LMU Family of Schools Working Group Data, Results, Outcomes August 11, 2007 DISCUSSION DRAFT.
-
Upload
theodore-eaton -
Category
Documents
-
view
215 -
download
1
Transcript of LMU Family of Schools Working Group Data, Results, Outcomes August 11, 2007 DISCUSSION DRAFT.
LMU Family of Schools Working Group
Data, Results, OutcomesAugust 11, 2007
DISCUSSION DRAFT
Agenda
I. Working Group Overview
II. Sharing our Results- Academic Interventions- Accountability Models- Charter Schools/Autonomy Models- Data- Defining Educational Excellence- History of Reform in Westchester Cluster
III. LMU Needs Assessment -- Themes from WHS
IV. Assessing Progress, Celebrating Success
V. Next Steps- Sharing with our stakeholder groups- Gathering Additional Data- Symposium at LMU- Innovation Division
LMU Family of Schools Working Group
Purpose: The working group will function as a fact-finding body to help inform the broader community, and to begin the research to package information for broader distribution.
This group will meet three times as a group throughout the summer and has as its central purpose: Doing the research and preparation necessary to engage the community in well-informed and fruitful dialogues beginning in late August.
The group’s research will help to answer two key questions:
- Do any or all of the schools within LMU FoS want to submit a proposal to the Innovation Division of the LAUSD seeking greater school or cluster autonomy?
- What are the ways in which to articulate the role of the many stakeholders within the structure of a Family of Schools?
LMU Family of Schools Working Group
The working group represented a broad array of stakeholders:
- 15 parents, grandparents and community members
- 5 PTA members
- 16 teachers and administrators
- 6 LAUSD local district, district and board member staff
- 4 LMU faculty and staff
- 3 students
More than 50 people gave their time and energy to the working group this summer!
LMU Family of Schools Working Group
We organized ourselves into six research teams…
- Academic Interventions
- Accountability Models
- Charter Schools/Autonomy Models
- Data
- Defining Educational Excellence
- History of Reform in Westchester Cluster
…and got to work, asking questions, talking, and collecting thoughts, history, and data.
Agenda
I. Working Group Overview
II. Sharing our Results
- Academic Interventions- Accountability Models- Charter Schools/Autonomy Models- Data- Defining Educational Excellence- History of Reform in Westchester Cluster
III. LMU Needs Assessment -- Themes from WHS
IV. Assessing Progress, Celebrating Success
V. Next Steps- Sharing with our stakeholder groups- Gathering Additional Data- Symposium at LMU- Innovation Division
Academic Intervention Group
1. We need to look at the Response to Intervention (RTI) model. (RTI calls for the frequent collection of assessment data and is based on finding what works for an individual student.)
2. Should be real intervention and not remedial education
3. We need to be data driven in our choices for intervention
4. A strong and consistent character/behavior/discipline program in place
No specific program for intervention but developed specific points and questions about intervention and what it should look like in a school setting
LMU FoS Working Group
5. Interventions, if at all possible, should be put into place in the classroom setting, no pull-outs
6. An intervention program needs to be used in the appropriate andrecommended way
7. A school needs to stay with a program that shows results in achievement
8. There needs to be a rapid turn around in looking at assessment scores
9. Our students need to be engaged in their own education
Academic Intervention, cont’dLMU FoS Working Group
Additional Questions on Academic Intervention
What criteria do we use to identify students who need help?
Should each school decide that criteria or do we want something overall?
How do we deal with mandated pacing?
LMU FoS Working Group
Accountability ModelsWe began by identifying some key questions:
• How do subs impact the CST, CAHSEE and API scores? If students have a number of different subs (day-to-day) or a long term sub, this interrupts the flow of the curriculum
• How valid are the test scores?
• How do students qualify for the Magnet School?
• Does Westchester have a gang problem?
• Is there a difference in the Community and Magnet Schools with respect to discipline policies?
LMU FoS Working Group
Accountability Models, cont’d
• What does the discrepancy with performance tell us? – 37% of high school students succeed in Math/English– Yet 66% of high school students pass the exit exam
• Declining enrollment at Westchester – does this mean students are fleeing?
• Seems to be little or no accountability between parents & teachers• Interventions needed!• We need models based on student outcome for each grade level and a
better understanding of existing tools
What does accountability mean?
• Accountability for local, district, LAUSD, and state levels. • As parents, we want our school to be accountable, but what do we
mean?• Accountability implies consequences/incentives or reward• Would affect teachers, administration, staff, students & parents
– For example: there is a student-school contract tool available through NCLB (No Child Left Behind) (Bill to provide draft)
LMU FoS Working Group
Next Steps on Accountability
• Reform school model must have accountability sections
• Reexamining the meaning of accountability• Examine accountability & differences between
elementary & secondary• Examine local, district, state models & practices• Governance—shared accountability between
parents/administration• Making sure the stakeholders, if we’re really
partners, have conversations: – If given authority for something, must be held
responsible
LMU FoS Working Group
Data Research TeamAdditional data being gathered and questions being researched…
1. Demographics of school-age children within the Westchester HighSchool Attendance area a. School Data (children within the attendance area who attend public schools) b. Census Data (children within the attendance area regardless of whether they attend LAUSD)
2. Census map of all the students attending Westchester high school
3. Discipline Referrals
4. Deeper analysis on graduation/drop out rates (who is leaving and where are they going)
5. Where are the graduates going? (higher education, workforce, etc.)
6. Feeder pattern to WHS from OWMS over longer period of time
7. More examination of OWMS feeder school patterns
LMU FoS Working Group
We asked about enrollment:Enrollment by Ethnicity, 2006-2007
86.4
58.7
40.6
50.2
63
40
47.5
11.9 7
.7
24.8
18.6
21.8
24.1
33.8
24.8
28.8 2
4.5
13.1
10.97
.3 4.6
4.1
9.3
4.6
25.6
0
20
40
60
80
100
School
Perc
en
tag
e
Black Hispanic White Asian Filipino
Enrollment of 10 or less is not included
LMU FoS Working Group
Source: LAUSD Office of Planning Assessment & Research
Enrollment cont’d:Enrollment by Ethnicity, 2006-2007
70.3
54
63.4 5
7.8
75
52.9
28.8
44.7
21.8
20.5
18.3
11.49
.1
15.7
3.5
31.9
3.4 4 1.7
0.7
0
20
40
60
80
100
School
Pe
rce
nta
ge
Black Hispanic White Asian Filipino
Enrollment of 10 or less is not included
LMU FoS Working Group
Source: LAUSD Office of Planning Assessment & Research
Feeder Schools to Wright MS
36
3
102
35
55
32 3227
511
7
86
4511
28
4
0
20
40
60
80
100
2004-2005 Grade 5 - Elementary School
Nu
mb
er
of
Stu
de
nts
- G
rad
e 6
Wright MS
Wright MSMath/Sci Magnet
LMU FoS Working Group
Source: LAUSD Office of Planning Assessment & Research
*131 Students attended Wright MS (Magnet
included) for all three years.
Wright MS to Westchester HSWright MS to WHS Feeder Pattern
404
157
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
1
Number of WHS Grads,2005-06
2005-06 WHS Grads -Attended Wright, MagnetIncluded
LMU FoS Working Group
Source: LAUSD Office of Planning Assessment & Research
We looked at data on permits:Permit Information: 2006-2007
128
177
126
12
77
14.9
28.1
5146.8
2.3
15.5
70
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
54th St El Cowan El Kentwood El Loyola VillageEl
Loyola Per ArtsMag
Paseo del ReyEl
WestportHeights El
School
Nu
mb
er
Total Permits
Percent of Permitted Students
LMU FoS Working Group
Source: LAUSD Office of Planning Assessment & Research
Permits cont’d:Permit Information: 2006-2007
203
1
143
9
412
315.5
0.47
19.52.3
23.8
0.83
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
Audubon MS Audubon G/HAMag
Wright MS Wright M/S AeroMag
Westchester SH Westchester M/SAeroMag
School
Nu
mb
er
Total Permits
Percent of Permitted Students
LMU FoS Working Group
Source: LAUSD Office of Planning Assessment & Research
Before we plan ourjourney…..
….We need to agree on ourdestination
Definitions of Excellence Research Team
LMU FoS Working Group
Research Question:
How do we define educational excellence?
What measures do we use to operationalize
these definitions?
LMU FoS Working Group
What can we learn from others?
• Chicago Public Schools• New York City Department of
Education• Gilroy, California• Achievement First Charter Schools• Green Dot Charter Schools
LMU FoS Working Group
Survey to LMU Group
• 45 initial definitions culled from national models sent to working group
• Working group voted and narrowed list down to 29 definitions
• All LMU/Westchester group members given opportunity to vote (13 responses)
• Total responses: 18 • 15 definitions received overwhelming number of
votes
LMU FoS Working Group
Definitions of Excellence
• High graduation rates• Safe and secure schools• High student attendance rates• Large numbers of students showing yearly and
sustained growth towards proficiency• High absolute numbers of students who are proficient
and advanced in math, reading, science, social science, foreign language
LMU FoS Working Group
Definitions of Excellence
• Large % of budget spent on classroom• Teacher quality/satisfaction measures (low teacher
attrition rates/high % of teachers fully credentialed)• Sustained progress in closing achievement gap• School facilities clean, well-maintained• Availability of resources (textbooks, technology, etc)
LMU FoS Working Group
Definitions of Excellence 11-15• Small class size• High rates of parent participation/parents feel
welcome• Evidence that coursework is rigorous, and emphasizes
the development of critical thinking skills• Post-secondary acceptance and/or enrollment• Evidence of ability to both create and appreciate
drama, arts, music, dance, etc.
LMU FoS Working Group
Next Steps:
• Publish 15 definitions as document/letter of intent
• Get more votes from important stakeholders (parents, teachers, students, etc.)
LMU FoS Working Group
Agenda
I. Working Group Overview
II. Sharing our Results
- Academic Interventions- Accountability Models- Charter Schools/Autonomy Models- Data- Defining Educational Excellence- History of Reform in Westchester Cluster
III. LMU Needs Assessment -- Themes from WHS
IV. Assessing Progress, Celebrating Success
V. Next Steps- Sharing with our stakeholder groups- Gathering Additional Data- Symposium at LMU- Innovation Division
Needs Assessment Methodology
• Primary intent was:– To cast a “wide” net to gain a sense of the
terrain.– To gain input from stakeholders, especially
students who are typically not asked.• Sampling
– Expected close to 100% from students and school staff.
– Expected some challenges with parent sample.
LMU FoS Working Group
Needs Assessment Methodology
• Written surveys were designed with 3 simple, open-ended questions:– What do you like best about your school?– What needs attention at your school?– Third question slightly different between
adults and students• Students: Tell us anything about your
school• Adults: Tell us about this partnership
LMU FoS Working Group
Needs Assessment Methodology, cont’d
• LMU SOE faculty “lead” was assigned to work with the principals for best approach with each stakeholder.
• Forouzan Faridian, from the Westchester/Playa Education Foundation, helped with parent contacts.
• LMU research assistants were assigned to help collect and begin analysis of completed surveys.
LMU FoS Working Group
Needs Assessment preliminary results
• Nearly a 98% return rate for students and school staff.
• Low return rate for parents across most schools. We decided to postpone analyzing parent surveys and focus on the other surveys for now.
• Analysis for the HS is nearly complete, as with the elementary schools, and MS is still ongoing.
LMU FoS Working Group
LMU Needs Assessment: Major themes from WHS Student
Surveys
• School Climate: Location, Atmosphere/campus, Social environment/students, Diversity
• School Activities: Sports, Activities/clubs• Academic Programs: College counseling
center, Electives/classes offered, Scheduling, Magnet, Class size
• Personnel: Faculty
What do you like best about your school?
LMU FoS Working Group
Please note that these are preliminary findings from an ongoing data collection project.
LMU Needs Assessment: Major themes from WHS Student
Surveys
• Facilities/Operations: Bathrooms, Cleanliness, Classrooms
• School Safety: Violence/gangs, Student behavior, Discipline, Security
• Personnel: Student/teacher relationships; classroom management; communication
• Academic Programs: Resources, science program, Schedules
• Supplemental Programs: More social activities, Field trips, Extra curricular activities, Tutoring, Arts
What needs attention at your school?
LMU FoS Working Group
Please note that these are preliminary findings from an ongoing data collection project.
LMU Needs Assessment: Major themes from WHS Teacher
Surveys
• Personnel: Teachers, Administrators, Staff, Collaboration
• School Climate: Strong school spirit/morale, Sense of community, Diversity/low racial tension, Students here by choice
• Facilities/Operations: Physical plant, Location
• Surrounding Community: Parents• Strong academic programs• Supplemental/Extra Curricular: Sports,
Wide variety of student opportunities
What do you like best about your school?
LMU FoS Working Group
Please note that these are preliminary findings from an ongoing data collection project.
LMU Needs Assessment: Major themes from WHS Teacher
Surveys
• Personnel: bilingual staff• School Climate: Communication and Respect,
classroom interruptions, school culture, accountability, security
• Facilities/Operations: Cleanliness, Updated facilities• Academic Programs: Challenging curriculum,
collaboration & planning time, Differentiated curriculum & instruction
• Supplemental Programs/Extra Curricular: More student counseling, arts programs, Mechanical drafting classes, Mentors/Tutors
• Surrounding Community: More local kids coming to WHS, Articulation and communication with cluster
What needs attention at your school?
LMU FoS Working Group
Please note that these are preliminary findings from an ongoing data collection project.
Agenda
I. Working Group Overview
II. Sharing our Results
- Academic Interventions- Accountability Models- Charter Schools/Autonomy Models- Data- Defining Educational Excellence- History of Reform in Westchester Cluster
III. LMU Needs Assessment -- Themes from WHS
IV. Assessing Progress, Celebrating Success
V. Next Steps- Sharing with our stakeholder groups- Gathering Additional Data- Symposium at LMU- Innovation Division
Agenda
I. Working Group Overview
II. Sharing our Results
- Academic Interventions- Accountability Models- Charter Schools/Autonomy Models- Data- Defining Educational Excellence- History of Reform in Westchester Cluster
III. LMU Needs Assessment -- Themes from WHS
IV. Assessing Progress, Celebrating Success
V. Next Steps
- Sharing with our stakeholder groups- Gathering Additional Data- Symposium at LMU- Innovation Division