Schools of Distinction What Makes Them Distinct - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


PPT – Schools of Distinction What Makes Them Distinct PowerPoint presentation | free to view - id: 202bf8-MmE3M


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation

Schools of Distinction What Makes Them Distinct


75% belief that ALL students can meet state standards ... FL: University of South Florida, Louis ... WASL, WLPT, DiBELs, MAP, and other assessment triangulation ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:36
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 62
Provided by: sm6645


Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Schools of Distinction What Makes Them Distinct

Schools of DistinctionWhat Makes Them Distinct?
Greg Lobdell Director of Research Center for
Educational Effectiveness
Kristi Smith, Principal Stacey Krumsick,
Instructional Specialist East Port Orchard
Elementary South Kitsap SD
Center for Educational Effectiveness
  • Field-based research, service, and data-centric
    tools to support School District Improvement
  • In WA-- Partnerships with 580 Schools in 115
  • What we do how we do it varies based on serving
    districts from 80 students K-12, to districts
    over 30,000 K-12
  • The largest WASL Educational Growth repository
    in the state (2000 2008 WASL growth data
    (student cohorts) for districts serving 700,000

Center for Educational Effectiveness
  • The largest repository of school effectiveness
    information in the state of Washington (Nine
    Characteristics of High Performing Schools)
  • 53,000 Staff, 162,000 Students, and 59,800
    Parents (30 from homes where English is not
    primary language)
  • Assist all schools districts in OSPI School,
    District, Summit District Improvement programs
  • Assist all districts in Idahos Building
    Capacity K-12 District Improvement Program
  • Active partnerships OSPI, AWSP, WSSDA,
    Leadership Innovations Team (Powerful Teaching
    Learning), West-Ed Regional Ed Laboratory, WSU
    and UW

Todays Outcomes
  • Introduction Schools of Distinction Selection
    Methodology- How are the award winners selected?
  • Research Methodology
  • Findings
  • Highlights Repeat winners vis-à-vis State sample
  • Whats happening at a repeat winner? East Port
    Orchard Elementary, South Kitsap SD
  • Implications application

Performance, Improvement, and Poverty
  • Poverty is inversely correlated with performance
  • What about improvement- does the same hold true?

Poverty and Improvement
Poverty and Improvement
Poverty and Improvement
Why do we see significantly different improvement
results in Reading and Math?
Award Winners Who Are They?
  • 2008 Schools of Distinction
  • 53 elementary, 21 middle, 20 high schools and 7
    alternative schools
  • ESDs at least 3 winners in all 9 ESDs. 65
    from Western WA, 31 from Eastern WA
  • Poverty Ranges 1 to 82
  • ELL Percentage 0 to 31
  • Non-white enrollment 0 to 70
  • Title I School wide 40 buildings
  • Did Not Meet AYP 40 buildings
  • 2008 Repeat Winners
  • 14 elementary, 3 middle, 4 high schools (no
    alternative repeat winners)
  • Repeat winners in 7 different ESDs. 14 from
    Western WA, 8 from Eastern WA
  • Poverty Ranges 5 to 69
  • ELL Percentage 0 to 26
  • Non-white enrollment 1 to 57
  • Title I School wide 8 buildings
  • Did Not Meet AYP 10 buildings

Elementary Schools RMLI 2002-03
Elementary Schools RMLI 2008
Middle Schools RMLI 2002-03
Middle Schools RMLI 2008
High Schools RMLI 2002-03
High Schools RMLI 2008
A quick look at a repeat winner
East Port Orchard Elem South Kitsap SD Poverty
48.4 Students of color 28 ELL 2
All Schools of Distinction accelerated Reading
and . . .
49 NOT meeting standard to 77 MEETING standard
. . .accelerated Math as well.
65 NOT meeting standard to 63 MEETING standard
Research Approach
  • Guiding Prompt How are attitudes and practices
    different in the Schools of Distinction

Todays Focus Data Will Be
Phase II EES-Staff Survey Characteristics of
High Performing Schools Dec 2007 May 2008
Phase III EES-Staff with Repeat Winners Oct 2008
Jan 2009
Phase I Practices of Improving or Turnaround
Schools Oct 2007 Jan 2008
  • For Details
  • OSPI January Conference-2008, WERA-Spring-2008,
    AWSP/WASA Summer Conference 2008 Session, OSPI
    January Conference-2009
  • Sharratt, G. C., Mills, S., Lobdell, G.
    (2008). Schools of distinction What makes them
    distinct? Washington State Kappan, 2(1), 20-22.

(No Transcript)
(No Transcript)
Highlights of Phases I and II
  • Very High Readiness for Improvement
  • 75 belief that ALL students can meet state
  • 75 willingness to change, and openness to new
  • Culture of Collaboration
  • High trust across staff and with leadership
  • 75 willingness to address conflict
  • Leadership
  • Stable average of 4 yrs in building and 8 years
    as principal
  • Focus on instruction and student learning - 50
    observe classrooms daily
  • System Support for Improvement
  • 80 have release time monthly for professional
  • 60 monitor school improvement plans at least
  • High Quality Instruction and Supportive
    Instructional Practice
  • 92 use assessment data to identify student needs
    and instructional intervention
  • 84 use data to guide professional development
  • 80 use collaborative lesson design and analysis
    of student work
  • High Level of Trust
  • 71 believe there is a high level of trust in
    their school

Reading and Math Beliefs are more important
both in top 10! Collaborative planning for
integration of literacy and numeracy across the
curric. Leadership facilitate processes for
improvement Staff have frequent feedback about
how they are doing Teachers engage in PD to
learn and apply skills and strategies Struggling
students receive intervention Celebrating student
success Teachers integrate literacy and
numeracy Strength in positive side of
Trust Lower Trust Erosion factors
Phase III
  • Approach differential comparison
  • By each of the Nine Characteristics
  • By each item within the characteristic scales
  • Focus on repeat winners
  • 2008 repeat winners
  • 2008 first year winners
  • Comparison with schools across the state
  • Instrumentation Educational Effectiveness Survey
  • Voluntary participation Staff self-reflection
  • Nine Characteristics of High Performing Schools
  • Readiness to Benefit
  • Includes views of Organizational Trust, District
    Support for Improvement, and Cultural

Sample Definitions
  • SOD EES Overall Sample (non-repeat winners)
  • N 1,710 staff in 55 Buildings
  • Repeat Winners
  • N 520 in 18 Buildings (out of 21)

Demographics for State Sample
  • EES-Staff surveys from October 2007 to January
  • N 16,934 staff
  • 321 unique schools
  • Geographically, demographically, and achievement
    fairly representative of the state (slightly
    higher poverty, ELL, and Hispanic representation
    than state overall)
  • WASL Reading slightly higher than state average,
    WASL Math slightly lower than state

Distinction Repeat Schools of Distinction
demonstrate significant strength in ALL of the
Nine Characteristics
Distinction The Instructional Core Matters
DISTINCTION Monitoring Teaching and Learning
  • Reduce isolation and open practice up to direct
    observation, analysis, and feedback.
  • Make direct observation of practice, analysis,
    and feedback a routine feature of work.
  • Elmore (2000, 2002, and 2004)

Distinction Monitor Teaching and Learning
DISTINCTION The VITAL Cycle of Curriculum,
Instruction, and Assessment
  • Beat-the-odds-schools are figuring out ways to
    customize instruction and intervention so it
    exactly suits each students needs.
  • The beat-the-odds schools are putting in place a
    whole set of interlocking practices and policies
    geared toward winning a marathon (instead of a
    sprint). It involves a vital cycle of
    instruction, assessment, and intervention,
    followed by more instruction, assessment and
  • Beat The Odds (2006)

Distinction High Quality Curriculum,
Instruction, and Assessment
DISTINCTION Action-Based Collaboration
  • Improved districts build a culture of commitment,
    collegiality, mutual respect, and stability.
  • Professional culture of high standards
  • Trust, mutual respect, and competence
  • Opportunities for peer support, collaboration,
    and develop professional learning communities
  • Shannon Bylsma (2004)

Distinction Collaboration Communication
Application of FindingsA Quick View by School
  • Why do we see significantly different improvement
    results in Reading and Math?

Elementary Staff- Top 10 Differences
Secondary Staff- Top 10 Differences
Application Areas of Focus and Reflection
  • Successful turnarounds are typically marked by
    vigorous analysis of data, identification of key
    problems, and selection of strategies to address
    the central challenges.
  • Two leader actions fall into this category
  • Collecting and personally analyzing organization
    performance data
  • Making an action plan based on data
  • School Turnarounds (2007)

Monitoring Teaching and Learning
  • We monitor the effectiveness of instructional
  • We are frequently informed about how well we are
  • We reflect upon instructional practice to inform
    our conversations about improvement, and
  • Struggling students receive early intervention
    and remediation to acquire skills.

High Quality Curriculum, Instruction, and
  • Common assessments are used to inform
  • Instruction is personalized to meet the needs of
    each student,
  • The school provides curriculum that is relevant
    and meaningful, and
  • The district uses assessment aligned to standards
    and instruction.

Collaboration Communication
  • Students understand the expectations and
    standards of this school,
  • When there is a problem in my school, we talk
    about how to solve it,
  • Staff in our building do not manipulate others to
    achieve their goals,
  • Parents and community understand the expectations
    and standards of this school,
  • Staff in our school are consistently truthful,
  • There is a willingness to address conflict in
    this school.

A View from the Field
  • Whats happening at East Port Orchard Elementary-
    South Kitsap SD

Clear and Shared Focus
Systems of Support
  • School Improvement Plan
  • Data driven
  • Everyone participates
  • Align BATRP (Building Added Time Responsibility
  • Aligns with district goals
  • On going evaluation and revision of plan by teams

Systems of Support
  • Individual teacher goals
  • Align with professional development focus
  • Align with SIP goals
  • Professional Learning Communities
  • Building focus on common subject
  • Common Assessments
  • Data Analysis to drive instruction
  • Student learning targets

Systems of Support
  • Schedule
  • 90 minutes uninterrupted reading and math
  • Support staff teams with classroom teacher for
    daily reading instruction
  • Grade levels have common instructional blocks
  • Special Education services are provided at times
    that do not conflict with core

(No Transcript)
Resistance Factor- 2007
Resistance Factors- 2009
  • Student learning always the focus
  • Developing staff culture to support
    collaborative, honest interactions needs to be
    addressed so that the focus can remain on

EPOs Organizational Trust
(No Transcript)
Implications Further Research
  • So much to do, so little time
  • Regressions and ANOVA across all 9
    Characteristics and performance and improvement
    are underway
  • Level by level, additional demographic views,
    characteristics of leadership, instructional
    practice, etc.

Comments? Questions?
References You Can Use
  • Primary
  • Elmore, R. (2004). Knowing the Right Things to
    Do School Improvement and Performance-Based
    Accountability. Washington, D.C. National
    Governors Association- Center for Best Practices.
  • Marzano, R. (2003). What Works in Schools
    Translating Research Into Action. Alexandria,
    VA ASCD.
  • Beat The Odds (2006). Morrison Institute for
    Public Policy (2006). Why Some Schools With
    Latino Children Beat the Oddsand Others Dont.
    Tempe, AZ. Morrison Institute for Public Policy,
    Arizona State University, jointly with Center for
    the Future of Arizona. (aka Beat The Odds
    (2006) ).
  • Fixen, D.L. et al. (2005). Implementation
    Research A synthesis of the literature. Tampa,
    FL University of South Florida, Louis de la
    Parte Mental Health Institute, The National
    Implementation Research Network (FMHI Publication
  • School Turnarounds (2007). Public Impact (2007).
    School Turnarounds A review of the cross-sector
    evidence on dramatic organizational improvement.
    Public Impact, Academic Development Institute-
    prepared for the Center on Innovation and
    Improvement. Retrieved from http//www.centerii
    .org/ (aka School Turnarounds (2007)).
  • Shannon, G.S. Bylsma, P. (2004).
    Characteristics of Improved School Districts
    Themes from Research. Olympia, WA. Office of
    Superintendent of Public Instruction.
  • Shannon, G.S. Bylsma, P. (2003). Nine
    Characteristics of High Performing Schools. A
    research-based resource for school leadership
    teams to assist with the School Improvement
    Process. Office of Superintendent of Public
    Instruction. Olympia, WA.
  • Sharratt, G. C., Mills, S., Lobdell, G. (2008).
    Schools of distinction What makes them
    distinct? Washington State Kappan, 2(1), 20-22.
  • Secondary
  • Center for Educational Effectiveness (CEE)
    (2005). Longitudinal Change in Staff Perceptions
    of the 9 Characteristics of High Performing
    Schools in OSPI SIA Cohort-II and III Schools.
    Redmond, WA Center for Educational
  • Elmore, R. (2000). Building a New Structure For
    School Leadership. Washington, D.C. The Albert
    Shanker Institute.
  • Elmore, R. (2002). Bridging the Gap Between
    Standards and Achievement. Washington, D.C. The
    Albert Shanker Institute.
  • Tschannen-Moran, (2004). Trust Matters,
    Leadership for Successful Schools. San
    Francisco, CA. Jossey-Bass.

Background Material
Schools of Distinction SelectionDesign Objectives
  • Recognize improvement in performance over 5
  • Meaningful Use a Reading and Math Learning
    Index to determine balanced improvement.
  • Additional information for stakeholdersnot a
    replacement for AYP determinations.
  • Transparency and openness through the use of
    publicly available data.
  • Must have at least adequate performance in both
    Math and Reading.
  • See http//

School of Distinction Selection Methodology
  • Learning Index
  • (1 at Level-1) (2 at Level-2) (3
    at Level-3) (4 at Level-4)
  • Reading and Math combined as weighted average
  • Improvement from 2002/03 baseline to 2008
  • Minimum threshold for consideration at or above
    state average in Reading and Math
  • Top 5
  • See http//

  • Reading, Math, Writing, Science
  • Compensatory
  • Status AND Improvement (over 1 year), AND Beat
    The Odds
  • Risk Adjusted for Low and non-Low Income
  • Systemic- Gr. 3-10 and Extended Grad. Rate
  • Criterion-based

SBE Accountability Index
  • Rigor (Robustness)
  • Content coverage
  • Systemic (K-12)
  • Reading Math Level Index
  • Conjunctive
  • Improvement over 6 years
  • Grade 4, 7, and 10 only
  • 5 winners

RMLI- Schools of Distinction Selection
Center for Educational Effectiveness