Teachers differentiate instructional strategies to address individual learning needs.

5% 12% 29% 37% 17% 3.49

39 My child(ren)’s school prepares students to work with individuals from diverse backgrounds.

4% 13% 31% 33% 19% 3.49



58

Table B (Continued): Parent Agreement Questions (n=779)* Higher Means Indicate More Favorable Ratings, Sorted Highest to Lowest Mean




Mean

36 Student bullying is not an issue at my school. 6% 18% 25% 32% 20% 3.43

48 The Board of Education represents my needs and expectations.

6% 14% 35% 31% 15% 3.36

50 The Board of Education and Superintendent work as a team in operating the District.

6% 11% 38% 30% 15% 3.36

30 Educators use assessment data to improve instruction. 8% 11% 36% 28% 17% 3.35

32 District leadership makes decisions in the best interest of students.

10% 14% 27% 30% 19% 3.35

49 The Board of Education provides clear direction for the District. 5% 15% 34% 31% 15% 3.34

31 District leadership makes decisions based on research from similar districts and student populations.

11% 13% 34% 27% 16% 3.25

40 As a parent, I think starting (and ending) middle school later in the day will benefit students.

20% 16% 17% 19% 29% 3.20

16 The District provides a strong foundation in world languages. 12% 22% 30% 24% 12% 3.03



59

Table C: Parent Priority Questions (n=779)* Higher Means Indicate Higher Priority, Sorted Highest to Lowest Mean

(Scale 1-5, 1=Lowest Priority to 5=Highest Priority)

Item # Question Lowest Priority to Highest Priority

Mean 1 2 3 4 5

63 Hiring and retaining quality teachers. < 1% 1% 4% 16% 79% 4.73

52 Developing students’ critical thinking and problem solving skills. < 1% 1% 7% 26% 66% 4.57

68 Providing science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) programs. < 1% 1% 11% 29% 59% 4.45

60 Ensuring that all student populations maximize their academic potential. 2% 2% 8% 28% 60% 4.43

67 Providing differentiated instruction for students. 1% 3% 15% 31% 51% 4.29

69 Providing the education needed for students to place into advanced classes in middle/high school.

2% 4% 15% 24% 56% 4.29

62 Hiring and retaining quality administrators. 1% 5% 17% 35% 42% 4.12 57 Ensuring facilities support student learning. 1% 6% 16% 38% 39% 4.08 53 Developing students’ social and emotional skills. 2% 4% 18% 38% 39% 4.07 61 Ensuring relevant communication to parents. 1% 3% 22% 38% 37% 4.07

64 Incorporating real-world learning experiences in the classroom that integrate multiple subjects. 2% 5% 17% 37% 39% 4.07

65 Integrating technology into teaching and learning. 3% 5% 20% 34% 38% 3.99

58 Ensuring fiscal health. 1% 6% 23% 37% 33% 3.96

55 Ensuring a well-rounded experience for students (e.g., fine arts). 1% 5% 24% 41% 29% 3.92

56 Ensuring consistent programming across district schools. 5% 10% 20% 35% 31% 3.77

54 Ensuring a strong foundation of world languages. 3% 9% 31% 35% 22% 3.64 51 Decreasing class sizes. 6% 11% 31% 28% 24% 3.54

59 Ensuring students are prepared for standardized assessments. 7% 12% 27% 31% 24% 3.51

66 Offering full day kindergarten. 33% 12% 17% 14% 24% 2.83 *Percentages may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding.


60

Table D: Which of the following statements best reflects your vision for the future? (n=670) Frequency Percent Grounded in strong academics, D181 is a leading school district in Illinois and among the best in the US. 313 47%

D181 educates the whole child by preparing students socially and emotionally, as well as academically. 161 24%

D181 develops critical thinkers and innovative problem solvers. 196 29%

Table E: Child(ren)’s School (n=759)* Frequency Percent Elm School 62 8% Madison School 78 10% Monroe School 84 11% Oak School 61 8% Prospect School 65 9% The Lane School 64 8% Walker School 50 7% Clarendon Hills Middle School 127 17% Hinsdale Middle School 168 22%

*Respondents were invited to complete a survey for each school in which they had a child enrolled.

Table F: How many years have you resided in this community? (n=683) Frequency Percent 0 to 4 years 165 24% 5 to 10 years 230 34% 11 to 20 years 242 35% More than 20 years 46 7%

Table G: How long do you plan to live in this community? (n=671)* Frequency Percent It’s home – no plans to move 437 65% Plan to move after children finish high school 117 17% Don’t know 117 17%

*Percentages do not add up to 100 percent due to rounding.

Table H: How likely are you to support a referendum to rebuild Hinsdale Middle School? (n=678) Frequency Percent Definitely No 52 8% Probably No 95 14% Probably Yes 238 35% Definitely Yes 293 43%


61

Table I: Which of the following options best describes your child(ren)’s academic performance? (n=783)*

Frequency Percent Below grade level 41 5% At grade level 301 38% Above grade level 441 56%

*For parents with more than one child in the school, respondents were instructed to select all that apply.

Table J: Does your child(ren) receive special education services? (n=665) Frequency Percent No 573 86% Yes 92 14%

Table K: Does your child(ren) receive English Language Learner (ELL) services? (n=664) Frequency Percent No 649 98% Yes 15 2%

Appendix Employee Survey

62

Employee Survey

Table L: Employee Quality Questions (n=313)* Higher Means Indicate More Favorable Ratings, Sorted Highest to Lowest Mean


8 The quality of the fine arts program.

0% 0% 4% 36% 59% 4.55


0% < 1% 3% 41% 56% 4.53

11 The quality of the PE/Health program. 0% 0% 7% 33% 60% 4.53

4 The quality of the math program. 0% 2% 11% 50% 37% 4.21

13 The quality of student support services (e.g., counseling, social work).

2% 5% 14% 33% 46% 4.17

3 The quality of the English/Language Arts program.

1% 3% 11% 47% 37% 4.14


1% 5% 15% 39% 40% 4.13

12 The quality of special education services. 3% 4% 12% 38% 42% 4.12

9 The quality of the District’s program for advanced learners. 2% 5% 17% 41% 34% 4.00

10 The quality of programs for English Language Learners (ELL).

1% 7% 24% 42% 26% 3.86

7 The quality of the world languages program. 1% 5% 27% 44% 23% 3.84

6 The quality of the social studies program. 2% 8% 29% 40% 21% 3.71

5 The quality of the science program. 2% 12% 31% 34% 21% 3.62



63

Table M: Employee Agreement Questions (n=313)* Higher Means Indicate More Favorable Ratings, Sorted Highest to Lowest Mean




Mean

58 District schools are safe. < 1% 2% 6% 37% 54% 4.42

24 District 181 prepares students to succeed in high school. 0% 1% 10% 40% 49% 4.37

31 My school/district offers an appropriate variety of extracurricular activities.

1% 1% 9% 39% 50% 4.36

32 Educators facilitate the development of students’ social and emotional skills.

< 1% 1% 9% 42% 48% 4.35

56 The District provides parents ample opportunities to get involved.

< 1% 0% 10% 43% 46% 4.34

33 There are high standards and expectations for positive student behavior.

2% 5% 8% 37% 48% 4.25

15 The District provides a well-rounded educational experience for all students (e.g., fine arts).

0% 3% 14% 41% 43% 4.24

25 Students are prepared for standardized testing (e.g., MAP, state tests).

< 1% 2% 11% 48% 38% 4.23

21 Teachers differentiate instructional strategies to address individual learning needs.

< 1% 3% 14% 41% 42% 4.21

26 Educators prepare students to transition from elementary to middle school.

1% 4% 15% 36% 45% 4.21

17 Educators facilitate the development of critical thinking skills in students.

0% 2% 13% 50% 36% 4.19

18 Educators facilitate the development of written communication skills in students.

< 1% 1% 11% 53% 34% 4.19

19 Educators facilitate the development of oral communication skills in students.

< 1% 2% 12% 49% 36% 4.19


28 Educators use assessment data to improve instruction. < 1% 4% 13% 48% 36% 4.15



64

Table M (Continued): Employee Agreement Questions (n=313)* Higher Means Indicate More Favorable Ratings, Sorted Highest to Lowest Mean




Mean

39 I feel supported by building administrators. 1% 7% 14% 31% 47% 4.15

50 My interactions with parents support student learning. 1% 5% 14% 48% 32% 4.07

38 Community Consolidated School District 181 is a great place to work.

< 1% 6% 16% 46% 32% 4.03


20 Technology is integrated in curriculum and instruction to support student learning.

1% 6% 16% 47% 31% 4.02

35 The District has reasonable expectations for students’ academic performance.

1% 5% 14% 54% 26% 3.99

55 Communication within my building is good. 2% 9% 15% 40% 33% 3.93

47 The resources and materials I need to do my job are available to me.

3% 8% 18% 38% 33% 3.89

45 I have sufficient training and support to meet the needs of students in my classroom.

1% 8% 19% 46% 25% 3.86

49 I have opportunities to collaborate with my colleagues to enhance student learning.

2% 12% 18% 39% 30% 3.84

46 When I have questions about curriculum or instruction I know who to ask.

3% 10% 20% 40% 28% 3.80

40 I feel respected by district leadership. 4% 11% 24% 33% 27% 3.69

42 I have adequate opportunities for relevant professional development.

2% 14% 22% 39% 24% 3.69


53 District leadership supports innovation. 1% 13% 27% 39% 20% 3.64

29 District leadership makes decisions based on research from similar districts and student populations.

3% 12% 24% 41% 19% 3.60



65





Mean

36 My school/district prepares students to work with individuals from diverse backgrounds.

2% 14% 26% 39% 19% 3.60

48 Educational resources are equitably distributed between schools and across classrooms.

5% 15% 19% 36% 25% 3.60

23 Inclusive classrooms allow educators to tailor the pace and content of math instruction to meet the needs of students.

3% 13% 28% 35% 20% 3.56

37 As an educator, I think starting (and ending) middle school later in the day will benefit students.

4% 12% 31% 28% 25% 3.56

22 Ability grouping allows educators to tailor the pace and content of math instruction to meet the needs of students.

9% 7% 28% 33% 23% 3.55

16 The District provides a strong foundation in world languages. 3% 11% 35% 35% 17% 3.52

34 Student bullying is not an issue at my school/district. 1% 16% 27% 43% 13% 3.51

41 District leadership has the expertise needed to answer my questions.

4% 16% 27% 31% 22% 3.51

43 I am appropriately involved in decisions that affect my work. 5% 17% 19% 40% 19% 3.51


4% 14% 31% 31% 20% 3.50

27 Classroom time devoted to preparing for and administering assessments is appropriate.

6% 15% 27% 37% 15% 3.39

61 The Board of Education and Superintendent work as a team in operating the District.

5% 15% 31% 34% 15% 3.39

54 There is transparent communication across the District.

6% 18% 27% 35% 14% 3.34

60 The Board of Education provides clear direction for the District. 6% 17% 38% 28% 11% 3.21



66





Mean

52 When new initiatives are introduced, I have sufficient training and support to implement them successfully.

7% 23% 34% 25% 11% 3.10

51 Implementation of new initiatives allows for a full cycle of roll out and evaluation.

12% 20% 30% 27% 11% 3.05

44 There is a strong sense of trust in this district. 9% 27% 32% 24% 8% 2.95


Table N: Employee Priority Questions (n=313)* Higher Means Indicate Higher Priority, Sorted Highest to Lowest Mean



Mean 1 2 3 4 5

74 Hiring and retaining quality teachers. 0% 0% 2% 18% 80% 4.77 73 Hiring and retaining quality administrators. < 1% < 1% 5% 25% 70% 4.64

71 Ensuring that all student populations maximize their academic potential. < 1% 1% 7% 28% 64% 4.53

63 Developing students’ critical thinking and problem solving skills. 0% 1% 9% 30% 59% 4.48

78 Providing differentiated instruction for students. 0% 1% 9% 34% 56% 4.45 64 Developing students’ social and emotional skills. < 1% 2% 14% 35% 49% 4.30


76 Integrating technology into teaching and learning. < 1% 1% 12% 44% 21% 4.26


68 Ensuring facilities support student learning. 2% 2% 14% 39% 43% 4.19

79 Providing science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) programs. < 1% 3% 21% 39% 37% 4.10

72 Ensuring relevant communication to parents. 1% 3% 18% 47% 31% 4.04


69 Ensuring fiscal health. 1% 4% 26% 42% 28% 3.92 *Percentages may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding.


67

Table N (Continued): Employee Priority Questions (n=313)* Higher Means Indicate Higher Priority, Sorted Highest to Lowest Mean



Mean 1 2 3 4 5


3% 15% 28% 35% 20% 3.54

62 Decreasing class sizes. 8% 12% 31% 25% 24% 3.44 65 Ensuring a strong foundation of world languages. 5% 18% 39% 26% 12% 3.24



Table O: Which of the following statements best reflects your vision for the future? (n=291) Frequency Percent Grounded in strong academics, D181 is a leading school district in Illinois and among the best in the US. 55 19%



Table P: What is your position at Community Consolidated School District 181? (n=272) Frequency Percent Administrator 18 7% Teacher 191 70% Support Staff 63 23%

Table Q: What is your primary work location? (n=258)* Frequency Percent Elm School 28 11% Madison School 19 7% Monroe School 23 9% Oak School 31 12% Prospect School 33 13% The Lane School 23 9% Walker School 28 11% Clarendon Hills Middle School 25 10% Hinsdale Middle School 35 14% Preschool/ECE 1 < 1% District Office 12 5%

*Percentages do not add up to 100 percent due to rounding.


68

Table R: Do you reside within Community Consolidated School District 181 enrollment boundaries? (n=284)

Frequency Percent No 227 80% Yes 57 20%

Table S: How likely are you to support a referendum to rebuild Hinsdale Middle School? (n=54)* Frequency Percent Definitely No 4 7% Probably No 5 9% Probably Yes 16 30% Definitely Yes 29 54%

*Only respondents who indicated they resided in CCSD 181 enrollment boundaries were asked this question.

Table T: How long have you worked in Community Consolidated School District 181? (n=278)

Frequency Percent 0 to 4 years 68 24% 5 to 10 years 80 29% 11 to 20 years 108 39% More than 20 years 22 8%

Appendix Community Survey

69

Community Survey

Table U: Community Quality Questions (n=65)* Higher Means Indicate More Favorable Ratings, Sorted Highest to Lowest Mean



6% 5% 15% 34% 40% 3.97


19% 11% 16% 30% 25% 3.30


Table V: Community Agreement Questions (n=65)* Higher Means Indicate More Favorable Ratings, Sorted Highest to Lowest Mean


Item # Question Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly

Agree Mean

12 District schools are safe. 2% 4% 7% 46% 42% 4.23

4 Teachers provide quality instruction to students. 7% 3% 15% 56% 19% 3.76


6 The District provides students with a strong foundation to be successful in high school.

8% 15% 17% 36% 24% 3.51

5 The District provides a well-rounded educational experience for all students.

15% 10% 19% 36% 20% 3.36

9 The District provides community members ample opportunities to get involved.

10% 25% 17% 36% 12% 3.14


14 The Board of Education represents my needs and expectations.

13% 18% 38% 29% 2% 2.89

15 The Board of Education provides clear direction for the District.

11% 18% 46% 23% 2% 2.88

10

The District provides community members ample opportunities to engage in a dialogue about the District.

24% 17% 21% 31% 7% 2.79



70

Table V (Continued): Community Agreement Questions (n=65)* Higher Means Indicate More Favorable Ratings, Sorted Highest to Lowest Mean


Item # Question Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly

Agree Mean

8 There is transparent communication from the District.

19% 28% 22% 22% 9% 2.74



29% 14% 31% 17% 9% 2.62


Table W: Community Priority Questions (n=65)* Higher Means Indicate Higher Priority, Sorted Highest to Lowest Mean



Mean 1 2 3 4 5

17 Developing students’ critical thinking and problem solving skills. 0% 2% 2% 24% 73% 4.67

28 Hiring and retaining quality teachers. 0% 0% 5% 29% 65% 4.60

25 Ensuring that all student populations maximize their academic potential. 0% 2% 9% 18% 71% 4.58

23 Ensuring fiscal health. 0% 0% 7% 35% 58% 4.51 27 Hiring and retaining quality administrators. 0% 6% 7% 26% 61% 4.43

33 Providing science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) programs. 0% 4% 9% 28% 59% 4.43

26 Ensuring relevant communication to parents. 0% 2% 15% 41% 43% 4.24


0% 4% 13% 41% 43% 4.22



32 Providing differentiated instruction for students. 8% 2% 15% 37% 38% 3.96

30 Integrating technology into teaching and learning. 5% 4% 20% 38% 33% 3.89

22 Ensuring facilities support student learning. 0% 6% 28% 41% 26% 3.87




71

Table W (Continued): Community Priority Questions (n=65)* Higher Means Indicate Higher Priority, Sorted Highest to Lowest Mean



Mean 1 2 3 4 5

18 Developing students’ social and emotional skills. 7% 7% 25% 36% 24% 3.62 19 Ensuring a strong foundation of world languages. 7% 13% 27% 36% 16% 3.42


16 Decreasing class sizes. 11% 24% 36% 20% 9% 2.93 31 Offering full day kindergarten. 30% 24% 20% 7% 19% 2.61


Table X: Which of the following statements best reflects your vision for the future? (n=53)

Frequency Percent Grounded in strong academics, D181 is a leading school district in Illinois and among the best in the US. 27 51%



Table Y: How many years have you resided in this community? (n=52)

Frequency Percent 0 to 4 years 6 12% 5 to 10 years 2 4% 11 to 20 years 13 25% More than 20 years 31 60%

Table Z: Mark all the following that apply. (n=95)* Frequency Percent I have a child(ren) who currently attends Hinsdale Township High School District 86. 11 21%

I have a child(ren) who previously attended Community Consolidated School District 181. 45 85%

I have a child(ren) who previously attended Hinsdale Township High School District 86. 35 66%

I attended Community Consolidated School District 181 as a student. 4 8% * Respondents were instructed to select all that apply.


72

Table AA: How likely are you to support a referendum to rebuild Hinsdale Middle School? (n=52) Frequency Percent Definitely No 18 35% Probably No 11 21% Probably Yes 15 29% Definitely Yes 8 15%

Table AB: What are your TWO most important sources of information about the District? (n=99)

Frequency Percent Newspaper (print or online) 32 60% Neighbors/friends 17 32% District website 12 23% School flyers 2 4% District students 2 4% District publications 15 28% School website 1 2% School meetings and events 7 13% District employees 3 6% School Board meetings 0 0% District social media 8 15%

* Respondents were instructed to select more than one source of information.

Appendix EPAS Scores by Graduating Class

73

EPAS Scores by Graduating Class

Figure A: CCSD 181 vs. Other Feeders Average EPAS Composite Score 2011 High School Graduating Classes

Figure B: CCSD 181 vs. Other Feeders Figure C: CCSD 181 vs. Other Feeders Average EPAS English Score Average EPAS Math Score 2011 High School Graduating Classes 2011 High School Graduating Classes

18.6

21.7

26.8

18.8 20.9

25.2

EXPLORE PLAN ACT


17.7

20.2

27.0

18.819.9

25.6

EXPLORE PLAN ACT



18.9

22.8

27.6

18.7

21.8

25.8

EXPLORE PLAN ACT




74

Figure D: CCSD 181 vs. Other Feeders Figure E: CCSD 181 vs. Other Feeders Average EPAS Reading Score Average EPAS Science Score 2011 High School Graduating Classes 2011 High School Graduating Classes

Figure F: CCSD 181 vs. Other Feeders Average EPAS Composite Score 2012 High School Graduating Classes

17.6

21.0

26.0

17.819.9

24.6

EXPLORE PLAN ACT



19.5

22.4

26.1

19.521.4

24.4

EXPLORE PLAN ACT



18.5

21.8

27.4

18.7 21.3

25.6

EXPLORE PLAN ACT



75

Figure G: CCSD 181 vs. Other Feeders Figure H: CCSD 181 vs. Other Feeders Average EPAS English Score Average EPAS Math Score 2012 High School Graduating Classes 2012 High School Graduating Classes

Figure I: CCSD 181 vs. Other Feeders Figure J: CCSD 181 vs. Other Feeders Average EPAS Reading Score Average EPAS Science Score 2012 High School Graduating Classes 2012 High School Graduating Classes

17.8

21.2

27.8

18.720.7

25.8

EXPLORE PLAN ACT



18.5

22.6

27.3

18.4

22.3

25.9

EXPLORE PLAN ACT



17.8

20.9

27.6

17.7

20.4

25.2

EXPLORE PLAN ACT



19.3

22.0

26.6

19.321.2

25.0

EXPLORE PLAN ACT




76

Figure K: CCSD 181 vs. Other Feeders Average EPAS Composite Score

2013 High School Graduating Classes

Figure L: CCSD 181 vs. Other Feeders Figure M: CCSD 181 vs. Other Feeders Average EPAS English Score Average EPAS Math Score 2013 High School Graduating Classes 2013 High School Graduating Classes

18.6

22.1

26.8

18.5

21.3

25.6

EXPLORE PLAN ACT


18.620.9

27.1

18.420.3

25.8

EXPLORE PLAN ACT



18.6

23.6

27.0

18.7 22.4

26.0

EXPLORE PLAN ACT




77

Figure N: CCSD 181 vs. Other Feeders Figure O: CCSD 181 vs. Other Feeders Average EPAS Reading Score Average EPAS Science Score 2013 High School Graduating Classes 2013 High School Graduating Classes

Figure P: CCSD 181 vs. Other Feeders Average EPAS Composite Score 2014 High School Graduating Classes

17.4

21.3

26.1

17.5 20.5

24.6

EXPLORE PLAN ACT



19.3

22.1

26.6

19.021.4

25.5

EXPLORE PLAN ACT



18.5

22.0

27.3

18.6 21.6

25.9

EXPLORE PLAN ACT



78

Figure Q: CCSD 181 vs. Other Feeders Figure R: CCSD 181 vs. Other Feeders Average EPAS English Score Average EPAS Math Score 2014 High School Graduating Classes 2014 High School Graduating Classes

Figure S: CCSD 181 vs. Other Feeders Figure T: CCSD 181 vs. Other Feeders Average EPAS Reading Score Average EPAS Science Score 2014 High School Graduating Classes 2014 High School Graduating Classes

18.420.8

27.8

18.420.5

25.9

EXPLORE PLAN ACT



18.8

22.8

27.5

18.8

22.8

26.5

EXPLORE PLAN ACT



17.5

21.6

27.3

17.7 20.8

25.6

EXPLORE PLAN ACT



18.7

22.2

26.3

19.0 21.8

25.0

EXPLORE PLAN ACT




79

Figure U: CCSD 181 vs. Other Feeders Average EPAS Composite Score 2015 High School Graduating Classes

Figure V: CCSD 181 vs. Other Feeders Figure W: CCSD 181 vs. Other Feeders Average EPAS English Score Average EPAS Math Score 2015 High School Graduating Classes 2015 High School Graduating Classes

19.5

22.6

27.9

18.5

21.5

26.1

EXPLORE PLAN ACT


19.1

22.0

28.4

18.4

21.2

26.3

EXPLORE PLAN ACT



19.6

22.9

27.8

18.6

21.9

26.6

EXPLORE PLAN ACT




80

Figure X: CCSD 181 vs. Other Feeders Figure Y: CCSD 181 vs. Other Feeders Average EPAS Reading Score Average EPAS Science Score 2015 High School Graduating Classes 2015 High School Graduating Classes

18.8

21.9

27.9

17.5

20.6

25.8

EXPLORE PLAN ACT



19.7

23.1

26.7

19.0

21.8

25.2

EXPLORE PLAN ACT



Community consolidated school district181 · Community Consolidated School District 181 (the...

Documents

Transcript of Community consolidated school district181 · Community Consolidated School District 181 (the...