Stay Strong Course Availability Analysis Phase I and II Illustrative Findings Jennifer Laird, Stacey...

Stay Strong Course Availability AnalysisPhase I and II Illustrative Findings

Jennifer Laird, Stacey Cataylo and Alexander Bentz

Puget Sound Education Service Team BriefingSeptember 30, 2015

1

Stay Strong Course Analysis

1. Course Availability Study Purpose, Rationale and Questions for

Reflection

2. Course Availability Study Methods Phases 1 and 2

3. Course Availability Study Illustrative Findings Phase 1


5. Discussion

2

Purpose • Connect Race to the Top (RTT) targets to current availability of

courses • Participating in AP/IB• Pre College Courses

• Deepen understanding of building-level capacity to meet RTT targets

• Identify system-level barriers and possible solutions

• Inform strategies for implementing new Washington State high school graduation requirements

3

Rationale • Students completing rigorous course of study have greater

likelihood of success in college (Adelman, 2006)

• Disparities in access to academic rigor tied to race, ethnicity and income (Education Trust, 2013)

• AP Potential data based on students PSAT and AP scores indicates that a sizable number of students could be successful in rigorous courses (College Board, 2013)

The Changing Context of Regional Rigorous Course ParticipationPercentage of high school graduates who have taken one or more AP, IB or Cambridge Course(s), by race or ethnicity

Road M

ap Reg

ionAsia

n

Two or M

ore Race

sW

hite

Black/A

frican

American

Hispan

ic/Lati

no of Any R

aces

Native

Hawaii

an/O

ther Paci

fic Islan

der

American

Indian

/Alas

kan Nati

ve0

25

50

75

100

4656

46 4939

34 34 34

64

76

64 6458 55 54 50

2012 2014

Questions for Reflection• What does this analysis indicate about access to academic

rigor in the seven South King County districts?

• What short and long term steps do you recommend for districts to take action?

• What further questions does this analysis raise?



Reflection




5. Discussion

7

Analysis Questions and Approach

*High-need schools have a population of students receiving Free or Reduced Price Lunch that exceeds 55%. 8

Question Approach Phase 1: Winter and Spring 2015Comparing high-need* and non high-need schools, what is the building-level availability for:

• Washington Student Achievement Council (WSAC) minimum requirements for enrollment in 4-year college (i.e., CADR requirements)?

• Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate courses?

Document review of high school master schedules for 2014-15 school year

Comparing high-need* and non high-need schools, what percentage of students are enrolled in dual credit courses (AP, IB, Running Start, Tech Prep, etc.)

Data from Washington State Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction. 2014-15 school year

Phase 2: Summer and Fall 2015What factors influence course scheduling and course availability in high-need schools?

Brief interviews with nine building leaders

Course Availability Metric – percent of class cohort served• Puget High has 4,200 students in grades 9-12 and offers 5

Algebra I courses.

• Each course can potentially serve 30 students. 5 x 30 = 150 students potentially served.

• In each class cohort, there are 4,200/4 = 1,050 students

• Puget High has enough Algebra I courses to potentially serve 150/1,050 = 14.3% of students in a class cohort.



Reflection




5. Discussion

10

Percent of cohort of students potentially served, by Math course and school high-need status

Percent of cohort of students potentially served, by Lab Science course and school high-need status

Percent of cohort of students potentially served, by second-level World Language course

and school high-need status

Percent of cohort of students potentially served, by Advanced Placement (AP) course and school high-need status

Summary Findings • Opportunity Gaps between High- and Non-High Needs Schools• Advanced Placement, except computer science• Advanced math beyond Algebra II (pre-calculus, calculus,

and statistics• Second year world languages, except German and Chinese

• Lack of Opportunity Gaps between High- and Non-High Needs Schools• International Baccalaureate courses• Lab science (not Advanced Placement)

Agenda

1. Course Availability Study Rationale and Questions for Reflection

2. Course Availability Study Methods



5. Discussion

17

Phase II: Qualitative Interviews

Recruitment

• Request sent out to all high-need high school principals for a 30-minute telephone interview (June through mid-August)

• Final number of participants: 9 (unable to schedule with 8)

Interviews •Focus on master schedule development, student placement process, communication with students, support for students•Review tailored data set with interviewee

Analysis •Analyzed responses from nine participants for common themes

Master Schedule & Student Placement Processes • Labor intensive process driven by driven by teacher input, student transcripts, test scores, and student requests• Engage multiple stakeholders: curriculum leaders, counselors, registrars, teachers• Synthesis of large amounts of information: Grades, assessment

scores, student surveys • Student placement process

All mention importance “core” high school graduation requirements

Some indicate initiatives to increase enrollment of students, particularly traditionally underrepresented students, into rigorous courses

Parent and Student Outreach, Communications and Supports • Some schools reported proactive strategies to inform parents and

students• Sharing AP Potential data• Classroom visits from counselors• Counselor meetings with students

• A number of schools shared support systems for students• Deliberate course sequencing• Boot camps for incoming AP students• Watch list

Obstacles to Providing Rigorous Courses • Balancing the needs of a range of student populations in high schools• Student preparation for rigorous courses• Limited resources of smaller schools

Recommendations • Consider highlighting the rigorous courses that can be taken as

students meet school graduation requirements • Encourage frequent and consistent communication between school staff and students (and parents) about rigorous offerings• Encourage discussion and information sharing and strategies around rigorous offerings• Continue to quantify and evaluate opportunity gap around rigorous course availability

Agenda

1. Course Availability Study Rationale and Questions for Reflection

2. Course Availability Study Methods



5. Discussion

23

Questions for Reflection• What does this analysis indicate about access to academic

rigor in the RTT districts?

• What short and long term steps do you recommend for districts to take action?

• What further questions does this analysis raise?

Links to memos and presentations may be found at

https://coalition.psesd.org/resource-repository/

Contact: Jen Laird, Ph.D.RTI [email protected]

Extra Slide: Interview Questions

1. What are the administrative processes in place for developing a master schedule?

2. How are students placed into courses? How are students placed into rigorous courses? What data are used to inform student placement/counseling? Are efforts made to encourage non-traditional students to enroll in rigorous courses?

3. How and when are students and parents informed of high school graduation and college admission requirements? Are students informed of rigorous course/dual credit opportunities?

4. Are students supported in taking rigorous or accelerated courses?5. What obstacles do schools face in making rigorous courses

available? What adjustments have they made in reaction to such obstacles?

Stay Strong Course Availability Analysis Phase I and II Illustrative Findings Jennifer Laird, Stacey...

Documents

Transcript of Stay Strong Course Availability Analysis Phase I and II Illustrative Findings Jennifer Laird, Stacey...