““Closing The Achievement Closing The Achievement

Gap for All Students”Gap for All Students”

Pat Davenport & Dr. Gerald E. Anderson

NO EXCUSES

Who’s To Blame?The college professor

said:

“Such rawness in a student is a shame, lack of preparation in high school is to blame.”

Who’s To Blame?Said the high school teacher:

“Good heavens! That boy’s a fool. The fault of course is with the middle school.”

Who’s To Blame?The middle school

teacher said:

“From stupidity may I be spared. They sent him in so unprepared.”

Who’s To Blame?The primary teacher huffed:

“Kindergarten blockheads all. They call that preparation – why, it’s worse than none at all.”

Who’s To Blame?The kindergarten

teacher said:

“Such lack of training never did I see. What kind of woman must that mother be.”

Who’s To Blame?The mother said:

“Poor helpless child. He’s not to blame. His father’s people were all the same.”

Who’s To Blame?Said the father at the end of the line:

“I doubt the rascal’s even mine.”

Anonymous

Building BlocksThe Improvement Process is grounded in an integrated system of:

Effective Schools

Total Quality Management

PDCA Instructional Process

Effective Schools

Total Quality Management

PDCA Instructional Process

A Quality and Effective School A Quality and Effective School District has...District has...

A Quality and Effective School A Quality and Effective School District has...District has...

A belief that they can teach all students

High expectations A Vision Leadership must focus the

organization on the Vision An aligned strategic planning process An Plan-Do-Check-Act Instructional

Process

Random Acts Of Improvement

= Programs

GOALS

Improvement Plan

Aligned Acts Of Improvement

In an alignedsystem ... Student

AchievementSystem

Performance

GOALS

… improvementefforts are integratedand results-oriented

The Power of VisionVision without action is

merely a dream;

Action without vision

just passes the time;

Vision with action can

change the world.

- Joel Barker

• 3 out of 4 will go on welfare.

• 68% will commit a criminal offense.

If students are not literate, that is, they can not read,

write, and do basic arithmetic:

Source: National Adult Literacy Survey - 1993

Beliefs & Values Leadership must focus all members of

the organization on our vision

Common Principles of Effective Schools & TQM

• Proven Management Principles

• Advances Organizational Aims & Goals

• Data Driven

• Continuous Improvement

• Simple, not easy

• Commitment, time & resources

• Thinking “outside the Box”

Plan/Do/Check/Act CyclePDCA Instructional Cycle

PLAN

ACT

DO

CHECK

• Data Disaggregation

• Calendar Development• Direct Instructional

Focus

• Tutorials

• Enrichment

• Assessment

• Maintenance

• Monitoring

The PDCA Eight-StepProcess

8.8.M

onitoringM

onitoring7.7.

Mai

nten

ance

Mai

nten

ance

2. Timeline Development2. Timeline Development

4. Assessment4. Assessment

3. Instructional Focus3. Instructional Focus

5. Tutorials5. Tutorials 6. Enrichment6. Enrichment

1.Data Disaggregation

1.Data Disaggregation

READING 92-93 93-94 94-95 95-96 96-97 97-98 98-99 00-01

All Students 53.7% 79.3% 84.9% 80.2% 87.1% 97.7% 92.5% 94.6%

African American 50.0% 69.2% 70.8% 76.5% 86.4% 91.7% 100% 91.7%

Hispanic 50.0% 79.2% 87.1% 78.7% 83.8% 98.6% 89.8% 93.6%

White 58.8% 85.4% 87.1% 83.3% 92.7% 100% 95.9% 100%

Eco. Disadvantaged 53.1% 81.3% 87.1% 76.5% 87.1% 97.0% 91.0% 93.2%

DEMOGRAPHICS:

Economically Disadvantaged 86.9% African American 18.5% LEP 33.3% Hispanic 65.4%Mobility 17.8% White 15.8%

TAAS Velasco Elementary

MATH 92-93 93-94 94-95 95-96 96-97 97-98 98-99 00-01

All Students 37.0% 69.5% 83.8% 92.4% 96.2% 95.6% 94.6% 96.7%

African American 8.3% 50.0% 76.0% 82.4% 100% 87.5% 92.0% 91.7%

Hispanic 33.3% 76.4% 87.1% 91.5% 94.1% 98.7% 97.7% 97.3%

White 64.7% 69.0% 83.1% 97.6% 97.5% 94.6% 87.8% 100%

Eco. Disadvantaged 35.5% 72.2% 84.6% 90.1% 97.0% 95.1% 93.5% 96.6%

DEMOGRAPHICS:

Economically Disadvantaged 86.9% African American 18.5% LEP 33.3% Hispanic 65.4%Mobility 17.8% White 15.8%

TAAS Velasco Elementary

WRITING 92-93 93-94 94-95 95-96 96-97 97-98 98-99 00-01

All Students 68.5% 97.8% 90.0% 98.3% 98.5% 97.1% 97.2% 92.8%

African American 50.0% 100% 85.7% 90.9% 100% 91.7% 100% 92.9%

Hispanic 65.2% 96.2% 93.3% 100% 97.3% 97.4% 94.9% 92.3%

White 83.3% 100% 87.0% 100% 100% 100% 100% 94.1%

Eco. Disadvantaged 71.0% 96.0% 85.3% 97.4% 98.0% 96.6% 98.1% 91.4%

DEMOGRAPHICS:

Economically Disadvantaged 86.9% African American 18.5% LEP 33.3% Hispanic 65.4%Mobility 17.8% White 15.8%

TAAS Velasco Elementary

READING 92-93 93-94 94-95 95-96 96-97 97-98 98-99 00-01

All Students 62.7% 72.6% 69.9% 82.7% 90.8% 94.9% 94.4% 98.1%

African American 53.8% 65.6% 59.1% 80.8% 80.3% 94.3% 88.2% 95.6%

Hispanic 52.1% 64.6% 63.3% 75.6% 90.3% 93.5% 92.9% 97.7%

White 80.2% 82.1% 82.6% 92.4% 94.9% 96.7% 98.4% 99.4%

Eco. Disadvantaged 47.6% 64.0% 61.6% 75.8% 88.1% 92.1% 92.3% 97.4%

TAAS Freeport Intermediate

DEMOGRAPHICS:

Economically Disadvantaged 65.1% African American 12.6% LEP 4.4% Hispanic 48.5%Mobility 20.1% White 38.4%

MATH 92-93 93-94 94-95 95-96 96-97 97-98 98-99 00-01

All Students 36.6% 55.9% 55.0% 76.9% 92.0% 97.3% 96.2% 99.1%

African American 19.9% 40.6% 36.6% 67.9% 83.8% 96.2% 95.3% 95.7%

Hispanic 33.3% 44.9% 48.7% 69.3% 91.3% 96.3% 95.8% 99.5%

White 45.8% 70.8% 69.7% 90.1% 95.5% 98.9% 96.9% 99.4%

Eco. Disadvantaged 22.0% 49.0% 46.5% 66.1% 88.9% 96.2% 95.5% 98.9%

TAAS Freeport Intermediate

DEMOGRAPHICS:

Economically Disadvantaged 65.1% African American 12.6% LEP 4.4% Hispanic 48.5%Mobility 20.1% White 38.4%

WRITING 92-93 93-94 94-95 95-96 96-97 97-98 98-99 00-01

All Students 74.0% 71.6% 72.0% 79.1% 89.0% 91.9% 98.0% 96.9%

African American 62.1% 59.4% 75.0% 85.0% 76.7% 84.6% 96.0% 95.5%

Hispanic 67.5% 68.3% 69.1% 71.1% 85.4% 92.4% 97.5% 96.0%

White 80.2% 78.5% 74.3% 90.2% 96.7% 93.3% 99.0% 98.6%

Eco. Disadvantaged 67.3% 60.7% 68.1% 73.2% 83.3% 88.9% 96.7% 95.7%

TAAS Freeport Intermediate

DEMOGRAPHICS:

Economically Disadvantaged 65.1% African American 12.6% LEP 4.4% Hispanic 48.5%Mobility 20.1% White 38.4%

READING 92-93 93-94 94-95 95-96 96-97 97-98 98-99 00-01

All Students 76.8% 76.3% 74.4% 85.0% 89.0% 91.7% 88.5% 97.0%

African American 58.3% 41.2% 44.0% 75.0% 86.7% 82.4% 84.0% 88.0%

Hispanic 68.5% 71.4% 70.8% 83.1% 85.9% 91.4% 84.3% 98.1%

White 86.7% 82.3% 88.4% 89.9% 95.2% 94.0% 95.5% 98.9%

Eco. Disadvantaged 63.9% 61.8% 64.3% 80.0% 84.0% 89.5% 84.7% 94.8%

TAAS Brazosport High School

DEMOGRAPHICS:

Economically Disadvantaged 70.0% African American 14.0%LEP 2.7% Hispanic 47.0%Mobility 23.4% White 38.4%

MATH 92-93 93-94 94-95 95-96 96-97 97-98 98-99 00-01

All Students 65.5% 57.5% 53.5% 82.0% 85.8% 90.9% 94.0% 99.0%

African American 14.3% 29.4% 28.0% 75.0% 75.0% 82.4% 96.2% 96.0%

Hispanic 57.5% 50.0% 50.7% 74.7% 83.5% 91.6% 93.1% 99.0%

White 81.0% 71.8% 63.9% 91.3% 95.2% 91.7% 94.3% 100%

Eco. Disadvantaged 53.2% 45.5% 44.8% 81.7% 81.2% 87.4% 91.7% 99.1%

TAAS Brazosport High School

DEMOGRAPHICS:

Economically Disadvantaged 70.0% African American 14.0%LEP 2.7% Hispanic 47.0%Mobility 23.4% White 38.4%

WRITING 92-93 93-94 94-95 95-96 96-97 97-98 98-99 00-01

All Students 83.6% 79.9% 85.4% 86.6% 89.2% 93.2% 88.7% 93.6%

African American 64.7% 47.1% 62.5% 75.0% 87.1% 88.2% 84.6% 84.6%

Hispanic 78.4% 79.3% 86.5% 80.3% 87.1% 92.4% 87.7% 96.2%

White 91.9% 87.5% 91.5% 96.2% 93.5% 95.3% 92.0% 92.9%

Eco. Disadvantaged 73.4% 76.6% 78.9% 81.4% 86.0% 91.5% 84.4% 90.0%

TAAS Brazosport High School

DEMOGRAPHICS:

Economically Disadvantaged 70.0% African American 14.0%LEP 2.7% Hispanic 47.0%Mobility 23.4% White 38.4%

Economically DisadvantagedEconomically Disadvantaged Least to Greatest - Elementary Least to Greatest - Elementary

BEUTEL 14.0 100 100

BRANNEN 23.2 100 100

ROBERTS 27.1 96.6 98.0

NEY 31.0 95.6 97.4

POLK 47.0 97.7 97.8

AUSTIN 53.6 97.3 96.2

GRIFFITH 66.5 91.8 93.5

OGG 71.2 98.7 98.1

JANE LONG 75.8 94.3 94.3

FLEMING 84.2 90.1 90.5

VELASCO 86.9 93.2 94.6

E.D. % All Students % % E.D.

PASSING PASSING

READING

Economically DisadvantagedEconomically Disadvantaged Least to Greatest - Least to Greatest -

ElementaryElementaryBEUTEL 14.0 100 100

BRANNEN 23.2 93.5 98.1

ROBERTS 27.1 98.7 98.7

NEY 31.0 100 97.5

POLK 47.0 96.7 98.7

AUSTIN 53.6 98.7 99.4

GRIFFITH 66.5 93.7 94.1

OGG 71.2 98.6 99.1

JANE LONG 75.8 97.3 97.5

FLEMING 84.2 94.5 94.3

VELASCO 86.9 96.6 96.7

MATH E.D. % All Students % % E.D.

PASSING PASSING

Economically DisadvantagedEconomically Disadvantaged Least to Greatest - Least to Greatest -

ElementaryElementaryBEUTEL 14.0 85.7 97.7

BRANNEN 23.2 100 100

ROBERTS 27.1 100 98.7

NEY 31.0 87.0 92.7

POLK 47.0 100 100

AUSTIN 53.6 95.7 95.6

GRIFFITH 66.5 90.5 91.3

OGG 71.2 100 100

JANE LONG 75.8 91.5 91.4

FLEMING 84.2 97.1 97.4

VELASCO 86.9 91.4 92.8

WRITING E.D. % All Students % % E.D.

PASSING PASSING

Economically DisadvantagedEconomically DisadvantagedLeast to Greatest - Least to Greatest -

IntermediateIntermediate

LAKE JACKSON 16.3 91.4 97.8

CLUTE 43.4 92.6 93.6

FREEPORT 65.1 97.4 98.1

MATH

LAKE JACKSON 16.3 98.3 98.6

CLUTE 43.4 99.6 99.0

FREEPORT 65.1 98.9 99.1

WRITING

LAKE JACKSON 16.3 94.4 96.9

CLUTE 43.4 87.8 92.9

FREEPORT 65.1 95.7 96.9

READING E.D. % All Students % % E.D.

PASSING PASSING

Economically DisadvantagedEconomically DisadvantagedLeast to Greatest - High Least to Greatest - High

SchoolSchool

BRAZOSWOOD 14.4 94.7 98.3

BRAZOSPORT 70.1 94.6 97.1

MATH

BRAZOSWOOD 14.4 93.8 98.3

BRAZOSPORT 70.1 99.1 99.1

WRITING

BRAZOSWOOD 14.4 91.0 96.9

BRAZOSPORT 70.1 90.0 93.7

READING E.D. % All Students % % E.D.

PASSING PASSING

District 10-Year District 10-Year ComparisonsComparisons

Percentage of BISD Students Percentage of BISD Students Passing Academic Excellence Passing Academic Excellence Indicator System Assessment Indicator System Assessment

Summed Across Grades 3-8 & 10Summed Across Grades 3-8 & 10

50

60

70

80

90

100

1991-92

1992-93

1993-94

1994-95

1995-96

1996-97

1997-98

1998-99

1999-00

2000-01

All Students A. American Hispanic White Eco. Dis.

AEIS READING AEIS READING COMPARISONCOMPARISONAEIS READING AEIS READING COMPARISONCOMPARISON

82

98

70

97

64

9294

57

94

60

50

60

70

80

90

100

1991-92

1992-93

1993-94

1994-95

1995-96

1996-97

1997-98

1998-99

1999-00

2000-01

All Students A. American Hispanic White Eco. Dis.

AEIS MATH COMPARISONAEIS MATH COMPARISONAEIS MATH COMPARISONAEIS MATH COMPARISON

79

70

585554

98

96

9797

92

50

60

70

80

90

100

1991-92

1992-93

1993-94

1994-95

1995-96

1996-97

1997-98

1998-99

1999-00

2000-01

All Students A. American Hispanic White Eco. Dis.

AEIS WRITING AEIS WRITING COMPARISONCOMPARISONAEIS WRITING AEIS WRITING COMPARISONCOMPARISON

80

70

605957

9798

95

9394

Comparison of Special Education % Tested

48

71

0102030405060708090

100

1998-99

State

BISD

TAAS Special EducationStudents % Passing

67.2

77.4

69.7

78.1

93.2 92.095.9

75.8 77.8

0.010.020.030.040.050.060.070.080.090.0

100.0

Reading Writing Math

State

Region IV

BISD

Grades 3-8 & 10

Percent of Average Daily Attendance

95.395.1

96.2

90.0

95.0

100.0

1999-20

State

Region IV

BISD

Annual Drop-Out Rate

1.8

0.1

1.6

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

1999-2000

State

Region IV

BISD

Algebra I End-of-Course Comparison

39.0

91.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

State

BISD

Biology I End-of-Course Comparison

80.0

93.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

State

BISD

College Admissions Test Average SAT Score

992 1003 1018

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

Class of 1999

State

Region IV

BISD

College Admissions Test Average ACT Score

20.3 20.8 21.7

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

Class of 1999

State

Region IV

BISD

Marion CountyState Grade Rating

0

10

20

30

40

50A

B

C

D

A 8 9 20

B 9 13 17

C 20 17 6

D 3 2 0

'00-'01 '01-'02 '02-'03

Marion CountyState Grade Rating

0

10

20

30

40

50A

B

C

D

A 8 9 20

B 9 13 17

C 20 17 6

D 3 2 0

'00-'01 '01-'02 '02-'03

Martin County, FLState Rating Breakdown

0

5

10

15

20

A's 10 12

B's 4 5

C's 2 0

D's 1 0

2002 2003

Focus on Achievement

Three Focus on Achievement Schools

19

106

16

42

16

44

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Randall Pepper Alder Fontana H

Academic Performance Index Growth

API Target Growth

API Actual Growth

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

JeffersonElementary

LincolnElementary

WashingtonElementary

Growth Target

Actual Growth

Lindsay Unified School District2001-2002

Academic Performance Index Growth

Lindsay Unified School District 2001-2002

Socioeconomically Disadvantaged

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Lincoln Elementary Washington Elementary

Growth Target

Actual Growth

Center Unified School District (Sacramento, CA)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

SpinelliElem.

Center High

API Target Growth

API Actual Growth

Puesta del Sol Elementary CTBS Scores 2000-01 4th Grade

Rio Rancho Public Schools, NM

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Reading Total Language Total Math Total Science Social Studies

Me

dia

n P

erc

en

tile

Sco

res

1998-99

1999-00

2000-01

Glenn Elementary SchoolNashville, TN

Terra Nova 2000-2001 Growth in Math

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4

2000

2001

College Park Elementary SchoolFulton County, GA

CRCT 2000-2001 Fourth Grade Growth

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Reading Writing Math

20002001

100 % Economically Disadvantaged

Camp Creek Middle SchoolFulton County, GA

CRCT 2000-2001 Eighth Grade Growth

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Reading Writing Math

20002001

66 % Economically Disadvantaged

Wood Elementary School, AZ Mean Percentile Ranks for Total Math on

the Stanford Achievement Test

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5

1997

1998

1999

2000

Wood Elementary School, AZ Mean Percentile Ranks for Total Reading on the

Stanford Achievement Test

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5

19971998199920002001

“How many effective schools would you have to see to be persuaded of the educability of poor children? If your answer is more than one, then I submit that you have reasons of your own for preferring to believe that basic pupil performance derives from family background instead of school response to family background. Whether or not we will ever effectively teach the children of the poor is probably far more a matter of politics than of social science and that is as it should be.

We can, whenever and wherever we choose, successfully teach all children whose schooling is of interest to us. We already know more than we need to do that. Whether or not we do it must finally depend on how we feel about the fact that we haven’t so far.” - Dr. Ron Edmonds

THE CHALLENGE:

Our challenge is to provide an education for the kind of kids we have. Not the

kind of kids we used to have or want to have or the kind that exists in our

dreams.

Every Child Counts!