Schools of Distinction What Makes Them Distinct? Greg Lobdell Director of Research Center for...

C E N TE R F OR E D UC ATI ON A L EF F E CT I V E N E S S , I N C .

Schools of DistinctionWhat Makes Them Distinct?


Greg LobdellDirector of Research

Center for Educational [email protected]

Kristi Smith, PrincipalStacey Krumsick, Instructional Specialist

East Port Orchard ElementarySouth Kitsap SD


• Field-based research, service, and data-centric tools to support School & District Improvement

• In WA-- Partnerships with 580 Schools in 115 districts– What we do & how we do it varies based on serving districts from 80

students K-12, to districts over 30,000 K-12

• The largest WASL “Educational Growth” repository in the state (2000 – 2008 WASL growth data (student cohorts) for districts serving 700,000 students)

Center for Educational Effectiveness


• The largest repository of school effectiveness information in the state of Washington (Nine Characteristics of High Performing Schools)– 53,000 Staff, 162,000 Students, and 59,800 Parents (30% from

homes where English is not primary language)

• Assist all schools & districts in OSPI School, District, & Summit District Improvement programs

• Assist all districts in Idaho’s “Building Capacity” K-12 District Improvement Program

• Active partnerships: OSPI, AWSP, WSSDA, Leadership Innovations Team (Powerful Teaching & Learning), West-Ed Regional Ed Laboratory, WSU and UW



Today’s Outcomes• Introduction: Schools of Distinction Selection

Methodology- How are the award winners selected?

• Research Methodology• Findings

– Highlights: Repeat winners vis-à-vis State sample– What’s happening at a repeat winner? East Port

Orchard Elementary, South Kitsap SD

• Implications & application


Performance, Improvement, and Poverty

• Poverty is inversely correlated with performance

• What about improvement- does the same hold true?


HS-Grade 10

R2 = 0.0032

-1.50

-1.00

-0.50

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0

Poverty

RM

LI

Ch

an

ge

HS-Grade 10 Award Winners Linear-ALL

SOD Award Level

Poverty and Improvement


Poverty and ImprovementMS-Grade 7

R2 = 0.0072

-1.50

-1.00

-0.50

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0

Poverty

RM

LI

Ch

an

ge

MS-Grade 7 Award Winners Linear-ALL

SOD Award Level


Poverty and ImprovementElems- Grade 4

R2 = 0.01667

-1.50

-1.00

-0.50

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0

Poverty

RM

LI C

han

ge

Award Winners Elems Linear-ALL

SOD Award Level


Why do we see significantly different

improvement results in Reading and Math?


Award Winners: Who Are They?

2008 Schools of Distinction 53 elementary, 21 middle, 20 high schools and 7 alternative schools ESDs: at least 3 winners in all 9 ESDs. 65 from Western WA, 31 from Eastern WA Poverty Ranges: 1% to 82% ELL Percentage: 0% to 31% % Non-white enrollment: 0% to 70%

Title I School wide: 40 buildings Did Not Meet AYP: 40 buildings

2008 Repeat Winners 14 elementary, 3 middle, 4 high schools (no alternative repeat winners) Repeat winners in 7 different ESDs. 14 from Western WA, 8 from Eastern WA Poverty Ranges: 5% to 69% ELL Percentage: 0% to 26% % Non-white enrollment: 1% to 57% Title I School wide: 8 buildings Did Not Meet AYP: 10 buildings


Elementary Schools RMLI 2002-03

WA State Grade 4: RMLI '02-'03 Baseline

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0

Percent Poverty

Re

ad

ing

/ M

ath

Le

arn

ing

Ind

ex

WA 4th Grade

2008 Schools of Distinction


Elementary Schools RMLI 2008

WA State Grade 4: RMLI 2008

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0

Poverty

Re

ad

ing

/ M

ath

Le

arn

ing

Ind

ex

WA 4th Grade



Middle Schools RMLI 2002-03


0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0

Percent Poverty

Re

ad

ing

/ M

ath

Le

arn

ing

Ind

ex

WA 7th Grade



Middle Schools RMLI 2008


0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0

Percent Poverty

Re

ad

ing

/ M

ath

Le

arn

ing

Ind

ex

WA 7th Grade



High Schools RMLI 2002-03


0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0

Percent Poverty

Re

ad

ing

/ M

ath

Le

arn

ing

Ind

ex

WA 10th Grade



High Schools RMLI 2008


0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0

Percent Poverty

Re

ad

ing

/ M

ath

Le

arn

ing

Ind

ex

WA 10th Grade



A quick look at a repeat winner

East Port Orchard Elem

South Kitsap SDPoverty: 48.4%

Students of color: 28%

ELL: 2%


WASL 4 Reading: Percent of Students by Level

31%44% 52% 45% 49% 48%

36%

-38%-23% -17% -11% -19% -11% -20%

-11%

-6%-5%

-9%-4%

-7%-3%

19%

25%25% 36% 28% 33%

41%

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

20%

40%

60%

80%

MeetingStandard

100%

49% NOT meeting standard to77% MEETING standard

All Schools of Distinction accelerated Reading and . . .


WASL 4 Math: Percent of Students by Level

-30%-39%

-23%-33% -26%

-11% -16%

-35% -13%

-16%-15% -22%

-19%-22%

27% 25% 31% 22% 30% 30% 30%

8%22%

31%30% 23%

39% 33%

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

20%

40%

60%

80%

MeetingStandard

100%

. . .accelerated Math as well.

65% NOT meeting standard to63% MEETING standard


Research Approach

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


Today’s Focus Data Will Be:

Phase I Practices of Improving or

Turnaround Schools Oct 2007 – Jan

2008

Phase II EES-Staff Survey Characteristics of High Performing

Schools Dec 2007 – May

2008

Phase III EES-Staff with

Repeat WinnersOct 2008 – Jan

2009

For Details:

• OSPI January Conference-2008, WERA-Spring-2008, AWSP/WASA Summer Conference 2008 Session, OSPI January Conference-2009

• www.effectiveness.org

• Sharratt, G. C., Mills, S., & Lobdell, G. (2008). Schools of distinction: What makes them distinct? Washington State Kappan, 2(1), 20-22.


"Nine Characteristics of High Performing

Schools" OSPI

Characteristics of Improved School Districts" OSPI,

Shannon & Bylsma, 2004

"Beat the Odds, 2006"

Morrison Institute for Public Policy,

"Knowing the Right Things

to Do", Elmore, 2004.

"School Turnarounds" Public Impact,

2007

What Works In Schools,

Marzano, 2003

Instructional Leadership

student learning focus distributed leadership observes instruction

frequently

√ √ √ √ √ √

High Quality Teaching and Learning

High expectations use of student data

personalized interventions aligned C & I

√ √ √ √ √ √

Systems Support for Improvement

effective use of data parent involvement professional learning

community I(2nd ed.) √ √ √ √ I

Collaboration

communication addressing conflict

organizational trust peer observation

√ √ √ √ √ √

Readiness for Improvement

belief in student learning openness to new ideas problem solving, conflict

management

√ I √ I I I

CEE Research Focus- Schools of Distinction


Highlights of Phases I and II

Very High Readiness for Improvement75% belief that ALL students can meet state

standards75% willingness to change, and openness to new

ideasCulture of Collaboration

High trust across staff and with leadership75% willingness to address conflict

LeadershipStable – average of 4 yrs in building and 8 years as

principalFocus on instruction and student learning - 50%

observe classrooms dailySystem Support for Improvement

80% have release time monthly for professional development

60% monitor school improvement plans at least monthly

High Quality Instruction and Supportive Instructional Practice

92% use assessment data to identify student needs and instructional intervention

84% use data to guide professional development80% use collaborative lesson design and analysis of

student workHigh Level of Trust

71% believe there is a high level of trust in their school

Reading and Math Beliefs are more important – both in top 10!

Collaborative planning for integration of literacy and numeracy across the curric.

Leadership facilitate processes for improvement

Staff have frequent feedback about how they are doing

Teachers engage in PD to learn and apply skills and strategies

Struggling students receive interventionCelebrating student successTeachers integrate literacy and numeracy

Strength in positive side of TrustLower “Trust Erosion” factors


Phase III• Approach: differential comparison

– By each of the Nine Characteristics– By each item within the characteristic scales

• Focus on repeat winners– 2008 repeat winners– 2008 first year winners– Comparison with schools across the state

• Instrumentation: Educational Effectiveness Survey v9.0– Voluntary participation: Staff self-reflection– Nine Characteristics of High Performing Schools– Readiness to Benefit– Includes views of: Organizational Trust, District Support for

Improvement, and Cultural Responsiveness


Sample Definitions

• SOD EES Overall Sample (non-repeat winners)N= 1,710 staff in 55 Buildings

• Repeat Winners

N= 520 in 18 Buildings (out of 21)


Demographics for State Sample

• EES-Staff surveys from October 2007 to January 2009• N= 16,934 staff• 321 unique schools• Geographically, demographically, and achievement fairly representative

of the state (slightly higher poverty, ELL, and Hispanic representation than state overall)– WASL Reading slightly higher than state average, WASL Math slightly lower

than state

School Level

Other, 87, 1%

K-12, 347, 2%

Elementary, 8461, 50%

Middle / Jr. High, 3843,

23%

High School, 3992, 24%

ESD by Respondents

ESD105, 2199, 14%ESD112,

2406, 15%

ESD113, 125, 1%

ESD114, 1458, 9%

ESD121, 5070, 32%

ESD123, 1860, 12% ESD171,

1129, 7%

ESD189, 803, 5%

ESD101, 724, 5%

Position Administrator2%

Para-Professional /

Instr. Aide12%

Classif ied Support Staff

14%

Certif icated Support Staff

6%

Certif icated Teacher

66%


Distinction: Repeat Schools of Distinction demonstrate significant strength in ALL of the Nine Characteristics

2.000

2.500

3.000

3.500

4.000

4.500

High Quality Curriculum, Instruction, andAssessemnt

Monitor Teaching and Learning

Collaboration for Student Learning

District Support for Improvement

High Standards and Expectations

Clear and Shared FocusFocused Professional Development

Supportive Learning Environment

Community & Parent Involvement

Effective Leadership

Readiness to Benefit

SOD-Repeats

State Sample


Distinction: The Instructional Core Matters

SOD-Repeats State Sample

Mean: 5=ALMOST ALWAYS TRUE, 1=Almost Never True

Mean Mean

Difference: Repeats vs

StateRank of

diffs

Monitor Teaching and Learning 3.646 3.341 0.306 1

High Quality Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessemnt

3.967 3.687 0.280 2

Collaboration for Student Learning 3.825 3.581 0.244 3

High Standards and Expectations 3.664 3.468 0.196 4

Focused Professional Development 3.731 3.537 0.195 5

Supportive Learning Environment 4.128 3.936 0.191 6

Community & Parent Involvement 3.729 3.538 0.190 7

Clear and Shared Focus 4.230 4.068 0.162 8

Effective Leadership 4.189 4.032 0.157 9


DISTINCTION: Monitoring Teaching and Learning

Reduce isolation and open practice up to direct observation, analysis, and feedback.– Make direct observation of practice, analysis, and feedback a

routine feature of work.Elmore (2000, 2002, and 2004)


Distinction: Monitor Teaching and Learning


MeanCombined Positive Mean

Combined Positive

Repeats vs State Means

Repeats vs State %Pos

We monitor the effectiveness of instructional interventions

3.843 69.6% 3.322 56.0% 0.520 13.6%

We are frequently informed about how well we are doing

3.867 69.0% 3.483 52.6% 0.384 16.4%

We reflect upon instructional practice to inform our conversations about improvement

3.698 65.7% 3.338 57.2% 0.360 8.5%

Struggling students receive early intervention and remediation to acquire skills

4.018 73.1% 3.678 58.4% 0.340 14.6%

Teachers collaboratively plan lessons 3.492 58.6% 3.205 50.3% 0.287 8.3%Data from peer observations leads to meaningful change in instructional practice

3.000 47.8% 2.794 41.0% 0.206 6.8%

Assessment data is used to identify student needs and appropriate instructional intervention

4.175 78.5% 3.985 71.0% 0.189 7.5%

We are encouraged to participate in classroom observation

3.080 43.6% 2.920 42.8% 0.159 0.8%

Monitor Teaching and Learning 3.646 3.341 0.306

State SampleSOD-Repeats


DISTINCTION: The “VITAL Cycle” of Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment

Beat-the-odds-schools are figuring out ways to customize instruction and intervention so it exactly suits each student’s needs.The beat-the-odds schools are putting in place a whole set of interlocking

practices and policies geared toward winning a marathon (instead of a sprint). It involves a vital cycle of instruction, assessment, and intervention, followed by more instruction, assessment and intervention.

Beat The Odds (2006)


Distinction: High Quality Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment



Combined Positive



Common assessments are used to inform instruction

4.01 76.2% 3.43 59.5% 0.579 16.7%

Instruction is personalized to meet the needs of each student

3.79 68.0% 3.48 55.5% 0.313 12.5%

Regular assessment is used to monitor student progress

4.26 85.6% 3.95 76.5% 0.312 9.1%

The reading program we teach is aligned with state learning standards

4.22 81.2% 3.92 69.3% 0.301 11.8%

Our staff demonstrates a thorough understanding of state learning standards for reading

4.06 78.8% 3.78 64.4% 0.276 14.5%

This school provides curriculum that is relevant and meaningful

4.25 85.2% 4.00 74.8% 0.241 10.4%

Our staff demonstrates a thorough understanding of state learning standards for math

3.68 64.6% 3.48 52.0% 0.208 12.6%

The math program we teach is aligned with the state learning standards

3.87 69.4% 3.68 60.2% 0.196 9.2%

This district uses assessments aligned to standards and instruction

3.96 74.0% 3.77 63.2% 0.189 10.8%

All teachers integrate literacy and numeracy concepts into their teaching

3.57 61.0% 3.38 48.4% 0.186 12.6%

High Quality Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessemnt

3.967 3.687 0.280



DISTINCTION: Action-Based Collaboration

Improved districts build a culture of commitment, collegiality, mutual respect, and stability.– Professional culture of high standards– Trust, mutual respect, and competence– Opportunities for peer support, collaboration, and develop

professional learning communitiesShannon & Bylsma (2004)


Distinction: Collaboration & Communication



Combined Positive



Students understand the expectations and standards of this school

4.109 80.4% 3.732 62.3% 0.377 18.1%

When there is a problem in my school, we talk about how to solve it

4.058 75.0% 3.687 60.1% 0.372 14.9%

Staff in our building do not manipulate others to achieve their goals

3.998 74.2% 3.648 58.4% 0.350 15.8%

Parents & community understand the expectations & standards of this school

3.716 65.0% 3.382 47.0% 0.334 18.0%

Staff in our school are consistently truthful 4.072 80.6% 3.801 65.8% 0.272 14.8%There is a willingness to address conflict in this school

3.959 71.5% 3.695 59.5% 0.264 12.0%

Staff at this school collaborate to improve student learning

4.302 83.5% 4.075 75.7% 0.227 7.7%

We collaboratively plan the integration of literacy & numeracy concepts across the curriculum

3.539 55.6% 3.320 46.5% 0.220 9.1%

There is effective, 2-way communication between the district and our school

3.322 48.8% 3.103 38.2% 0.219 10.7%

Our staff shares learnings from conferences and seminars they attend

3.626 59.4% 3.461 51.0% 0.165 8.4%

Collaboration between district and schools is based upon trust and respect

3.394 49.8% 3.263 42.7% 0.131 7.1%

Our school meets regularly to monitor implementation of our school improvement plan

3.804 62.7% 3.801 64.5% 0.003 -1.8%

Collaboration for Student Learning 3.825 3.581 0.244



Application of FindingsA Quick View by School Level

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


Elementary Staff- Top 10 Differences

Cha

ract

eris

tic

Stack Rank of

Gap% Positive

SOD

% Positive State

Sample Gap

Instruction is personalized to meet the needs of each student

CIA 1 74.2% 60.5% 13.8%

We hold one another accountable for student learning HSE 2 70.0% 57.4% 12.6%


MTL 3 68.6% 57.6% 11.0%

We monitor the effectiveness of instructional interventions

MTL 4 75.7% 64.8% 10.9%

We reflect upon instructional practice to inform our conversations about improvement

MTL 5 73.0% 62.5% 10.5%


Collab 6 63.6% 53.2% 10.4%

We are provided training to support a culturally responsive learning environment

FPD 7 47.8% 37.4% 10.4%

Common assessments are used to inform instruction CIA 8 78.2% 67.8% 10.4%


Collab 9 78.6% 69.1% 9.5%

Staff members enforce consistent behavior expectations and consequences in their classrooms

SLE 10 77.8% 68.3% 9.4%

Elementary Schools


Secondary Staff- Top 10 Differences

Cha

ract

eris

tic

Stack Rank of

Gap% Positive

SOD

% Positive State

Sample Gap

Students in this school are engaged in learning SLE 1 77.9% 60.4% 17.5%


Collab 2 73.0% 55.6% 17.5%

When there is a problem in my school, we talk about how to solve it

Collab 3 72.2% 55.9% 16.3%

Struggling students receive early intervention and remediation to acquire skills

MTL 4 64.9% 49.0% 15.9%


Collab 5 55.4% 40.7% 14.7%

Staff in our school are consistently truthful Collab 6 76.7% 62.1% 14.6%

My colleagues welcome new and innovative ideas RTB 7 67.7% 54.6% 13.2%

Our teachers engage in professional development activities to learn and apply math skills and strategies

FPD 8 66.5% 53.8% 12.7%


MTL 9 60.2% 47.6% 12.7%

Our staff believes that all students can meet state reading standards

HSE 10 57.8% 45.4% 12.5%

Secondary Schools


Application: Areas of Focus and Reflection

Successful turnarounds are typically marked by vigorous analysis of data, identification of key problems, and selection of strategies to address the central challenges.

Two leader actions fall into this category:• Collecting and personally analyzing organization

performance data• Making an action plan based on data

School Turnarounds (2007)


Monitoring Teaching and Learning

• We monitor the effectiveness of instructional interventions,

• We are frequently informed about how well we are doing,

• We reflect upon instructional practice to inform our conversations about improvement, and

• Struggling students receive early intervention and remediation to acquire skills.


High Quality Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment

• Common assessments are used to inform instruction,

• Instruction is personalized to meet the needs of each student,

• The school provides curriculum that is relevant and meaningful, and

• The district uses assessment aligned to standards and instruction.


Collaboration & Communication

• Students understand the expectations and standards of this school,

• When there is a problem in my school, we talk about how to solve it,

• Staff in our building do not manipulate others to achieve their goals,

• Parents and community understand the expectations and standards of this school,

• Staff in our school are consistently truthful, and • There is a willingness to address conflict in this

school.


A View from the Field…

• What’s happening at East Port Orchard Elementary- South Kitsap SD


Clear and Shared FocusClear and Shared Focus / Vision

83%

64%

76%

76%

81%

79%

69%

14%

33%

21%

21%

14%

17%

17%

0%

2%

2%

2%

0%

0%

5%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

2%

0%

0%

0%

5%

5%

10%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

My performance goals are set based on themission/purpose of this school

Staff I work with demonstrate commitment to ourmission

I understand the mission/purpose of our school

Important decisions here are based on themission/purpose of this school

My work contributes to the mission/purpose of thisschool

This building has a data-driven school improvement plan

The mission/vision of this school and district are alignedwith each other

Almost Always Often True Sometimes True Seldom True Almost Never True Missing


Systems of Support

• School Improvement Plan – Data driven– Everyone participates – Align BATRP (Building Added Time

Responsibility Pay)– Aligns with district goals– On going evaluation and revision of plan by

teams


Systems of Support

• Individual teacher goals – Align with professional development focus– Align with SIP goals

• Professional Learning Communities– Building focus on common subject– Common Assessments– Data Analysis to drive instruction– Student learning targets


Systems of Support

• Schedule– 90 minutes uninterrupted reading and math

instruction– Support staff teams with classroom teacher

for daily reading instruction– Grade levels have common instructional

blocks– Special Education services are provided at

times that do not conflict with core


Readiness to Benefit

93%

76%

74%

52%

45%

76%

48%

57%

50%

57%

50%

7%

24%

26%

43%

50%

10%

38%

26%

31%

19%

26%

0%

0%

0%

5%

2%

2%

12%

7%

5%

12%

12%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

2%

2%

2%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

5%

5%

7%

0%

0%

0%

0%

2%

12%

0%

7%

7%

7%

5%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

I am willing to work at changing my school for the better

I welcome new and innovative ideas

My colleagues are willing to work at changing thisschool for the better

My colleagues welcome new and innovative ideas

My colleagues are willing to be held accountable forstudent learning

I am willing to be held accountable for student learning

When there is a problem in my school, we talk abouthow to solve it

Our staff believes that all students can meet statereading standards

Our staff believes that all students can meet state mathstandards

I believe that all students can meet state readingstandards

I believe that all students can meet state mathstandards

Almost Always Often True Sometimes True Seldom True Almost Never True Missing


Resistance Factor- 2007

29%

0% 50% 100%

Resistance: "I" vs. "They" Mindset

62%

21%

81%

38%

36%

48%

17%

26%

2%

31%

2%

36%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%


My colleagues welcome new andinnovative ideas

I am willing to work at changing myschool for the better

My colleagues are willing to work atchanging this school for the better

Almost A lw ays Of ten True Sometimes True Seldom True Almost Never True Missing

33%

0% 50% 100%

GAP: Difference between "I" and "They" Perspective


Resistance Factors- 2009

5%

0% 50% 100%

Resistance: "I" vs. "They" Mindset

76%

52%

93%

74%

76%

55%

24%

43%

7%

26%

10%

33%

0%

5%

0%

0%

2%

5%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

12%

7%

0%

0%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%


My colleagues welcome new andinnovative ideas

I am willing to work at changing myschool for the better

My colleagues are willing to work atchanging this school for the better

I am willing to be held accountable forstudent learning

We hold one another accountable forstudent learning

Almost Alw ays Often True Sometimes True Seldom True Almost Never True Missing

0%

0% 50% 100%

GAP: Difference between "I" and "They" Perspective

0% 50% 100%


• Student learning always the focus

• Developing staff culture to support collaborative, honest interactions needs to be addressed so that the focus can remain on learning


EPO’s Organizational TrustComparison Perspective- Organizational Trust

Percent Positive Responses

0%10%

20%30%

40%50%

60%70%

80%90%

100%Integrity

Openness

ReliabilityBenevolence / Caring

Competence

December 2008 November 2007 April 2007

Note: Further from the center implies more positive responses

Copyright © 2006 Center for Educational Effectiveness. All Rights Reserved.


The Center for Educational Effectiveness, Inc.www.effectiveness.org

Organization

StudentLearning


Organization

StudentLearning


Implications: Further Research

• So much to do, so little time…– Regressions and ANOVA across all 9

Characteristics and performance and improvement are underway

– Level by level, additional demographic views, characteristics of leadership, instructional practice, etc.



Organization

StudentLearning


Organization

StudentLearning

[email protected]?

Questions?


References You Can UsePrimary• Elmore, R. (2004). Knowing the Right Things to Do: School Improvement and Performance-Based

Accountability. Washington, D.C.: National Governors Association- Center for Best Practices.• Marzano, R. (2003). What Works in Schools: Translating Research Into Action. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.• Beat The Odds (2006). Morrison Institute for Public Policy (2006). Why Some Schools With Latino Children

Beat the Odds…and Others Don’t. Tempe, AZ.: Morrison Institute for Public Policy, Arizona State University, jointly with Center for the Future of Arizona. (aka: “Beat The Odds (2006) ).

• Fixen, D.L. et al. (2005). Implementation Research: A synthesis of the literature. Tampa, FL: University of South Florida, Louis de la Parte Mental Health Institute, The National Implementation Research Network (FMHI Publication #231)

• School Turnarounds (2007). Public Impact (2007). School Turnarounds: A review of the cross-sector evidence on dramatic organizational improvement. Public Impact, Academic Development Institute- prepared for the Center on Innovation and Improvement. Retrieved from: http://www.centerii.org/ (aka: School Turnarounds (2007)).

• Shannon, G.S. & Bylsma, P. (2004). Characteristics of Improved School Districts: Themes from Research. Olympia, WA. Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction.

• Shannon, G.S. & Bylsma, P. (2003). Nine Characteristics of High Performing Schools. A research-based resource for school leadership teams to assist with the School Improvement Process. Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction. Olympia, WA.

• Sharratt, G. C., Mills, S., & Lobdell, G. (2008). Schools of distinction: What makes them distinct? Washington State Kappan, 2(1), 20-22.

Secondary• Center for Educational Effectiveness (CEE) (2005). Longitudinal Change in Staff Perceptions of the 9

Characteristics of High Performing Schools in OSPI SIA Cohort-II and III Schools. Redmond, WA: Center for Educational Effectiveness.

• Elmore, R. (2000). Building a New Structure For School Leadership. Washington, D.C.: The Albert Shanker Institute.

• Elmore, R. (2002). Bridging the Gap Between Standards and Achievement. Washington, D.C.: The Albert Shanker Institute.

• Tschannen-Moran, (2004). Trust Matters, Leadership for Successful Schools. San Francisco, CA. Jossey-Bass.



Organization

StudentLearning


Organization

StudentLearning

[email protected] Material


Schools of Distinction SelectionDesign Objectives

• Recognize improvement in performance over 5+ years.• Meaningful – Use a Reading and Math Learning Index to

determine balanced improvement.• Additional information for stakeholders—not a

replacement for AYP determinations.• Transparency and openness through the use of publicly

available data. • Must have at least “adequate performance” in both Math

and Reading.

See: http://www.effectiveness.org/files/SOD_Award_Methdology-2008.pdf


School of Distinction Selection Methodology

• Learning Index ==(1 * % at Level-1) + (2 * % at Level-2) + (3 * % at Level-

3) + (4 * % at Level-4)

• Reading and Math combined as weighted average

• Improvement from 2002/03 baseline to 2008• Minimum threshold for consideration: at or

above state average in Reading and Math percent-meeting-standard

• Top 5%See: http://www.effectiveness.org/files/SOD_Award_Methdology-2008.pdf


Rig

or

(Ro

bu

stn

ess)

- C

onte

nt c

over

age

- S

yste

mic

(K

-12)

ComplexityLow High

RMLI- Schools of DistinctionSelection

SBE AccountabilityIndex

• Reading, Math, Writing, & Science

• Compensatory

• Status AND Improvement (over 1 year), AND “Beat The Odds”

• Risk Adjusted for Low and non-Low Income

• Systemic- Gr. 3-10 and Extended Grad. Rate

• Criterion-based

•Reading & Math Level Index

• Conjunctive

• Improvement over 6 years

• Grade 4, 7, and 10 only

• 5% “winners”



Screening

Progress Monitoring Diagnostic

Summative / Evaluative

Student Achievement• Status• Improvement• Growth

Custom analysis on relationships between data sets used for “screening”

WASL, WLPT, DiBELs, MAP, and other assessment triangulation

Strand analysis and analysis of challenges by different groups of students (ethnicity, gender, poverty, etc). Integration of data from multiple assessments

• Comprehensive WASL Analysis• I3 Analysis- year to year growth• Comparative Cohort (multi year growth

Organizational Effectiveness• Status• Improvement• Growth

Educational Effectiveness Survey (EES) Suite: • Board-Leadership • Central District Staff (all areas including operations)• Building Staff, Students, & Parents (available in multiple languages)

Instructional Effectiveness• Status• Improvement• Growth

EES- Instructional Team Survey: PLC focused instrument for reflection on Attributes of Effective Instruction in a PLC or collaborative environment. In-depth professional development provided by Leadership Innovations Team (i.e. “Powerful Teaching and Learning Group”- A. Olzendam & H. Knight).

Leadership

Effectiveness• Status• Improvement• Growth

Profiles of Leadership Effectiveness (POLE) – 360: 360-degree feedback instrument based on the ISLLC standards for educational leadership (State wide standard for Ed Leadership Pro Certification)

Schools of Distinction What Makes Them Distinct? Greg Lobdell Director of Research Center for...

Documents

Transcript of Schools of Distinction What Makes Them Distinct? Greg Lobdell Director of Research Center for...