PPS Research Notes #2:
Practical Tactics for Academic Success Patricia Pickles, Chief Academic Officer Portland Public Schools Sue Hiscox and Vonnie Condon, Principal Investigators Prepared by the PPS Department of Research, Evaluation and Assessment
March 2004
Notes to Accompany the Research Brief
Practical Tactics for Academic Success Sue Hiscox and Vonnie Condon
IN MARCH 2003, under the direction of Dr. Patricia Pickles, the district’s Chief Academic Officer, the Portland Public Schools’ Research, Evaluation and Assessment (R&E) Department released another in its ongoing series of Research Briefs. The Brief, Practical Tactics for Successful Schools, documented R&E’s identification of “successful” schools in the district and the common factors that seemed to contribute to that success. These research notes support that document, which is included as Appendix A. In the following pages, we outline the methodology used to determine the successful schools and the elements they share. We also provide additional Appendices related to the study, including examples of the data used in the selection process.
Introduction In the fall of 2003 Dr. Pickles, as part of the Education Action Plan, sought to identify schools in the district that were successful with different ethnic groups and special populations. She also wanted, if possible, to discover the traits that made them successful. Dr. Pickles asked R&E to devise a strategy to both identify the schools and determine their commonalities. Substantial research, both in Portland Public Schools and across the country, has demonstrated that student demographics—particularly socio-economic status and status as English Language Learners—have a direct correlation with overall school performance. However, a relatively quick review of district data made it clear that there were perhaps 20 schools where “special population” students were performing substantially above the district average. The key next step, then, was to find a way to define “success” so that quantitative measures could be applied.
Identification of Study Schools R&E staff had already compiled the state and district reading and math multiple-choice test performances of all elementary and middle schools
in 2001, 2002 and 2003. 1 Part of that effort combined results for grades 3, 4 and 5 for elementary schools and grades 6, 7 and 8 for middle schools to produce overall school results. These average data were also disaggregated into group results by ethnic group2 and by special program—ESL program participants, Special Education students, and students with free/reduced cost (F/R) meals. The ultimate goal, of course, was to find the common characteristics of successful schools so that staff in all schools could learn from their colleagues. It would be best if the success criteria, when applied, gave a sizable number of schools for study, while still limiting the number to those that had demonstrated substantial empirical progress. We recognize that standardized achievement test scores do not tell a complete story about a school. For the purpose of this study, however, we decided that a successful school would have demonstrated their “success” through two or more consecutive years of increasing achievement scores on state and district multiple-choice reading and math tests. “Increasing achievement scores” therefore needed definition. After considering different strategies, school results for each group under study were examined to see whether a) There were at least 15% more students meeting the statewide standards in 2003 than had met them in 2001, OR b) 10% more students in the school’s subgroup met the standards compared to the district average for that subgroup in at least 2003.3 It was important that the above results be based on a meaningful number of students in each group, since small groups tend to produce results that can’t be used for valid comparisons. Therefore, any subgroup deemed to be “successful” had to have a substantial number of those students (generally 40 or more) before it could be called “successful.” Tables showing school performance over three years are included in Appendices B and C. Appendix B shows the percent
of students in special populations meeting standards. Appendix C shows the same information by ethnic groups.
Neither a prior evaluation report on literacy programs in PPS nor a current evaluation of mathematics programs identified specific curricula that were better than others. Instead, researchers found that the way programs were implemented, rather than the programs themselves, more significantly affected the progress students made. Our study, therefore, focused on what principals felt accounted for the success of their schools. Through interviews and surveys, we hoped to come up with a clear set of effective tactics for other principals to consider.
When analyses were complete, 16 elementary schools and 8 middle schools—shown in the table below—met the criteria.
Investigation Techniques Once the “successful” schools were identified, it became important to identify the educational and support options at each school. R&E collected this information through discussions with principals and Teachers on Special Assignment (TOSAs) who had worked with the schools. The TOSAs also provided details about the possible factors for success at each school. (Given the District’s focus on literacy, we have summarized some of the demographic and literacy program information for the 21 schools identified as successful in reading and provided the information in Appendix D.)
Fourteen elementary and five middle school principals participated in hour-long interviews.4 Each interview revolved around four questions, with indepth probing to understand the answers: 1. What really made your school successful? 2. How did your tactics get initiated?
Successful Schools as Identified by the Criteria
ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
School
Interviewed
Reading
Math
Astor
Y
Y
Y
Black, Hispanic, Spec Ed, F/R Meals
Ball
Y
Y
Y
Black, Hispanic, Spec Ed, ESL, F/R Meals
Boise-Eliot
Y
Y
Hispanic, ESL, F/R Meals; Growth: Black
Capitol Hill
Y
Y
Hispanic, Spec Ed, F/R Meals
Chief Joseph
Y
Y
Black, Hispanic, Spec Ed, F/R Meals
Clark
Y
Creston
Spec Ed, ESL, F/R Meals
Y
Black, ESL, F/R Meals; Growth—Hispanic
Faubion
Y
Y
Growth: Black, Hispanic, Spec Ed, F/R Meals
Hayhurst
Y
Y
Growth: Hispanic, Spec Ed, F/R Meals
Kenton
Y
Y
Laurelhurst
Y
Y
Y
Black, Spec Ed, F/R Meals
Lewis
Y
Y
Y
Spec Ed, ESL, F/R Meals
Markham
Y
Y
Y
Black, Hispanic, Spec Ed, ESL, F/R Meals
Y
Y
Black, F/R Meals
Y
Y
Black, Hispanic, Spec Ed, ESL, F/R Meals
Y
Hispanic, Spec Ed, ESL
Sabin Vernon
Y
Woodmere
Y
School
MIDDLE SCHOOLS
Y
Successful with What Groups?
Black, ESL, F/R Meals
Interviewed
Reading
Y
Y Y
Black, Hispanic, Spec Ed
Gray
Y
Y
Y
Black, Hispanic, Spec Ed, F/R Meals
Hosford
Y
Y
Y
Black, ESL, F/R Meals
Y
Black, Hispanic, Spec Ed, F/R Meals
Binnsmead Fernwood
Jackson Y
Sellwood
Y
Y
Successful with What Groups? Black
Y
Mt. Tabor West Sylvan
Math
Black, Hispanic, Spec Ed, ESL, F/R Meals
Y
Y
Black, Hispanic, Spec Ed, F/R Meals
Y
Y
Black, Hispanic, Spec Ed, ESL, F/R Meals
3. Where did you almost get sidetracked? Why? What did you do to get back on course? 4. What key advice would you give PPS principals who are struggling with having all students succeed? The principals’ comments were categorized, a process that resulted in 17 “key elements,” tactics considered to be effective by multiple principals. The tactics are listed below. Appendix D contains a summary of the comments from principals that help describe each element. 1. Clearly understood environment 2. Assessing and monitoring progress, then using the information 3. A plan or main focus that keeps efforts aligned and on track 4. Teacher collaboration and teamwork 5. Teacher support for decisions 6. Strong relationships with families—whether it’s gaining support from them or offering support to them 7. Strong relationships with the community and parents 8. Professional development in enough depth to change the school 9. Teacher responsibility and ownership for student learning 10. Creating teacher leadership 11. Staff is strong and capable 12. The principal is a role model for school climate and key elements 13. Many remedial paths 14. Flexible funding within the framework of school priorities, including shuffling staff, being ready for opportunities, grants and fundraising 15. Alignment of curriculum to state standards and benchmark tests, and alignment across grades/subjects 16. Specific instructional strategies and scheduling to accommodate them
17. Small school (class, lodge) size makes it easy to know what each student needs and focus on the child This summary became the foundation for a subsequent survey of the 19 interviewed principals. In reviewing the key elements with the principals, they encouraged collapsing two categories— strong relationships with families and strong relationships with the community and parents. They also suggested collapsing teacher collaboration and teamwork with teacher support for decisions. As they viewed the list of key elements, principals were asked to select the six “most critical” elements for new principals or principals working to improve achievement. They also told why they chose those items. Principals from nine elementary schools and three middle schools responded. The above list is ordered by the number of times principals selected the items among their six critical elements. In addition, two principals added items that weren’t encompassed by the other items: 1) the principal’s first job is instructional leader and 2) the principal must be astute in shaping a course while dealing with the public environment as well as the district environment. Tabulating the principals’ quantitative ratings made it possible for R&E staff to identify seven high priority tactics. Wording of the priorities has been modified based on the principals’ comments to better highlight the most critical elements for success. A positive school environment, shared by staff and stakeholders, that puts children first A shared vision or plan keeps efforts aligned and on track Strong relationships with family and the community Continual assessment and monitoring of student progress to plan instruction Teacher leadership developed through collaboration and teamwork Comprehensive, continued professional development focused on the vision School community takes responsibility for student learning
It is these key tactics that are highlighted in the PPS Research Brief, Practical Tactics for Academic Success, which is included as Appendix A.
meet the established standards.
ENDNOTES
2 The ethnicity comparisons focused on African-American
and Hispanic-American students.. These two groups show an achievement gap from Asian and European American students in the district. The district is focused on closing that gap while increasing achievement for all students.
1 Because so much other work related to high school reform
was going on in the district, R&E decided to concentrate on elementary and high schools for this research. 2 The ethnicity comparisons focused on African-American
3 Success” is a relative term. At one level, the District would
and Hispanic-American students. These two groups show an achievement gap from Asian- and European-American students in the district. The district is focused on closing that gap while increasing achievement for all students. 3 Success” is a relative term. At one level, the District would
only consider a school “successful” if every student, regardless of demographics, met the standards. Yet even in the schools that met the criteria for success in this study, many students—as many as 45% in some middle schools—failed to meet the established standards.
4
only consider a school “successful” if every student, regardless of demographics, met the standards. Yet even in the schools that met the criteria for success in this study, many students—as many as 45% in some middle schools—failed to meet the established standards. Five “successful school” principals were not interviewed. In a couple of cases, the principal had recently retired or moved and was no longer available to be interviewed. In the remaining cases, principals were not interviewed simply because of time constraints.
4 Five “successful school” principals were not interviewed. In
a couple of cases, the principal had recently retired or moved and was no longer available to be interviewed. In the remaining cases, principals were not interviewed simply because of time constraints.
For Further Information: PPS Research, Evaluation & Assessment is at 501 N. Dixon, Portland, OR 97227. The telephone is 503/916-3341; the fax number is 503/916-3106. E-mail about this document should go to
[email protected].
Appendix A
Research Brief: Practical Tactics for Academic Success
PPS R&E
Research Brief GIVEN THE NUMEROUS ARTICLES and books about school reform, a new principal or a principal trying to improve school performance can get overwhelmed. As part of the Portland Public Schools (PPS) Education Action Plan, PPS Chief Academic Officer Dr. Patricia Pickles asked the Research, Evaluation and Assessment Department to find the most critical elements of successful schools. The practices in this Brief come from interviews with 19 principals of PPS elementary and middle schools that have shown success over three years of statewide assessments with a variety of student populations. Success was defined in two ways for this study. School results for different subgroups—selected ethnic groups as well as special populations (Special Ed, English Language Learners, and students on free/reduced meals)—were compared to the district average for each of those groups. If a school had sufficiently-sized groups and at least 10% more students meeting benchmarks than the district average for a specific group of students, that school was seen as “successful.” Alternately, some schools did not have 10% more students in a group meeting benchmarks, but had gained 15% or more in terms of students meeting benchmarks in the last three years. Those schools were also termed “successful” for purposes of this study. For detailed information about the identification of successful schools, please review the Successful School Practices Research Notes, available from the senior author of this report. It should be noted that, at the middle school level, “successful” schools still have 35–45% of their students failing to meet state standards. As you read this brief, recognize that the term “successful” means “successful relative to others.” Even the successful schools are striving to improve. For Further Information: Portland Public Schools Research, Evaluation and Assessment Department is at 501 N. Dixon, Portland, OR 97227. The telephone is 503/916-3341; the fax number is 503/916-3106. Direct email about this report to shiscox@ pps.k12.or.us.
Practical Tactics for Academic Success Sue Hiscox and Vonnie Condon Successful schools in Portland Public Schools (PPS) share the characteristics identified as best practices in current research on effective schools. In reviewing PPS schools with high achievement for all students and high achievement within sub-groups of students, 20 common practices were evident and are noted in the accompanying Research Notes document. Principals at 19 of the schools helped to identify the practices that should be priorities for principals who want to improve student achievement. These practices include: A positive school environment, shared by staff and stakeholders, that puts children first A shared vision or plan that keeps efforts aligned and on track over time Strong relationships with families and the community Continual assessment and monitoring of student performance to plan instruction Teacher leadership developed through collaboration and teamwork Comprehensive, continued professional development focused on the school’s vision School community sense of responsibility for student learning The examples below come from schools that have shown exceptional progress in student achievement as measured by annual standardized tests. Many of the schools visited had excellent examples of each topic. The variety of tactics that are used are reflected in the examples below.
Everyone shares in a positive school environment that puts children first A positive school environment may be reflected in a mission statement or simply be an understood sense of the school’s mission and the need for all students to achieve. The environment is visible by looking at the school’s physical space, display of student work, student and staff interactions, a welcoming atmosphere and through inclusive activities at the school. As the Kenton principal says, “We believe all children can make it, and if they don’t, we’ll do whatever it takes.” Sellwood’s watchwords are achievement, balance and relationship. They have increased their elective and arts program so that students stay invested in school and have many opportunities to achieve. At Ball Elementary School, the motto “Children First” is on the school letterhead, built into letters home, and discussed with children. The principal sets the tone by greeting children as they come to school every day and regularly visiting classrooms. Boise-Eliot shares an academic focus by including overall school achievement data in monthly celebrations. As scores have increased, the whole school enjoys the success. Binnsmead found that a positive focus on behavior led to dramatic reductions in student referrals. All teachers are in the hall during breaks. Where they used to issue referrals, they now give “tickets” to recognize desired actions. The result was raising student expectations, recognizing successful behaviors and a drop in monthly referrals from 158 to 47 over three years.
A shared vision or plan keeps efforts aligned and on track The principal at Ball advises to “make the journey engaging. Lay the plan and stay the course.” That’s good advice for principals working to “raise the bar and eliminate the gap.” A clear vision and commitment over time
Practical Tactics for Academic Success als and activities parents can use to support learning with their children. Community building also means reaching out to other schools. Sellwood Middle School counts on good connections with fifth grade teachers at feeder schools to help assure parents that their children will have a great middle school experience. Parents of fifth graders are also invited to a number of PTA-sponsored events at the middle school, providing an opportunity for building community and discussion. How does the community contribute? At Gray, a partnership with OHSU supports instruction for students in science. Scientists work directly with selected students on their projects. Also, a team of scientists comes for the Science Fair and gives each child feedback. This community supports a summer program and “connects” kids with role models. The principal reports it all goes back to building relationships and a rigorous academic program . . . essential keys to school success. Community support often must be cultivated. When new to Lewis, the former principal actively listened to parents who had concerns about the school. Changes were needed. She asked parent leaders to give her a year to make changes and challenged them to work with her and talk about the strengths of the school with other parents and the children. She focused on building a student-friendly atmosphere that was evident when people walked in. Student work was attractively displayed. Art covered the walls and a garden warmed the entry. Systems were put in place to assure student safety and classroom access. The school motto, “At School, On
provide concrete actions for success. Time and clarity are essential in school success. Hosford Middle School can trace a six-year history of improvement in literacy based on continual review of student achievement data and targeted improvements. They began with grouping students to target instruction. As students made gains, the school focused on fluency to help mid-level readers move forward. Then they instituted specific strategies to help students who were performing near benchmark. Last year they focused on curriculum mapping and buying a common basal series to provide consistency across teachers. They also recruited good students to take notes (projected in the classroom) in order to provide visual cues to all students about organization of content. Capitol Hill Elementary School has maintained a steady focus on a strong arts program as part of an identity to help students achieve and to draw new students to the school. What started as a volunteer-based program is now sustained through grants and fundraisers. The school has garnered a variety of funding to allow the Extended Day Academy to pay for staff and to offer more arts options for students (and parents), along with homework clubs and enrichment activities. This year, the school officially added “Extended Day Arts Center” to its title and is working toward even more ways to fund and support the arts. Multiple schools cited Title I schoolwide planning and a meaningful school improvement planning process as a means of providing the focus for professional development. An effective plan provides a clear direction and a vehicle to screen actions that do not fit school priorities. At Lewis, for example, their plan has been a measuring stick for programs proposed by the PTA, teachers, or community. It sets priorities for funding and controls external efforts to influence the school.
Strong relationships with family and the community
Elementary
I*
R*
Astor
Y
Y
Y
Black, Hispanic, Spec Ed, F/R Meals
Ball
Y
Y
Y
Black, Hispanic, Spec Ed, ESL, F/R Meals
Boise-Eliot
Y
Y
Growth: Black, Hispanic, ESL, F/R Meals
Capitol Hill
Y
Y
Hispanic, Spec Ed, F/R Meals
Chief Joseph
Y
Y
Clark
Y
Creston
Funded by NW Natural Gas and the PTA, the Gray Middle School picnic brings out families schoolwide. As part of the International Field Day in the spring, students study a new culture and create art, activities and reports to share. Both events help students and families feel connected and valued. Binnsmead and Woodmere support a diverse community of families whose first language is not English through first language parent support groups. As parents learn from and with one another about the culture of school and what their children need, they are able to contribute to the school and more actively participate. A cross-culture common event occurs annually to bring the diverse community together. Hayhurst Elementary makes a special effort to reach parents. Four times a year, the school sends a bus to bring parents who live furthest from the school to evening programs that focus on reading, math and other topics. For family nights, staff members prepare materi-
M* Successful with What Groups?
Black, Hispanic, Spec Ed, F/R Meals Y
Spec Ed, F/R Meals, ESL
Y
Black, ESL, F/R Meals, Growth: Hispanic
Faubion
Y
Y
Growth: Black, Hispanic, Spec Ed, F/R Meals
Hayhurst
Y
Y
Growth: Hispanic, Spec Ed, F/R Meals
Kenton
Y
Y
Laurelhurst
Y
Y
Black, ESL, F/R Meals Y
Black, Spec Ed, F/R Meals Spec Ed, ESL, F/R Meals
Lewis
Y
Y
Y
Markham
Y
Y
Y
Black, Hispanic, Spec Ed, ESL, F/R Meals
Y
Y
Black, F/R Meals
Sabin Vernon
Y
Woodmere
Y
Y
Middle
I*
R*
Binnsmead
Y
Y
Fernwood
Y
Black, Hispanic, Spec Ed, ESL, F/R Meals
Y
Hispanic, Spec Ed, ESL
M* Successful with What Groups? Black Y
Black, Hispanic, Spec Ed Black, Hispanic, Spec Ed, F/R Meals
Gray
Y
Y
Y
Hosford
Y
Y
Y
Jackson
Y
Black, ESL, F/R Meals Black, Hispanic, Spec Ed, ESL, F/R Meals
Mt. Tabor
Y
Y
Y
Sellwood
Y
Y
Y
Black, Hispanic, Spec Ed, F/R Meals
Y
Y
Black, Hispanic, Spec Ed, ESL, F/R Meals
West Sylvan
Black, Hispanic, Spec Ed, F/R Meals
* I= Interviewed, R = Reading, M = Math
–2–
March 2004 support. The collaborative work included developing a common language across classes as teachers taught math. At Hosford Middle School, the principal focused on developing teacher leadership skills so they could “run the school without her.” Over time, the school was structured so that 80% of the teachers and education assistants had important roles for the building—as test coordinator, task force members, or on major committees. Leadership flourished as all staff were involved in critical decisions and the daily work of school. The Astor staff holds relatively few staff meetings for procedural or management issues. Instead, that weekly time is devoted to team planning. The team time is used to develop curriculum and instructional plans around the benchmarks and evaluation of instructional practices. Book studies and team support are also a part of weekly efforts for professional collaboration.
Time, Ready to Learn,” established new expectations. Together, the school staff and parents helped create a positive learning environment.
Continual assessment and monitoring of student progress to plan instruction Like many elementary schools, Boise-Eliot administers the DRA three times a year. After each administration, teachers report on how their students compared to their goals and review their instructional plans for meeting student needs. Vernon Elementary similarly focuses on regrouping students by need and defining eight-week plans for each learning group. Regular individual student assessment guides the instructional programs. Student-involved classroom assessment is key to success at Mt. Tabor Middle School. Five years ago, two-thirds of the staff took a class on student-involved assessment and integrated what they learned into their classrooms. Students monitor their own progress and can report their achievement. Teachers assign student work samples and score them as a team. The samples are returned quickly to students for revision and teachers use the samples to modify their instruction. Hosford Middle School finds report card time a good occasion for reconfiguring their reading/writing block grouping. Teachers review class work, grades they gave on the standards-based report card, reading fluency and writing assessments to place students and determine the instructional focus for each group. A number of schools are also using TESA to help inform math and reading instruction. At Clark Elementary, the fifth grade took math tests, got instant results, and by the following Friday, the fifth grade team and principal were reviewing results. The outcome determined the instructional plans and identified students who needed additional support to meet benchmarks. At Chief Joseph Elementary, an analysis of the math benchmarks, report cards, and the math curriculum (Investigations) determined when skills are taught. They developed a calendar to make certain skills have been taught and reviewed throughout the year. They use quarterly assessments to see whether students have mastered skills.
Comprehensive, continued professional development focused on the vision While professional development can come as a onetime effort, research shows that it takes ongoing work beyond presentations by experts to change skills and develop a schoolwide understanding of specific models or curricula. A professional development plan that supports a schoolwide effort, with time allotted for coaching, modeling and reflection, creates an effective change model. Schools like Faubion (Trails to Literacy) and Vernon (Success for All) have used a focused reading curriculum that has been supported by professional development (specific training) and ongoing support by consultants over several years. A program coach, a building level instructional specialist and an instructional team that continually reviews practices all create the necessary support for true change. Woodmere teachers have added their own videotaped model lessons to their library to help one another hone skills for their reading program. Lewis Elementary found a consultant very useful in helping the staff develop a common K–5 language and focus for math. The principal and instructional leaders at the school then took on the charge to provide further staff development and coaching. After several years with professional development around English as a Second Language, the principal at Markham asks teachers she is observing to use a lesson that demonstrates good ESL practices. This gives her a chance to talk about their professional development as she meets with teachers and shows that she considers the skills important. As befits a very experienced staff, Laurelhurst teachers rely on professional development to increase their own skills. The principal has used monthly staff meeting time over the last two years to review Mosaic of Thought and Strategies that Work. All teachers practice and discuss what they used and what worked at the next monthly staff meeting. The principal also volun-
Teacher leadership developed through collaboration and teamwork Teacher collaboration takes time. Principals have creatively found planning and team time for teachers. Many reported that staff meeting time was set aside for collaborative team work (within and between grades or subjects) at least once a month and at some schools, weekly. Schools took advantage of waivers for early release or late start. Others clustered “elective” courses or special classes like PE and music at times that freed teachers to plan. Use of a roving substitute provided time for additional team review of student achievement. Clark and Faubion focused a monthly staff meeting on math and took advantage of the district NSF grant to train teacher-leaders who helped develop peer modeling and
–3–
Practical Tactics for Academic Success Many schools had flourishing partnerships and involved parent volunteers. And a number of principals talked about how they worked to develop a staff and locate funding that supported student achievement and the school vision. But the seven practices we have highlighted were most often selected as the first steps a principal should take in moving a school toward improved performance. The following checklist is a quick way to assess your own school. Use it yourself or with staff to identify how well your school has implemented the seven practices.
teers to try lessons in classrooms and uses the feedback to improve her own skills. A high level of professional development includes peer coaching and modeling: “teachers teaching teachers.” Schools like Faubion, Clark and Woodmere have worked through concerns of opening classrooms for demonstration and modeling. The Clark principal reports “Satff are beginning to model lessons to one another through peer observations.” Enhanced teacher skills and leadership result from professional development.
School community takes responsibility for student learning
A Checklist of Practical Tactics for Success
A difficult, but critical, aspect of successful schools is reflected in teachers and the community assuming responsibility for student learning. “Whatever works” was often heard throughout interviews . . . with the assumption that the school staff, alongside parents, plan for each and every child to be successful. The Chief Joseph principal uses simple questions to help staff focus on what each will do to assure success and how the school meets the needs of students. A variety of interventions are available depending on what children need and how they best learn. A teacher who might be concerned that a student is missing too much school is likely to get the question “Well, what are we going to do about it?” Once the teacher has a plan, the school supports it. At Hayhurst, the principal and child development specialist target students with frequent absences. They set up individual programs with the students to increase attendance, including the option to call and ask the school for transportation. At Ball, when the principal discovered that several parents were unaware of a student performance, she asked all teachers to call the parents that night. Only one student, who was ill, missed the performance. At Laurelhurst and other schools, results from the DRA are used for planning. Each teacher is responsible for planning how to bring students up to benchmark. When a teacher has a large percent of students struggling, the principal and support staff follow up. “What can we do to help?” While teachers feel responsible for the students, responsibility is shared across the school. A number of schools use a task force of teachers, principal, instructional specialists and ESL or special education teachers as a resource team. When a teacher is struggling with a student, he or she can bring the information to the group. They offer suggestions and develop an intervention plan to support the teacher and teach the child. The teacher selects what to do next and comes back with updates or further information. Student success is everyone’s focus.
A positive school environment that puts children first
Does your school have a spoken (or commonly understood) vision?
Does your school building reflect that vision?
Do you communicate the vision to parents, children and new staff?
A shared vision or plan that keeps efforts aligned and on track over time
Do you have a clear set of priorities for the school?
Do school staff understand how new programs fit with the priorities?
Do you use the priorities to control new programs, regardless of source?
Are your school funds and staff aligned with your priorities?
Do you evaluate the success of your plan and activities?
Strong relationships with families and the community
Do teachers or other staff actively reach out to parents, especially those of color, who speak a first language other than English, or with children in special populations?
Do the parents who attend school functions reflect the full diversity of the school?
Does the school communicate in the appropriate language with parents?
Continual assessment/monitoring of student progress to plan instruction
Are there common assessments across grade levels and are teachers trained to use them?
Do teachers review student performance and use results for planning? Do they also use standards-based report cards or other measures to share student success?
Do teachers know what instructional modifications to make based on student performance?
Teacher leadership developed through collaboration and teamwork
Is there time for teachers within and between grade levels to plan for instructional consistency and agreement on common language?
Do teachers across subjects have time to plan together (middle school)?
Are teacher leadership teams in place to represent all teachers in decision making?
Is decision making around school improvement and professional development a shared process involving staff?
Comprehensive professional development focused on the vision
Is staff development related to your school improvement plan?
Does staff development include modeling, practice and feedback until teachers are proficient at new skills?
Is there a process of teacher support for change in instructional practices (specialist, lead teacher, peer coaches, consultant)?
School community sense of responsibility for student learning
Does the full school staff (including custodians, office staff, cafeteria staff) really believe that all children can succeed?
Does the staff feel responsible for all students, even as demographics change?
Does the community believe in and support the success of the school and the students?
Summary Principals in this study were clear that other elements are required for a successful school. Many principals gave the most credit to a highly trained and experienced staff committed to the success of every child.
–4–
Appendix B
Schools Showing High Achievement with Special Populations
Defining “Successful” Schools Using the criteria listed in the main body of these research notes, 24 schools were identified as “successful” with at least one population of interest. The schools, along with the subject and populations, are shown in the table in the body of the notes. For in-depth information on all schools in the district, refer to the tables that follow this sheet. Appendix B shows the percent of students within specific programs meeting the standards. (For example, the column for Special Ed shows the percent of Special Ed students who met the state or district standards.) Appendix C shows three years of test scores for the different ethnic groups in the district. The first table (Appendix B) gives results by the percent of students meeting benchmarks who are: eligible for free or reduced meals, participating in Special Education programs, and qualifying for English as a Second Language (ESL) programs. The tables in Appendix B and Appendix C are shaded for easier reference, as follows: HORIZONTAL STRIPES: The percent of students in the group who met standards exceeded by ten or more percentage points the percent of the students within the district for that group and age range. The percent did not exceed the district average for all groups combined, however. Note that neither Asiannor European-American students have any cells in this category; their group average exceeded the overall district average.
SHADED: The percent of students in the group who met standards equaled or exceeded the total percent of all students in the district who met standards. Light shading indicates the group performance was equal to or better than the district average by up to nine percentage points. Dark shading indicates that the group exceeded the district average by 10 percentage points or more. The tables also show the number of students involved in the state and district assessments for the combined grades in the spring of 2003. Since the performance of even one student can dramatically influence average percentages in small groups, R&E does not report average data for fewer than ten students. When determining when a school was successful, it was important to use relatively large groups of students on which to base the decision. No precise size was established, although it normally takes about 30 students to have confidence in the stability and validity of the average data as a reflection of group performance. Among the schools singled out for this report, the smallest group was 26 for a Special Education group. In “Descriptive Information,” the column “F/R” shows the percent of students in the school who received free or reduced meals. The “ELL” column shows the percent of students in the school who were in English as a Second Language programs. Since both of these variables have been found to strongly correlate to student performance in general, we include this data to help schools look for other schools with similar demographics as they look for possible schools to benchmark against.
Percent Meeting Standards by Special Program District Rdg 3-5 '01 75 '02 78 '03 77
6-8 65 64 65
10 51 53 49
Math 3-5 78 78 78
6-8 66 68 70
10 41 45 46
Reading Descriptive Information School
F/R
ELL subject
District Abernethy
31%
Free/Reduced Meals
6%
Special Ed
ESL
grade
2001
2002
2003
2003 N
2001
2002
2003
2003 N
R
3-4-5
62%
65%
66%
5117
51%
58%
48%
1575
R
3-4-5
81%
74%
64%
36
58%
42%
12
2001 2002 2003 2003 N
39% 44% 46%
1471 4
Ainsworth
7%
1%
R
3-4-5
90%
88%
85%
13
81%
81%
76%
17
3
Alameda
10%
1%
R
3-4-5
88%
86%
77%
22
82%
79%
84%
25
1
Applegate
81% 17%
R
3-4-5
74%
75%
74%
68
Arleta
69% 20%
R
3-4-5
68%
69%
73%
85
23%
63%
50%
9
62% 42%
14
16
43% 42% 60%
26
Astor
53%
8%
R
3-4-5
83%
91%
94%
83
54%
92%
86%
21
Atkinson
51% 35%
R
3-4-5
58%
64%
59%
135
48%
53%
38%
17
49% 57% 49%
94
Ball
80% 18%
R
3-4-5
62%
82%
85%
92
30%
69%
14
70% 67%
12
Beach
69% 21%
R
3-4-5
49%
58%
64%
139
42%
54%
21%
19
17% 30% 45%
42
Boise-Eliot
66%
R
3-4-5
60%
60%
75%
158
35%
60%
50%
24
22% 59% 58%
14
8%
3
Bridger
51% 10%
R
3-4-5
76%
76%
68%
100
55%
60%
53%
19
50%
18
Bridlemile
14%
5%
R
3-4-5
70%
84%
71%
21
60%
82%
74%
19
55%
11
Brooklyn
57% 17%
R
3-4-5
60%
38%
38%
28
54%
7
50% 20% 17%
13
Buckman
29%
7%
R
3-4-5
72%
75%
74%
77
89%
83%
78%
40
44% 39% 37%
19
Capitol Hill
28%
6%
R
3-4-5
68%
76%
79%
39
44%
65%
69%
26
5
Chapman
27%
4%
R
3-4-5
74%
67%
85%
40
62%
69%
73%
16
5
Chief Joseph
57%
8%
R
3-4-5
72%
83%
82%
71
50%
58%
62%
13
6
Clarendon
89% 48%
R
3-4-5
55%
56%
58%
172
18%
41%
46%
28
46% 45% 51%
92
Clark
69% 33%
R
3-4-5
68%
66%
66%
177
67%
43%
69%
31
42% 48% 38%
71
58% 70% 61%
32
50% 46%
13
Creston
65% 23%
R
3-4-5
64%
76%
76%
97
36%
50%
50%
18
Duniway
10%
0%
R
3-4-5
73%
94%
84%
19
72%
96%
79%
19
Edwards
11%
1%
R
3-4-5
77%
81%
100%
10
65%
88%
82%
17
Faubion
71%
9%
R
3-4-5
58%
63%
72%
89
38%
43%
58%
20
75%
12
1
48%
71%
63%
30
4
42%
13%
16
35% 54% 55%
21
81%
16
7%
45%
13
21% 27%
13
Forest Park
1%
1%
R
3-4-5
Glencoe
24%
3%
R
3-4-5
64%
68%
74%
47
1
Grout
53% 17%
R
3-4-5
53%
68%
62%
70
Hayhurst
43% 14%
R
3-4-5
47%
58%
61%
50
Hollyrood
6%
1%
R
3-4-5
Humboldt
96% 13%
R
3-4-5
50%
60%
63%
82
21%
31%
26%
19
Irvington
38%
1%
R
3-4-5
67%
58%
64%
94
48%
54%
33%
43
James John
75% 30%
R
3-4-5
50%
46%
51%
213
27%
27%
29%
29
28% 27% 39%
81
Kelly
78% 33%
R
3-4-5
66%
61%
60%
179
60%
31%
33%
27
40% 39% 39%
64
Kenton
73% 17%
R
3-4-5
89%
98%
80%
82
64%
50%
14
72%
18
50% 57% 42%
28
56%
2
5
King
92% 12%
R
3-4-5
60%
47%
62%
76
22%
28%
12%
25
Laurelhurst
15%
R
3-4-5
72%
84%
83%
37
74%
86%
83%
29
R&E, 2/27/04,sbh Final
4%
yellow/striped = grp avg +10 to district avg lt green/light shaded = distr avg to distr avg +10 drk green/dark shaded = distr agv +10 and above
4
7
1 of 6
Percent Meeting Standards by Special Program District Rdg 3-5 '01 75 '02 78 '03 77
6-8 65 64 65
10 51 53 49
Math 3-5 78 78 78
6-8 66 68 70
10 41 45 46
Reading Descriptive Information
Free/Reduced Meals
ELL subject
Special Ed
ESL
School
F/R
grade
2001
2002
2003
2003 N
2001
2002
2003
2003 N
Lee
70% 39%
R
3-4-5
47%
58%
55%
128
39%
31%
35%
26
22% 54% 47%
2001 2002 2003 2003 N
72
Lent
71% 33%
R
3-4-5
53%
48%
60%
123
30%
17%
25%
28
44% 35% 41%
45
80%
10
Lewis
43%
7%
R
3-4-5
71%
74%
84%
62
56%
38%
67%
29
Llewellyn
33%
3%
R
3-4-5
68%
76%
72%
50
65%
82%
79%
24
4
Maplewood
21%
6%
R
3-4-5
76%
79%
71%
34
57%
56%
64%
28
8
Markham
38% 21%
R
3-4-5
89%
69%
76%
62
92%
72%
80%
25
72% 59%
32
Marysville
74% 29%
R
3-4-5
68%
58%
61%
129
64%
47%
19
39% 41% 41%
51
Meek
71% 18%
R
3-4-5
61%
72%
82%
49
8
47% 62% 70%
20
MLC
32%
0%
R
3-4-5
95%
84%
76%
30
80%
53%
16
Peninsula
74% 25%
R
3-4-5
57%
62%
55%
121
55%
29%
17
36% 47% 40%
36
Richmond
29%
4%
R
3-4-5
73%
73%
79%
58
55%
68%
28
Rieke
9%
0%
R
3-4-5
71%
92%
83%
12
68%
72%
100%
15
Rigler
80% 46%
R
3-4-5
60%
65%
60%
171
27%
52%
26%
27
45% 52% 52%
84
Rose City
31% 12%
R
3-4-5
64%
75%
71%
74
52%
63%
50%
36
38% 40% 50%
23
Sabin
68% 10%
R
3-4-5
66%
71%
83%
77
41%
50%
61%
9
10
7
Scott
65% 27%
R
3-4-5
59%
55%
64%
129
48%
49%
55%
22
37% 29% 40%
48
Sitton
78% 11%
R
3-4-5
60%
67%
57%
106
45%
75%
20%
15
54%
17
Skyline
12%
1%
R
3-4-5
85%
80%
10
77%
88%
88%
17
Smith
14%
7%
R
3-4-5
82%
67%
12
73%
62%
62%
13
8
Stephenson
5%
1%
R
3-4-5
70%
10
59%
64%
72%
25
4
Sunnyside
50%
7%
R
3-4-5
77%
74%
74%
40
70%
59%
40%
11
40%
9
Vernon
88% 14%
R
3-4-5
55%
62%
80%
146
32%
24%
50%
22
74% 63% 75%
25
Vestal
68% 25%
R
3-4-5
51%
50%
67%
107
23%
38%
33%
19
24% 28% 30%
31
Whitman
79% 26%
R
3-4-5
48%
53%
53%
142
22%
66%
40%
40
40% 32% 35%
58
86%
Winterhaven
11%
0%
R
3-4-5
Woodlawn
83% 11%
R
3-4-5
47%
55%
61%
167
15%
29%
21%
14
8%
35%
17
Woodmere
76% 33%
R
3-4-5
64%
65%
69%
166
60%
69%
59%
25
44% 46% 52%
70
Woodstock
38%
R
3-4-5
72%
65%
69%
65
38%
47%
36%
22
R
6-7-8
46%
45%
46%
4168
29%
30%
27%
1400
6%
District
4
6%
2
8 17% 16% 16%
996
16% 17% 15%
168
Beaumont
42%
1%
R
6-7-8
45%
43%
53%
172
25%
25%
29%
51
Binnsmead
64% 26%
R
6-7-8
51%
45%
47%
400
27%
18%
21%
71
Da Vinci
11%
2%
R
6-7-8
74%
75%
65%
31
52%
58%
55%
23
5
EMS
23%
2%
R
6-7-8
57%
55%
68%
41
80%
29%
55%
23
3
Fernwood
21%
1%
R
6-7-8
54%
53%
60%
113
42%
36%
28%
54
5
George
76% 24%
R
6-7-8
40%
35%
39%
348
20%
20%
17%
59
17% 10% 13%
119
Gray
19%
R
6-7-8
47%
55%
59%
79
45%
44%
46%
54
13% 26%
31
R&E, 2/27/04,sbh Final
6%
yellow/striped = grp avg +10 to district avg lt green/light shaded = distr avg to distr avg +10 drk green/dark shaded = distr agv +10 and above
4
2 of 6
Percent Meeting Standards by Special Program District Rdg 3-5 '01 75 '02 78 '03 77
6-8 65 64 65
10 51 53 49
Math 3-5 78 78 78
6-8 66 68 70
10 41 45 46
Reading Descriptive Information
Free/Reduced Meals
ELL subject
Special Ed
ESL
School
F/R
grade
2001
2002
2003
2003 N
2001
2002
2003
2003 N
Gregory Heights
57% 19%
R
6-7-8
50%
50%
43%
335
27%
23%
22%
69
16% 19% 15%
2001 2002 2003 2003 N
125
Hosford
55% 12%
R
6-7-8
41%
52%
61%
185
21%
25%
27%
45
0%
40
13% 30%
Jackson
11%
3%
R
6-7-8
62%
62%
63%
82
51%
43%
40%
80
32%
23
Kellogg
53% 12%
R
6-7-8
50%
49%
55%
305
28%
35%
39%
77
28% 15% 27%
74
Lane
68% 22%
R
6-7-8
37%
45%
42%
358
14%
27%
11%
57
14% 17% 14%
119
MLC
32%
0%
R
6-7-8
61%
36%
81%
32
50%
50%
63%
19
Mt. Tabor
23%
4%
R
6-7-8
69%
68%
61%
148
47%
55%
52%
80
20% 23% 16%
25
Ockley Green
74% 19%
R
6-7-8
39%
31%
34%
282
18%
15%
12%
45
18%
4%
74
Portsmouth
66% 12%
R
6-7-8
47%
42%
47%
287
20%
20%
16%
61
26% 14%
56
Sellwood
25%
2%
R
6-7-8
61%
57%
66%
116
25%
31%
42%
68
36%
9
Sunnyside
50%
7%
R
6-7-8
87%
79%
Tubman
73%
6%
R
6-7-8
43%
33%
35%
266
22%
19%
9%
47
25%
8%
26
West Sylvan
8%
2%
R
6-7-8
76%
73%
72%
68
55%
50%
46%
56
40%
16
Whitaker
81% 16%
R
6-7-8
32%
32%
34%
279
12%
14%
16%
45
15% 13% 16%
58
Winterhaven
11%
0%
R
6-7-8
R
10
27%
28%
25%
887
18%
17%
13%
339
1%
Benson
35%
4%
R
10
39%
44%
43%
126
40%
9%
48%
25
Cleveland
20%
8%
R
10
31%
26%
24%
62
33%
34%
5%
20
Franklin
30%
8%
R
10
28%
32%
27%
74
13%
14%
8%
26
Grant
16%
2%
R
10
24%
34%
28%
39
17%
9%
11%
18
Jefferson
73% 12%
R
10
28%
18%
23%
92
6%
4%
10%
21
Lincoln
6%
1%
R
10
50%
73%
56%
16
42%
12
Madison
58% 19%
R
10
14%
27%
21%
126
6%
14%
8%
24
0%
0%
0%
40
Marshall
54% 16%
R
10
27%
23%
21%
111
7%
7%
5%
20
0%
3%
0%
38
MLC
32%
1%
R
10
36%
11
Roosevelt
64% 18%
R
10
25%
15%
22%
126
R
10
25%
R
10
42%
33%
31%
District
Vocational Village 10%
Wilson
R&E, 2/27/04,sbh Final
3%
7
2 6%
1%
246
40%
4%
23
0%
5%
0%
22
0%
13%
3%
34 9
0%
0%
13%
11%
14%
27%
40%
10%
14
0 0%
9%
0%
0
yellow/striped = grp avg +10 to district avg lt green/light shaded = distr avg to distr avg +10 drk green/dark shaded = distr agv +10 and above
32
18 4
5
2 33
8%
40 0
0%
3 of 6
11
Percent Meeting Standards by Special Program District Rdg 3-5 '01 75 '02 78 '03 77
6-8 65 64 65
10 51 53 49
Math 3-5 78 78 78
6-8 66 68 70
10 41 45 46
Math Descriptive Information School
F/R
Free/Reduced Meals
ELL subject
District
Special Ed
ESL
grade
2001
2002
2003
2003 N
2001
2002
2003
2003 N
M
3-4-5
65%
67%
67%
5117
60%
60%
54%
1575
2001 2002 2003 2003 N
45%
12
4
51% 55% 54%
1471
Abernethy
31%
6%
M
3-4-5
70%
79%
67%
36
57%
Ainsworth
7%
1%
M
3-4-5
90%
94%
100%
13
71%
88%
88%
17
3
Alameda
10%
1%
M
3-4-5
88%
82%
68%
22
87%
92%
64%
25
1
Applegate
81% 17%
M
3-4-5
73%
71%
69%
68
Arleta
69% 20%
M
3-4-5
65%
75%
72%
85
52%
82%
Astor
53%
8%
M
3-4-5
79%
81%
93%
83
33%
Atkinson
51% 35%
M
3-4-5
71%
68%
60%
135
59%
Ball
80% 18%
M
3-4-5
68%
63%
89%
92
64%
18%
86%
14
60% 75%
12
Beach
69% 21%
M
3-4-5
57%
70%
65%
139
79%
55%
47%
19
37% 53% 44%
42
Boise-Eliot
66%
8%
M
3-4-5
64%
63%
65%
158
48%
68%
61%
24
45% 65% 36%
14
Bridger
51% 10%
M
3-4-5
71%
70%
60%
100
50%
60%
53%
19
44%
18
Bridlemile
14%
5%
M
3-4-5
75%
61%
62%
21
85%
50%
74%
19
45%
27%
11
Brooklyn
57% 17%
M
3-4-5
67%
84%
57%
28
86%
7
33%
46%
13
Buckman
29%
7%
M
3-4-5
72%
65%
73%
77
76%
74%
68%
40
50% 38% 42%
19
Capitol Hill
28%
6%
M
3-4-5
72%
87%
77%
39
75%
75%
69%
26
5
Chapman
27%
4%
M
3-4-5
71%
61%
73%
40
78%
66%
56%
16
5
Chief Joseph
57%
8%
M
3-4-5
75%
76%
73%
71
38%
57%
62%
13
6
Clarendon
89% 48%
M
3-4-5
49%
53%
61%
172
38%
36%
43%
28
36% 47% 54%
92
Clark
69% 33%
M
3-4-5
71%
78%
78%
177
64%
62%
71%
31
59% 77% 69%
71
Creston
65% 23%
M
3-4-5
61%
69%
69%
97
52%
50%
56%
18
50% 80% 53%
32
Duniway
10%
M
3-4-5
73%
84%
89%
19
83%
76%
74%
19
45% 85%
13
0%
9
64% 64%
14
56%
16
57% 66% 69%
26
65%
90%
21
50%
47%
17
3 65% 66% 57%
94
Edwards
11%
1%
M
3-4-5
71%
81%
100%
10
56%
80%
71%
17
Faubion
71%
9%
M
3-4-5
62%
68%
71%
89
52%
61%
50%
20
Forest Park
1%
1%
M
3-4-5
91%
12
1
Glencoe
24%
3%
M
3-4-5
70%
76%
78%
47
73%
83%
30
4
Grout
53% 17%
M
3-4-5
72%
69%
74%
70
47%
31%
16
50% 68% 81%
21
Hayhurst
43% 14%
M
3-4-5
56%
63%
62%
50
88%
16
40%
46%
13
Hollyrood
6%
1%
M
3-4-5
Humboldt
96% 13%
M
3-4-5
47%
53%
46%
82
29%
27%
26%
19
21% 31%
13
Irvington
38%
1%
M
3-4-5
53%
53%
60%
94
55%
54%
38%
43
James John
75% 30%
M
3-4-5
63%
45%
51%
213
62%
30%
24%
29
55% 36% 39%
81
Kelly
78% 33%
M
3-4-5
72%
65%
63%
179
45%
46%
56%
27
66% 52% 39%
64
Kenton
73% 17%
M
3-4-5
89%
84%
73%
82
100%
50%
14
65%
18
King
92% 12%
M
3-4-5
64%
69%
65%
76
29%
30%
25
54% 79% 39%
28
R&E, 2/27/04,sbh Final
1 63%
69%
2
5
yellow/striped = grp avg +10 to district avg lt green/light shaded = distr avg to distr avg +10 drk green/dark shaded = distr agv +10 and above
39%
4
4 of 6
Percent Meeting Standards by Special Program District Rdg 3-5 '01 75 '02 78 '03 77
6-8 65 64 65
10 51 53 49
Math 3-5 78 78 78
6-8 66 68 70
10 41 45 46
Math Descriptive Information
Free/Reduced Meals
Special Ed
ESL
School
F/R
ELL subject
grade
2001
2002
2003
2003 N
2001
2002
2003
2003 N
Laurelhurst
15%
4%
M
3-4-5
79%
78%
89%
37
76%
86%
90%
29
Lee
70% 39%
M
3-4-5
51%
61%
63%
128
58%
41%
54%
26
32% 59% 57%
72
Lent
71% 33%
M
3-4-5
60%
52%
68%
123
43%
31%
36%
28
44% 50% 58%
45
Lewis
43%
7%
M
3-4-5
65%
68%
77%
62
48%
67%
76%
29
80%
10
Llewellyn
33%
3%
M
3-4-5
61%
78%
76%
50
55%
82%
96%
24
4
Maplewood
21%
6%
M
3-4-5
69%
68%
71%
34
68%
56%
71%
28
8
Markham
38% 21%
M
3-4-5
90%
81%
73%
62
93%
71%
84%
25
78% 66%
32
Marysville
74% 29%
M
3-4-5
69%
80%
60%
129
63%
19
57% 70% 45%
51
Meek
71% 18%
M
3-4-5
66%
80%
86%
49
82%
90%
8
71% 75% 80%
20
MLC
32%
0%
M
3-4-5
92%
72%
68%
30
91%
60%
67%
16
Peninsula
74% 25%
M
3-4-5
63%
65%
54%
121
46%
41%
17
55% 56% 36%
36
Richmond
29%
4%
M
3-4-5
82%
73%
66%
58
74%
55%
68%
28
Rieke
9%
0%
M
3-4-5
80%
85%
83%
12
70%
72%
100%
15
Rigler
80% 46%
M
3-4-5
65%
66%
63%
171
55%
46%
33%
27
55% 63% 56%
84
Rose City
31% 12%
M
3-4-5
66%
79%
65%
74
67%
66%
47%
36
52% 53% 48%
23
Sabin
68% 10%
M
3-4-5
50%
70%
83%
77
29%
46%
50%
10
Scott
65% 27%
M
3-4-5
60%
56%
73%
129
52%
51%
68%
22
32% 37% 56%
48
Sitton
78% 11%
M
3-4-5
54%
65%
64%
106
61%
56%
54%
15
42% 53% 35%
17
Skyline
12%
1%
M
3-4-5
83%
90%
10
83%
94%
94%
17
Smith
14%
7%
M
3-4-5
82%
75%
12
82%
73%
85%
13
8
Stephenson
5%
1%
M
3-4-5
60%
10
75%
70%
76%
25
4
Sunnyside
50%
7%
M
3-4-5
80%
74%
73%
40
70%
65%
64%
11
60%
9
Vernon
88% 14%
M
3-4-5
51%
65%
79%
146
16%
40%
59%
22
47% 55% 88%
25
Vestal
68% 25%
M
3-4-5
74%
72%
76%
107
38%
69%
47%
19
59% 57% 42%
31
Whitman
79% 26%
M
3-4-5
56%
66%
59%
142
47%
73%
53%
40
36% 45% 53%
58
Winterhaven
11%
0%
M
3-4-5
Woodlawn
83% 11%
M
3-4-5
62%
59%
66%
167
31%
21%
23%
14
31% 56%
17
Woodmere
76% 33%
M
3-4-5
80%
81%
86%
166
71%
70%
84%
25
72% 68% 71%
70
Woodstock
38%
M
3-4-5
72%
62%
75%
65
58%
40%
57%
22
M
6-7-8
49%
54%
54%
4168
32%
36%
34%
1400
6%
District
71%
4
2001 2002 2003 2003 N
7
9
7
2
8 36% 41% 38%
996
Beaumont
42%
1%
M
6-7-8
44%
39%
52%
172
23%
22%
38%
51
Binnsmead
64% 26%
M
6-7-8
50%
54%
55%
400
26%
28%
34%
71
Da Vinci
11%
2%
M
6-7-8
69%
63%
65%
31
57%
54%
52%
23
5
EMS
23%
2%
M
6-7-8
64%
63%
78%
41
80%
53%
61%
23
3
Fernwood
21%
1%
M
6-7-8
57%
49%
58%
113
45%
54%
49%
54
5
R&E, 2/27/04,sbh Final
yellow/striped = grp avg +10 to district avg lt green/light shaded = distr avg to distr avg +10 drk green/dark shaded = distr agv +10 and above
4 38% 30% 37%
5 of 6
168
Percent Meeting Standards by Special Program District Rdg 3-5 '01 75 '02 78 '03 77
6-8 65 64 65
10 51 53 49
Math 3-5 78 78 78
6-8 66 68 70
10 41 45 46
Math Descriptive Information
Free/Reduced Meals
ELL subject
Special Ed
ESL
School
F/R
grade
2001
2002
2003
2003 N
2001
2002
2003
2003 N
George
76% 24%
M
6-7-8
44%
48%
56%
348
34%
22%
26%
59
26% 37% 46%
119
Gray
19%
6%
M
6-7-8
48%
51%
61%
79
47%
52%
43%
54
28% 35%
31
Gregory Heights
57% 19%
M
6-7-8
63%
63%
63%
335
29%
31%
36%
69
48% 49% 42%
125
Hosford
55% 12%
M
6-7-8
42%
59%
68%
185
18%
19%
31%
45
26% 39% 38%
40
Jackson
11%
3%
M
6-7-8
66%
68%
63%
82
59%
53%
56%
80
50% 39%
23
Kellogg
53% 12%
M
6-7-8
60%
63%
59%
305
35%
33%
42%
77
56% 52% 42%
74
Lane
68% 22%
M
6-7-8
44%
56%
48%
358
20%
32%
21%
57
32% 43% 34%
119
MLC
32%
0%
M
6-7-8
59%
64%
77%
32
56%
36%
61%
19
Mt. Tabor
23%
4%
M
6-7-8
72%
76%
80%
148
47%
69%
65%
80
46% 57% 71%
25
Ockley Green
74% 19%
M
6-7-8
47%
46%
40%
282
22%
30%
18%
45
30% 36% 19%
74
Portsmouth
66% 12%
M
6-7-8
50%
54%
56%
287
27%
26%
30%
61
42% 35%
56
Sellwood
25%
2%
M
6-7-8
63%
68%
72%
116
29%
42%
54%
68
Sunnyside
50%
7%
M
6-7-8
80%
77%
Tubman
73%
6%
M
6-7-8
36%
35%
42%
266
19%
15%
23%
47
40% 35%
26
West Sylvan
8%
2%
M
6-7-8
66%
75%
74%
68
64%
65%
52%
56
69%
16
Whitaker
81% 16%
M
6-7-8
31%
39%
53%
279
10%
23%
22%
45
25% 34% 38%
58
Winterhaven
11%
M
6-7-8
M
10
21%
27%
26%
879
11%
0%
District
7
2001 2002 2003 2003 N
9
2 10%
12%
335
10% 12% 13%
249
50%
26
45%
22
Benson
35%
4%
M
10
36%
51%
46%
122
42%
Cleveland
20%
8%
M
10
26%
25%
23%
62
22%
22%
5%
21
17%
23%
22
Franklin
30%
8%
M
10
27%
34%
30%
76
5%
8%
12%
25
11% 21% 21%
33
Grant
16%
2%
M
10
16%
33%
35%
40
17%
11%
25%
16
0%
9
Jefferson
73% 12%
M
10
9%
18%
13%
95
0%
11%
0%
Lincoln
6%
1%
M
10
55%
68%
44%
16
Madison
58% 19%
M
10
17%
21%
21%
119
Marshall
54% 16%
M
10
32%
29%
24%
110
MLC
32%
1%
M
10
27%
11
Roosevelt
64% 18%
M
10
13%
28%
126
M
10
0%
M
10
21%
Vocational Village Wilson
10%
R&E, 2/27/04,sbh Final
3%
14%
0%
5%
22
33%
13
0%
0%
25
9%
2%
3%
40
4%
5%
19
24%
9%
0%
37
23%
31
17% 17%
0%
0%
7%
15
0 0%
12%
2%
0 25%
yellow/striped = grp avg +10 to district avg lt green/light shaded = distr avg to distr avg +10 drk green/dark shaded = distr agv +10 and above
21%
7%
28
18 4
5
1 33%
8%
44 0
0%
6 of 6
10
Appendix C
Schools Showing High Achievement by Ethnic Group
Defining “Successful” Schools Using the criteria listed in the main body of these research notes, 24 schools were identified as “successful” with at least one population of interest. The schools, along with the subject and populations, are shown in the table in the body of the notes. For in-depth information on all schools in the district, refer to the tables that follow this sheet. Appendix B shows the percent of students within specific programs meeting the standards. (For example, the column for Special Ed shows the percent of Special Ed students who met the state or district standards.) Appendix C shows three years of test scores for the different ethnic groups in the district. The first table (Appendix B) gives results by the percent of students meeting benchmarks who are: eligible for free or reduced meals, participating in Special Education programs, and qualifying for English as a Second Language (ESL) programs. The tables in Appendix B and Appendix C are shaded for easier reference, as follows: HORIZONTAL STRIPES: The percent of students in the group who met standards exceeded by ten or more percentage points the percent of the students within the district for that group and age range. The percent did not exceed the district average for all groups combined, however. Note that neither Asiannor European-American students have any cells in this category; their group average exceeded the overall district average.
SHADED: The percent of students in the group who met standards equaled or exceeded the total percent of all students in the district who met standards. Light shading indicates the group performance was equal to or better than the district average by up to nine percentage points. Dark shading indicates that the group exceeded the district average by 10 percentage points or more. The tables also show the number of students involved in the state and district assessments for the combined grades in the spring of 2003. Since the performance of even one student can dramatically influence average percentages in small groups, R&E does not report average data for fewer than ten students. When determining when a school was successful, it was important to use relatively large groups of students on which to base the decision. No precise size was established, although it normally takes about 30 students to have confidence in the stability and validity of the average data as a reflection of group performance. Among the schools singled out for this report, the smallest group was 26 for a Special Education group. In “Descriptive Information,” the column “F/R” shows the percent of students in the school who received free or reduced meals. The “ELL” column shows the percent of students in the school who were in English as a Second Language programs. Since both of these variables have been found to strongly correlate to student performance in general, we include this data to help schools look for other schools with similar demographics as they look for possible schools to benchmark against.
District Rdg 3-5 '01 75 '02 78 '03 77
6-8 65 64 65
Ethnic Group Performance of Schools
10 Math 3-5 6-8 10 51 78 66 41 53 78 68 45 49 78 70 46
Reading Descriptive Information School District Abernethy Ainsworth Alameda Applegate Arleta Astor Atkinson Ball Beach Boise-Eliot Bridger Bridlemile Brooklyn Buckman Capitol Hill Chapman Chief Joseph Clarendon Clark Creston Duniway Edwards Faubion Forest Park Glencoe Grout Hayhurst Hollyrood Humboldt Irvington James John Kelly Kenton King Laurelhurst Lee Lent Lewis Llewellyn Maplewood
F/R 31% 7% 10% 81% 69% 53% 51% 80% 69% 66% 51% 14% 57% 29% 28% 27% 57% 89% 69% 65% 10% 11% 71% 1% 24% 53% 43% 6% 96% 38% 75% 78% 73% 92% 15% 70% 71% 43% 33% 21%
PPS R&E, sbh, 2/27/04 Final
African American
Hispanic
Asian
American Indian
European Amer
ELL
Subj
Grade
2001
2002
2003 2003 N
2001
2002
2003 2003 N
2001
2002
2003 2003 N
2001
2002
2003 2003 N
2001
2002
2003 2003 N
3-4-5 3-4-5 3-4-5 3-4-5 3-4-5 3-4-5 3-4-5 3-4-5 3-4-5 3-4-5 3-4-5 3-4-5 3-4-5 3-4-5 3-4-5 3-4-5 3-4-5 3-4-5 3-4-5 3-4-5 3-4-5 3-4-5 3-4-5 3-4-5 3-4-5 3-4-5 3-4-5 3-4-5 3-4-5 3-4-5 3-4-5 3-4-5 3-4-5 3-4-5 3-4-5 3-4-5 3-4-5 3-4-5 3-4-5 3-4-5 3-4-5
60%
63%
65%
55%
57%
60%
70%
72%
72%
72%
93%
92%
92%
71% 70% 69% 77%
80% 71%
100%
100%
75% 90% 92% 95%
67%
6% 1% 1% 17% 20% 8% 35% 18% 21% 8% 10% 5% 17% 7% 6% 4% 8% 48% 33% 23% 0% 1% 9% 1% 3% 17% 14% 1% 13% 1% 30% 33% 17% 12% 4% 39% 33% 7% 3% 6%
R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R
71% 77% 94% 56% 67% 27% 50%
69% 50% 100% 69% 82% 40% 68%
60% 53% 94% 52% 73% 60% 77% 43% 73%
56% 75% 63% 47% 61% 40% 91% 86%
47% 82% 63% 76% 52%
83% 88% 97% 94% 75% 66% 88% 83% 94% 79% 86% 84% 90% 69% 98% 85% 92% 69% 69% 81% 79% 94% 89% 78% 92% 85% 65% 88% 100% 58% 91% 63% 75% 88% 58% 96% 66% 57% 77% 88% 86%
86% 91% 97% 95% 93% 79% 96% 81% 85% 80% 88% 82% 96% 76% 89% 90% 91% 86% 83% 78% 87% 97% 95% 86% 96% 91% 75% 94% 100% 69% 93% 57% 73% 100% 77% 95% 67% 57% 81% 90% 87%
85% 80% 98% 95% 90% 84% 95% 87% 94% 75% 87% 81% 95% 66% 94% 90% 97% 87% 65% 75% 82% 95% 97% 84% 96% 88% 72% 94% 100%
64% 93% 74% 58% 60% 54% 67% 63%
82% 61% 60%
88% 64% 81% 63% 73% 83%
60%
86%
70%
76% 64% 50% 38% 69%
65% 76% 60% 41% 75%
79% 80% 59% 47% 85%
66%
72%
78%
59%
50% 40%
52% 60% 55% 90% 83% 59% 71% 21%
64% 58% 56% 45% 88% 62% 78% 36% 40%
60% 62% 32% 58% 84% 61% 76% 57% 54%
1866 8 9 25 28 9 17 11 44 59 122 13 6 23 5 15 15 37 19 13 4 2 65 2 8 5 8 4 82 125 27 12 32 168 17 21 13 4 6 6
60% 58% 50% 79% 69% 52% 61% 33%
57% 73% 70% 100% 52% 68% 64%
38%
69% 86% 90% 70% 57% 59% 61%
82%
75% 30% 33%
67% 64% 53%
14%
41%
45% 42%
40% 38%
44% 73% 49% 39%
69% 83% 40% 67%
64% 70% 63% 60%
57% 69% 25% 39%
69% 80%
70% 60%
58% 55%
1262 5 24 9 15 17 18 53 15 45 24 14 11 8 13 14 10 11 79 17 18 4
79% 90% 93% 100% 57% 78% 75%
81% 62% 79% 61%
82% 100%
80%
91%
73%
77% 100% 54% 69% 78% 91%
78% 68% 63% 86%
11 1 10 9 21
90% 87% 71%
100% 92% 79%
94% 100% 68%
18 11 68 44 7 25 13 20 28 4 12 11
41% 63% 100% 64% 94% 46% 60% 60%
51% 63% 100% 70% 100% 65% 50% 67%
50% 67% 91%
yellow/striped = grp avg +10 to distr avg lt green/light shaded = distr avg to distr avg +9 drk green/dark shaded = distr avg +10 and above
86% 69% 68% 100%
1143 10 13 19 9 21 9 71 14 23 8 30 9 7 11 9 18 9 24 51 21 9 8 6 35 12 26 6 3 2 5 50 21 23 9 14 61 32 10 7 6
223 3 2 7 2 6 3 2 3 3 4 2 2 3 5 7 1 8 5 3 4 2
60% 70%
2 4 3 1 3 2 9 10 3 2 2 5 4 3 2 4
88% 64% 68% 82% 100% 97% 66% 72% 88% 89% 90%
6456 79 244 252 30 94 111 119 31 65 62 139 184 32 192 103 165 86 51 152 88 185 89 49 139 173 84 97 35 9 86 113 145 50 11 250 75 95 124 122 117
1 of 6
District Rdg 3-5 '01 75 '02 78 '03 77
6-8 65 64 65
Ethnic Group Performance of Schools
10 Math 3-5 6-8 10 51 78 66 41 53 78 68 45 49 78 70 46
Reading Descriptive Information
African American
Hispanic
School
F/R
ELL
Subj
Grade
2001
2002
2003 2003 N
Markham Marysville Meek MLC Peninsula Richmond Rieke Rigler Rose City Park Sabin Scott Sitton Skyline Smith Stephenson Sunnyside Vernon Vestal Whitman Winterhaven Woodlawn Woodmere Woodstock District Beaumont Binnsmead Da Vinci EMS Fernwood George Gray Gregory Heights Hosford Jackson Kellogg Lane MLC
38% 74% 71% 32% 74% 29% 9% 80% 31% 68% 65% 78% 12% 14% 5% 50% 88% 68% 79% 11% 83% 76% 38%
21% 29% 18% 0% 25% 4% 0% 46% 12% 10% 27% 11% 1% 7% 1% 7% 14% 25% 26% 0% 11% 33% 6%
58%
1% 26% 2% 2% 1% 24% 6% 19% 12% 3% 12% 22% 0%
3-4-5 3-4-5 3-4-5 3-4-5 3-4-5 3-4-5 3-4-5 3-4-5 3-4-5 3-4-5 3-4-5 3-4-5 3-4-5 3-4-5 3-4-5 3-4-5 3-4-5 3-4-5 3-4-5 3-4-5 3-4-5 3-4-5 3-4-5 6-7-8 6-7-8 6-7-8 6-7-8 6-7-8 6-7-8 6-7-8 6-7-8 6-7-8 6-7-8 6-7-8 6-7-8 6-7-8 6-7-8
100%
42% 64% 11% 23% 21% 76% 19% 57% 55% 11% 53% 68% 32%
R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R
PPS R&E, sbh, 2/27/04 Final
56%
71%
75% 56% 82%
50% 75%
56% 79%
49% 76%
79% 44% 66% 53% 48%
61% 67% 70% 63% 61%
59% 81% 82% 73% 57%
52%
62% 9%
79% 43% 55%
46%
56% 80%
69%
40% 44% 45% 66% 58% 54% 36% 41% 42% 29% 63% 31% 29%
40% 45% 47% 63%
42% 52% 53% 63% 73% 55% 37% 56% 32% 64% 62% 59% 41%
48% 37% 52% 47% 38% 59% 58% 36%
16 16 33 5 41 18 1 51 26 64 22 44 1 8 3 9 107 21 11 150 6 8 214 47 32 13 143 91 36 58 36 26 40 24 8
2001
Asian
American Indian
2002
2003 2003 N
2001
2002
2003 2003 N
61%
42%
79% 42% 81%
92% 58% 73%
92% 58%
81% 59% 77%
44%
59%
62%
46% 80% 67% 42% 55%
61% 60% 53% 39% 62%
55% 59% 60% 56% 48%
67% 88% 100% 70% 61%
75% 85% 87% 68% 67%
60% 91% 100% 71% 84%
73%
56% 64%
56%
77%
82%
100%
54% 56%
59% 62%
72% 50%
20% 79% 86% 58% 69% 57% 82%
54% 72% 74% 61% 73% 63% 90% 73% 86% 35% 79% 51% 67% 73% 55% 51%
45% 64% 87% 59% 68% 54%
69%
64% 50% 41%
58%
48% 55%
47% 58% 90% 36% 42% 24% 80% 60% 71% 21% 44% 31% 32% 71% 29% 37%
42% 36% 39% 55% 93% 40% 48% 26% 31% 75% 37% 24%
38%
81% 56% 52% 58% 80% 39% 50% 39% 58% 63% 30% 65% 24% 45% 63% 40% 44%
14 27 16 3 40 4 7 79 18 15 41 29 2 13 3 8 33 18 53 19 46 8 14 84 9 13 16 125 23 80 38 38 58 105 4
64% 28% 70% 56% 56% 75% 57% 48%
yellow/striped = grp avg +10 to distr avg lt green/light shaded = distr avg to distr avg +9 drk green/dark shaded = distr avg +10 and above
64% 81% 29% 69% 50% 70% 73% 62% 43%
26 27 13 2 15 47 16 21 25 4 27 6 3 4 12 6 7 32 16 3 11 23 45 22 134 7 12 26 58 29 124 43 45 112 70 7
2001
82%
2002
50%
2003 2003 N
55%
50%
67%
6 3 3 11 3 1 8 3 6 2 1
70%
1 7 3 8 1 4 3 5
55%
48% 36% 63%
50% 31% 75%
48%
48%
23%
42%
57% 31%
57% 64%
42% 53%
38% 59%
50% 44%
40% 47%
9 9 7 10 4 19 6 12 17 4 15 17 1
European Amer 2001
2002
2003 2003 N
94% 78% 72% 94% 68% 85% 92% 72% 87% 83% 78% 73% 92% 93% 94% 87% 50% 65% 52% 100% 88% 70% 75% 76% 81% 60% 91% 89% 91% 59% 86% 72% 61% 87% 60% 45% 85%
91% 74% 85% 97% 68% 85% 95% 74% 88% 81% 78% 79% 95% 92% 93% 81% 65% 80% 61% 100% 83% 69% 73% 75% 77% 52% 92% 86% 89% 55% 82% 70% 68% 88% 62% 50% 87%
92% 78% 94% 89% 67% 90% 98% 76% 86% 100% 84% 76% 93% 92% 93% 84% 85% 75% 62% 97% 63% 71% 80% 76% 83% 57% 89% 88% 91% 56% 83% 69% 75% 87% 68% 49% 88%
97 103 17 65 51 154 114 59 164 17 102 67 99 104 167 70 14 91 117 38 19 149 85 277 373 249 158 393 185 402 381 204 671 377 342 99
2 of 6
District Rdg 3-5 '01 75 '02 78 '03 77
6-8 65 64 65
Ethnic Group Performance of Schools
10 Math 3-5 6-8 10 51 78 66 41 53 78 68 45 49 78 70 46
Reading Descriptive Information
African American
Hispanic
Asian
American Indian
School
F/R
ELL
Subj
Grade
2001
2002
2003 2003 N
2001
2002
2003 2003 N
2001
2002
2003 2003 N
Mt. Tabor Ockley Green Portsmouth Sellwood Sunnyside Tubman West Sylvan Whitaker Winterhaven District Benson Cleveland Franklin Grant Jefferson Lincoln Madison Marshall MLC Roosevelt Voc Village Wilson
23% 74% 66% 25% 50% 73% 8% 81% 11%
4% 19% 12% 2% 7% 6% 2% 16% 0%
54% 27% 32% 54%
62% 28% 40% 58%
74% 49% 41% 66%
69% 51% 53% 69%
37% 64% 33%
63% 32% 32% 60% 83% 21% 78% 18% 100%
74% 47% 52% 63%
32% 64% 35%
58% 23% 38% 47% 83% 51% 74% 20% 99%
35 84 71 16
39% 58% 33%
66% 37% 48% 43% 85% 69% 67% 21% 96%
31% 93% 46%
47% 82% 50%
20% 36%
25% 33% 20% 29% 23% 24% 70% 24% 15%
25% 44%
24% 56% 25% 25% 45%
25% 71%
18% 38%
39% 44% 36% 37% 67%
43% 51% 50% 44% 54%
81% 15% 20%
69% 17% 52%
41% 46% 46% 28% 79% 0% 79% 38% 30%
15%
12%
16%
26%
15%
21%
10%
3%
20%
17%
28%
33 45 62 1 232 16 10 22 12 19 9 37 31 2 38 0 13
58% 87% 47%
4% 8% 8% 2% 12% 1% 19% 16% 1% 18%
6-7-8 6-7-8 6-7-8 6-7-8 6-7-8 6-7-8 6-7-8 6-7-8 6-7-8 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
59% 36% 37% 60%
35% 20% 30% 16% 73% 6% 58% 54% 32% 64%
R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R
64%
59%
53%
PPS R&E, sbh, 2/27/04 Final
17% 20% 20% 16% 6%
21% 25% 34% 24% 31% 8% 8%
39 151 129 27 4 256 25 167 4 482 112 14 12 58 105 16 40 13 1 31 2 18
10% 14% 50% 11%
30% 58% 0% 22%
11% 57% 17% 63% 13% 11%
7%
11%
8%
40%
29%
38%
11% 6%
yellow/striped = grp avg +10 to distr avg lt green/light shaded = distr avg to distr avg +9 drk green/dark shaded = distr avg +10 and above
84 35 45 29 2 17 61 26 4 297 79 24 36 14 13 24 24 27 1 24 1 16
2001
2002
2003 2003 N
47% 36%
47% 32% 75%
45% 29% 55%
55%
50%
67%
39%
54%
50%
37%
42%
35%
6 12 14 11 2 12 6 10 1 37 3 7 5 5 1 3 1 0 0 5 0 4
European Amer 2001
2002
2003 2003 N
85% 55% 59% 78% 85% 67% 91% 56% 96%
87% 52% 55% 76% 83% 63% 93% 53% 99%
85% 53% 64% 81% 83% 56% 93% 58% 100%
63% 62% 67% 54% 77% 51% 88% 40% 40% 91% 41% 18% 72%
63% 71% 67% 56% 77% 37% 89% 47% 30% 75% 26%
60% 73% 55% 48% 81% 47% 82% 50% 27% 67% 44%
70%
65%
504 91 193 470 30 67 765 79 71 1957 133 223 219 309 15 268 106 115 23 71 1 327
3 of 6
District Rdg 3-5 '01 75 '02 78 '03 77
6-8 65 64 65
Ethnic Group Performance of Schools
10 Math 3-5 6-8 10 51 78 66 41 53 78 68 45 49 78 70 46
Math Descriptive Information School District Abernethy Ainsworth Alameda Applegate Arleta Astor Atkinson Ball Beach Boise-Eliot Bridger Bridlemile Brooklyn Buckman Capitol Hill Chapman Chief Joseph Clarendon Clark Creston Duniway Edwards Faubion Forest Park Glencoe Grout Hayhurst Hollyrood Humboldt Irvington James John Kelly Kenton King Laurelhurst Lee Lent Lewis Llewellyn Maplewood
F/R
ELL
31% 7% 10% 81% 69% 53% 51% 80% 69% 66% 51% 14% 57% 29% 28% 27% 57% 89% 69% 65% 10% 11% 71% 1% 24% 53% 43% 6% 96% 38% 75% 78% 73% 92% 15% 70% 71% 43% 33% 21%
6% 1% 1% 17% 20% 8% 35% 18% 21% 8% 10% 5% 17% 7% 6% 4% 8% 48% 33% 23% 0% 1% 9% 1% 3% 17% 14% 1% 13% 1% 30% 33% 17% 12% 4% 39% 33% 7% 3% 6%
PPS R&E, sbh, 2/27/04 Final
Subj M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M
African American Grade 3-4-5 3-4-5 3-4-5 3-4-5 3-4-5 3-4-5 3-4-5 3-4-5 3-4-5 3-4-5 3-4-5 3-4-5 3-4-5 3-4-5 3-4-5 3-4-5 3-4-5 3-4-5 3-4-5 3-4-5 3-4-5 3-4-5 3-4-5 3-4-5 3-4-5 3-4-5 3-4-5 3-4-5 3-4-5 3-4-5 3-4-5 3-4-5 3-4-5 3-4-5 3-4-5 3-4-5 3-4-5 3-4-5 3-4-5 3-4-5 3-4-5
2001 58% 73% 80% 62% 58% 60% 64% 63% 68%
2002 60%
77% 60% 36% 75% 55% 65% 58%
2003 2003 N 62% 1866 8 9 76% 25 61% 28 9 94% 17 27% 11 93% 44 59% 59 61% 122 54% 13 6
2001 57%
2002 60%
93%
96%
86% 67% 83% 54% 72% 41% 56%
79% 69% 92% 47% 67% 51% 71%
60% 45% 79% 77% 38% 79% 50%
63%
61%
59%
53% 63% 45% 50% 54%
53% 73% 49% 50% 63%
67% 73% 50% 56% 69%
61%
66%
69%
59%
62% 30%
48% 48% 56% 82% 77% 66% 85% 20%
58% 50% 44% 42% 74% 63% 79% 33% 27%
Hispanic
60% 57% 11% 67% 71% 64% 82% 60% 38%
23 5 15 15 37 19 13 4 2 65 2 8 5 8 4 82 125 27 12 32 168 17 21 13 4 6 6
60% 45% 92% 50% 64% 46% 71% 73%
62%
Asian
2003 2003 N 61% 1262 5 96% 24 9 67% 15 59% 17 94% 18 51% 53 73% 15 57% 45 71% 24 46% 14 64% 11 8 69% 13 79% 14 60% 10 45% 11 53% 79 65% 17 61% 18 4 91%
67% 46% 44%
75% 58% 60%
70%
21%
41%
53% 44%
43% 33%
44% 55% 40% 39%
71% 83% 33% 48%
76% 70% 42% 52%
52% 100% 35% 71%
62% 60%
50%
50% 64%
48%
11 1 10 9 21 18 11 68 44 7 25 13 20 28 4 12 11
2001 76%
2002 80% 90%
91%
93%
60% 67% 77% 47% 74% 36% 82% 100%
74% 73% 78% 53% 77%
81% 90% 88% 100% 55% 65% 69%
76% 92% 83% 82% 82% 70% 100% 96% 100%
80% 100% 94% 84%
100% 100% 86%
63% 89% 100% 50% 94% 66% 70% 50%
51% 74% 88% 83% 91% 80% 60% 67%
yellow/striped = grp avg +10 to distr avg lt green/light shaded = distr avg to distr avg +9 drk green/dark shaded = distr avg +10 and above
2003 2003 N 79% 1143 90% 10 100% 13 95% 19 9 67% 21 9 73% 71 93% 14 78% 23 8 70% 30 9 7 82% 11 9 94% 18 9 71% 24 80% 51 86% 21 9 8 6 100% 35 100% 12 88% 26 6 3 2 5 62% 50 76% 21 78% 23 9 93% 14 77% 61 72% 32 100% 10 7 6
American Indian 2001 68%
2002 70%
2003 2003 N 74% 223 3 2 7 2 6 3 2 3 3 4 2 2 3 5 7 1 8 5 3 4 2
90%
2 4 3 1 3 2 9 10 3 2 2 5 4 3 2 4
European Amer 2001 85% 82% 96% 91% 83% 70% 86% 83% 90% 90% 85% 77% 95% 86% 92% 94% 94% 77% 74% 80% 73% 93% 90% 81% 96% 87% 78% 88% 98% 75% 88% 77% 76% 95% 52% 93% 68% 63% 71% 82% 88%
2002 85% 90% 97% 95% 81% 78% 88% 80% 79% 88% 89% 78% 94% 89% 87% 87% 88% 80% 76% 82% 73% 95% 94% 88% 99% 92% 77% 92% 100% 62% 86% 60% 75% 93% 92% 96% 72% 63% 80% 88% 83%
2003 2003 N 86% 6456 82% 79 97% 244 93% 252 87% 30 80% 94 96% 111 82% 119 84% 31 86% 65 89% 62 79% 139 95% 184 78% 32 86% 192 88% 103 95% 165 87% 86 78% 51 83% 152 76% 88 95% 185 94% 89 88% 49 99% 139 92% 173 73% 84 91% 97 100% 35 9 89% 86 66% 113 71% 145 80% 50 73% 11 97% 250 69% 75 75% 95 84% 124 94% 122 89% 117
4 of 6
District Rdg 3-5 '01 75 '02 78 '03 77
6-8 65 64 65
Ethnic Group Performance of Schools
10 Math 3-5 6-8 10 51 78 66 41 53 78 68 45 49 78 70 46
Math Descriptive Information School Markham Marysville Meek MLC Peninsula Richmond Rieke Rigler Rose City Park Sabin Scott Sitton Skyline Smith Stephenson Sunnyside Vernon Vestal Whitman Winterhaven Woodlawn Woodmere Woodstock District Beaumont Binnsmead Da Vinci EMS Fernwood George Gray Gregory Heights Hosford Jackson Kellogg Lane MLC
F/R 38% 74% 71% 32% 74% 29% 9% 80% 31% 68% 65% 78% 12% 14% 5% 50% 88% 68% 79% 11% 83% 76% 38%
ELL 21% 29% 18% 0% 25% 4% 0% 46% 12% 10% 27% 11% 1% 7% 1% 7% 14% 25% 26% 0% 11% 33% 6%
42% 64% 11% 23% 21% 76% 19% 57% 55% 11% 53% 68% 32%
1% **** 2% 2% 1% 24% 6% 19% 12% 3% 12% 22% 0%
PPS R&E, sbh, 2/27/04 Final
Subj M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M
Grade 3-4-5 3-4-5 3-4-5 3-4-5 3-4-5 3-4-5 3-4-5 3-4-5 3-4-5 3-4-5 3-4-5 3-4-5 3-4-5 3-4-5 3-4-5 3-4-5 3-4-5 3-4-5 3-4-5 3-4-5 3-4-5 3-4-5 3-4-5 6-7-8 6-7-8 6-7-8 6-7-8 6-7-8 6-7-8 6-7-8 6-7-8 6-7-8 6-7-8 6-7-8 6-7-8 6-7-8 6-7-8
African American 2001 77%
2002 70%
53%
68%
50% 75%
58% 93%
59% 59% 53% 48% 31%
45% 67% 67% 45% 56%
48%
66% 36%
2003 2003 N 63% 16 44% 16 85% 33 5 44% 41 78% 18 1 53% 51 69% 26 81% 64 55% 22 53% 44 1 8 3 9 79% 107 48% 21 36% 11
2001
55% 82% 39%
72%
54% 78%
71% 69% 64% 46% 67% 33% 80% 80% 79% 36% 55% 41% 41% 64% 41% 46%
57%
58% 73%
70%
37% 41% 33% 83% 50% 61% 35% 39% 40% 24% 59% 31% 19%
40% 39% 38% 67%
44% 51% 39% 61% 69% 57% 40% 59% 48% 58% 46% 53% 42%
50% 35% 53% 45% 45% 54% 42% 43%
Hispanic
150 6 8 214 47 32 13 143 91 36 58 36 26 40 24 8
60% 73%
2002 70% 84%
63%
60%
59% 80% 53% 33% 52%
67% 73% 80% 39% 79%
45% 45% 33% 82% 85% 41% 47% 39% 30% 67% 46% 41%
54%
Asian
2003 2003 N 71% 14 48% 27 81% 16 3 55% 40 4 7 59% 79 50% 18 80% 15 68% 41 69% 29 2 69% 13 3 8 88% 33 67% 18 66% 53
2001 100% 75% 80%
2002 96% 76%
83% 92% 82% 67% 81%
83% 95% 93% 74% 71%
57%
66% 55%
74% 78% 50% 50% 43% 77% 69% 51% 65% 49% 50% 66% 47% 46%
19 46 8 14 84 9 13 16 125 23 80 38 38 58 105 4
92%
91%
70% 63%
89% 62%
60% 88% 86% 71% 72% 73% 82%
69% 96% 86% 74% 80% 69% 90% 67% 83% 59% 80% 74% 79% 76% 74% 68%
64% 45% 81% 84% 55% 80% 74% 68%
yellow/striped = grp avg +10 to distr avg lt green/light shaded = distr avg to distr avg +9 drk green/dark shaded = distr avg +10 and above
2003 2003 N 88% 26 52% 27 92% 13 2 53% 15 89% 47 100% 16 67% 21 84% 25 4 63% 27 6 3 4 100% 12 6 7 88% 32 56% 16 3 55% 11 87% 23 89% 45 74% 82% 22 64% 134 7 75% 12 88% 26 67% 58 83% 29 75% 124 81% 43 84% 45 71% 112 60% 70 7
American Indian 2001
69%
2002
82%
2003 2003 N
82%
73%
55%
6 3 3 11 3 1 8 3 6 2 1
50%
1 7 3 8 1 4 3 5
55%
54% 69% 69%
55% 50% 60%
55%
70% 65%
50%
53%
64% 13%
64% 50%
58% 31%
53% 59%
43% 39%
53% 56%
9 9 7 10 4 19 6 12 17 4 15 17 1
European Amer 2001 97% 77% 87% 93% 68% 88% 91% 82% 81% 83% 88% 64% 94% 91% 94% 82% 64% 76% 59% 100% 88% 85% 85% 76% 80% 57% 85% 93% 92% 61% 85% 77% 57% 88% 66% 48% 82%
2002 92% 83% 93% 85% 74% 83% 93% 75% 89% 82% 80% 73% 94% 88% 91% 82% 65% 82% 67% 100% 71% 83% 68% 78% 76% 62% 90% 86% 92% 59% 83% 78% 67% 88% 67% 56% 77%
2003 2003 N 95% 97 78% 103 94% 17 86% 65 69% 51 84% 154 97% 114 83% 59 82% 164 100% 17 92% 102 79% 67 98% 99 96% 104 92% 167 83% 70 71% 14 80% 91 62% 117 100% 38 53% 19 92% 149 86% 85 79% 85% 277 60% 373 88% 249 91% 158 92% 393 64% 185 85% 402 77% 381 77% 204 89% 671 69% 377 56% 342 88% 99
5 of 6
District Rdg 3-5 '01 75 '02 78 '03 77
6-8 65 64 65
Ethnic Group Performance of Schools
10 Math 3-5 6-8 10 51 78 66 41 53 78 68 45 49 78 70 46
Math Descriptive Information School Mt. Tabor Ockley Green Portsmouth Sellwood Sunnyside Tubman West Sylvan Whitaker Winterhaven District Benson Cleveland Franklin Grant Jefferson Lincoln Madison Marshall MLC Roosevelt Voc Village Wilson
F/R 23% 74% 66% 25% 50% 73% 8% 81% 11%
ELL 4% 19% 12% 2% 7% 6% 2% 16% 0%
35% 20% 30% 16% 73% 6% 58% 54% 32% 64%
4% 8% 8% 2% 12% 1% 19% 16% 1% 18%
10%
3%
PPS R&E, sbh, 2/27/04 Final
Subj M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M
African American Grade 6-7-8 6-7-8 6-7-8 6-7-8 6-7-8 6-7-8 6-7-8 6-7-8 6-7-8 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
2001 52% 32% 35% 63%
2002 69% 37% 39% 63%
30% 54% 30%
30% 58% 33%
13% 18% 33% 27%
17% 28%
11% 13% 6%
13% 10% 21% 16% 64% 11% 17%
4%
3%
21%
15%
Hispanic
2003 2003 N 77% 39 29% 151 43% 129 67% 27 4 39% 256 56% 25 46% 167 4 483 17% 32% 109 14 14% 11 9% 53 25% 111 16% 16 6% 38 0% 11 0% 1 33 18% 1 12% 17
Asian
2001 67% 45% 47% 40%
2002 64% 46% 50% 72%
2003 2003 N 71% 35 38% 84 45% 71 75% 16
2001 86% 64% 56% 76%
2002 91% 56% 70% 74%
63% 74% 20%
45% 70% 27%
39% 80% 47%
58% 94% 39%
41% 98% 55%
11% 29%
17% 45%
18% 33%
43% 55% 58% 41% 45% 10% 81% 33% 44%
55% 68% 61% 49% 63% 42% 79% 32% 55%
19%
39%
23%
71%
12% 15% 5% 0% 42% 9% 6%
55% 5% 17%
20% 14% 46% 5% 70% 17% 6%
5%
7%
8%
30%
14%
38%
10% 27% 39%
33 45 62 1 240 18 10 21 13 19 10 36 31 2 40 0 13
yellow/striped = grp avg +10 to distr avg lt green/light shaded = distr avg to distr avg +9 drk green/dark shaded = distr avg +10 and above
2003 2003 N 89% 84 63% 35 71% 45 79% 29 2 76% 17 92% 61 65% 26 4 297 53% 80 66% 24 63% 34 44% 14 71% 13 31% 21 95% 21 48% 26 23% 1 24 38% 0 40% 15
American Indian 2001
2002
50% 74% 64%
55% 60% 75%
57%
44%
28%
62%
28%
28%
2003 2003 N 6 42% 12 50% 14 55% 11 2 73% 12 6 50% 10 1 40 28% 3 7 5 5 2 2 1 0 0 5 0 4
European Amer 2001 85% 64% 61% 79% 67% 70% 91% 53% 97%
2002 88% 64% 65% 83% 74% 65% 94% 71% 99%
51% 60% 53% 46% 61% 21% 82% 35% 34% 60% 22% 15% 62%
54% 66% 53% 48% 69% 22% 78% 31% 26% 52% 29% 67%
2003 2003 N 89% 504 58% 91 72% 193 86% 470 83% 30 66% 67 94% 765 75% 79 97% 71 1930 57% 133 65% 22 50% 218 45% 305 77% 16 25% 269 84% 102 44% 119 29% 23 64% 67 42% 1 59% 214
6 of 6
Appendix D
Literacy Program Information
Reading Elementary Schools Showing High Achievement with Special Populations
School Astor
2003 % Meeting Standards 3–4–5
Free/Reduced–53% ESL–8%
3 4 5
95% 96% 94% 94%
Successful Populations % Meets African Amer. Hispanic Free/Reduced Spec. Educ.
88% 94% 94% 86%
Reading – –
Daily Literacy Time/Block
Literature Based Reading
–
Reading Recovery
–
Instructional Support
Daily reading instruction
–
Double dose of reading for Title I
–
Part time basic skills teacher Paraprofess.
Assessment Practices – –
DRA Data driven decision making
Team Planning – –
Grade level planning
ESL Support
Out of School Support –
Homework club
Primary/ intermediate team planning
– –
.5 ESL teacher .25 EA
337 students
Free/Reduced–80% ESL–18%
3 4 5
84% 88% 88% 72%
African Amer. Hispanic Free/Reduced Spec. Educ. ESL
81% 73% 85% 69% 67%
– – – –
Open Court 5 years Plus new edition Read Well Rewards
– – –
90–120 minutes
–
Curriculum not integrated
Project Read Comprehension
1st leveled Whole group & direct instruction
– – – – – –
Instructional spec. .5 Rdg specialist Basic skills teacher 2 clinicians Paraprofess. Literacy center
309 students
Boise-Eliot Free/Reduced–66% ESL–8%
3–4–5 3 4 5
78% 87% 76% 69%
672 students Capitol Hill Free/Reduced–28% ESL–6%
– –
SMART
– –
Chess for Success
Reduced Class Size; no Specials Nike Go
20:1 3–4–5
Ball
Other; Student:Teacher Ratio
*African Amer. Hispanic *Free/Reduced ESL
73% 77% 75% 58%
*Growth 3–4–5 3 4 5
88% 83% 87% 95%
Hispanic Free/Reduced Spec. Educ.
86% 79% 69%
310 students
– – – – – – –
Open Court 5 years Rewards Read Naturally Quick Reads Optimize Harcourt Brace CORE
– –
120 minutes Leveled guided reading
–
Whole group & direct instruction
–
Curriculum not integrated
– –
90 minute lit. blocks
– – – – –
Instructional spec. 10 Paraprofess. 2.5 Rdg specialists CDS
Leveled guided reading
–
Shared reading
CORE
– –
WRAT 3
– – – –
CORE (all grades)
Librarian
DRA ARI
– –
GORT PPVT
Whole school team planning Graded team planning Literacy team planning
– – – –
Woodcock Johnson Reading
–
Saturday School
SMART
Summer school Homework club (3rd grade) Math club (4th-5th grades)
13.5:1
Embedded assessments
–
DIBELS (kdg) DRA (5th grade) Systematic review of assessment data
–
Collaborative team planning (1 staff mtg per month)
–
Self Enhancement
Collaboration day (3 times per year)
– – –
.8 ESL teacher EA Push-in model
– – –
SMART Nike Go Boise-Eliot Nbrhd Assn. (street fair)
16:1
–
1 ERC staff
Small group and whole group
–
– – – – – –
– – – –
DRA CORE CAT district tests Data driven decision making
–
Team curriculum planning
–
Volunteer parent tutors
– –
Lewis & Clark tutors Homework Club
–
.5 ESL teacher
–
Extended Day Art Academy After School Support Arts enrichment
19:1
Percent of Elementary Students (Combined Grades 3, 4 and 5) Meeting Reading Standards District Average All Students: District ESL Average: District Average for African Americans:
77% 46% 65%
District Average for Hispanic Americans: District Average for Free/Reduced Meals: District Average for Special Education:
60% 66% 48%
R&E, sbh 3/22/03 1 of 3
School Chief Joseph Free/Reduced–57% ESL–8%
2003 % Meeting Standards 3–4–5 3 4 5
85% 96 79% 79%
Successful Populations % Meets African Amer. Hispanic Free/Reduced Spec. Educ.
80% 70% 82% 62%
Reading – – –
Open Court 5 years Read Naturally Rewards
298 students
Creston Free/Reduced–65% ESL–23%
3–4–5 3 4 5
78% 86% 76% 74%
Free/Reduced–71% ESL–6%
3–4–5 3 4 5
80% 84% 68% 85%
Free/Reduced–43% ESL–14%
3–4–5 3 4 5
84% 90% 86% 74%
Free/Reduced–73% ESL–17%
–
Trails to Literacy 4 years
*African Amer. *Hispanic *Free/Reduced *Spec. Educ.
*Hispanic *Free/Reduced *Spec. Educ.
Free/Reduced–15% ESL–4%
90–120 minutes
–
Whole group & direct instruction
–
Curriculum not integrated
– –
90 minute lit. block
Reading Recovery
– 78% 82% 72% 58%
– – –
Trails to Literacy 3 years Wright Group Writer’s Workshop
(60%) (61%) 81%
–
Harcourt Brace
Leveled guided reading
Level guided reading/guided writing
3–4–5 3 4 5
83%
African Amer. ESL
84% 72%
–
83% 75% 89%
Open Court 5 years
3–4–5
94%
3 4 5
91% 94% 96%
African Amer. Free/Reduced Spec. Educ.
76% 83% 83%
526 students
– –
Open court Long time Leveled book room (’03-’04)
Instructional Support – –
Title 1 Coordinator NSF program
Assessment Practices – –
CORE
– –
Consulting Support; Title I literacy coordinator
60 minute lit. block
–
Integrated curriculum
–
3rd + 4th grades— 90 minute block
–
1st and 2nd grades—70 min.
–
3 EAs (19.5 hrs, Title 1)
– –
1 CDS
Level guided reading
– – –
90–120 minutes
–
Curriculum not integrated
–
60 minute reading only;
–
Whole group minilessons,
– –
Word study,
–
Team planning
DRA
– –
Running Records; DRA Data driven decision making
Integrated curriculum
30 min. writing
Team Planning
– – –
Consulting support Title I coordinator NSF program
– –
Tutorial: 1 to 1
–
ESL Support
Other; Student:Teacher Ratio
.5 ESL teacher
–
SMART
Summer school
– – – –
Running Records
– –
Grade level planning
–
Literacy block planning
–
DRA
– –
Team curriculum planning
Team curriculum planning
Jeff. Assessment
2 teachers 2 .5 EAs
– – –
SMART Chess Club YMCA
20:1
– – –
Math club
–
.5 ESL teacher
Tutoring
– –
SMART SUN School ‘03
Kid’s Club
CAT 19:1
.5 Technology assistant
– –
DRA Classroom assessments
–
Team planning (2-3 hrs/month)
–
Substitutes 7 days/year for planning
–
.7 ESL teacher
Parent 16.5 hours for library
– – – –
SMART Intramurals Band Learning Links
17.5:1
– –
1st leveled
CORE
–
Team planning
DRA
Whole group & direct instruction
Guided reading group
Out of School Support
20:1
– – –
–
233 students Laurelhurst
– –
*Growth
271 students
Kenton
–
*Growth
302 students Hayhurst
85% 61% 76% 61%
*Growth
353 students Faubion
African Amer. *Hispanic Free/Reduced ESL
Daily Literacy Time/Block
–
Student accountability
–
Summer camp
–
SMART
19:1
–
ERC—2 reading support teachers (.8 each)
–
CDS (.5 FTE; .25 Foundation $)
–
Licensed media specialist
–
DRA
–
Staff meeting/month for team planning
–
Jr. Great Books supported by parents
–
Part time ESL teacher
– –
Music PE
21:1
Percent of Elementary Students (Combined Grades 3, 4 and 5) Meeting Reading Standards District Average All Students: District ESL Average: District Average for African Americans:
77% 46% 65%
District Average for Hispanic Americans: District Average for Free/Reduced Meals: District Average for Special Education:
60% 66% 48%
R&E, sbh 3/22/03 2 of 3
School
2003 % Meeting Standards 3–4–5
Lewis Free/Reduced–43% ESL–7%
87%
3 4 5
89% 85% 86%
3–4–5
87 %
Successful Populations % Meets Free/Reduced Spec. Educ. ESL
84% 67% 80%
Reading – –
Trails to Literacy 3 years Balanced approach
Daily Literacy Time/Block – –
90 minute lit. block
–
Integrated curriculum
294 students Markham Free/Reduced– 38%% ESL–21%
3 4 5
93 % 87% 82%
Free/Reduced Sp ED ESL
76% 80% 59%
– – – –
Open Court Leveled books Rebecca Sitton Write Source
Level guided reading
– –
90 minute lit. block
–
Leveled guided reading
–
Shared reading
Small group and whole group
Instructional Support – –
– – – –
; Title I literacy coordinator 2 Basic skills teachers
.5 Instructional spec. 1 Librarian
Assessment Practices – –
– –
DRA
Team Planning –
Running Records
DRA
–
Running Records
Team curriculum planning
Monthly team meeting
Out of School Support – –
OASIS Tutors
– –
Homework club
–
Jr. .Great Books supported by parents
– –
.5 CDS 2 EAs (Special Ed)
333 students Sabin
3–4–5
Free/Reduced–68% ESL–10%
3 4 5
82%
African Amer. Free/Reduced
82% 83%
87% 72% 90%
– –
Open Court 5 years Supplemental novels
– – – –
370 students Vernon Free/Reduced–88% ESL–14%
90–120 minutes Whole group & direct Instruction Reading Recovery Curriculum integrated
– – – – –
Instructional spec Admin support Librarian CDS
– – – –
CORE (grades 3-5) DRA SRI
– –
Running Records
Team planning (70 min./week)
–
–
ESL Support
Other; Student:Teacher Ratio
.6 ESL teacher
–
Parent volunteers in classroom
18:1
Science club
– –
1.5 ESL teacher 2 .5 EAs
Parent volunteers Volunteers (Markham House, Portland Jewish Academy, PCC) Summer school (4 of 5 years)
Grade-level planning
Schoolwide adoption
Reed College science/art partnership
– – –
SUN School (’04) Neighborhood House Kids Club
24:1
– – –
.5 ESL teacher .5 ESL EA Push in –pull out model
– – – – –
SMART Art Music Moshi Moshi PE
15:1 3–4–5 3 4 5
80% 88% 70% 80%
African Amer. Hispanic Free/Reduced Spec. Educ. ESL
79% 81% 80% 50% 75%
445 students
–
Success for All (SFA) 6 years
– –
90 minutes
–
Curriculum not integrated
Leveled guided reading
– –
SFA support
–
Staff training
Instructional specialist
– – –
SFA assessment every 8 weeks DRA DIBELS (kdg)
–
Planning for grades 1-5 once a week
– – –
Tutorial
–
SMART
Home reading Parent training 15:1
Percent of Elementary Students (Combined Grades 3, 4 and 5) Meeting Reading Standards District Average All Students: District ESL Average: District Average for African Americans:
77% 46% 65%
District Average for Hispanic Americans: District Average for Free/Reduced Meals: District Average for Special Education:
60% 66% 48%
R&E, sbh 3/22/03 3 of 3
Reading Middle Schools Showing High Achievement with Special Populations
School Binnsmead Free/Reduced– 64% ESL–26%
2003 % Meeting Standards 6–7–8 6 7 8
%
Successful Populations % Meets Black
53%
59% 49% 48%
Reading – –
CORE Leveled reading (all teachers teach reading 1st period)
– –
Free/Reduced– 19% ESL–6%
6–7–8 6 7 8
% 73% 82% 76%
Black Hispanic Free/Reduced Spec. Educ.
56% 65% 59% 46%
–
– –
533 students
Hosford Free/Reduced– 55% ESL-12%
6–7–8 6 7 8
% 62% 54% 65%
Black 64% Free/Reduced 61% ESL 30%
–
–
International Baccalaureate
–
–
Interactive Reader
CIM lab
Prentice Hall anthology
– Literacy
–
– CSR person
CORE (San Diego Quick, Fry)
–
Pilot DRA in ’03-‘04
–
Student retelling with rubric
–
Separate spelling assessment
20 min of sustained silent reading daily
Literature circles
–
103 min LA/SS 51 min. for lang. arts.
–
–
Accelerated Academy (TAG program)
Assessment Practices
Leveled reading adds 56 min/day
Leveled reading within grade level teams
–
Instructional Support
–
769 students
Gray
Avg. Daily Literacy Time/Block
96 min LA/SS block 48 min.. for lang arts
specialist
– Literacy leader – – Library – assistant
– Student mgmt
specialist/basic skills teacher
CIM lab time extra for 1 semester
CORE Each teacher does pre and post test by grade level
– Counselor
Team Planning No common planning time
ESL Support
Out of School Support – Asian Club,
Polynesian Club, Latino Club
–
– Health clinic – OCHA
–
–
2 content mtgs per month in lieu of general staff
– Touchstone – OHSU partner – Before school
Common planning period daily
– After school
Self contained ESL core classes
Other – CSR school – Extended day program
– Standards based report card
–
ESL teacher
–
push-in model
study
– SUN school – Student goal setting
– Reed College science partnership
study
– Neighborhood
– Volunteers (PSU
House
and Lewis & Clark)
– Girls Group – Many electives
(music, journalism, art, Spanish, French, drama, technology)
–
90 min. for language arts (includes leveled reading)
350 students
– CSR person (.5)
– ‘’03-’04 retired teachers to help with literacy assessment
Weekly literacy team meeting (1 hr)
– –
START
–
Fluency (Read Naturally)
– Art alb – Homework
–
Regular review of assessment data
– Computer lab
Core Quick Assessments
–
Community school (not in 2003-4)
support
–
–
ESL teacher/ exchange ESL teacher from Bosnia Pull out program
– HPLC grant for 4 years
– CSR school (2 yrs)
– Standards based report card
– I.B. applicant
Percent of Middle School Students (Combined Grades 6,7 and 8) Meeting Reading Standards District Average All Students: District ESL Average: District Average for African Americans:
65% 16% 42%
District Average for Hispanic Americans: District Average for Free/Reduced Meals: District Average for Special Education:
39% 46% 27%
R&E, sbh 3/22/04 1 of 2
School Jackson Free/Reduced– 11% ESL–3%
2003 % Meeting Standards 6–7–8 6 7 8
% 84% 83% 85%
Successful Populations % Meets Black Hispanic Free/Reduced Spec. Educ. ESL
62% 63% 63% 40% 32%
Mt. Tabor Free/Reduced– 23% ESL–4%
–
Prentice Hall anthology
–
Integrated curriculum around Bernstein themes
–
823 students
6–7–8 6 7 8
% 79% 81% 87%
Black Hispanic Free/Reduced Spec. Educ.
62% 63% 61% 52%
Avg. Daily Literacy Time/Block
Reading – –
165 min. (3period core) for grades 7/8 6th grade block lang arts/science/healt h
Literature circles
Instructional Support – Media
Team Planning –
specialist
– Student
management specialist (SMS)
–
– Counselor
Working on curriculum alignment/map ping Daily common planning period
ESL Support
Out of School Support – Parent support
.5 ESL
Other – Bernstein
Music/Art program
Parent tutors
– Homework help – Journalism—
– Many electives
(choir, band, drama, art, design tech, Spanish, Chinese lang & culture)
school newspaper
– Chess Club
– Robotics – PTA/auction
–
Prentice Hall anthology
–
108 min. for LA/SS
– Media
–
Literature circles
–
54 min. for lang arts
– Student mgmt
–
School focus on boys’ literacy for ’03‘04
673 students
Assessment Practices
specialist specialist
–
School focus on assessment (R. Stiggins)
–
30 min./week extra meeting time
– Parents conduct
–
Common prep within lodges (team)
– Community
– Counselor
literature study groups
–
.75 ESL person
– Many electives (art, music, Spanish, computer)
– Japanese
school
Immersion (~150)
– Journalism— school newspaper
– Cedar Lodge (120)
– Sellwood Free/Reduced– 25% ESL–2%
6–7–8 6 7 8
% 69% 78% 73%
Black Hispanic Free/Reduced Spec. Educ.
58% 60% 66% 42%
572 students
West Sylvan Free/Reduced–8% ESL–2%
6–7–8 6 7 8
% 87% 92% 94%
Black Hispanic Free/Reduced Spec. Educ. ESL
950 students
64% 78% 72% 46% 40%
–
Looking into buying an anthology this year (PTA funded)
–
Drop Everything and Read
–
Literature circles
–
Jamestown Publishers Best series
– –
Novels
–
Literature circles
–
141 min. for LA/SS
– Literacy
–
85 min. for lang arts
– Language
–
135 min.for LA/SS
– Literacy
–
90 min. language arts
contact
Mcdougal Littell Anthology
–
Bi-monthly dept meeting used for planning
– Parent support – Homework help – Volunteer tutors
–
None
– Parent tutors – Intel volunteers
Arts/Social Studies resource person
specialist (TOSA)
– Media
specialist
PTA ($70,000)
– Many electives
(band, Spanish, technology, computer, art)
–
ESL selfcontained
– Many electives (music, dance, journalism, language)
– Spanish
immersion program (113)
– Lego robotics – Girls night out – Sports after school
Percent of Middle School Students (Combined Grades 6,7 and 8) Meeting Reading Standards District Average All Students: District ESL Average: District Average for African Americans:
65% 16% 42%
District Average for Hispanic Americans: District Average for Free/Reduced Meals: District Average for Special Education:
39% 46% 27%
R&E, sbh 3/22/04 2 of 2
Appendix E
Key Elements of Successful Schools: Description of Elements
Key Elements of Successful Schools Descriptions of Elements
1. Within the school, there is a clearly understood environment. The environment may be clearly articulated or generally understood. – Our motto is “children first.” It’s on our letterhead and what we say. While there are many elements that could distract us, here—in this time and place—we put kids first, and then support the other factors. – We focus on trying to know each student as clearly as we can. – We have a strong vision, even though it’s not written down; that ”All children can learn and teachers are responsible for teaching them.” – Taking a look at atmosphere when people walk in, we focused on a kid-friendly appearance— art, the yard, students work posted, signs . . . – As you keep all students first, you’re not satisfied when you look at the 10, 12, and 15% not making it. I’m not going to be satisfied on my watch if any child is left behind. We may not always see the end result, be we need to make progress.
2. Assessing and monitoring progress, then using the information. Uses ranged from very prescriptive individual plans to group level planning. The assessment is a visible commitment to success for all children. – We created action plans for monitoring responsibilities, documentation and accountability. After we reviewed the test data (3 times a year), classroom teachers developed the plan for adapting classroom instruction. Then we reviewed those adjustments and determined how they worked. – We do work with the DRA. We are not as expert as in Outer Southeast. The output is specific skill development. The ERC teacher works with classroom teachers to help differentiate instruction. – We take the benchmarks, report cards and Investigations and look at when the skills are taught and how often. We do an assessment for each quarter and an analysis of data to see what’s coming out. Have the children mastered a skill? We have developed a calendar to make certain skills have been taught and reviewed throughout the year. – We used several assessments in the first 2–3 weeks in the fall. We used the fall tests to adjust groups we had created in the spring. We reviewed assessments quarterly to check skill-level groupings.
3. A plan or main focus that keeps efforts aligned and on track. – We started with a literacy plan (or CSR plan). The first year we focused on basic literacy. In the second year, we needed to do more for students who were meeting benchmarks. In year three, our main hole was students close to benchmarks. – CSR planning got us to identify our focus much more clearly than in the past. – We set up a literacy plan. Now we need to stay the course and follow the plan.
– Look at what’s working when you come into the building. See the strengths and what’s working. Check what needs to be improved. Continually review and refocus efforts. – I have a concern about enrollment dropping. We need to build programs to keep our students at our school. – We always had in place the pieces we needed for the next step. When we felt something was too big a leap, we got the next step in place. For example, we didn’t’ have assessments needed to go for CSR. We took a year to get them in place, and then went for CSR the next year.
4.
Teacher collaboration and teamwork. – It is hard to replicate people. A lot of our success is program, but the bottom line is personnel . . . trained expertise! – We did a lot of team building and bridged the upper and lower grades. We started the movement that we were all on the same page. We started to do celebrations. – The first year of our NSF, our math facilitators went to an overnight training. People were frustrated. We used an outside facilitator for help. Now we problem solve together. We moved to have true dialog and we understand it is OK to disagree. It is a real turning point. – We celebrated every month. We would flash up our school achievement data. Everyone would cheer. We looked at the kid data and never let a kid sit. We immediately intervened. – We have regular team time for planning. We strategize together, realizing how important everyone’s role is . . . 150%! No blame! We appreciate what the others have done. – We’ve tried to provide time to work together. Every lodge has common prep every day. There are also times for the subject-matter teachers to talk about what they do. – Treat teachers with the trust and respect they deserve. I am proud of these teachers and proud of the school. We’re good!
5.
Teacher support for decisions. – When we decided to do Trails to Literacy, we brought teachers in from the outside. It wasn’t just the principal. We talked as a group. It was a staff decision. – You can have any reading or math program as long as you have consensus (fidelity). You have to get to “this is what’s going to happen” . . . we will use SFA and we will all implement it.” – You need the trust and support of your whole staff. Don’t be afraid to show vulnerability, so they understand you want their agreement. Listen and be willing to change plans. – We all strategize together, realizing how important everyone’s role is. – Negotiate before you get an issue into groups; work to build consensus.
6. Strong relationships with families—whether it’s gaining support from them or offering support to them. – We have a very active, supportive parent group. They are partners with us. We use them in the classroom, library, and some who work do work for school at home. If they are absent, they find a replacement. – We had a program scheduled, but found out that some parents didn’t know about it. We called every parent and sick children were the only ones not there. –2–
– I’ve started to have conversations with parents to say, “Your child is capable of this. He’s currently doing this. If he maintains these study habits, he won’t succeed in high school.” We have conversations of how to have the kid do the work. – A lot of parents come to the school. They are part of our circle of information. We need to talk with parents every month to let them know what’s coming. – We must look outside our own culture and help kids feel connected. We have a lot going on with kids, parents and the community.
7. Strong relationships with the community and parents. –
Our local businesses give us 10% of their take one night a year.
– The success we have is important…but we have a crummy past reputation. Anytime we mess up, all the positive things aren’t enough. We give a positive message to our community and now we are one of the “best” middle schools. – You must let the community know what you do and invite them in. – We worked for two years on interpretive art. When someone I met read about this project, she thought of our school and sent a check for $5,000 for 2-3 years.
8.
Professional development in enough depth to change the school. – To get started we took a year of study and research, looking at other schools and participating in schoolwide planning for one year. We had to flex. Not everyone wanted to do it the same way. We formed agreements on each piece along the way. Teachers love it now! – We used the NSF grant to build teacher leadership, peer modeling and support. – We provided professional development with a trip to California for three days . . . working on comprehension for 4th and 5th graders. The difference was amazing. – With Tribes training, three people had been trained and they convinced others. We had a twoday training for the whole staff and it became an embedded practice. We all have the same expectations and use the same language. – We used grant money for a planning committee. They looked at data. What’s working and what isn’t . . . the teachers branched out . . . did background research and checks and took it to staff. – We had a master schedule with every date including when we had to turn in stuff! We sat down to decide what it would take; demonstration and modeling; planning time.
9. Teacher responsibility and ownership for student learning. – All teachers are responsible for the outcomes . . . as a staff we planned and identified specific skills at each grade level, scaffolding and building the curriculum based on benchmarks. – I expect accountability. Each quarter, teachers give me reports on the number of students who meet, are close to meeting, and do not meet benchmarks (per grades). We go over the action plans for the students. – We have more teachers taking ownership, and they follow along to assure the success of targeted kids. We have a dialog about children’s learning . . . not defensive, but a true dialog between teacher and principal. –3–
– As a part of the National Science Foundation grant we looked at kids who are not meeting benchmarks . . . they belong to all of us…we are really looking at what else we can do to help them. – At this school the teachers say “whatever it takes.” It makes a big difference!
10. Creating teacher leadership – We have about two-thirds of the staff on teams with important roles for the school. My goal is to get the school operating, so the teachers can run it. They need to look at data and understand needs. – We have a team leader group . . . a representative from each team meets together with the principal for decision making and planning. – With the NSF grant, we have two math facilitators—two teachers who have a passion for it— and two teachers with shared leadership for the grant. We also have Investigations facilitators who are our ongoing teacher leaders in math. Teacher leadership makes a big difference. –
We also have a team of literacy leaders from each team . . . different teachers . . . to build our leadership capacity throughout the building.
– Plant seeds and motivate; recognize the questions (what have you gotten us into?); build leadership capacity; focus on your strengths! – Empower the teachers who are doing a good job. Let them help you lead! – I give others the credit. Leaders don’t take credit. You give it to the people you work with . . . and you take the heat. You do things for the whole. Everyone’s success builds others’ success!
11. Staff is strong and capable. 12. The principal is a role model for school climate and key elements. – I don’t ask staff to do what I don’t do. It creates a place where people come to work and put children first. – We maintain our focus and the principal is the buffer. – I hook things together. Our quarterly assessment reports link to the School Improvement Plan . . . it’s a link to evaluation. – It is the daily way you work with teachers and children. They see me working with children. – You have to walk the talk. – Look at your accomplishments and write the great things that are happening . . . share it with the staff (and let your community know. – When things aren’t going well, you need to be large and in charge. Greet people with a smile, meet the buses, and be seen at lunchtime.
13. Many remedial paths. These may be very focused for each child—a number of options that children are placed in or extended day offerings. – We provide double reading time for at-risk students.
–4–
– The literacy center is where children come for support. It includes ESL, Title I, Special Ed. That’s were we have our resources. We use Read Naturally and Lindamood Bell. We have a partnership with the NW Reading Clinic. – We have after school and before school clubs for math. – Touchstone is doing a homework club. – For students who aren’t succeeding, we offer a 9-week program. We contract with parents that they will make sure students do their homework and read 30 minutes a day.
14. Flexible funding within the framework of school priorities, including shuffling staff, being ready for opportunities, grants and fundraising. –
Our class sizes are small. We have no librarian, P.E. specialist, music, art or CDS. We lost our second secretary. It’s all in the classroom
– Staff’s chief concern is class size. Our average class size is 36. Teachers have supported it because they, along with our community, believe that we need to offer the arts and have a librarian and instructional specialist. – In one lodge, the same teacher will teach all basic subjects to the same 40 students for three years. In other lodges, several teachers will teach 120 students in the same grade. – Our PTA gives us $$$ for field trips, etc. – Because we had a literacy center, we could add things we never envisioned at the time. I believe you take it as long as you can get it. If the Reading Clinic closes this year, we’ll have had two teachers and an assistant who were trained and had the mentors here. – We’ll use our New Visions grant to take further steps on student-involved assessment.
15. Alignment of curriculum to state standards/benchmark tests and alignment across grades/subjects. –
We use Rebecca Sitton spelling. We have also mapped out the concepts and revisit them every four to six weeks. We have developed a spiral.
–
All teachers are responsible for the outcomes . . . as a staff we planned and identified skills at each grade level, scaffolding and building the curriculum based on benchmarks.
– We got together as a staff and tweaked our science based on the science test. We broke it apart over the summer . . . every grade level was given a responsibility. – Yes, there are still some teachers who have found success in their own crafted math. My style is to talk over and over about the commitment to Investigations. Peer pressure helps to move people more comfortably into new practices . . . they are excellent teachers doing their job and getting results. – The 8th grade teachers align our texts in social studies with benchmarks. We meet and plan; everyone’s on board. – In third grade we use a thematic approach to reading and novel studies and leveled expository materials. Everything is tied together and based around the benchmarks.
–5–
16. Specific instructional strategies and scheduling to accommodate them. – This item covers all the specific strategies used by schools—learning centers; Trails to Literacy; special supplemental programs that have been mentioned. – We don’t teach curriculum, we teach kids. We have a target curriculum, but if a child is not making it, we find what will work. – The key was student-involved classroom assessment. We did it in learning teams. Teachers met together for discussion and got credits. Teachers are all very smart and don’t need a guru. – We provide double reading time for at-risk students. We are also focusing on authentic writing, which is meaningful to the kids.
17. Small school (class, lodge) size makes it easy to know what each student needs and focus on the child.
–6– PPS R&E/SBH—2/11/04
