Organizing Schools for Improvement: Lessons from Chicago
description
Transcript of Organizing Schools for Improvement: Lessons from Chicago
Organizing Schools for Improvement:
Lessons from ChicagoPresented by: Anthony S. Bryk, Penny Bender Sebring, Elaine Allensworth and Stuart Luppescu
Gleacher Center, Chicago, January 14, 2010
A Framework of Essential Supports
Likelihood of Substantial Improvement, Given Weak or Strong Supports
Reading
11% 10% 9%
16%
10%
43%40%
47%
36%
45%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
SchoolLeadership
ParentInvolvement
WorkOrientation
Safety &Order
CurriculumAlignment
Perc
enta
ge o
f Sch
ools
that
Sub
stan
tially
Impr
oved
in
Rea
ding Weak
Strong
Schools with strong teacher cooperative relationships focused on curricular alignment were very likely to show
substantial academic improvements
Reading Math
Strong Work Orien-tation and Curricular
Alignment
Strong Professional Community and Curricular Align-
ment
Strong Work Orien-tation and Curricular
Alignment
Strong Professional Community and Curricular Align-
ment
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
67%
56%
43%48%
5%9%
5% 4%
Percent that Substantially Improved Percent that Were Stagnant
Strong Work Orientation and Strong Curricular
Alignment
Strong Professional Com-munity and Strong Curric-
ular Alignment
Strong Work Orientation and Strong Curricular
Alignment
Strong Professional Com-munity and Strong Curric-
ular Alignment
Schools did not improve attendance if their learning climate was unsafe/disorderly and instruction was weak
Schools with Poor Curricu-lar Alignment and Little
Safety/Order
Schools with Little Interac-tive Instruction and Little
Safety/Order
Schools with a Strong Emphasis on Didactic In-
struction and Little Safety/Order
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
0% 0%6%
53% 53%
67%
Percent that Substantially Improved Percent that Were Stagnant
Relationships of Essential Supports with Improvements in Value-Added,
1997-2005Essential Support Effect of strength in base year
Effect of improvement
School leadershipInstructional leadership .18*** .10**Program coherence .15*** .10**Parent community tiesParent involvement in the school .34*** .14***Professional capacityReflective dialogue .03 .02Collective responsibility .22*** .11**Orientation toward innovation .21*** .08*School commitment .29*** .15***Student-centered learning climateSafety .43*** .17***
Recent CCSR ResearchAttendance, grades and
pass rates are higher in schools with stronger:
• Instruction• Student-centered
climates– Teacher-student
relationships– Safety
• Teacher collaboration– Collective responsibility– Instructional program
coherence
Recent CCSR ResearchTeachers remain in schools
with stronger:• Student-centered
climates– Safety
• Teacher collaboration– Collective responsibility– Innovation
• Parent involvement– Teacher-parent trust
• Leadership– Program coherence– Teacher influence– Instructional leadership
A Framework of Essential Supports
Classification of School Communities by Students’ Racial/Ethnic and SES
CompositionPercent African
American
Percent Latino
Percent White
Median Family Income
Truly Disadvantaged 100 0 0 $9,480African-American Low SES 99 1 0 $19,385
African-American Moderate SES 99 1 0 $33,313Predominantly Minority 34 61 4 $23,293Predominantly Latino 3 93 4 $23,381Racially Diverse 21 56 17 $33,156Racially Integrated 14 35 40 $37,350
Stagnation or Substantial Improvement in Reading by Race/Ethnicity and Socioeconomic Status of Students
and Their Communities46
31 31
1815
9
15
24
2018
31
35
42
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Truly Disadvantagedn=46
African-American,Low SES n=95
African-American,Average to
Moderate SES n=74
PredominantlyMinority n=45
PredominantlyLatino n=39
Racially Diversen=34
Racially Integratedn=57
Perc
enta
ge o
f Sch
ools
that
Sta
gnat
ed o
r Im
prov
ed
Stagnant Substantially Improved
23 Expected: 25%
Data on Community CharacteristicsBonding Social Capital
• Collective Efficacy • Religious Participation• Crime statistics for school neighborhood
and students’ neighborhoodsBridging Social Capital
• Contacts with people in other neighborhoods
Percent of Students Who Were Abused or Neglected
Odds of Substantial Improvement in Reading Compared to Integrated Schools, Unadjusted and
Adjusted
Racially Diverse
Predominantly Latino
Predominantly Minority
African-American Moderate SES
African-American Low SES
Truly Disadvantaged
Unadjusted
Adjusted for bonding socialcapital
Adjusted for bonding andbridging social capital
Adjusted for social capital anddensity of abuse and neglect
Even Odds
1.0 2.0
5% 6%8%
39% 38%
33%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
Religious Participation Collective Efficacy Outside Connections
Perc
enta
ge o
f Sch
ools
with
Str
ong
Esse
ntia
l Sup
port
s in
199
4
Low High
Expected: 20%
Influence of Bonding and Bridging Social Capital on Essential Supports
4%2%
36%
40%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
Crime Density of Abused or NeglectedStudents
Perc
enta
ge o
f Sch
ools
with
Str
ong
Esse
ntia
l Sup
port
s in
1994
High Rate Low Rate
Expected: 20%
Influence of Crime and Abuse and Neglect on Essential Supports
For more information…. About the book:Email: [email protected]: ccsr.uchicago.edu/osfi
About CCSR:Website: ccsr.uchicago.edu