AcknowledgementsThe California Best Practices Study is being conducted by Springboard in collaboration with the National Center forEducation Accountability (NCEA) and Just for the Kids-California (JFTK-CA).␣ Support for the study comes to us fromthe William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and the Annenberg Foundation.␣ ␣

Springboard Schools wishes to thank the many teachers, administrators, and others in the schools and districts thatwe studied for their generosity with their time and their willingness to share their work with us. ␣

We would like to extend specials thanks to the district and school staff and students at the following “HighPerforming” sites:

Bolsa Grande High School and Garden Grove Unified School District central office

Central Union High School and Central Union High School District central office

Cleveland High School and Los Angeles Unified School District, Local District 1, central office

El Monte High School and El Monte Union High School District central office

Marysville Charter Academy for the Arts and Marysville Joint Unified School District central office

Middle College High School and Contra Costa Unified School District central office

Los Angeles Center for Enriched Studies and Los Angeles Unified School District, Local District 1, central office

Sherman Oaks Center for Enriched Studies and Los Angeles Unified School District 3, central office

Selma High School and Selma Unified School District central office

Southwest High School and Central Union High School District central office

Also, we would like to extend special thanks to the district and school staff and students at the “Average” or “on theroad” performers. They generously participated in our best practices study. Their willingness to participate thoughthey were not receiving the accolades of high performance was a particular act of courage and commitment to allour improvement. Their learning is all our learning.

Finally, we wish to thank Executive Director, Merrill Vargo, and all the Springboard staff; also each member of theCalifornia Best Practices Study Advisory (see Appendix for their names) and the following individuals for their helpand assistance:␣ ␣

Tola AtewologunJane BaldiAmy DabrowskiArdella DaileyBen DelaneyNarge DesirAbe DoctoleroFernanda Gonzalez

Laurie GoodmanCecelia LeongBen MartinezThomas MohrDoreen O’DonovanMarcia PlumleighCarla PraglinJon Rendell

Rachel ScottBrian SimmonsSabrina SkinnerNancy SullivanRon TaylorClif ThompsonAnna WongVaqar Qureshi

1

Challenged Schools,Remarkable Results:

Three Lessons from California’sHighest Achieving High Schools

A Report on Findings from Year Two of the California Best Practices StudyConducted by Springboard Schools

Fall, 2005

by Ida Oberman

withCaren ArbeitCarla Praglin

Suné Goldsteen

About the author: Dr. Ida Oberman is Director of Research and Evaluation at Springboard Schools.A classroom teacher for a decade, Dr. Oberman is also co-founder of an alternative public schoolin Harlem’s District three. Dutch born and German educated, she received her BA fromSwarthmore and her Ph.D. from Stanford.

©2005 Springboard Schools. All Rights Reserved. www.SpringboardSchools.org 415.348.5500

2

Preface: About Best Practices

In the past, educators almost always looked for best practices in classrooms. Infact, when educators say “practice,” they are almost always talking aboutteacher practice. Yet ten years of work at Springboard Schools (and its

predecessor, BASRC) argues that administrators, as well as teachers, need to worryabout best practices. Equally important are organizational best practices for bothschools and school districts. Most examinations of best practices in education haveneglected both best practices for leaders and for organizations, but all of these kindsof best practices are turning out to be crucial if we are to create school systems inwhich good teaching is the norm for every student in every classroom.

Of course, all of these practices are called “best” but in fact what this means is thatthey are associated with improved performance. W. Edwards Deming, famous as theman who brought “Total Quality Management” to the private sector, taught thatimprovement is the result of a careful process of seeking out and addressingvariations in quality, even small ones. The idea that dramatic improvements inquality could result from the cumulative implementation of many smallimprovements was key to Deming’s approach. This means that “best practice” is thesum total of many “better practices” and that it is always evolving. It also means thatin any field that is actively improving, today’s “best” practice is likely to betomorrow’s second best. Still, without a systematic effort to identify, understand, andscale up best practices at all these levels of the education system, the broad-scaleimprovement of public education is impossible.

So, what is known now about best—or at least better—practices beyond theindividual classroom? Springboard’s first foray into understanding what mightconstitute best practices for school administrators and for schools as organizationscame as part of our work to help schools narrow the achievement gap.Springboard researcher Kiley Walsh began by using test scores to identify onegroup of gap-closing and another group of non-gap-closing elementary schools.Walsh then used a combination of quantitative and qualitative methodologies todiscover systematic differences in school-level practices between these two groupsof elementary and middle schools. This approach revealed striking differencesbetween the ways schools organized their reform or improvement work; the wayschool leaders explained and framed that work; and the ways that teachers workedtogether.1 Often, best practices were revealed to be not individual programs orstrategies but carefully orchestrated combinations that come together to produceresults. Now, in this study, which includes high schools, these findings have beenconfirmed and expanded.

Finally, best practices only produce good results when well implemented. What isrequired is a particular combination of perseverance and humility. Perseverancematters—nothing results unless educators and their students are willing to “stay thecourse.” Humility also matters—people need to be willing to adjust, adapt, or evenabandon strategies when they don’t pan out. All of this argues that this approach ispromising, but not that it is easy. A best practice is not a silver bullet. But it—orrather they—are important components of our effort to improve schools.

1 Walsh Symons, K., After the Test: Closing the Achievement Gap with Data, Bay Area School ReformCollaborative, San Francisco, 2004.

3

Table of ContentsExecutive Summary................................................................................................... 4

I. Overview — II. The Challenge — III. The Study — IV. Lessons from Our Own BackyardsV. A Closer Look at Three Key Strategies — VI. Conclusion

How We Did the Study ............................................................................................. 9I. What We Hoped to Learn — II. How We Chose Which High Schools to StudyIII. How We Collected the Data — IV. How We Packaged the FindingsV. Final Note on Study Design

What We Found ...................................................................................................... 11I. Lessons from Our Own BackyardsII. A Closer Look — a. Use consistent curriculum and frequent diagnostic tests

b. Find and adopt “best practices” — c. Invest in improvement

What it Takes: The Implementation Challenge ........................................................ 13

Case Studies ............................................................................................................ 15I. Use of Data at Southwest High School

a. The District | b. The School | c. The Results | d. The Strategies: Use of Datae. Frequent Common Assessments | f. User-Friendly Data for Teachersg. Collecting Data about Teacher Practice | h. Artifacts

II. Input on Best Practices: Cleveland High Schoola. The District | b. The School | c. The Resultsd. The Strategies: Accessing New Knowledge Together | e. Artifacts

III. Common Practice at Bolsa Grande High Schoola. The District | b. The School | c. The Resultsd. The Strategies: Clear Standards and Common Curriculume. A Changing Role for Teachers | f. Artifacts

IV. Focus by Theme at Marysville Charter for the ArtsV. In the Middle of a College at Middle College

Summation of Tested Practices: California Best Practices Framework .................... 32

What Does it Take? Looking Across the High Performer’s Common Practices........ 35

Conclusion: Implications and Recommendations .................................................... 37I. The High School Context: Challenges and OpportunitiesII. Recommendation 1: Support the Use of Frequent and Common Diagnostic AssessmentsIII. Recommendation 2: Provide Educators with Input on Best Practices at the Classroom,

School and District LevelIV. Recommendation 3: Provide Time for Ongoing, Site-Based Professional Development

and CollaborationV. Work to Be Done

Appendices ............................................................................................................. 41I. Tools & ArtifactsII. GlossaryIII. Sample Sites: Demographic DataIV. Sample Sites: Achievement Data SummariesV. BibliographyVI. California Best Practice Advisory

4

Overview

• At Southwest High School, a farmcommunity hugging the Mexican border,five times as many students scored at theadvanced or proficient level as theirAverage Yearly Progress (AYP) target. Thisresult defies expectations for high schoolswith many low-income and English-learning students.

• English language learners at GardenGrove’s Bolsa Grande High Schooloutperformed comparable schools acrossthe state by 138% in English language artsand 112% in Math. This is despite the factthat students at Bolsa speak twenty-ninedifferent languages and nearly two-thirdsare eligible for the free- or reduced-pricelunch program.

• Last year, in Los Angeles, Cleveland HighSchool’s Academic Performance Index(API) reflected a 69-point improvementoverall, and the API for Latino studentsincreased almost twice as much—by 126points. One would never guess that someof these students spend over two hours onthe bus and when they arrive, the schoolis huge—serving almost 4,000 students.

As California’s population changes, more andmore of California’s schools serve populationslike these. These students will become theworkers that will fuel the economy, and thevoters that will determine the future of theGolden State. But too often, these are the kindsof children our schools shortchange.

Yet there are schools that are getting notablybetter results even with the most challengingstudents. What are these schools—including theones cited above and others like them—doingright? What our schools need today is not onemore failing grade but rather a practical plan toget better. We don’t have to reinvent the wheel.The raw materials for such a plan are right here,in our own backyards.

This report examines the strategies that havehelped some California high schools achievehigh marks despite significant challenges.

The ChallengeIn the year 1998, California began a massiveexperiment that focused on testing students andholding teachers and administrators accountablefor results. The goal: dramatic, system-wideimprovement. Schools’ performance began to bemeasured using California’s AcademicPerformance Index (API). In 2001, with passageof No Child Left Behind (NCLB), the focusbecame even sharper. NCLB required that allstudents be proficient in reading and math by theyear 2014. “Annual Yearly Progress”—or AYP—measured schools’ progress toward thisambitious goal. All subgroups of students had tomake progress every year toward this goal ofproficiency for all.

Now, in 2005, tests have been adjusted,curricula redesigned, and accountabilitymeasures debated—but overall, the results canseem discouraging. For example, the EducationTrust reports that Latino eleventh graders

Executive Summary

5

typically read below the level of white seventhgraders. A recent report by California’snonpartisan Legislative Analyst estimated thatdropout rates in California’s largest urbandistricts are above 50%. And the CaliforniaState University system reports that largenumbers of students who do earn a diplomastill need remedial courses before they areready for college-level studies.

Yet some schools are doing better. TheCalifornia Best Practices Study is one of the firstto use California’s new tests to identify our mostsuccessful high schools and then to take thecrucial next step of launching an intensiveinvestigation of what they are doing right. Thestudy reveals a set of strategies that enable morehigh school students—of every ethnicity andEnglish-language ability—to succeed. Itshows—in detail—how some schools arebeating the odds. This approach makes thisstudy essential reading not only for school anddistrict leaders, but for everyone willing to playa role in helping schools get better, rather thanjust hoping they do so.

The StudySpringboard Schools is conducting the three-year California Best Practices Study as part of anation-wide investigation sponsored by theNational Center for Educational Accountability.Year two of the study—just completed—examined high schools state-wide serving highpercentages of English learners, low-incomestudents, and students of color. It began byidentifying over 100 schools in the state thatwere “beating the odds” by doing better—sometimes far better—at getting students to thechallenging “proficient” level on the CaliforniaStandards Test than would be predicted on thebasis of their student populations. Springboardthen examined a much broader set of dataabout these schools, from dropout rates to bothAPI and AYP, as well as the rates at whichstudents complete challenging coursework andmaster English. On the basis of this completepicture we selected ten of the best of these

schools and subjected them to in-depth, on-siteanalysis. In order to ensure that the strategiesidentified really were the ones associated withbetter results, Springboard did a similarlydetailed analysis of the work underway in agroup of demographically similar schoolsachieving only average results.

The main finding is understood by everyteacher and parent: what matters in schools isgood teaching. However, this study goesbeyond that platitude to discover how goodschools and school districts go about ensuringthat good teaching is the norm in everyclassroom for every child.

Lessons from Our Own BackyardsThese California schools achieving surprisingresults have found and applied a few keystrategies to enable teachers to do their bestwork. Our most successful high schools servingour most challenging populations:

1. Use consistent curriculum and frequentdiagnostic testsThis means they give teachers timely anduseful data on who knows what and whoneeds what.

2. Find and adopt “best practices”This means they use what has been provento work instead of asking teachers toreinvent the wheel.

3. Invest in improvementThis means they spend scarce resources,including money, time, and energy, toprovide teachers with time to worktogether, tools to do their job, and coachingon implementation in their own classrooms.

These strategies may sound simple, but they arechallenging, and perhaps even revolutionary,because they call into question manycommonly held beliefs about teaching andabout how schools work.

6

A Closer Look at Three Key Strategies1. Use consistent curriculum and frequent

diagnostic testsTraditionally, the high school teachercreates lessons, invents his or her own tests,and uses those tests to determine grades.But in high-performing high schools, thisstudy found that teachers teaching the samecourse use the same curriculum, give thesame tests, and work toward the samestandards. They look at test results togetherand use these results to determine whichstudents need more help. Then they workwith colleagues to discuss how to providethat help. These frequent assessments areparticularly important for English languagelearners and for students reading belowgrade level.

Many worry that these approaches aretaking the creativity out of teaching. Itappears that teachers in these schools focustheir creativity less on what to teach andmore on how. Teachers in these schoolsoften report feeling not less, but rather morelike professionals, because for the first timein their lives they are part of a professionalcommunity that is working together towardsuccess.

2. Find and adopt “best practices”Traditionally, teachers work in isolation,unaware of the successes or failures of theirpeers. But in schools getting the best results,neither teachers nor administrators wastetime reinventing the wheel. They use theinternet to find standards-alignedcurriculum and assessments. Sites like Justfor the Kids-California make it easy foreducators to find schools getting betterresults with similar populations andchallenges. Then they call or visit thoseschools to learn what teachers there aredoing.

But the search for best practices doesn’tstop at the classroom door: One of the keyfindings of the California Best PracticesStudy is that meeting the needs of thelowest performing groups of studentsrequires not just classroom-level changes,

but also school-and district office-levelstrategies, programs, and interventions. Thisfinding reveals that the definition of “bestpractices”—which traditionally meantclassroom-level practices or programs—needs to be dramatically expanded toinclude every aspect of administration,teaching, and testing. Discovering bestpractices makes it possible to increaseeffectiveness, and the children benefit.

3. Invest in improvement“Just do it” may work in sports, butimproving schools requires more than justasking teachers to try harder. Of course,teachers and administrators in bothaverage-performing and high-performingsites do work hard—but they work hard ondifferent things. They also spend theirlimited resources, including scarce time,money and energy, differently. The high-performing, high-poverty schools invest inproviding teachers with access to new ideasand time to collaborate with peers toimplement them. They hire coaches to helpteachers teach and administrators lead; andtheir school districts invest in data systemsthat provide test scores and otherinformation to teachers almost immediately.Some argue that these investments are “toofar from the classroom.” In fact they areessential to long-term success.

ConclusionThe private sector has repeatedly demonstratedthe power of “benchmarking”— identifying andinvestigating the highest performers and usingtheir ideas to fuel improvement. Consistent,standards-aligned tests now make this approachpossible in education. Using test data this waymay turn out to be every bit as important asusing it to motivate people.

What we find when we begin thisbenchmarking process is not silver bullets or afew effective programs, but strategies that takehard, careful work. Yet what is mostencouraging is that we are discovering nottheories, but strategies that actually work toimprove our schools, and we are finding themright here in our own backyards.

7

8

9

The internet and powerful desktopcomputers, combined with the availabilityof multiple years of data on school

performance, have made new kinds of researchinto schools possible. As often happens, new toolsreveal new questions as well as new answers.Springboard Schools was founded as a schoolreform organization, not for research. But thefederal No Child Left Behind legislation createdan unprecedented appetite for information aboutthe strategies that lay behind improvedperformance. In response, Springboard partneredwith the National Center for EducationalAccountability (NCEA) and its partner, Just for theKids–California. NCEA was sponsoring a study—which they envisioned as ultimately involving allfifty states—to explore the work underway in arigorously-selected group of high-performing,high poverty schools. Springboard volunteered toconduct this three-year study in California, andthe California Best Practices Study was born.Spanning three years (2004-2006), this initiativespotlights the effective practices of elementaryschools (Year 1), high schools (Year 2) and middleschools (Year 3) that show high levels of studentachievement, with particular focus on highachievement among their English learners,students of color and students living in poverty.The study also includes a comparison group of“average performers.” This report on high schoolsreflects year two of the study.

What we hoped to learnA host of studies in recent years have documentedthe poor performance of this nation’s high

schools. Dropout rates are too high. Too few highschool graduates are ready for college. Othernations produce far more scientists and engineersthan we do. A second group of studies has soughtout counter-examples, seeking so-called “existenceproofs”—evidence that, “it doesn’t have to be thisway.” The good news is that these studies haveconsistently found schools, including those servingchallenging populations, which are doing better.

The current study falls into a third category ofresearch studies that build on the first twotypes. These studies ask: what are the mostsuccessful schools doing differently? What setsthem apart from similar schools getting onlyaverage results? These are the questions thisstudy is intended to answer.

How we chose which high schoolsto studyWorking with parameters established by theNational Center for Educational Accountabilityand data analysis from Just For The Kids–California, Springboard Schools used a three stepprocess to choose fifteen high schools for study:

We began with all high schools in California.We selected one group of “high performing”and one group of “average” performing schools.We categorized schools as high performing oraverage by looking at student performance forthe past three years on the California StandardsTest (CST), at enrollment in courses identifiedby the California Department of Education aschallenging courses, and at the percentage of

How the study was conducted

10

students meeting A-G requirements foradmission to the California State University andUniversity of California systems. The processworked like this:

Step One: We selected an initial group ofschools that were in the top third of the state inperformance on the California Standards Testand had met all of their AYP targets for growth,both overall, and in the various subgroups ofstudents. In contrast, average-performingschools were just that, average. Not all of theaverage schools met all of their AYP targets, andthey had test scores falling between the 40th

and the 55th percentile.

High-performing candidates for the final studyalso had to have at least one of the following:

• Above average enrollments in “goodcourses” (as identified by the CaliforniaDepartment of Education) for 2 out of thelast 3 years

• Better than expected percentage ofstudents meeting A-G requirements foruniversity admission; and

• Better than expected percentage ofstudents reaching proficient on the CST inMath.

Step Two: We then analyzed studentdemographics to identify those schools thatwere “beating the odds” by out-performingschools serving similar student bodies. Thedemographic factors we considered included:degree of poverty as measured by enrollment inthe free- and reduced-price lunch program(FRLP), percentages of English LanguageLearners, and ethnic group enrollments.

Step Three: For the final study, we picked highschools from the northern, central, andsouthern parts of the state, and tried to ensurethat we had a group of schools that reflectedthe full range of the challenges facing Californiaschools today.

How we collected the dataAfter sites were selected, research teams visitedeach site. Using a carefully-structured set ofquestions, researchers interviewed school

district central office administrators, schoolleaders, and teachers. Research teams alsoreviewed a comprehensive set of documentsreflecting work at district, school, department,and classroom levels. Finally, we collected theactual tools and materials used in the schools.

How we analyzed the dataThe study employed the framework of theNational Center for Educational Accountabilityto examine best practices in the following keyareas

• Curriculum and Academic Goals• Staff Selection, Leadership, and

Capacity Building• Instructional Programs, Practices, and

Arrangements• Monitoring: Compilation, Analysis, and

Use of Data• Recognition, Intervention, and

Adjustment

How we packaged the findingsA chief objective of this study was to be usefulto practitioners. With that end in mind, we builtthe California Best Practices Framework for HighSchools, wrote a case study for each of the sites,and gathered and indexed specific tools andpractices those high-performing sites used. Allare accessible through the Springboard website:www.SpringboardSchools.org.

Final note on study designFinally, we also want to acknowledge the limitsof this study. First, this study describes practicesthat appear to be associated with highperformance; it does not offer conclusive causalanalysis of how these disproportionately highperforming sites reached these levels ofachievement. Second, the study provides asnapshot of the work underway in ten highperformers at a particular moment in time. Itdoes not offer a description of how they gotthere. Finally, each strategy should be seen aspart of a larger whole. Schools are complexsystems, and particular practices and strategiesoften depend on others. Readers areencouraged to think of these case studies asportraits of high-performing systems rather thanas a list of disconnected “best practices.”

11

Lessons from Our Own BackyardsThese California high schools achievingsurprising results have found and applied a fewkey strategies to enable teachers to do their bestwork. These strategies may sound simple, butthey are challenging– even revolutionary—because they call into question many commonlyheld beliefs about teaching and about howschools work. These high performing schools dothree things: They use consistent curricula andfrequent diagnostic tests; they find and adopt“best practices” that range from curriculum toteaching strategies to school organization andhow to set up the district data system; and theyinvest in a systematic process of improving thequality of teaching.

A Closer Look1. Use consistent curriculum and frequent

diagnostic testsIt makes perfect sense to use diagnostictests to give teachers timely and useful dataon who knows what and who needs what.But traditionally, the high school teachercreates a teaching plan, invents his or herown tests, and uses those tests to determinegrades. Yet in high-performing, high-povertyschools, this study found that teachersteaching the same course teach the samecurriculum, give the same tests, and worktoward the same standards. They use testresults to determine which students needmore help, and they meet frequently withcolleagues to discuss how to provide thathelp. These frequent assessments are

particularly important for English languagelearners and for students reading belowgrade level.

Are these approaches taking the creativity outof teaching? It appears that teachers in theseschools focus their creativity less on what toteach and more on how. These changes aredramatic: observers of school reform efforts oftenunderestimate the difficulty of gettingCalifornia’s approximately 300,000 teachers tothink differently about their profession. But thecommon goals, common curriculum, andcommon expectations for teacher practice turnout to be the foundation for a new kind ofprofessionalism among teachers. In this newview, being a professional means not beingautonomous, but rather being part of aprofessional community that works togethertoward success.

2. Find and adopt “best practices”This means that teachers and administratorsseek out and use proven strategies ratherthan struggling to reinvent the wheel. Ofcourse, this too is new: in the past, mostteachers, most principals, and even mostsuperintendents worked in isolation,unaware of the successes or failures of theirpeers. But in schools getting the best results,neither teachers nor administrators wastetime reinventing the wheel. They use theinternet to find the best resources, includingstandards-aligned curriculum materials andassessment items. They use a website likeJust for the Kids-California, which makes it

What We Found:

12

easy for educators to find schools withsimilar populations and challenges that aregetting better results. Then they call or visitthose schools to learn what teachers thereare doing.

But the search for best practices doesn’tstop at the classroom door: One of the keyfindings of the California Best PracticesStudy is that meeting the needs of thelowest performing groups of studentsrequires not just classroom-level changes,but also school- and district office-levelstrategies, programs, and interventions. Thisfinding reveals that the definition of “bestpractices”—which traditionally meantclassroom-level practices or programs—needs to be dramatically expanded toinclude every aspect of administration,teaching, and testing. Discovering bestpractices makes it possible to increaseeffectiveness, often dramatically—and thechildren benefit.

3. Invest in improvement“Just do it” may work in sports, butimproving schools requires more than justasking teachers to try harder. In fact,teachers and administrators in bothaverage-performing and high-performingsites do work hard—but on different things.They also spend their limited fundsdifferently. The high-performing, high-poverty schools invest their resources onproviding teachers with access to new ideasand time to collaborate with peers toimplement them. This means these schoolsspend money, time, and energy to provideteachers with time to work together, tools todo their job, and coaching onimplementation in their own classrooms. Inaddition, they hire coaches to help teachersteach and administrators lead; and theirschool districts invest in data systems thatprovide test scores and other information toteachers almost immediately. Some arguethat these investments are “too far from theclassroom.” In fact they are essential tolong-term success.

13

Perhaps surprisingly, this study finds thataverage-performing districts and schoolsare using many of the same individual

programs and general strategies as are high-performers. In fact, one of the most strikingfindings that emerged is the very high degree ofapparent agreement among both groups as toboth the specific programs and the generalapproaches they believe they should use inorder to further improve teaching and learning.Both groups of schools use the same adoptedtexts for English Language Arts and both setgoals, develop staff, look at data—or, at least,both groups do things that they describe usingthese terms.

A closer look reveals that behind widespreadagreement about a general approach liesignificant differences, differences that are animportant part of best practices. What mattersfor improving teaching and learning isapparently both that a combination of elementscomes together and how they do so. Thedifferences between the way average-performers and high-performers combine theseelements appear to take three forms: differencesin intensity, differences in coherence; anddifferences in focus and willingness to stay thecourse, that is, to sustain focus over time.

• Intensity. Average-performing schoolsoften engage in the same strategies thatcharacterize high-performers, but they doso with less intensity. Departments inaverage- performers may have regularlyscheduled collaboration time once a

semester or once a month rather thanweekly; they may use commonassessments and talk about dataoccasionally rather than regularly; andtheir principals, and colleagues may visitclassrooms “whenever they get a chance”but not every week. Differences inintensity of effort do not necessarily meanthat people are not trying hard: often theyare. But they may have stopped short ofworking hard on the hardest things, suchas ensuring that every teacher in everyclassroom is actively engaged inimproving his or her practice to teachevery student in the room. Apparently,getting robust results requires that schoolsadopt the right prescription—but also atthe right dosage.

• Coherence: Average-performing schoolsoften understand that “alignment”between standards, curriculum, and testsis important. But average-performers areless likely than high-performers to havedone a really detailed analysis of thedegree to which their assessmentsactually reflect their curriculum andsubject matter standards at a given gradelevel. They are less likely to make surethat all their assessments are aligned fromone grade level to the next and that thehigh school teachers and middle schoolteachers are aware of what the othergroup teaches. In sum, “the devil is in thedetails,” and best practices include hard

What It Takes:the Implementation Challenge

14

work by both school and district leadersto ensure that strategies and tools arecoherent and aligned not just in generalterms, but at the level of these devilishdetails.

• Focus: Average-performing schools aremore likely than high-performers to haveadopted multiple strategies and goals.This mistake—which school leadersexplain by saying “but, we have to doeverything”—can lead to both lack ofintensity and lack of coherence. Ifintensity is about depth and degree ofpenetration to the classroom andcoherence is about linkages across the

system, then focus is about school anddistrict leaders’ willingness to pick a fewthings that matter and give teachers thesupport they need to become expert atthem. Thus, focus requires perseveranceand willingness to “stay the course.”School leaders are often buffeted by themultiple demands of a vocal community,the changing priorities of state or localpolitical leaders, and the latest fad ineducation. The demand for resultscontributes to this by causing leaders tocast about for quick fixes. But bestpractices can only become “best” whendone with intense, sustained focus.

15

The section that follows describes what thethree key strategies described above looklike in five different schools. In many

ways these schools are dramatically different.They range in size from almost 4,000 studentsto less than 300, they serve student populationsthat are challenging in quite different ways, andthey are located in settings that run the gamutfrom urban to rural. Three of these schools aretraditional “comprehensive” high schools,while the other two are smaller, more“experimental” schools. One of these is acharter high school while another is anexample of what is called the “middle college”model in which at-risk high school studentstake both high school and community collegecourses. Each of these schools is highperforming in that, by multiple measures, it isbeating the odds by outperforming otherschools serving similar populations. And whileeach of these schools is different, there is aremarkable degree of consistency in thestrategies they are using to improve.

Case Studies

16

The DistrictCentral Union High School District (CUHSD) islocated in the agricultural hub of the ImperialValley in the city of El Centro, only eleven milesfrom Mexicali, Mexico. Seasonal workers andtheir families are drawn to this region by itstwelve-month growing season. In the lastdecade, the community has experiencedexplosive growth in housing and commercialenterprises, which has strained itsinfrastructure, including schools, which havebecome overcrowded.

Eighty-three percent of district students areLatino, almost double the state average of 45%.Ten percent are white, 2% are AfricanAmerican, and 2% Asian American. Accordingto the 2000 census, a language other thanEnglish is spoken in over 70% of El Centrohomes. Due to a high rate of reclassification toFluent English Proficient (FEP) only 35.5% ofstudents in the district are currently identified asEnglish Learners. Nonetheless, this is a higherpercentage than the statewide average of 25%.Of the EL population, Spanish-speaking EnglishLearners comprise 99%.

CUHSD students come from families whichhave a significantly higher rate of poverty andhigher unemployment rates than the state as awhole. Median income in 2003 in the countywas $13,700 compared to the state average of$65,093 (http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/4person.html).

The SchoolWith an enrollment of 2,118, Southwest HighSchool serves a student body that is 84%Latino, 12% white, 2% African American, and2% Asian American. Thirty-three percent of thestudents are identified as English Learners. Forty-eight percent of students are eligible for the Free-or Reduced-price Lunch Program (FRLP). Thisfigure is particularly stark, as FRLP does nottypically show the true extent of poverty amonghigh schoolers. Many high school students arenot comfortable filling out the form and claimingthe funds, and thus go uncounted.

The ResultsThough today this school seems an island ofexcellence in the county, Southwest was notalways exemplary. Six years ago, SouthwestHigh School was on the state’s ProgramImprovement list with an API of 526 and asimilar schools rank of 1. But since thenSouthwest has become a CaliforniaDistinguished School with an API of 667. Theachievement gap is narrowing and allsubgroups met their growth targets. Comparedto schools with similar demographics,Southwest is a 10 out of 10 in the state ranking.On the California Standards Test, all subgroups’performance, with the exception of whites, hasimproved in English Language Arts and allsubgroups’ performance, including that ofwhites, has shown gains in mathematics.

On the California English LanguageDevelopment Test, English Learners have made

C a s e ␣ S t u d y

I. Use of Data atSouthwest High School

17

significant advances in the rate at which theymove from Intermediate to Early Advancedlevels. In addition, Southwest has mademarked improvement in the percentage ofstudents re-designated as fluent Englishproficient, outperforming the state average.The campus also has shown a strong record inadvancing students to college. College ratesfor Southwest High School are high: 90% ofgraduates go on to a four-year college oruniversity or a two-year community college.

The Results:

• 5 times as manystudents at advancedor proficient as 2004AYP target.

• Outperforms the stateby over 14 percent inthe rate ofredesignation toEnglish fluency.

The School: 2,118 students.84% Latino, 12% White.33% English Learner.48% EconomicallyDisadvantaged.

All data from the California Department of Education (http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/), unless otherwise noted.

Joe Evangelist,Principal,Southwest HighSchool

Southwest High SchoolLatino Students Outperform State Peers

18

The Strategies: Use of dataIn 1999, Southwest High School placed itselfon the state’s Immediate Intervention/Under-Performing Schools Program (II/USP) list.2 Thisdecision was led by the district office, andCentral Union High School, the othercomprehensive high school in the district,became an II/USP school as well. The decisionto “accept being put in public view” as lowachieving, as Assistant Superintendent SheriHart recalls, was not easy. The districtsuperintendent convened cabinet and siteleaders to consider the II/USP funds as “anopportunity to seize rather than a bullet tododge.” Upon careful deliberation, the schooland district leaders concluded that theadditional pressure and support availablethrough II/USP—as well as the additionalleverage which it gave them to develop andexecute an improvement plan on a settimeline—would help them improve.

Frequent Common AssessmentsAt the beginning of this process, Southwest waslike most high schools. Teachers invented theirown tests, administered them at different timesand did not share or discuss results with oneanother. But the district embraced the use offrequent common assessments and was willingto invest the resources that II/USP provided inthis strategy. CUHSD used another portion ofthis funding to hire an external coach. Says onedistrict employee, “All along the way, he wasbeside us, ahead of us, behind us, helping us dothe hard work of starting to use data to guideour work.” The district also provided twoacademic coaches, one for each of its twocomprehensive high schools, and assignedthem to help teachers learn to use data to makeinstructional decisions. The district made aparallel investment in the district data system toensure that educators had quick and timelyaccess to data.

A major goal was to shorten the amount of timeteachers wait for information. Compared to thetypical four-month wait for standardized testresults from the state, getting test data backwithin the week, sometimes within the same

day, feels almost magical to teachers. Due todistrict investment in software, quarterlyassessments are now electronically scored andresults are available soon after. One teachermarveled, “Waiting for the results is likewatching TV during a presidential election.” Asthe tests were run, the results popped up oneach teacher’s monitor.

Leaders in the district believed that frequentassessments would be far more useful if theywere aligned across classrooms. Yet theintroduction of common assessments was stillchallenging: According to an academic coach,“One of our hardest-won accomplishments isour common assessments. Teachers werereluctant to give up their autonomy, and theyhad little experience with standards.” But theuse of common assessments helped lay thefoundation for teachers to work together in newways. Says Principal Joe Evangelist, “With thecommon assessments, we are striving forcollaboration within departments.”

Southwest High School students along withother students in the district now take thesecommon assessments every nine weeks. EnglishLearners also take common assessments everyquarter. These tests measure mastery of thestandards taught in each subject area. Thedepartment’s “content teams” (the entire facultyteaching one course), with support from theacademic coach, regularly adjust the tests tomake sure they are aligned to standards.Teachers now receive a color-coded one-pageprofile of every class: students coded in greenare scoring at proficient or advanced, yellow isfor students whose scores are borderline, andred indicates below basic or far below basicscores. A student with all red scores is in needof intervention. A class with the majority of thescores in red needs to be taught differently thanone with the same title but mostly green scores.This strategy, which most elementary teacherswould recognize, seems just as useful at thehigh school level.

The frequent common assessments alsoprovide feedback to counselors about howwell a student’s courses are working for her.

2 II/USP was in effect a voluntary program at this time. Schools that opted in received additional funding but alsobecame subject to an additional level of accountability.

19

Using Data:

Average-performing schools miss the mark while high-performers are on target

Missing the Mark

Schools or individual teachers are expected tocreate their own assessments; there is nodistrict-wide coordination.

Student data is reviewed in the fall and rarelythroughout the year.

Principals rarely review data with teacherswith an eye for adjusting lessons to help theirstudents reach clearly articulated goals.

Teachers do not adjust instruction based onassessment data or use data to evaluate newpractices for success.

District central office does not support the useof an observation tool to collect data aboutthe quality of instruction.

On Target

The district provides assessments includingformative, diagnostic, and progress-monitoringassessments that together reflect the standardsand the adopted curriculum.

Through regular meetings reviewing studentdata, district leaders hold school leadersaccountable for helping students reach clearlyarticulated goals.

Through regular meetings reviewing studentdata, school leaders hold teachersaccountable to help their students reachclearly articulated goals. Teachers holdschool and district leaders accountable forproviding them with the support they need.

Teachers collect common data and use it toplan curriculum, differentiate instruction andthen reevaluate students quickly to determineif new practices bring about desired results.Special focus is given to English learners andspecial education students.

District central office supports the use of anobservation tool to collect data on teacherpractice and to assess the quality of instruction.Teachers use this data as part of theircollaborative work on improving teaching.

This is especially important for EnglishLearners. English Learners in the district areplaced in one of three programs: Mainstream,Structured English Immersion or Alternative(bilingual). The frequent feedback allowscounselors to assess whether the student issuccessful in handling her class load or needsa different placement.

User-Friendly Data for TeachersDistrict and school-level academic coachesmake sure that the data teachers receive is in aneasily digestible form. These coaches weredrawn from the ranks of veteran respectedteachers at the site and this investment proved

crucial. Coaches helped teachers to bothunderstand what the data was saying and alsoto work together with colleagues to take actionto address the problems the data revealed.

The user-friendly management system atCUHSD means minimal technical wording anda clear layout so teachers can easily track howstudents are doing. It includes:

• The class score

• The standards

• The assessment item

• The percent that scored ‘proficient’ on thestandard

20

In addition, the clear format allows allteachers—not just those teaching EnglishLanguage Development classes—to see keydata on English Learners. This is consistent withthe district’s stated philosophy: English Learnersare everybody’s students. Thus, all teachers areprovided the following data on EnglishLearners: the student’s name, grade, GPA,special education designation, languagedesignation, English Learner program, U.S.school entry date, CELDT scores, CST scores,CAHSEE scores and grades in English and Math.

This reporting enables teachers to see instantlywhich students are prepared for the CaliforniaStandards Test at the end of the year and tounderstand to what extent their own studentsare proficient on the California standards fortheir grade level. CST scores, when they finallyarrive, rarely feel like a surprise. Perhaps moreimportantly, the data system helps teachers togroup and regroup their students forintervention purposes, since they can easily sorttheir classes by performance bands or group allthe students who need more help with aparticular standard.

Collecting Data about TeacherPracticeThough most schools collect data aboutstudents, Southwest is somewhat unusual incollecting data about teacher practice as well.Academic coaches began by collecting datathat would paint a picture of what kind ofteaching was already happening in classrooms.Of course, teachers were nervous that this datawould impact their performance evaluations,but the district defined the internal coach’s roleas working on improvement, and made it clearthat the principal and assistant principal woulddo the teachers’ evaluations. Anonymity wasalso important at the start: individual teachersreceived feedback on their performance butwhen whole departments met to look at data, itwas presented in the aggregate.

With these assurances in place, Southweststaff began to engage in an exercise theycame to call “Data in a Day.” This processyields data on instructional practices, studentengagement and levels of thinking, and the

connection between the teaching andcurriculum standards and classroom climate.The entire process takes one school day andis conducted by teachers and administratorsthemselves. Classroom visits take 25 minutesper class and are highly structured. After thevisit, the observers discuss and compare whateach has seen. After they come to consensus,the coach gives feedback to teachersindividually and aggregates it for departmentchairs. By the 2004-05 school year, alldepartments at Southwest were routinelylooking together at this data by department.Cross-department comparisons allow them tosee in which department’s students are mostengaged and how much time students areasked to think analytically.

21

The DistrictThe nation’s second largest school district, LosAngeles Unified School District (LAUSD),serves over 747,000 students in grades K-12.LAUSD is comprised of 693 schools—63 ofwhich are high schools and seven that servegrades K-12. The students are ethnicallydiverse: the largest group is Latino (73%),followed by 12% African American, 9% white,4% Asian American, and 2% Filipino. Forty-four percent of students in the district areEnglish Learners, and just over half are eligiblefor the Free- or Reduced-Price Lunch Program.

The SchoolA Mixed enrollment policy governs studentenrollment at Cleveland High. Students atCleveland are drawn primarily from the Reseda,Winnetka, and Northridge areas. Other studentsfrom Local District 1 attend the residential schoolor the Humanities Magnet, one of the smalllearning communities at Cleveland. A third groupof students, who live in areas with overenrolledhigh schools, are bussed to Cleveland from otherparts of Los Angeles. The result is that twenty-fivepercent of the 3,669 students enrolled atCleveland are English Learners; fifty-six percentare Latino; nine percent are African American;nineteen percent are white; and twelve percentare Asian American.

The ResultsExtremely large high schools like Clevelandhave not been places where people expect tosee a rise in student achievement. Yet

Cleveland is raising achievement overall and isalso narrowing the achievement gap.

Cleveland has shown significant gains on boththe Academic Performance Index (API) andAdequate Yearly Progress (AYP) metric over thelast three years. It was on the state’s II/USP listin 1999. The school’s 2004 API reflects anoverall 69-point improvement for the period,with all student sub-groups making progress.Latino students’ API scores showed a sharpincrease of 126 points. The school isconsistently meeting its AYP goals, with steadyincreases in the percentage of students in allmajor subgroups scoring proficient in bothEnglish Language Arts and Math. In addition,English Learners are making great stridestowards English proficiency. The CaliforniaEnglish Language Development Test (CELDT)shows significant numbers of English Learnersmoving up from intermediate to upperadvanced. In 2005, Cleveland was recognizedby the governor as a California DistinguishedHigh School. Also, in 2005 it was the highest

C a s e ␣ S t u d y

II. Input on Best Practices:Cleveland High School

Allan Weiner, Principal, Cleveland High School

22Cleveland High School Math Proficiency Rates Compared to Top Ten Similar Schools in California

Source: Just for the Kids California, www.jftk-ca.org

The Results:

• 5-6 times as manystudents at advancedor proficient as 2004AYP target.

• Outperforms the top10 demographicallysimilar schools by17% in Algebra I,22% in Algebra II, and24% in Geometry.

The School: 3,669 students.56% Latino, 19% White,12% Asian American, 9%African American, 24%English Learner.68% EconomicallyDisadvantaged.

Geometry Algebra IAlgebra II

23

performer in Los Angeles Unified on theCalifornia Test in Algebra 2, Geometry, andHigh School Math.

The Strategies: Accessing NewKnowledge TogetherAt Cleveland, the label, “needingimprovement” is not considered derogatory. Tothe contrary, seeking improvement has beenmade part of everyday business. Much ofCleveland’s success stems from itsestablishment of professional learningcommunities for teachers. Department meetingshave become forums in which teachers shareknowledge and solve problems. Teacherstypically use these weekly meetings to shareinstructional strategies, revise and review theiragreed-upon sets of “power standards” (keystandards for each department), adjustcurriculum guides, develop benchmarkassessments and common instructionalmaterials, and assess the effectiveness of bothin-class and out-of-class interventions to aidstruggling students. Together, teachers map out,course by course, what standards they areteaching, which materials, includingsupplementary texts, they plan to use, anyscaffolding strategies they need to include forstudents who are English Learners or are atdifferent levels, and a time frame for coveringthe material (see Standards-Based Teaching andLearning Matrix). One department chairstressed how much she appreciates “theopportunities to collaborate and convene, thefreedom to explore, create, and do something,and at the same time to incorporate thestandards based content.”

When teachers go to conferences, they gotogether. Cleveland teachers generally eschewone-shot workshops, which they view asineffective, but when they do go toconferences, they go together. In this way,conferences serve not as field trips forindividual educators but places where teachersare exposed to new ideas and lay thefoundation for applying them.

Teachers work together to develop standards-based curricula. Teachers regularly reviewinstructional materials and other resources to

find and incorporate standards-alignedcurricula, assessment items, instructionalstrategies, and best practice research. Thelearning community structures allow teachers tomeet in groups small enough to get the workdone. One department chair describes hisfaculty’s appetite for new knowledge as“voracious.” A colleague reports: “We lookeverywhere, we go to conferences, and atconferences to all the exhibitors, to see whatthey have. We look especially at many types ofstandards-based test items: the released itemsfrom the state and the workbooks from differentpublishers. We contact other high performingsites serving our demographic to ask about theirtest items. We’re just putting in an order toCurriculum Associates for their test questions.We do this not to just lift. We are constructingour own test items because we know we can doit better. We build the worksheets exactly at thelevel for Cleveland High School students.”

Part of the rationale for this level of teachereffort is the need to customize for a demandingpopulation of urban students: “We’ll use ‘nicenumbers’: the test generators often don’t do thestuff simply enough. In Algebra, here atCleveland, we’re talking about students whoare two or three grade levels behind. So weneed them to use really simple numbers toconceptualize a math problem. We had a ‘mathcadre’ who looked at Prentice Hall, CurriculumAssociates, and other publishers to evaluate thebooks. The district chose to go with PrenticeHall. Now we want to complement andstrengthen it. For the higher-level classes wehave books more on the intermediate level tosupplement Prentice Hall. For the advancedstudents we have textbooks we chose for thehighest level students.”

This work by teachers does not happenwithout support from administrators. AllanWeiner describes teachers as naturally tendingto be “isolationist”. Weiner sees theadministrator’s role as “to get them incollaborative groups. Get teachers to sit andtalk about what they do and how to make itbetter. Where they are sharing best practicesand doing demo lessons, they get results.”

24

Input on Best Practices:

Average-performing schools miss the mark while high performers are on target

Missing the Mark

School leaders may be working to developleadership skills in staff but are not necessarilygrooming specific teachers to move intoadministration.

The school offers professional development(in addition to the district offerings) but it maybe fragmented, too brief, or not tightlyfocused on helping teachers reach specificstudent academic goals. Limited time forcollaboration is built into the school schedule.

School leadership does not set highexpectations for teachers to become lifetimelearners. There is less pressure and supportfrom administration to establish a practice ofcontinuous inquiry among teachers.

School leaders do not provide opportunities toensure ongoing common learning of bestpractices individually or across roles.Consequentially, individual and commonlearning cannot target the high need areas.

School leaders do not provide sufficientsupport to teachers (materials, data analysistools, professional development) to help themengage in the difficult practice ofdifferentiated instruction.

On Target

School leaders set up structures fordeveloping leadership among teachers andother staff at the school.

School leaders support the creation of alearning community that encouragesprofessional development which is focused onhelping teachers and school leaders to improvetheir instructional practices in ways thatrespond to student knowledge and skill needs.

School leaders provide teachers and staff withprofessional development opportunities onand off site that enable them to learn newteaching strategies, apply those newapproaches, and collaboratively refine themto help more students meet standards.

Structures and processes are in place toensure that teachers individually, and bygrade and department, as well as school anddistrict leaders, regularly learn together peer-to-peer as well as across roles (English andspecial education; principal and departmentchairs; math and English), and across schoolsat all levels to improve their craft. Learningtargets high need areas such as support toEnglish learners.

School leaders differentiate support toteachers at their site, to ensure that allteachers develop the knowledge and skills tohelp all students meet standards.

25

The DistrictLocated in Orange County, just south of LosAngeles, Garden Grove Unified School Districtdraws students from Garden Grove,Westminster, Santa Ana, Anaheim, as well asfrom Cypress, Fountain Valley, and Stanton. Justover half of the students in the district areLatino (52%), 28% are Asian American, and17% are white. There are small numbers ofAfrican American, Filipino and Pacific Islanderstudents (1% each). Sixty percent of studentsqualify for the Free- or Reduced-price LunchProgram. Over half of the students in the district(53%) are English Learners. The district is a largeone, with more than 50,000 students enrolled.

The SchoolBolsa Grande High School, a comprehensivehigh school which first opened its doors in1961, is located in the City of Garden Grove.The school serves just over 1,500 students ingrades 9-12. It has a higher proportion ofAsian American students than the district as awhole, but also has a significant percentage ofLatino students. Forty-two percent of thestudents are English Learners. Students at Bolsaspeak twenty-nine different languages.Vietnamese and Spanish are the two largestlanguage groups, but other languages includeKorean, Khmer, Urdu, and Armenian. Justunder two-thirds of the students are eligible forthe Free- or Reduced-Price Lunch Program—slightly more than in the district andsignificantly more than the state as a whole.

The ResultsBolsa Grande’s students face significant barriersof poverty and language. Nonetheless, itconsistently outperforms schools with similardemographics. In 2002, Bolsa Grande ranked 5on the statewide list and 4 on the similarschools list. From there it rose to 8 on thestatewide list and 7 on the similar schools list in2004. Since 2002, the school’s overall APIscore has increased from 623 to 696 in 2003-2004, and then to 735 in 2004-2005. In 2003-2004, all sub-groups showed progress. AsianAmerican students are the school’s highestperformers, with a score of 754 in 2004, but theschool’s lowest performing group, Latinostudents, has shown significant growth,managing an 80 point gain between 2002 and2004, to reach a score of 613, welloutperforming state peers. In 2004, four timesas many students were at or above proficient asthe 2004 AYP target.

C a s e ␣ S t u d y

III. Common Practice:Bolsa Grande High School

Terri Shook, Science Department Chair, BolsaGrande High School

26

The Results:• 4 times as many

students at or aboveproficient as 2004AYP target.

• District outperforms2001 state averageof 68% of studentsgraduating fromhigh school withinfour years.

The School: 1,522 students.50% Asian American, 36%Latino, 10% White. 42%English Learner.66% EconomicallyDisadvantaged.

API 1999-2004 Fig. 3: 1999-2004 Bolsa Grande High School’s API Growth by subgroup

27

The Strategies: Clear Standards andCommon Curriculum“We’ve made good progress in developing analigned curriculum and pacing guides,” says theprincipal. One result is that it is clear toadministrators, teachers, students, and parentswhat teachers are expected to teach and whatstudents are expected to learn. Course outlinesand learning goals are posted on the school’swebsite. The district office has played an activerole in the development of expectations forcommon practice both at Bolsa Grande andacross the district. For example, Garden GroveUnified adopted a curriculum guide, originallydeveloped by teachers in Bolsa Grande, whichdetails not only course objectives and standards,but also suggests pacing, offers timelines,suggests instructional strategies, and providessuggested sample assessments. Garden GroveUnified also administers common, quarterlybenchmark assessments, which measure studentprogress toward mastery of standards.

This focus on clear goals and alignedcurriculum impacts students in multiple ways.Counselors meet with students at the beginningof their high school career to design a four-yearcourse plan. Teachers review the course outlinesand learning goals with the students at thebeginning of each year.

How did the expectations for commoncurriculum and teaching practice evolve? Muchof the work was done by the teachers themselves.The faculty set aside time to look at the standardsthat needed to be met by the end of each grade.Then teachers looked at the year’s schedule andcreated a timeline for teaching standards. Fromthere, teachers looked at their units to see whatthey could all agree to teach. For example, insocial science, teachers agreed when and how toteach the outbreak of World War I and the GreatDepression. Afterwards, the team sketched out apacing guide and agreed to the assessments theywould all use to test students’ grasp of thematerials and mastery of the standards. Theseassessments, in turn, were shared with the districtand aligned with the district assessments.

A Changing Role for TeachersAfter each benchmark assessment, teachersteaching the same course meet to compareresults, identify problems and possiblesolutions, and modify curriculum andinstruction as needed. This new way of doingbusiness demands more from teachers: moretime for analysis, reflection, creation of newstrategies to help students achieve standards,and also more courage. Teachers must bewilling to let others see their work and willingto acknowledge that they are not perfect. Notsurprisingly, the shift was a bit rocky. ScienceDepartment Chair Terri Shook reports, “Therewas an initial uproar but gradual acceptance.We started saying to each other, ‘look at mydata.’” One Bolsa Grande teachersummarized, “It was a remarkable transition inthe way we educated students.”

Teachers also need tools and structures thatsupport collaboration. The tools are the easypart. Teachers at Bolsa Grande use a simpleform (see Department Benchmark Reflection)which prompts them to look at overall studentperformance and identify disparities in scoresbetween classes. The form ends with questionsabout the action steps teachers need to take,such as re-teaching concepts using differentstrategies or re-writing test questions.

Structures for teacher collaboration are harderto create. One mechanism the staff at BolsaGrande uses to do this are the periodicreflection meetings by department and, asappropriate, across department. Review of databegins but does not stop at student work. Also,teachers review data on instructional quality.With active support from the principal (whobrought in models and let teachers taketrainings in rubric design), each department setto work to build a set of quality rubricsmeasuring progress in higher-order thinkingskills such as evaluation, synthesis, andanalysis, often involving reading and writing.The reflection meetings provided a venuewhere this work was completed. This work wasnot abstract or bureaucratic. It was clearly tiedto helping teachers be better able to teach theirstudents. In the case of the rubric exercise, forexample, the outcomes were visible and

28

Common Practices at Bolsa Grande High School

Average-performing schools miss the mark while high performers are on target

Missing the Mark

The district either does not support anydeviation from adopted policies or it allowsschool sites and/or individual teacher’sflexibility without accountability or datacollection.

School leaders may be working to developleadership skills in staff but are not necessarilygrooming specific teachers to move intoadministration.

Teacher collaboration is infrequent; teachersopt to spend collaboration time in theirclassrooms doing individual planning; orcollaboration time is spent talking aboutindividual students rather than on how toimprove teaching practice. Not all teachersare “on board” with the idea that they mustcontinue to learn and grow.

Teachers are reluctant to take on leadershiproles; those that do may be criticized or evenostracized by their colleagues.

On Target

District staff provides the resources andsupports for sites to make data-based decisionsto supplement core texts when texts are notserving the needs of all students. District officeensures collaboration time for teachers.

School leaders set up structures for developingleadership among teachers and other staff atthe school.

Teachers meet regularly with colleagues ingrade level/departments and across gradelevel/ departments to learn how to improveteaching and learning from a variety ofsources—from both within and outside theschool and district.

Teachers take on a variety of formal andinformal roles as instructional leaders.Structures and processes are in place to ensurethat departments and teacher leaders regularlycollaborate within grade levels/departments aswell as across grade levels/departments andacross levels with school and district leaders.

tangible for all. Once accomplished,departments posted their rubrics on the walls oftheir classrooms for teachers and students touse to measure progress.

The discussions that ensued have led todepartments “deconstructing the standards” toobtain a deeper understanding of what it lookslike for a student to master those standards.Deconstructing involves fine grain analysis ofwhich concepts and skills a student needs tomaster a specific standard, and then decidingwhat assessments would test the student’smastery of those concepts and skills (see“unpacking standards” protocol).

Still, Bolsa Grande teachers are struggling tofind enough time for reflection. Somedepartments established reflection meetingsduring zero periods, others at lunch time orafter school. How much do teachers value thisreflection time? Picture this: At one point, whenthe teacher’s union and the district could notreach agreement on weekly collaboration timefor teachers, one group of teachers gatheredtogether at 7 AM by the swimming pool so thatone of their members, the gym teacher, couldreflect with them while coaching the swimteam. Every so often, the coach would pauseand call out encouragement to the swimmers.

29

Marysville Charter Academy for the Artsis a public charter school in theMarysville Joint Unified School

District. Marysville is a small town in arelatively small Northern California communitycharacterized by widespread poverty. Lack ofopportunity leads to high teen pregnancy ratesand one observer called the region “themethemphatime lab of the north.”

Founded in 2001, the Marysville CharterAcademy for the Arts (MCAA) serves studentsliving in Marysville, Yuba City and throughoutYuba, Sutter, and Colusa counties.

Marysville Charter Academy’s studentpopulation is 71% white, and 32% percent ofstudents at the school are eligible for the Free-or Reduced-price Lunch Program (FRLP). Theschool serves just under 300 students in grades7-12. It is located immediately adjacent toMarysville High School, so its student haveaccess to a variety of sports and enrichmentprograms that many small schools lack.

The Academy is a school of choice open to allstudents through an application and interviewprocess. Its curriculum focuses on project-based learning and the arts. The site isoutperforming its demographically similarpeers on multiple measures.

Many would argue that the higher-than-expected performance in this school is a resultof its selection process; others would likely

point to the match between the school’s uniqueapproach and the interests of its students.

But what is the approach being taken here? Arethere lessons to be learned or bright ideas to beexported? There are interesting similaritiesbetween the work underway in this small, rural,alternative charter school and that seen in largecomprehensive high schools getting similarlygood results.

A Focus on Standardsand MeasurementThe Superintendent sounds like othersuperintendents around the state when he says:“Last year we introduced a process for each ofthe sites to look at essential standards, identifyhow you would pace those, and how you wouldalign the textbook materials to that pacing ” tocreate a standards based curriculum. Yet he addsa locally-driven imperative: “We needed to giveparents and students a lot of choices.” Theconfluence of standards and choice shaped thework at MCAA.

In keeping with the district demand that theycreate a standards-aligned curriculum, theMarysville Charter Academy for the Arts beganits design of a common, standards-alignedcurriculum. It designed the essential standardsand helped build the first curricula bydepartment. Yet, unlike other high schools in thedistrict, it did so while using the less traditionalstructures of thematic courses and problem

Focus by Theme atMarysville Charter Academy for the Arts

C a s e ␣ S t u d y

30

based learning. The exercise required linking theschool’s goals to the standards based measuresthat the district and state had made central.

To that end, the school took seriously therequirement of the Western Association ofSchools and Colleges that all high schoolsadopt “Expected School wide LearningResults,” or ESLRs. Though many schools treatthis as a pro forma exercise, MCAA went on tocreate a set of rubrics to measure progressagainst both the ESLRs, and the CaliforniaStandards. The result was that faculty had ausable—though admittedly not perfect—toolfor measuring how their students wereprogressing. Also, students and teachers had acommon measuring rod so students couldthemselves take responsibility for their ownprogress. Now, in each classroom there arecopies of the ESLRs and of the state’s subjectcontent standards. “We need to keep an eyeon both all the time,” notes one teacher.

Courses are highly interdisciplinary, projectbased, and focused on making connections tostudents’ life outside of school. Every courseseeks to give students a chance to be creative.A course outline, rubric, and sample tests makeclear what is expected, and what the testingtimeline is.

Making this approach work requires asubstantial investment on the part of teachers.So the school operates a block schedule thatallows for the in-depth work required. Says oneMCAA teacher: “I do a lot of my own research

and am careful to meet standards... I’m veryglad that based on standards set by the stateand the district we have a lot of freedom to trydifferent methods.” Team teaching complicatesmatters: “it takes even more time when you’replanning a unit with someone else. And youwant to ensure that its standards are aligned forboth subjects involved. It’s hard. ...that does notmean it is not worth it.”

Unlike some alternative programs, MCAA hasnot devalued testing. In 2003, ahead of the state,the California High School Exit Exam was mademandatory for graduation. Students are requiredto take all district and state assessments,including STAR and end of course tests. In fact,testing is a key strategy. The school uses its ownrubrics to make standards public and progresstoward them transparent. Faculty welcomes theopportunity to share their own suite of popquizzes, self assessments, jeopardy games, andfill-in-the-blanks. Tests are designed to befrequent and easy for students to use as selfassessments or games, and students volunteertheir own favorites.

The social science department is taking the leadin using the district’s data system to develop abank of items to be used by teachers indeveloping both formative assessments andmore formal benchmark assessments. Those testbank items are linked both to the rubrics forresearch papers, and specific lesson units.Other departments are engaged in buildingsimilar test bank items linked to their unit anddepartment rubrics.

31

West Contra Costa Unified SchoolDistrict (WCCUSD) serves studentsfrom the cities of El Cerrito, Hercules,

Pinole, Richmond, and San Pablo in addition tounincorporated areas of Contra Costa County.WCCUSD is 38% Latino, 29% African American,14% white, 11% Asian American and 5% Filipino.A slightly higher percentage of the district’s students(29 percent) have been identified as English learners(EL) than the statewide average of 25 percent.

West Contra Costa USD Enrollment 2004

Fig. 1: WCCUSD Student Enrollment Percentagesby Race/Ethnicity

Fifty-four percent of students in the district areeligible for the Free- or Reduced-price LunchProgram (FRLP), compared to the 49 percentwho are eligible statewide.

Middle College High School (MCHS) is analternative program of West Contra CostaUnified School District. Middle College High is

located on the Contra Costa College (CCC)campus and serves 253 students who attendboth high school and college courses at thecollege. The school’s size and structure aredesigned to support students perceived byteachers not living up to their potential intraditional high schools. In the words of theschool principal Gary Carlone, the aim is toprovide “a nurturing, academicallychallenging environment for ‘at-risk’ youth toensure high school completion and success incollege and beyond.”

Middle College HS Enrollment 2004

Fig. 2: Middle College High Student EnrollmentPercentages by Race/Ethnicity3

At MCHS, Latinos are the largest student groupat 35 percent. The number of African Americanstudents is 24 percent, three times the stateaverage (8.3 percent). Other student groups areAsian Americans (21 percent), whites (10percent), and Filipinos (10 percent).

In the Middle of College atMiddle College High School

C a s e ␣ S t u d y

3Unless otherwise referenced, all quantitative data in this study is drawn from the California Department ofEducation website: www.ed-data.k12.ca.us

32

Results: What Middle College HighSchool AccomplishedMCHS has ranked 10 out of 10 on the API forthe entire State and among similar schools forthree years running. In that same time, it hassteadily narrowed the achievement gapbetween ethnic groups.

African American, Latino and economicallydisadvantaged students at the school have allshown remarkable growth in proficiency rateson both the Language Arts and Math CST.Between 2002 and 2004 African Americanlanguage arts proficiency rates increased from48 percent to 86 percent, Latino proficiencyincreased from 53 percent to 74 percent andthe proficiency rates of economicallydisadvantaged students tripled from 27 percentto 91 percent. The percentage of AfricanAmerican students scoring “proficient” or aboveon the math CST rose from 41 percent to 73percent while increasing from 50 percent to 74percent for Latino students.

The Strategy: High Standards in ActionMCHS has the luxury of being able to selectstudents who are at-risk but who neverthelessare willing to commit to a challenging program.However, the school does not stop there, butuses a variety of strategies to make their slogan“high standards for all,” into a reality. Thecounselor meets with every student and his orher parent or guardian during sophomore year todevelop a formal individual plan that includeschoosing a major and/or AA degree. Thecounselor also helps the student choose electives,college courses and internships to achieve thegoal. At that time they also discuss graduationrequirements from high school and college.

Making high standards a reality requires morethan planning, however; it requires continualinvestment in the best possible curriculum.Many students arrive at the school with gaps inknowledge and skills. The school uses AVIDstrategies school-wide and invests intechnology-based supplemental programs thathelp students build both English and math skillsso they can move as quickly as possible intodoing high school and then college-level work.

To keep students engaged, school learning iscontinually linked with real-world goals andmany courses are linked to career pathways.Some of the most popular classes includecomputer science and technology, engineering,and nursing. Students are offered internshipsand job shadowing opportunites, and, whenthey are ready, they can enroll in a range ofcourses at CCC related to careers. MCHSstudents have access to all campus facilities andcollege students often provide strong rolemodels for their younger peers.

Helping their students succeed in this challengingprogram also requires a strong support system.Many classes include a focus on emotional andphysical as well as intellectual development.Students take a full year of health education in 9th

grade, and the Teenage Program (TAP), provides arange of programming on health-related issuescritical for this age group.

Every other week the entire faculty meets with theprincipal and counselor to discuss each studentthat is having trouble in school. Four times a year,when progress reports come out, the Counselorcreates a list of all students who received a C- orbelow in any subject. The staff discusses eachstudent, deciding on interventions and sharingstrategies that have worked in other cases.

The faculty also works to help the studentsdevelop skills that enable them to support eachother: Both self-evaluation and peer evaluationhelp students to create realistic expectationsand to improve their critical thinking skills. Forexample, expository essays are evaluatedaccording to a student-created rubric; studentsmeet regularly in portfolio writing responsegroups; math students take part in group testsand collaboratively analyze the results; andGeometry students use portfolios to critiquetheir work and assess areas needingimprovement at the end of the unit.

According to a college faculty member: “Theydo real college quality work—sometimes betterthan my regular students. They go the extramile. I really like that enthusiasm.”

33

Based on the fifteen districts in this study,the following framework describes thechief practices that we found

disproportionately well developed in the highperforming high school sites and significantly lessdeveloped in the average performing sites. Fromleft to right the rows track district central office,school leadership and classroom teacherpractices.

It is important to note that these practices are notexhaustive. (See below, Best Practice Study:Summary of Findings for a fuller list of strategies).It is also important to bear in mind that no onepractice by itself is a silver bullet. Finally, it is nota matter only of the right set of ingredients. It is amatter of how these ingredients are combined,relative to the needs of each school and district,that creates a successful strategy.

Summation of Tested Practices:California Best Practices Framework

34

Organizing Theme

A. Curriculum &Academic Goals

B. Staff Selection,Leadership, &Capacity-Building

C. InstructionalPrograms, Practices,& Arrangements

D. Monitoring:Compilation,Analysis, & Use ofData

E. Recognition,Interventions, &Adjustment

District Practices

Adopt standards;guide adoption anddevelopment ofaligned curriculum.Set improvementgoals for all students.Establish a sense ofurgency about thesegoals.

Recruit, develop,and support stronginstructional leadersand highly qualifiedteachers.

Provide research-based instructionalprograms; ensureresearch-based site-appropriate practicesand arrangements inevery classroom.

Develop and makeaccessible to bothteachers and adminis-trators user-friendlystudent assessment anddata-monitoringsystems to track school,class, and individualstudent performance.

Recognize, inter-vene, or adjustcurriculum, basedon school leader,teacher, and studentperformance.

School Practices

Develop and adoptaligned curriculum;guide developmentof common courseoutlines; identifysupplementalcurriculum resources.Set specific studentimprovement andlearning goalsconsistent with districtgoals. Reinforce asense of urgencyabout these goals.

Support leadershipand staff, based onstudent achievementdata. Foster thesharing of educationalpractices.

Use and provideresearch-basedinstructionalprograms; ensurethat all students haveaccess to rigorouscurriculum.

Use studentassessments anddata systems tomonitor teachingand learning.

Use studentachievement data torecognize, interveneor adjust curriculumbased on teacherand studentperformance.

Classroom Practices

Base teaching onstandards, alignedcurriculum, andsupplementalcurriculum.Participate indevelopment of andadoption ofcommon courseoutlines. Setimprovement goalsfor individualstudents.

Collaborate toincrease knowledge,monitor studentachievement, andimproveinstructional qualityfor all students.

Teachers/Departmentsuse research-basedinstructional programsto differentiateinstruction for allstudents.

Monitor studentlearning at regularintervals and use thisdata to inform instruc-tion. Assessments arewritten collaborativelyto ensure alignment tostandards and tomonitor student progress.

Recognize, inter-vene and adjustinstruction based onstudent performance.Grade levels/departments/teach-ers provide timelyinterventions.

C A L I F O R N I A ␣ B E S T ␣ P R A C T I C E ␣ F R A M E W O R K

35

The Best Practices Study findings show thataverage-performing and high-performinghigh schools actually adopt many of the

same programs and approaches. However, thefindings help us by demonstrating that what iscritical to success is not merely adoptingrecommended practices, but implementing themwith commitment and diligence.

The combination of multiple elements into asystem of practices is not sufficient to produceall desired results. Early evidence suggests thataverage-performing districts and schools areusing many of the same individual programsand general strategies as are high-performers. Infact, one of the most striking findings thatemerge from a comparison of average and high-performing schools and districts is the very highdegree of agreement regarding the specificprograms and the general approaches they usein order to further improve teaching andlearning. Both groups of schools use the sameadopted texts for English Language Arts andboth set goals, develop staff, look at data—or, atleast, both groups do things they describe usingthese terms. Yet a closer look reveals thatbehind widespread agreement on language andgeneral approach lie significant differences,differences that provide important insight onbest practices.

What matters for improving teaching andlearning is apparently both what combinationof elements are implemented and how they areimplemented. The differences between the way

average-performers and high-performerscombine these elements appear to take threeforms: differences in intensity, differences incoherence; and differences in focus andwillingness to stay focused over time.

• Differences in intensity. Average-performing schools often engage in thesame strategies that characterize high-performers, but they do so with lessintensity. Departments in averageperformers may have regularlyscheduled collaboration time once asemester or once a month—highperformers meet weekly. Averageperformers may use commonassessments and talk about dataoccasionally rather than regularly; andtheir principals, and colleagues mayvisit classrooms “whenever they get achance” but not every week. Whenvisitors do come into the classroom,they may lack common tools tomeasure quality of instruction, thus theyare unable to provide a commonlanguage to engage in a conversationon what they saw and learned.Differences in intensity of effort do notnecessarily mean that people are nottrying hard: often they are. But theymay have stopped short of workinghard on the hardest things, such asensuring that every teacher in everyclassroom is actively engaged inimproving his or her practice to teach

What does it take?Looking across the High Performer’sCommon Practices

36

every student in the room. Apparentlygetting strong results requires thatschools adopt the right prescription—but also at the right dosage.

• Differences in degrees of coherence:Average-performing schools oftenunderstand the basic approach taken byhigh-performers and speak of“alignment” as important. But, forexample, average-performers seem lesslikely than high-performers to havedone a careful analysis of the degree towhich their assessments actually reflecttheir curriculum and subject matterstandards at a given grade level. Theyare also less likely to have conductedthe analysis to ensure that all theirassessments are aligned from one gradelevel to the next. Their high schoolteachers are unaware of the level ofreadiness of the students coming frommiddle school, or the standards in placeat the middle school. They are also lessconversant with the requirements thatthe students will have to meet tosucceed in college. Average-performersmay understand that professionaldevelopment for teachers is a keyfactor, and they may even strive toensure that professional developmentsessions or school-level coaching forteachers is generally aligned with anidentified need (such as help inteaching reading comprehension tostudents who come to high school withbelow grade level reading abilities). Butaverage-performers are less likely thanhigh performers to have gone beyondthe general issue of “readingcomprehension” to analyze whetherstudents specifically lack vocabularyskills, decoding skills, or

comprehension strategies. Additionally,they often fail to ensure that literacycoaches have received intensivetraining on specific strategies thatmatch carefully-understood studentneeds. In sum, coherence at a generallevel may mask lack of coherence at aspecific, and more important, level. Ashas been often said, “the devil is in thedetails,” and best practices include hardwork by both school and district leadersto ensure that strategies and tools arecoherent or aligned not just in generalterms, but at the level of these devilishdetails.

• Differences in focus: Average-performing schools are more likely thanhigh-performers to have adoptedmultiple strategies and goals. Thismistake—which school leaders explainby saying “but we have to doeverything”—can lead to both lack ofintensity and lack of coherence. Ifintensity is about depth and degree ofpenetration to the classroom andcoherence is about linkages across thesystem, then focus is about school anddistrict leaders’ willingness to pick afew things that matter and give teachersthe support they need to becomeexpert at them. Thus, focus requiresperseverance and willingness to “staythe course.” Schools leaders are oftenbuffeted by the multiple demands of avocal community, the changingpriorities of state or local politicalleaders, and the latest fad ineducation. The demand for resultscontributes to this by causing leadersto cast about for quick fixes. Bestpractices can only become “best”when done with intense focus.

37

Improving results in public high schoolsrequires both redefining and then scaling upbest practices. This is not to say that

classroom practice is unimportant. Quite thecontrary, classroom practice is all-important.But classrooms are embedded in schools,which are located in school districts, andorganizational practice in schools and districtsmust be reorganized to support theimprovement of teaching if good teaching is tobecome the norm for all of our students.

The following recommendations reflectSpringboard Schools’ ten-plus years ofsupporting schools in a comprehensiveimprovement process, as well the findings ofthe current study of high performing highpoverty high schools.

The High School Context:Challenges and OpportunitiesThe high performing high schools in this studyare utilizing the strategies that have emergedfrom the standards-based reform movement andthat are producing results in elementaryschools. However, progress in the high schoolcontext has been slower than in elementaryschools. There appear to be two reasons forthis: First, high schools are more complexorganizations that struggle with multiplepurposes and an extraordinarily wide range ofstudent skill levels. Second, the policycommunity has not provided high schools withthe same level of tools and supports, either inthe form of either a common agreement on

goals or a common curriculum and alignedassessments similar to those that are in place toassist elementary schools.

Recommendation 1:Support the use of frequent andcommon diagnostic assessmentsTeachers need frequent information on students’individual strengths and weaknesses to guideinstruction. Though the kind of “big picture”data that annual summative assessmentsprovide is useful for setting goals and trackingoverall progress, teachers need much morefine-grained information about the specificskills with which students struggle. Theseformative assessments provide criticalinformation to determine which skills studentsare lacking, what to teach, how students aredoing in response to the instruction andwhether students have mastered content.These assessments need to be precise,frequent, and aligned not only to standards,but also to larger objectives. They shouldinform end-of-course grades and also trackstudents’ progress toward the end-of-schoolstandards of college and career readiness.These kinds of assessments are particularlyimportant for English language learners and forstudents reading below grade level.

Though high school teachers traditionallyinvent their own tests, and individualized testscan inform teaching in individual classrooms,common diagnostic assessments are essential ifthe data from these tests are to be useful to

Conclusion:Implications and Recommendations

38

inform student placement and in programplanning, as well as teacher planning. Even forteacher planning purposes, commonassessments are better: they provide teacherswith the raw material for a professional learningcommunity in which they interact withcolleagues to improve their practice. Highperforming high schools administer a commonset of benchmark assessments that are tied tostandards and a common pacing guide. Datafrom these assessments are used to regroupstudents frequently to ensure that they are placedin the appropriate learning environments.Though many high schools are working todevelop and use such assessments, the processof building consensus on such tools from theground up is costly and time-consuming. Local,state, and national policymakers could do muchto facilitate this process.

The use of assessment data for regroupingstudents is essential. Of course we recognizethat grouping is often mis-labeled “tracking”and has gotten a bad name. But tracking is apermanent placement of students; grouping istemporary. When students in a ninth gradeEnglish class, for example, are assessed and it isdiscovered that some are reading at a fourthgrade level, these students need to be re-grouped into an intensive remedial program.The key word is intensive: the program must beintensive enough to allow these students tocatch up. Educators often reject the “diagnoseand regroup” approach because they doubt thepossibility of accelerated learning for suchstudents. But the alternative is to continue toask teachers to teach to a range of skills that isso wide that they cannot succeed. Interventionsfor struggling high school students must includeboth classroom strategies and, for those studentsfarthest behind, school-level interventionprograms, which must be not dumping grounds,but high quality, high impact programs.

Recommendation 2:Provide educators with input on bestpractices at the classroom, school,and district levelThe private sector invests significant resourcesin benchmarking and in “knowledgemanagement”—accessing and using promising

new ideas. But education is only just beginningto think about the role of these strategies in acontinuous improvement process. Yet this isessential: the stakes for our students are toohigh, and time too limited, for teachers andadministrators to be left to their own devices tofind curriculum, create assessments, or discoverthe kinds of leadership practices andorganizational structures and strategies that areneeded. Of course, best practices can emergeinternally in a school through a rigorous reviewof teachers’ common work in a singledepartment. They can also be found externally,through visits to classrooms of higher-performing colleagues in other schools andeven other districts. Best practices also comefrom reviews of research and materialsdeveloped by textbook publishers, universities,and even nonprofit organizations likeSpringboard Schools. What is essential is thatschools not lose sight of the importance thatreal evidence has on the process of selectingbest practices for local use. Equally important,though, is that the data collection process doesnot stop and that local educators continuallyevaluate the usefulness of any new practice orapproach in their own context.

What kinds of best practices offer the highestleverage and greatest potential for producingresults? Currently there is a growing recognitionof the need to invest in the creation of quality,standards-aligned curriculum. However, lessattention has been paid to the need fordiagnostic assessments that track thiscurriculum—and for this reason the set ofassessments available to teachers variesdramatically in quality and usefulness. Theneeds here are great. However, the new focuson schools as the unit of accountability requiresa parallel focus on the development of aresearch-based understanding of school- anddistrict-level leadership practices, and school-and district-level organizational structures, andprocesses. This latter arena is particularlyunder-developed—and particularly promising.One of the key findings of the California BestPractices Study, as well as other studiesconducted by Springboard Schools, is thatmeeting the needs of the lowest performinggroups of students requires not just classroom,but also school-level strategies, programs, and

39

interventions. This finding argues that theconcept of “best practices”—which traditionallyin education has referred most often toclassroom-level practices or programs—needsto be dramatically expanded. Good curriculumand instruction is only good when wellimplemented, and systematic, high-qualityimplementation requires best practices atmultiple levels of the system.

Recommendation 3: Provide time forongoing, site-based professionaldevelopment and collaborationContinuous improvement is a newrequirement in the teaching profession.Teachers’ and administrators’ workdays havetraditionally been spent doing school ratherthan improving school. Teachers teach andadministrators respond to students, parents,and other stakeholders. Improvement—whichinevitably involves planning, studying,reflecting, collecting data, and intense workwith adults—gets short shrift. Even the needfor investing in improvement is oftenoverlooked. In a system that is chronicallyshort of resources, it is common to hearleaders pledge to keep budget cuts “far fromthe classroom.” This sounds right—but it oftenmeans dismantling the improvementinfrastructure of professional development,planning, coaching, reflection, and study. Yetif the performance picture of our schools is toshow dramatic improvement, teachers need: 1)regularly-scheduled collaboration time; 2)access to expertise; and 3) feedback andcoaching on implementation. All three requirededicated resources.

Collaboration time: Teachers needregularly scheduled blocks of timeduring which they can work withcolleagues to use assessment data. Thisdata will help them understand whichstudents are failing and what skills thesestudents lack. It also permits them to tapinto “just in time” support to find, use,and assess new strategies to help thesestudents learn.

Access to expertise: The traditionalapproach to teacher professionaldevelopment is to provide teachers withaccess to outside expertise. However,research has found traditional teacherworkshops to be both underwhelming intheir intellectual rigor and ineffective intheir impact. What changes this is linkingaccess to expertise to two things:assessment data that creates a new andfocused appetite among teachers forinformation about best practices, andpeer support and accountability forimplementation. With these elements inplace, access to expertise proves to beessential and highly effective.

Feedback and coaching: Teachers havetraditionally been viewed as independentoperators, working hard on implementingstrategies that are often highly personal.For good teaching to become the norm inall classrooms, teachers must come toshare a collective vision of excellence notonly for their students, but for themselves.Any school can hang a banner declaringit a place where all children can learn;schools that are closing the gap actuallydefine what high expectations mean andlook like in practice for both students andteachers. Defining, and then meeting, acommon set of high standards for teacherpractice requires that teachers havemultiple opportunities to visit each othersclassrooms and receive coaching andfeedback both from other teachers andfrom administrators. Traditional teacherevaluation processes should be alignedwith this goal.

Supporting the students who struggle themost—those with special needs, those learningEnglish, or those reading far below grade, forexample—cannot be framed as the task of eachteacher working alone. Our most challengingstudents require both better teaching and betterprograms. This argues for a new emphasis onschool site-based—rather than district-based oruniversity-based—professional developmentand planning.

40

To inspire schools to both raise studentachievement overall and close theachievement gap, policymakers have

emphasized annual testing and explicitimprovement goals. These strategies havehelped to create a sense of urgency around theneed to improve and they have helpedpolicymakers and the public gauge generalschool quality. They have also provided some—but not yet all—of the tools for education tobegin to make a continuous improvementprocess the norm in public education.

Yet too often, annual testing results do notinspire school improvement. In the worst casescenario, data actually have a negative impact,contributing to teacher burnout and a sense ofhelplessness. This sense of helplessness isexacerbated when the tools of continuousimprovement—including a common curriculumand common assessments—are understood byteachers as de-professionalizing rather than as

Work to be done:Looking across the high performers’common practice

laying the foundation for common practice andthe creation of new kinds of professionallearning communities for teachers. Nor areteachers to be blamed for this misunderstanding.As long as the local, state and federal policycommunities continue to under-invest in thetools of continuous improvement—tools whichwe find to include diagnostic assessments, theidentification and dissemination of bestpractices and site-based professionaldevelopment—who can blame them.

Yet with the right building blocks, time, andtools, teachers can use these techniques tomake real and exciting changes. This is thecrucial step, and it is the area in whichpolicymakers have the greatest opportunity tomake a difference—supporting teachers to takeaction to improve their teaching. It’s notbecause teachers don’t care enough or don’twant to do a good job; it’s because teachersneed the time and tools to improve.

41

Appendixes

Appendix I. Tools and Artifacts ................................................................................................... 40

A. Springboard Summary of Best Practice Findings 2003-2005

1. Best Practices Study: Summary of Findings in Monitoring Performance ............................. 41

2. Best Practices Study: Summary of Findings in Instructional Programs, Practices &Administrative Support ....................................................................................................... 43

B. Artifacts from Case Study Sites

1. Data Tools at Southwest High School, Central Union High School District ........................ 45

2. Tools for Input on Best Practices at Cleveland High School, Los Angeles Unified SchoolDistrict ............................................................................................................................... 52

3. Tools for Common Practice at Bolsa Grande High School, Garden Grove Unified SchoolDistrict ............................................................................................................................... 56

Appendix II. Glossary ................................................................................................................. 62

Appendix III. Sample Sites Demographic Data ........................................................................... 64

Appendix IV. Achievement Data Summaries .............................................................................. 66

42

A. Springboard ToolsSpringboard Summary of Best PracticeFindings—2003–2005

Bes

t Pr

acti

ces

Stud

y: S

umm

ary

of F

indi

ngs

in M

onit

orin

g Pe

rfor

man

ceD

istr

ict P

ract

ice:

Dev

elop

use

r-frie

ndly

stu

dent

asse

ssm

ent a

nd d

ata

mon

itorin

g sy

stem

s to

trac

ksc

hool

, tea

cher

, and

stu

dent

per

form

ance

.

Scho

ol P

ract

ice:

Use

stu

dent

ass

essm

ents

and

data

sys

tem

s to

mon

itor

teac

hing

and

lear

ning

.C

lass

room

Pra

ctic

e: M

onito

r st

uden

t lea

rnin

g at

regu

lar

inte

rval

s to

info

rm in

stru

ctio

n.

Hig

h-Pe

rfor

mer

sTh

e di

stri

ct r

egul

arly

mon

itors

pri

ncip

alpe

rfor

man

ce u

sing

a d

istr

ict-

adop

ted

eval

uatio

nto

ol.

A r

evie

w o

f sch

ool p

erfo

rman

ce d

ata

and

the

scho

ol’s

pro

gres

s to

war

d its

impr

ovem

ent g

oals

ispa

rt o

f pri

ncip

al e

valu

atio

n.

The

dist

rict

pro

vide

s a

dist

rict

-wid

e se

t of s

tude

ntas

sess

men

ts th

at in

clud

e fo

rmat

ive,

dia

gnos

tic, a

ndpr

ogre

ss-m

onito

ring

ass

essm

ents

that

are

benc

hmar

ked

agai

nst t

he s

tand

ards

and

ser

ve to

trac

k th

e ad

opte

d cu

rric

ulum

. Th

e di

stri

ct, w

ithpa

rtic

ipat

ion

from

pri

ncip

als

and

teac

hers

,co

ntin

ually

rev

iew

s th

e as

sess

men

ts to

det

erm

ine

whi

ch p

rovi

de th

e m

ost u

sefu

l dat

a ab

out s

tude

nts’

prog

ress

tow

ard

stan

dard

s. T

he d

istr

ict a

lso

prov

ides

a us

er-f

rien

dly

data

sys

tem

that

giv

es d

istr

ict o

ffice

staf

f, pr

inci

pals

, and

teac

hers

acc

ess

todi

sagg

rega

ted

stud

ent p

erfo

rman

ce d

ata.

Thro

ugh

regu

lar

mee

tings

rev

iew

ing

stud

ent d

ata,

the

dist

rict

use

s da

ta to

con

sist

ently

mon

itor

its o

wn

perf

orm

ance

and

to m

onito

r th

e pe

rfor

man

ce o

f its

scho

ols.

Dis

tric

t lea

ders

hol

d sc

hool

lead

ers

acco

unta

ble

for

mon

itori

ng th

e pe

rfor

man

ce o

f the

irsc

hool

s an

d te

ache

rs.

Dis

tric

t lea

ders

als

o ho

ldsc

hool

lead

ers

resp

onsi

ble

for

help

ing

teac

hers

reac

h cl

earl

y ar

ticul

ated

stu

dent

per

form

ance

goa

ls.

They

use

sch

ools

per

form

ance

dat

a to

targ

et s

uppo

rtto

sch

ool l

eade

rs w

ho n

eed

it.

Dis

trict

pro

vide

s pr

ofes

sion

al d

evel

opm

ent o

n its

asse

ssm

ent s

yste

m, t

he d

istri

ct-d

evel

oped

dat

asy

stem

, and

the

data

repo

rts th

e di

stric

t rec

eive

s fro

mth

e C

alifo

rnia

Dep

artm

ent o

f Edu

catio

n. T

he d

istri

ctal

so p

rovi

des

prof

essi

onal

dev

elop

men

t in

data

anal

ysis

and

usi

ng d

ata

to g

uide

impr

ovem

ent e

fforts

.

Hig

h-Pe

rfor

mer

sSc

hool

lead

ers

mon

itor

teac

her

perf

orm

ance

,bo

th fo

rmal

ly a

nd in

form

ally

, usi

ng d

istr

ict-

adop

ted

eval

uatio

n to

ols

and

clas

sroo

mob

serv

atio

n to

ols

that

ref

lect

sha

red

unde

rsta

ndin

gs a

bout

the

scho

ol’s

exp

ecta

tions

for

clas

sroo

m p

ract

ice.

Pri

ncip

als

revi

ewst

uden

t ach

ieve

men

t dat

a di

sagg

rega

ted

by a

llsu

bgro

ups

regu

larl

y w

ith in

divi

dual

teac

hers

.Te

ache

rs a

re p

rovi

ded

with

pos

itive

feed

back

and

spec

ific

sugg

estio

ns o

n ho

w to

impr

ove

perf

orm

ance

, bot

h fr

om p

eers

and

from

sch

ool

lead

ers.

Scho

ol s

taff

use

and

supp

lem

ent t

he d

istr

ict

asse

ssm

ents

to p

rovi

de te

ache

rs w

ith u

sefu

lin

form

atio

n on

stu

dent

pro

gres

s.

Thro

ugh

regu

lar

mee

tings

rev

iew

ing

stud

ent

data

, sch

ool l

eade

rs h

old

teac

hers

acc

ount

able

to h

elp

thei

r st

uden

ts r

each

cle

arly

art

icul

ated

goal

s. T

hey

use

clas

sroo

m p

erfo

rman

ce d

ata

tota

rget

sup

port

to te

ache

rs w

ho n

eed

it.

The

scho

ol p

rovi

des

teac

hers

with

pro

fess

iona

lde

velo

pmen

t on

unde

rsta

ndin

g th

e re

sults

of

asse

ssm

ents

and

usi

ng d

ata

from

the

dist

rict

’sda

ta s

yste

m to

gui

de im

prov

emen

t effo

rts.

Inte

rven

tions

and

pro

fess

iona

l dev

elop

men

t are

asse

ssed

in r

eal t

ime

for

impa

ct o

n te

ache

rpr

actic

e an

d st

uden

t lea

rnin

g. D

ata

is u

sed

imm

edia

tely

to im

prov

e th

e qu

ality

of

prof

essi

onal

dev

elop

men

t and

inte

rven

tions

.

Hig

h-Pe

rfor

mer

sTe

ache

rs m

onito

r st

uden

t per

form

ance

, for

mal

lyan

d/or

info

rmal

ly w

ithin

eac

h le

sson

. Tea

cher

sus

e di

stri

ct a

nd s

choo

l ass

essm

ents

. Th

ey a

lso

supp

lem

ent t

hese

ass

essm

ents

with

thei

r ow

non

-goi

ng a

sses

smen

ts to

ens

ure

freq

uent

and

focu

sed

revi

ew o

f the

ir s

tude

nts’

per

form

ance

.

Teac

hers

use

com

mon

ass

essm

ents

to m

onito

rst

uden

t pro

gres

s, a

djus

t the

ir te

achi

ng, a

ndid

entif

y ef

fect

ive

stra

tegi

es to

sha

re w

ith c

ol-

leag

ues.

Thro

ugh

regu

lar

mee

tings

with

stu

dent

s, te

ache

rsho

ld s

tude

nts

acco

unta

ble

and

supp

ort s

tude

nts

to r

each

goa

ls.

Stud

ents

are

sup

port

ed to

iden

-tif

y th

eir

own

stre

ngth

s an

d w

eakn

esse

s as

reve

aled

by

asse

ssm

ents

and

can

art

icul

ate

thei

row

n le

arni

ng g

oals

and

str

ateg

ies

for

impr

ove-

men

t.

Teac

hers

col

lect

dat

a, d

iffer

entia

te in

stru

ctio

nba

sed

upon

an

accu

rate

inte

rpre

tatio

n of

ass

ess-

men

t res

ults

and

then

ree

valu

ate

stud

ents

quic

kly

to d

eter

min

e to

wha

t ext

ent n

ew p

rac-

tices

bri

ng a

bout

des

ired

res

ults

and

to id

entif

yw

here

they

nee

d to

furt

her

stre

ngth

en th

eir

own

skill

s to

bet

ter

mee

t the

ir s

tude

nts’

nee

ds.

© 2

005

Spr

ingb

oard

Sch

ools

. All

right

s re

serv

ed.

Bes

t Pr

acti

ces

Stud

y: S

umm

ary

of F

indi

ngs

in M

onit

orin

g Pe

rfor

man

ceD

istr

ict P

ract

ice:

Dev

elop

use

r-frie

ndly

stu

dent

asse

ssm

ent a

nd d

ata

mon

itorin

g sy

stem

s to

trac

ksc

hool

, tea

cher

, and

stu

dent

per

form

ance

.

Scho

ol P

ract

ice:

Use

stu

dent

ass

essm

ents

and

data

sys

tem

s to

mon

itor

teac

hing

and

lear

ning

.C

lass

room

Pra

ctic

e: M

onito

r st

uden

t lea

rnin

g at

regu

lar

inte

rval

s to

info

rm in

stru

ctio

n.

Ave

rage

-Per

form

ers

The

dist

rict

doe

s no

t con

sist

ently

mon

itor

prin

cipa

lpe

rfor

man

ce fo

rmal

ly o

r in

form

ally

, the

cri

teri

a ar

eun

clea

r; o

r m

onito

ring

of p

erfo

rman

ce is

not

tied

todi

stri

ct-w

ide

and

build

ing-

leve

l dat

a, d

isag

greg

ated

by s

ubgr

oups

, abo

ut s

tude

nt le

arni

ng. D

istr

ict o

ffice

staf

f vis

its s

choo

ls a

nd c

lass

room

s in

freq

uent

ly to

build

thei

r ow

n kn

owle

dge

of th

e qu

ality

of

inst

ruct

ion

at th

e bu

ildin

g si

te.

The

dist

rict

pro

vide

s an

inco

mpl

ete

set o

fas

sess

men

ts to

sch

ools

and

/or

is n

ot c

onsi

sten

t in

enco

urag

ing

scho

ols

to u

se d

istr

ict a

sses

smen

ts.

Scho

ols

or in

divi

dual

teac

hers

are

exp

ecte

d or

allo

wed

to c

reat

e th

eir

own

asse

ssm

ent s

yste

m. T

hedi

stri

ct d

oes

not h

ave

cons

iste

nt e

xpec

tatio

ns th

atun

iform

ass

essm

ents

will

be

used

to fu

el te

ache

rco

llabo

ratio

n an

d le

arni

ng.

The

dist

rict d

oes

not e

mpl

oy a

stra

tegy

to c

onsi

sten

tlym

onito

r an

d im

prov

e its

ow

n pe

rfor

man

ce. S

tude

ntda

ta d

isag

greg

ated

by

subg

roup

is ty

pica

llyre

view

ed in

the

Fall

but r

arel

y th

roug

hout

the

year

.If

revi

ewed

, dat

a is

not

con

sist

ently

link

ed to

spec

ific

stra

tegi

es to

impr

ove

perf

orm

ance

and

dist

rict

-wid

e ac

hiev

emen

t ben

chm

arks

to b

e ab

le to

asse

ss th

e qu

ality

of i

mpl

emen

tatio

n of

the

spec

ific

stra

tegi

es to

impr

ove

perf

orm

ance

ove

r th

e co

urse

of th

e ye

ar. L

ikew

ise,

impr

ovem

ent e

ffort

s m

ay n

otbe

con

sist

ently

tied

to d

ata.

The

dist

rict

pro

vide

s no

or

spor

adic

pro

fess

iona

lde

velo

pmen

t on

its a

sses

smen

t sys

tem

, dat

a sy

stem

,an

d da

ta a

naly

sis.

Ave

rage

-Per

form

ers

Prin

cipa

ls e

ither

do

not e

valu

ate

teac

hers

on

are

gula

r sc

hedu

le o

r th

ey c

ompl

ete

the

form

alev

alua

tion,

but

rar

ely

do in

form

al c

lass

room

visi

ts. T

each

ers

may

or

may

not

be

prov

ided

posi

tive

feed

back

and

are

not

reg

ular

ly g

iven

conc

rete

sug

gest

ions

on

how

to im

prov

epe

rfor

man

ce.

Teac

hers

do

not u

se c

omm

on a

sses

smen

ts, o

r do

so in

freq

uent

ly.

Prin

cipa

ls d

o no

t reg

ular

ly r

evie

w d

isag

greg

ated

data

with

teac

hers

dur

ing

the

year

with

an

eye

for

adju

stin

g le

sson

s an

d in

stru

ctio

n to

hel

p th

eir

stud

ents

rea

ch c

lear

ly a

rtic

ulat

ed g

oals

.

Inte

rven

tions

and

pro

fess

iona

l dev

elop

men

t are

rare

ly a

sses

sed

to d

eter

min

e if

teac

hers

are

impl

emen

ting

sugg

este

d ch

ange

s in

pra

ctic

e or

ifth

ese

chan

ges

are

havi

ng a

n im

pact

on

stud

ent

perf

orm

ance

.

Ave

rage

-Per

form

ers

Teac

hers

are

ass

essi

ng s

tude

nt p

erfo

rman

ce b

utno

t on

a re

gula

r ba

sis

and/

or th

ere

is n

o cl

ear

expe

ctat

ion

that

they

will

sha

re a

nd d

iscu

ss th

eir

findi

ngs

with

col

leag

ues

or th

e pr

inci

pal.

Teac

hers

do

not r

evie

w d

isag

greg

ated

stu

dent

data

on

a re

gula

r ba

sis.

The

y m

ay c

onsi

der

the

revi

ew o

f stu

dent

dat

a to

be

a co

mpl

ianc

eex

erci

se a

nd fa

il to

vie

w it

with

a c

ritic

al e

ye fo

rho

w d

ata

is a

sig

nal t

o he

lp th

em a

djus

t the

irte

achi

ng to

impr

ove

stud

ent a

chie

vem

ent.

Ass

essm

ents

are

see

n as

mos

t con

cret

ely

help

ful

whe

n it

com

es to

sor

ting

stud

ents

rat

her

than

info

rm te

ache

r pr

actic

e.

Teac

hers

are

not

exp

ecte

d to

mee

t with

stu

dent

sre

gula

rly

to h

old

them

acc

ount

able

for

goal

s an

dhe

lp th

em b

uild

thei

r ow

n sk

ill in

sel

f-as

sess

men

t and

in u

nder

stan

ding

how

thei

rle

arni

ng g

oals

are

mea

ning

ful f

or th

em.

Teac

hers

do

not a

djus

t ins

truc

tion

base

d on

asse

ssm

ent d

ata

or if

they

do,

they

fail

to m

odify

inst

ruct

iona

l str

ateg

ies

base

d up

on a

pre

cise

inte

rpre

tatio

n of

ass

essm

ent r

esul

ts a

nd/o

r th

eym

ake

little

or

muc

h de

laye

d ef

fort

to e

valu

ate

new

pra

ctic

es fo

r su

cces

s. T

here

is o

ften

grea

tla

g tim

e be

twee

n w

hen

the

teac

her

cond

ucts

an

asse

ssm

ent a

nd w

hen

they

hav

e th

e op

port

unity

to c

ritic

ally

look

at t

he d

ata

and

act o

n th

ere

sults

. O

ften

thos

e st

eps

are

take

n in

sol

itude

rath

er th

an th

roug

h jo

int p

lann

ing

with

prof

essi

onal

col

leag

ues

or jo

ined

with

sup

port

from

pro

fess

iona

l dev

elop

men

t tha

t wou

ld h

elp

the

teac

her

stre

ngth

en in

terv

entio

n in

res

pons

eto

the

data

.©

200

5 S

prin

gboa

rd S

choo

ls. A

ll rig

hts

rese

rved

.

Bes

t Pra

ctic

es S

tudy

: Sum

mar

y of

Fin

ding

s in

Inst

ruct

iona

l Pro

gram

s, P

ract

ices

& A

dmin

istr

ativ

e Su

ppor

tD

istr

ict

Prac

tice

: Dis

tric

ts p

rovi

de s

tate

-ado

pted

/re

sear

ch-b

ased

inst

ruct

iona

l pro

gram

s to

thei

rsc

hool

s. T

hey

hold

sch

ools

res

pons

ible

for

ensu

ring

that

res

earc

h-ba

sed

prac

tices

and

arra

ngem

ents

are

use

d in

eve

ry c

lass

room

.

Scho

ol P

ract

ice:

Sch

ools

pro

vide

sta

te-a

dopt

ed/

rese

arch

-bas

ed in

stru

ctio

nal m

ater

ials

to te

ache

rs.

Scho

ols

ensu

re e

very

teac

her u

ses

rese

arch

-bas

edpr

actic

es a

nd a

rrang

emen

ts. S

choo

ls al

so se

t sch

edul

esfo

cuse

d on

mee

ting

iden

tifie

d st

uden

t nee

ds.

Cla

ssro

om P

ract

ice:

Tea

cher

s us

e ad

opte

d/re

sear

ch-b

ased

pro

gram

s an

d pr

actic

es a

ndgr

oupi

ng s

trat

egie

s.

Hig

h-Pe

rfor

mer

sD

istr

ict l

eade

rs p

rovi

de s

choo

ls w

ith s

tate

-ado

pted

/re

sear

ch-b

ased

pro

gram

s. T

hey

prov

ide

adeq

uate

prof

essi

onal

dev

elop

men

t for

pri

ncip

als

and

teac

hers

imm

edia

tely

follo

win

g th

e ad

optio

n an

dpr

ovid

e on

goin

g tr

aini

ng a

nd s

uppo

rt fo

r ef

fect

ive

use

of th

ese

mat

eria

ls. D

istr

icts

hol

d sc

hool

lead

ers

acco

unta

ble

for

ensu

ring

teac

hers

use

res

earc

h-ba

sed

prac

tices

. The

y al

so fo

ster

dis

tric

t and

scho

ol s

truc

ture

s an

d ar

rang

emen

ts th

at a

refo

cuse

d on

are

as o

f ide

ntifi

ed n

eed

and

hold

scho

ol le

ader

s re

spon

sibl

e fo

r do

ing

so a

s w

ell a

tth

e bu

ildin

g le

vel.

Dis

tric

t lea

ders

pro

vide

pac

ing

guid

es to

ens

ure

all

stud

ents

acr

oss

clas

sroo

ms

and

scho

ols

have

acc

ess

to th

e sa

me

rigo

rous

cur

ricu

lum

.

The

dist

rict

als

o pr

ovid

es a

pro

cess

to a

dopt

rese

arch

-bas

ed m

ater

ials

to s

uppl

emen

t the

adop

tion

in o

rder

to m

eet t

he n

eeds

of a

ll st

uden

ts,

incl

udin

g th

ose

acce

lera

ted

or b

elow

ben

chm

ark

lear

ners

. Th

e di

stri

ct o

ffers

inst

ruct

iona

l pro

gram

san

d su

ppor

ts th

e us

e of

effe

ctiv

e pr

actic

es a

ndar

rang

emen

ts to

sup

plem

ent i

nstr

uctio

n fo

r bo

thac

cele

rate

d le

arne

rs a

nd b

elow

ben

chm

ark

lear

ners

.If

supp

lem

enta

l mat

eria

ls a

re n

eede

d to

add

ress

spec

ific

skill

s ga

ps id

entif

ied

via

stud

ent

asse

ssm

ents

, res

earc

h-ba

sed

mat

eria

ls a

re s

elec

ted

to a

ddre

ss th

ese

need

s. T

each

ers

are

expe

cted

todi

ffere

ntia

te in

stru

ctio

n ba

sed

upon

dis

aggr

egat

edan

d re

gula

rly

revi

ewed

stu

dent

per

form

ance

dat

aan

d ar

e su

ppor

ted

to le

arn

how

to d

o so

.

Hig

h-Pe

rfor

mer

sTh

e sc

hool

pro

vide

s te

ache

rs w

ith s

tate

-ado

pted

/re

sear

ch-b

ased

pro

gram

s. I

t pro

vide

spr

ofes

sion

al d

evel

opm

ent a

nd o

ngoi

ng s

uppo

rtfo

r ef

fect

ive

use

of th

ese

mat

eria

ls.

Scho

olle

ader

s ho

ld te

ache

rs a

ccou

ntab

le fo

r us

ing

stat

e-ad

opte

d/re

sear

ch-b

ased

pro

gram

s an

dpr

actic

es. S

choo

l lea

ders

est

ablis

h sc

hool

sche

dule

s, s

truc

ture

s an

d ar

rang

emen

ts th

at a

refo

cuse

d on

mee

ting

iden

tifie

d st

uden

t nee

ds a

ndho

ld te

ache

rs r

espo

nsib

le fo

r do

ing

so a

s w

ell a

tth

e cl

assr

oom

leve

l. Th

e sc

hool

pro

vide

ste

ache

rs w

ith a

pac

ing

guid

e th

at h

elps

them

ensu

re a

ll st

uden

ts a

cros

s cl

assr

oom

s an

dsc

hool

s ha

ve a

cces

s to

the

sam

e ri

goro

uscu

rric

ulum

. Sc

hool

lead

ers

expe

ct a

nd s

uppo

rtte

ache

rs to

diff

eren

tiate

inst

ruct

ion

with

in th

efr

amew

ork

of th

e ad

opte

d pr

ogra

m a

nd p

acin

ggu

ide.

The

y al

loca

te ti

me

and

reso

urce

s fo

rte

ache

rs to

col

labo

rate

on

a re

gula

r ba

sis

toim

prov

e th

eir

prac

tice.

The

scho

ol a

lso

prov

ides

a p

roce

ss fo

r te

ache

rsto

ado

pt r

esea

rch-

base

d m

ater

ials

to s

uppl

emen

tth

e ad

optio

n in

ord

er to

mee

t the

nee

ds o

f all

stud

ents

, inc

ludi

ng th

ose

acce

lera

ted

or b

elow

benc

hmar

k le

arne

rs. T

he s

choo

l offe

rs a

var

iety

of p

rogr

ams

for

stud

ents

who

may

nee

ddi

ffere

ntia

ted

inst

ruct

ion

or e

xtra

hel

p (G

ATE

stud

ents

, ELL

stu

dent

s, s

peci

al e

duca

tion

stud

ents

, and

stu

dent

s sc

orin

g be

low

benc

hmar

k).

Scho

ol le

ader

s re

info

rce

the

idea

that

mos

t stu

dent

nee

ds c

an b

e m

et w

ithin

the

regu

lar

clas

sroo

m. T

hey

supp

ort t

he u

se o

fef

fect

ive

prac

tices

and

arr

ange

men

ts to

diffe

rent

iate

inst

ruct

ion

to m

eet s

tude

nts’

nee

ds.

Hig

h-Pe

rfor

mer

sTe

ache

rs u

se s

tate

-ado

pted

/res

earc

h-ba

sed

prog

ram

s, p

ract

ices

and

arr

ange

men

ts.

They

part

icip

ate

in r

egul

ar, o

ngoi

ng p

rofe

ssio

nal

deve

lopm

ent f

ocus

ed o

n ef

fect

ive

use

of m

ater

i-al

s an

d st

rate

gies

. Th

ese

prof

essi

onal

dev

elop

-m

ent o

ppor

tuni

ties

incl

ude

time

for

teac

hers

tow

ork

with

col

leag

ues

on r

egul

ar r

evie

w o

fdi

sagg

rega

ted

stud

ent d

ata

and

cons

iste

nt a

ndef

fect

ive

impl

emen

tatio

n.

Teac

hers

als

o fo

llow

a p

roce

ss to

util

ize

re-

sear

ch-b

ased

mat

eria

ls to

sup

plem

ent t

he a

dop-

tion

in o

rder

to m

eet t

he n

eeds

of a

ll st

uden

ts,

incl

udin

g th

ose

acce

lera

ted

or b

elow

ben

chm

ark

lear

ners

. Te

ache

rs d

iffer

entia

te in

stru

ctio

nw

ithin

the

fram

ewor

k of

the

adop

ted

prog

ram

and

paci

ng g

uide

to e

nsur

e th

at a

ll st

uden

ts h

ave

acce

ss to

the

sam

e ri

goro

us c

urri

culu

m.

Teac

h-er

s us

e an

d su

pple

men

t dis

tric

t-ad

opte

d pr

o-gr

ams

and

arra

ngem

ents

in c

onsi

sten

t and

effe

ctiv

e w

ays

to d

iffer

entia

te in

stru

ctio

n fo

rac

cele

rate

d an

d be

low

ben

chm

ark

lear

ners

.Te

ache

rs s

hare

cur

ricu

lum

and

col

labo

rate

regu

larl

y. T

hey

see

achi

evin

g im

prov

emen

tgo

als

as a

col

lect

ive,

col

labo

rativ

e ac

tivity

.

© 2

005

Spr

ingb

oard

Sch

ools

. All

right

s re

serv

ed.

Bes

t Pra

ctic

es S

tudy

: Sum

mar

y of

Fin

ding

s in

Inst

ruct

iona

l Pro

gram

s, P

ract

ices

& A

dmin

istr

ativ

e Su

ppor

tD

istr

ict

Prac

tice

: Dis

tric

ts p

rovi

de s

tate

-ado

pted

/re

sear

ch-b

ased

inst

ruct

iona

l pro

gram

s to

thei

rsc

hool

s. T

hey

hold

sch

ools

res

pons

ible

for

ensu

ring

that

res

earc

h-ba

sed

prac

tices

and

arra

ngem

ents

are

use

d in

eve

ry c

lass

room

.

Scho

ol P

ract

ice:

Sch

ools

pro

vide

sta

te-a

dopt

ed/

rese

arch

-bas

ed in

stru

ctio

nal m

ater

ials

to te

ache

rs.

Scho

ols

ensu

re e

very

teac

her u

ses

rese

arch

-bas

edpr

actic

es a

nd a

rrang

emen

ts. S

choo

ls al

so se

t sch

edul

esfo

cuse

d on

mee

ting

iden

tifie

d st

uden

t nee

ds.

Cla

ssro

om P

ract

ice:

Tea

cher

s us

e ad

opte

d/re

sear

ch-b

ased

pro

gram

s an

d pr

actic

es a

ndgr

oupi

ng s

trat

egie

s.

Ave

rage

-Per

form

ers

The

dist

rict

pro

vide

s sc

hool

s w

ith a

cces

s to

ava

riet

y of

pro

gram

s an

d m

ater

ials

that

may

or

may

not b

e re

sear

ch-b

ased

or

tight

ly fo

cuse

d on

are

asof

stu

dent

nee

d. T

he p

rofe

ssio

nal d

evel

opm

ent

prov

ided

on

the

mat

eria

ls m

ay b

e lim

ited

to a

few

teac

hers

and

/or

prin

cipa

ls a

nd/o

r fa

il to

pro

vide

suffi

cien

t dep

th a

nd o

ngoi

ng s

uppo

rt to

hel

pte

ache

rs a

nd p

rinc

ipal

s de

velo

p a

com

mon

unde

rsta

ndin

g of

wha

t effe

ctiv

e an

d co

nsis

tent

impl

emen

tatio

n of

the

adop

ted

curr

icul

um o

rsu

pple

men

tal t

exts

look

s lik

e. L

imite

d or

unc

lear

mes

sage

s ar

e gi

ven

to s

choo

l lea

ders

in te

rms

ofho

w o

r if

they

are

to h

old

teac

hers

acc

ount

able

for

usin

g th

e ad

opte

d m

ater

ials

. Li

mite

d or

unc

lear

mes

sage

s ar

e gi

ven

to s

choo

l lea

ders

abo

ut w

hen

and

how

they

are

to id

entif

y, in

trod

uce

and

impl

emen

t sup

plem

enta

l pro

gram

s or

pra

ctic

es.

The

dist

rict e

ither

doe

s no

t pro

vide

sch

ools

with

com

mon

tool

s su

ch a

s pa

cing

gui

des

or th

ey d

o no

tho

ld s

choo

ls a

ccou

ntab

le fo

r usi

ng th

em. S

choo

lsm

ay c

reat

e th

eir o

wn

paci

ng g

uide

s or

cer

tain

grad

e-le

vel t

eam

s or

indi

vidu

al te

ache

rs m

ay m

ake

indi

vidu

al d

ecis

ions

abo

ut w

hat t

o te

ach.

Acc

ess

torig

orou

s cu

rric

ulum

var

ies

by te

ache

r and

/or g

rade

leve

l and

sch

ool w

ithin

the

dist

rict.

Ther

e ar

e lim

ited

prog

ram

s or

exp

ecte

d pr

actic

esfo

r ac

cele

rate

d le

arne

rs o

r st

uden

ts b

elow

benc

hmar

k. T

he d

istr

ict s

ends

few

and

ofte

nin

cons

iste

nt m

essa

ges

abou

t diff

eren

tiate

din

stru

ctio

n. T

he s

truc

ture

s/pr

ogra

ms

in th

e di

stri

ctdo

not

rei

nfor

ce h

ow m

ost s

tude

nt n

eeds

can

be

met

with

in th

e re

gula

r cl

assr

oom

.

Ave

rage

-Per

form

ers

The

scho

ol p

rovi

des

teac

hers

with

acc

ess

to a

varie

ty o

f mat

eria

ls th

at m

ay o

r may

not

be

rese

arch

-ba

sed

or ti

ghtly

focu

sed

on a

reas

of n

eed

and

that

need

is n

ot re

gula

rly o

r cle

arly

iden

tifie

d ba

sed

ondi

sagg

rega

ted

stud

ent d

ata.

The

pro

fess

iona

lde

velo

pmen

t pro

vide

d gi

ves

inco

mpl

ete

orin

cons

iste

nt in

form

atio

n ab

out e

ffect

ive

impl

emen

tatio

n of

the

adop

ted

curr

icul

um o

rsu

pple

men

tal p

rogr

ams.

Sch

ool l

eade

rs p

rovi

dete

ache

rs w

ith in

frequ

ent o

r inc

onsi

sten

t fee

dbac

k on

effe

ctiv

e us

e of

the

mat

eria

ls, a

nd/o

r do

not

enco

urag

e te

ache

rs to

wor

k to

geth

er o

n th

e ba

sis

ofre

gula

r rev

iew

of d

isag

greg

ated

stu

dent

dat

a an

don

goin

g te

stin

g of

app

ropr

iate

stra

tegi

es to

war

dco

nsis

tent

impl

emen

tatio

n.

The

scho

ol d

oes

not p

rovi

de te

ache

rs w

ith p

acin

ggu

ides

or s

choo

l lea

ders

do

not h

old

teac

hers

acco

unta

ble

for u

sing

them

. Prin

cipa

ls a

llow

teac

hers

to m

ake

indi

vidu

al d

ecis

ions

abo

ut w

hat

to te

ach,

or i

f gra

de le

vels

or i

ndiv

idua

l tea

cher

sdo

atte

mpt

to u

se th

e pa

cing

gui

de, i

nsuf

ficie

ntco

llabo

ratio

n oc

curs

to e

nsur

e th

at th

ere

isco

nsis

tent

acc

ess

to ri

goro

us c

urric

ulum

acr

oss

all

clas

sroo

ms

in th

e sc

hool

. Prin

cipa

l allo

cate

littl

etim

e an

d re

sour

ces

for t

each

ers

to c

olla

bora

te o

n a

regu

lar b

asis

to im

prov

e th

eir p

ract

ice,

or t

he u

seof

thes

e re

sour

ces

is n

ot c

onsi

sten

tly a

nd e

ffect

ivel

yfo

cuse

d on

impr

ovin

g in

stru

ctio

nal p

ract

ice.

Ther

e ar

e fe

w, i

f any

, pro

gram

s or

exp

ecte

dpr

actic

es fo

r ac

cele

rate

d le

arne

rs o

r st

uden

tsne

edin

g ex

tra

help

. Tea

cher

s m

ake

indi

vidu

alef

fort

s to

diff

eren

tiate

inst

ruct

ion.

Ave

rage

-Per

form

ers

Teac

hers

cho

ose

mat

eria

ls fr

om a

men

u of

opt

ions

with

lim

ited

or n

o re

fere

nce

to d

isag

greg

ated

dat

aab

out s

tude

nt n

eeds

. Te

ache

rs fr

eque

ntly

wor

kal

one

to p

lan

and

impl

emen

t the

ir le

sson

s.G

rade

-lev

el a

nd c

ross

-gra

de c

olla

bora

tion

arou

ndst

uden

t wor

k an

d pl

anni

ng a

nd g

roun

ded

in a

com

mon

pac

ing

guid

e is

irre

gula

r or

abs

ent.

Few

adju

stm

ents

are

mad

e ba

sed

upon

ass

essm

ent

data

. If

ther

e is

any

pac

ing,

it is

a c

ompl

iant

mov

emen

t thr

ough

the

chap

ters

with

out r

egar

d fo

rin

dica

tions

that

stu

dent

s ar

e in

nee

d of

diffe

rent

iate

d in

stru

ctio

n. T

each

ers

mig

ht m

ove

on to

the

next

mat

eria

l “re

ady

or n

ot”

or s

pend

so

muc

h tim

e on

cer

tain

con

cept

s th

at th

ey fa

il to

cove

r al

l of t

he k

ey s

tand

ards

in s

uffic

ient

dep

th.

Teac

hers

may

use

an

adop

ted

text

or s

tand

ards

-alig

ned

curri

culu

m, b

ut th

ere

is no

cle

ar e

xpec

tatio

n th

at th

eyfo

llow

a p

acin

g gu

ides

. Te

ache

rs st

rugg

le in

isol

atio

nw

ith im

plem

enta

tion

of a

new

text

and

/or t

heir

colla

bora

tion

time

is no

t tig

htly

stru

ctur

ed a

roun

dre

view

of s

tude

nt w

ork

and

plan

ning

and

so d

oes n

otre

sult

in m

ore

effe

ctiv

e di

ffere

ntia

ted

instr

uctio

n.

Teac

hers

diff

eren

tiate

inst

ruct

ion

for s

ome

stud

ent

sub-

grou

ps b

ut n

ot a

ll. T

each

ers

may

be

expe

cted

tom

ake

indi

vidu

al d

ecis

ions

abo

ut w

heth

er a

nd h

owto

use

sup

plem

enta

tion

mat

eria

ls; t

hey

may

be

unfa

mili

ar w

ith th

e su

pple

men

tal d

istri

ct a

dopt

edpr

ogra

ms;

or t

hey

may

lack

the

know

ledg

e an

d sk

illle

vel c

once

rnin

g hi

gh q

ualit

y im

plem

enta

tion

of th

esu

pple

men

tal m

ater

ials

. Tea

cher

s ha

ve li

ttle

or n

otim

e, p

rofe

ssio

nal d

evel

opm

ent o

r exp

licit

ince

ntiv

eto

test

new

stra

tegi

es o

r sha

re te

sted

stra

tegi

es w

ithco

lleag

ues

and/

or s

choo

l or d

istri

ct le

ader

s.©

200

5 S

prin

gboa

rd S

choo

ls. A

ll rig

hts

rese

rved

.

47

B. Artifacts from Case Study Sites1. Data Tools at Southwest High

School, Central Union High SchoolDistrict

2. Tools for Input on Best Practices atCleveland High School, Los AngelesUnified School District

3. Tools for Common Practice at BolsaGrande High School, Garden GroveUnified School District

CE

NT

RA

L U

NIO

N H

IGH

SC

HO

OL

DIS

TR

ICT

Eva

luat

ion

an

d M

onit

orin

g P

lan

Ove

rvie

w

Asses

smen

t Typ

e

Targe

t Pop

ulat

ion

Timel

ine

for

Admin

istrat

ion Pers

on(s

) Res

pons

ible

for

Admin

istrat

ion/

Coord

inat

ion

Form

at o

f Res

ults

to b

e

Shar

ed Pers

ons Res

pons

ible

for D

ata

Disse

min

atio

n

Timel

ine

for R

ecei

ving

/

Using

Info

rmat

ion

Pers

ons Res

pons

ible

for

Data

Use

How D

ata

is to

be

Used

Devel

opin

g

Under

stan

ding

of D

ata

and

Analy

sis Pr

oces

s Timel

ine

Out

com

e

California Standards Tests (CSTs)

Ass

ista

nt

Sup

erin

tend

ent

& C

urric

ulum

A

.P.s

Apr

il/M

ay

of E

ach

Year

All

Gra

de

9-11

S

tude

nts

California Standards Tests (CSTs)

Ass

ista

nt

Sup

erin

tend

ent

& C

urric

ulum

A

.P.s

Apr

il/M

ay

of E

ach

Year

All

Gra

de

9-11

S

tude

nts

Dis

trict

Sum

mar

y R

epor

ts

Ass

ista

nt

Sup

erin

tend

ent

Spr

ing

Boa

rd o

f Tr

uste

es;

Cer

tific

ated

Sta

ff

Ann

ual R

evie

w; S

ite

and

Dis

trict

pol

icy

deci

sion

s

Pre

sent

atio

n at

regu

lar B

oard

mee

ting;

D

iscu

ssio

n an

d re

com

men

datio

ns

O

ctob

erVe

rbal

/writ

ten

dire

ctio

n to

th

e S

uper

inte

nden

t as

appr

opria

te

Cla

ss L

ists

- "S

prin

gboa

rd to

S

ucce

ss"

Fo

rm A

Site

A

dmin

istra

tion

Spr

ing

Gr.

10 &

11

Mat

h &

Eng

lish

Teac

hers

Inst

ruct

iona

l pro

gam

m

odifi

catio

n de

cisi

ons

Inde

pend

ent a

nd/o

r dep

artm

enta

l re

view

and

dis

cuss

ion.

Cla

rific

atio

n by

pr

inci

pal a

vaila

ble

upon

requ

est.

Ong

oing

Mod

ifica

tions

to

inst

ruct

iona

l pro

gram

as

indi

cate

d.

Site

Sum

mar

y R

epor

ts; S

ub-

grou

p R

epor

tsP

rinci

pals

Spr

ing

Teac

hers

; S

choo

l Site

C

ounc

il; E

LAC

Site

leve

l pro

gram

im

prov

emen

t de

cisi

ons

Pre

sent

atio

n at

regu

lar c

ounc

il or

co

mm

ittee

mee

tings

; D

iscu

ssio

n an

d re

com

men

datio

ns

O

ctob

er

Verb

al/w

ritte

n re

com

men

datio

ns to

the

prin

cipa

l and

/or B

oard

of

Trus

tees

EL

Stu

dent

P

ass/

Fail

Sum

mar

y

EL

Pro

gram

S

peci

alis

tO

ngoi

ngP

rinci

pals

&

ELA

C

Site

and

dis

trict

le

vel p

rogr

am

impr

ovem

ent

deci

sion

s

Pre

sent

atio

n at

regu

lar a

dvis

ory

com

mitt

ee m

eetin

gs;

Dis

cuss

ion

and

reco

mm

enda

tions

A

pril

Eng

lish

Lear

ner P

rogr

am

Ann

ual G

oals

Rep

ort

Form

F

Site

and

Dis

trict

S

umm

ary

repo

rtsA

ssis

tant

S

uper

inte

nden

t Fe

brua

ryB

oard

of

Trus

tees

Ann

ual R

evie

w; S

ite

and

Dis

trict

pol

icy

deci

sion

s

Pre

sent

atio

n at

regu

lar B

oard

mee

ting;

D

iscu

ssio

n an

d re

com

men

datio

nsM

arch

Verb

al/w

ritte

n di

rect

ion

to

the

Sup

erin

tend

ent a

s ap

prop

riate

Site

and

Dis

trict

S

umm

ary

repo

rtsE

L P

rogr

am

Spe

cial

ist

Febr

uary

ELA

C; D

ELA

CA

nnua

l Rev

iew

; Site

an

d D

istri

ct p

rogr

am

reco

mm

enda

tions

Pre

sent

atio

ns a

t reg

ular

adv

isor

y co

mm

ittee

mee

ting

Mar

ch

Verb

al/w

ritte

n re

com

men

datio

ns to

the

prin

cipa

l and

/or B

oard

of

Trus

tees

Cla

ss li

sts

- "S

prin

gboa

rd to

S

ucce

ss"

Fo

rm A

EL

Pro

gram

S

peci

alis

t

Cla

ss L

ists

R

ecei

ved

at

the

begi

nnin

g of

eac

h se

mes

ter;

Ong

oing

use

by

teac

hers

Cla

ssro

om

Teac

hers

Inst

ruct

iona

l pro

gam

m

odifi

catio

n de

cisi

ons

1. O

ngoi

ng C

onte

nt T

eam

dis

cuss

ion,

re

view

and

ana

lysi

s

2.. O

ngoi

ng tr

aini

ng/s

uppo

rt m

ay b

e pr

ovid

ed u

pon

requ

est f

or in

divi

dual

s an

d de

partm

ents

.

Min

imum

W

edne

sday

&

oth

er

1. N

eeds

Ass

essm

ent,

Impr

ovem

ent G

oals

, In

terv

entio

ns;

F

orm

B

2.

Lang

uage

leve

ls

high

light

ed in

gra

de b

ook.

In

stru

ctio

n di

ffere

ntia

ted

acco

rdin

g to

ling

uist

ic

leve

l.

CE

LDT

Leve

l G

row

th S

umm

ary

EL

Pro

gram

S

peci

alis

tO

ngoi

ngP

rinci

pals

&

ELA

C

Site

and

dis

trict

le

vel p

rogr

am

impr

ovem

ent

deci

sion

s;

Pre

sent

atio

n at

regu

lar a

dvis

ory

com

mitt

ee m

eetin

gs;

Dis

cuss

ion

and

reco

mm

enda

tions

A

pril

Eng

lish

Lear

ner P

rogr

am

Ann

ual G

oals

Rep

ort

Form

F

9/13

-14

Gr.

11-1

2

2/7-

8G

r. 10

-12

3/21

-22

Gr.

10

5/9-

10G

r. 12

Ass

ista

nt

Sup

erin

tend

ent

& C

urric

ulum

A

.P.s

California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE)

10th

Gra

de

Stu

dent

s &

11

th/1

2th

Gra

de

stud

ents

w

ho h

ave

not p

asse

d

CELDT

Stu

dent

s w

hose

H

LS

indi

cate

s a

lang

uage

ot

her t

han

Eng

lish

July

1 to

O

ctob

er 3

1 of

Eac

h Ye

ar;

ongo

ing

for

new

st

uden

ts

EL

Pro

gram

S

peci

alis

t

July

, 200

51

S. H

art

CE

NT

RA

L U

NIO

N H

IGH

SC

HO

OL

DIS

TR

ICT

Eva

luat

ion

an

d M

onit

orin

g P

lan

Ove

rvie

w

Asses

smen

t Typ

e

Targe

t Pop

ulat

ion

Timel

ine

for

Admin

istrat

ion Pers

on(s

) Res

pons

ible

for

Admin

istrat

ion/

Coord

inat

ion

Form

at o

f Res

ults

to b

e

Shar

ed Pers

ons Res

pons

ible

for D

ata

Disse

min

atio

n

Timel

ine

for R

ecei

ving

/

Using

Info

rmat

ion

Pers

ons Res

pons

ible

for

Data

Use

How D

ata

is to

be

Used

Devel

opin

g

Under

stan

ding

of D

ata

and

Analy

sis Pr

oces

s Timel

ine

Out

com

e

California Standards Tests (CSTs)

Ass

ista

nt

Sup

erin

tend

ent

& C

urric

ulum

A

.P.s

Apr

il/M

ay

of E

ach

Year

All

Gra

de

9-11

S

tude

nts

California Standards Tests (CSTs)

Ass

ista

nt

Sup

erin

tend

ent

& C

urric

ulum

A

.P.s

Apr

il/M

ay

of E

ach

Year

All

Gra

de

9-11

S

tude

nts

Com

mon

as

sess

men

t gr

ade/

scor

e br

eakd

own

Ong

oing

Con

tent

Tea

m c

olla

bora

tion

O

ngoi

ng tr

aini

ng/s

uppo

rt m

ay b

e pr

ovid

ed u

pon

requ

est f

or in

divi

dual

s an

d de

partm

ents

.

Edu

soft

Ben

chm

ark

Ass

essm

ent I

tem

A

naly

sis

and

Inte

rven

tion

Gro

up R

epor

ts

Volu

ntar

y E

duS

oft T

rain

ing

Data-in-a-Day

Teac

hers

Dis

trict

-O

nce

per

Sem

este

r S

ite -

Onc

e pe

r S

emes

ter

Des

igna

ted

Site

an

d D

istri

ct

Team

s

DIA

D

Obs

erva

tion

Form

DP

rinci

pals

Qua

rterly

Prin

cipa

ls &

C

lass

room

Te

ache

rs

Inst

ruct

iona

l pro

gam

m

odifi

catio

n de

cisi

ons

Inde

pend

ent a

nd/o

r dep

artm

enta

l re

view

and

dis

cuss

ion.

Cla

rific

atio

n by

pr

inci

pal a

vaila

ble

upon

requ

est.

Q1-

by

10/2

8

Q2-

by

1/20

Q

3- b

y 3/

24

Q4-

by

5/31

DIA

D S

umm

ary

Rep

ort -

Fo

rm E

Grades and/or G.P.A.

All

Stu

dent

s

Eac

h G

radi

ng

Per

iod

Teac

hers

Aer

ies

Mar

k A

naly

sis

Rep

orts

Cla

ss li

sts

- "S

prin

gboa

rd to

S

ucce

ss"

Fo

rm

A

Prin

cipa

ls a

nd

Dep

artm

ent

Cha

irper

sons

Eac

h S

emes

ter

Prin

cipa

ls &

D

epar

tmen

t C

hairp

erso

ns

Inst

ruct

iona

l pro

gam

m

odifi

catio

n de

cisi

ons;

Indi

vidu

al

teac

her a

sses

smen

t of

com

para

tive

perfo

rman

ce o

f hi

s/he

r stu

dent

s

Inde

pend

ent a

nd/o

r dep

artm

enta

l re

view

and

dis

cuss

ion.

Ana

lysi

s of

EL

v. n

on-E

L pe

rform

ance

.

Cla

rific

atio

n by

prin

cipa

l ava

ilabl

e up

on

requ

est.

Febr

uary

;

Aug

ust

Mod

ifica

tions

to

inst

ruct

iona

l pro

gram

as

indi

cate

d. I

nitia

te

inte

rven

tions

for f

ailin

g st

uden

ts.

Reclassification Data

Eng

lish

Lear

ners

Spr

ing

EL

Pro

gram

S

peci

alis

t

Rec

lass

ifica

tion

Sum

mar

y R

epor

ts;

Ann

ual

Lang

uage

C

ensu

s R

epor

t

EL

Pro

gram

S

peci

alis

tO

ngoi

ngP

rinci

pals

&

ELA

C

Site

and

dis

trict

le

vel p

rogr

am

impr

ovem

ent

deci

sion

s;

Pre

sent

atio

n at

regu

lar a

dvis

ory

com

mitt

ee m

eetin

gs;

Dis

cuss

ion

and

reco

mm

enda

tions

A

pril

Eng

lish

Lear

ner P

rogr

am

Ann

ual G

oals

Rep

ort

Fo

rm F

Demographic Data

All

Stu

dent

s

Aug

ust;

Upo

n S

tude

nt

Enr

ollm

ent

Prin

cipa

ls

CS

T

C

AH

SE

E

AP

I

S

ubgr

oup

Rep

orts

(E

thni

city

; E

cono

mic

Sta

tus;

G

ende

r)

Sup

erin

tend

ent;

A

ssis

tant

S

uper

inte

nden

t;P

rinci

pals

; R

esou

rce

Teac

hers

Ong

oing

Adm

inis

trato

rs

Teac

hers

Adv

isor

y C

omm

ittee

s

Dis

aggr

egat

ed d

ata

anal

ysis

for t

he

purp

ose

of s

ite a

nd

dist

rict l

evel

pr

ogra

m

impr

ovem

ent

deci

sion

s

Inde

pend

ent,

depa

rtmen

tal

and

/or

scho

olw

ide

revi

ew a

nd d

iscu

ssio

n.

Trai

ning

/sup

port

may

be

prov

ided

upo

n re

ques

t for

indi

vidu

als

and

depa

rtmen

ts.

Ong

oing

Inco

rpor

ated

in S

PS

A an

d S

AR

C.

Inst

ruct

iona

l pro

gam

m

odifi

catio

n de

cisi

ons

Cla

ssro

om

Teac

hers

Qua

rterly

Common Assessments

All

Stu

dent

sQ

uarte

rlyTe

ache

rs

Qua

rterly

Ana

lysi

s R

epor

ts

- For

m C

Mod

ifica

tions

to

com

mon

ass

essm

ents

an

d/or

inst

ruct

iona

l pr

ogra

m a

s in

dica

ted.

Q1-

by

11/1

8 Q

2- b

y 2/

10

Q3-

by

4/7

Dep

artm

ent

Cha

irper

sons

July

, 200

51

S. H

art

CE

NT

RA

L U

NIO

N H

IGH

SC

HO

OL

DIS

TR

ICT

Eva

luat

ion

an

d M

onit

orin

g P

lan

Ove

rvie

w

Asses

smen

t Typ

e

Targe

t Pop

ulat

ion

Timel

ine

for

Admin

istrat

ion Pers

on(s

) Res

pons

ible

for

Admin

istrat

ion/

Coord

inat

ion

Form

at o

f Res

ults

to b

e

Shar

ed Pers

ons Res

pons

ible

for D

ata

Disse

min

atio

n

Timel

ine

for R

ecei

ving

/

Using

Info

rmat

ion

Pers

ons Res

pons

ible

for

Data

Use

How D

ata

is to

be

Used

Devel

opin

g

Under

stan

ding

of D

ata

and

Analy

sis Pr

oces

s Timel

ine

Out

com

e

California Standards Tests (CSTs)

Ass

ista

nt

Sup

erin

tend

ent

& C

urric

ulum

A

.P.s

Apr

il/M

ay

of E

ach

Year

All

Gra

de

9-11

S

tude

nts

California Standards Tests (CSTs)

Ass

ista

nt

Sup

erin

tend

ent

& C

urric

ulum

A

.P.s

Apr

il/M

ay

of E

ach

Year

All

Gra

de

9-11

S

tude

nts

Aug

ust

2004

; P

rinci

pals

Sna

psho

t of

Sch

ool

Effe

ctiv

enes

s Fa

ctor

s

Prin

cipa

lsS

epte

mbe

rO

ctob

er

As

Nee

ded

Prin

cipa

ls

Oth

er s

urve

ys a

s ne

cess

ary

for

WA

SC

and

pr

ogra

m

impr

ovem

ent

Prin

cipa

lsW

hen

resu

lts

are

com

pile

d

Follo

win

g co

mpl

ilatio

n of

resu

lts

Bia

nnua

llyFR

C H

ealth

C

oord

inat

or/

Nur

se

Cal

iforn

ia H

ealth

y K

ids

Sur

vey;

Prin

cipa

lsB

iann

ually

(N

ext -

S

prin

g 20

05)

Bia

nnua

lly

As

Nee

ded

Prin

cipa

ls

Oth

er s

urve

ys a

s ne

cess

ary

for

WA

SC

and

pr

ogra

m

impr

ovem

ent

Res

ourc

e Te

ache

rsW

hen

resu

lts

are

com

pile

d

Follo

win

g co

mpl

ilatio

n of

resu

lts

Par

ents

C

omm

unity

Ann

ually

P

rinci

pals

Title

I P

aren

t S

urve

ys; O

ther

su

rvey

s as

ne

cess

ary

for

WA

SC

and

pr

ogra

m

impr

ovem

ent

Res

ourc

e Te

ache

rsW

hen

resu

lts

are

com

pile

d

Adm

inis

trato

rs

Teac

hers

Adv

isor

y C

omm

ittee

s

Site

leve

l pro

gram

im

prov

emen

t de

cisi

ons

Pre

sent

atio

ns a

t reg

ular

adv

isor

y co

mm

ittee

mee

tings

.

Follo

win

g co

mpl

ilatio

n of

resu

lts

Mod

ifica

tions

to S

PS

A,

WA

SC

pla

n, o

r oth

er

prog

ram

impr

ovem

ent

proc

ess

as in

dica

ted.

S

umm

ary

of fi

ndin

gs in

pa

rent

new

slet

ter.

Truancy/ Suspension/

Expulsion Data

All

Stu

dent

sJu

neA

ssis

t. P

rinci

pals

fo

r Stu

dent

S

ervi

ces

Con

solid

ated

A

pplic

atio

nA

ssis

tant

S

uper

inte

nden

tJu

ne

Boa

rd o

f Tr

uste

es

Adm

inis

trato

rs

Dis

trict

and

site

le

vel p

rogr

am

impr

ovem

ent

deci

sion

s

Pre

sent

atio

n at

regu

lar B

oard

mee

ting

as p

art o

f Con

solid

ated

App

licat

ion;

D

iscu

ssio

n an

d re

com

men

datio

ns

July

Mod

ifica

tions

to s

choo

l le

vel p

olic

ies/

prac

tices

.

Inco

rpor

ated

C

ompr

ehen

sive

Sch

ool

Saf

ety

Pla

ns.

FOR

MS

A B C D E F

DIA

D O

bser

vatio

n Fo

rmD

IAD

Sum

mar

y R

epor

tE

L P

rogr

am A

nnua

l Goa

ls R

epor

t

Mod

ifica

tions

to S

PS

A,

WA

SC

pla

n, o

r oth

er

prog

ram

impr

ovem

ent

proc

ess

as in

dica

ted.

Mod

ifica

tions

to S

PS

A,

WA

SC

pla

n, o

r oth

er

prog

ram

impr

ovem

ent

proc

ess

as in

dica

ted.

Site

leve

l pro

gram

im

prov

emen

t de

cisi

ons

Site

leve

l pro

gram

im

prov

emen

t de

cisi

ons

Dep

artm

enta

l an

d /o

r sch

oolw

ide

revi

ew a

nd d

iscu

ssio

n du

ring

depa

rtmen

t and

/or s

taff

mee

tings

. Tr

aini

ng/s

uppo

rt m

ay b

e pr

ovid

ed u

pon

requ

est f

or in

divi

dual

s an

d de

partm

ents

.

Dep

artm

enta

l an

d /o

r sch

oolw

ide

revi

ew a

nd d

iscu

ssio

n du

ring

depa

rtmen

t and

/or s

taff

mee

tings

. Tr

aini

ng/s

uppo

rt m

ay b

e pr

ovid

ed u

pon

requ

est f

or in

divi

dual

s an

d de

partm

ents

.

Com

mon

Ass

essm

ent A

naly

sis

Surveys

Adm

inis

trato

rs

Teac

hers

Adv

isor

y C

omm

ittee

s

Adm

inis

trato

rs

Teac

hers

Adv

isor

y C

omm

ittee

s

Spr

ingb

oard

to S

ucce

ssN

eeds

Ass

essm

ent,

Goa

ls

Stu

dent

s

Teac

hers

July

, 200

51

S. H

art

CE

NT

RA

L U

NIO

N H

IGH

SC

HO

OL

DIS

TR

ICT

Eva

luat

ion

an

d M

onit

orin

g P

lan

Ove

rvie

w

Asses

smen

t Typ

e

Targe

t Pop

ulat

ion

Timel

ine

for

Admin

istrat

ion Pers

on(s

) Res

pons

ible

for

Admin

istrat

ion/

Coord

inat

ion

Form

at o

f Res

ults

to b

e

Shar

ed Pers

ons Res

pons

ible

for D

ata

Disse

min

atio

n

Timel

ine

for R

ecei

ving

/

Using

Info

rmat

ion

Pers

ons Res

pons

ible

for

Data

Use

How D

ata

is to

be

Used

Devel

opin

g

Under

stan

ding

of D

ata

and

Analy

sis Pr

oces

s Timel

ine

Out

com

e

California Standards Tests (CSTs)

Ass

ista

nt

Sup

erin

tend

ent

& C

urric

ulum

A

.P.s

Apr

il/M

ay

of E

ach

Year

All

Gra

de

9-11

S

tude

nts

Dis

trict

Sum

mar

y R

epor

ts b

y C

onte

nt A

rea

Ass

ista

nt

Sup

erin

tend

ent

Fall

of E

ach

Year

Boa

rd o

f Tr

uste

es;

Cer

tific

ated

Sta

ff

Ann

ual R

evie

w; S

ite

and

Dis

trict

pol

icy

deci

sion

s

1. P

rese

ntat

ion

at re

gula

r Boa

rd

mee

ting;

Dis

cuss

ion

and

reco

mm

enda

tions

2.

Pre

sent

atio

n to

teac

hers

1. O

ctob

er

2. A

ugus

t

Verb

al/w

ritte

n di

rect

ion

to

the

Sup

erin

tend

ent a

s ap

prop

riate

Cla

ss L

ists

-

"Spr

ingb

oard

to

Suc

cess

' M

ult.M

easu

re

Pro

files

(Inc

lude

s C

ST,

GPA

, H

SE

E, C

ELD

T,

EL

& S

pEd

stat

us) F

orm

A

Prin

cipa

ls

Sep

tem

ber

(1st

Sem

S

tude

nts)

Febr

uary

(2

nd S

em

Stu

dent

s)

Cla

ssro

om

Teac

hers

Inst

ruct

iona

l pro

gam

m

odifi

catio

n de

cisi

onm

akin

g

1. O

ngoi

ng C

onte

nt T

eam

dis

cuss

ion

and

anal

ysis

2. I

ndiv

idua

l rev

iew

, stu

dy a

nd p

lann

ing

Min

imum

W

edne

sday

&

oth

er

Nee

ds A

sses

smen

t, Im

prov

emen

t Goa

ls,

Inte

rven

tions

;

For

m

B

Edu

soft;

In

terv

entio

n G

roup

s;

Dat

a A

naly

stQ

uarte

rly

Ros

ter

Upd

ates

Cla

ssro

om

Teac

hers

Inst

ruct

iona

l pro

gam

m

odifi

catio

n de

cisi

onm

akin

g

1. E

duso

ft gr

oup

train

ing

2. O

ne-to

-one

sup

port

from

on-

site

ex

perts

1. A

ugus

t '05

2. A

s re

ques

ted

Spe

cific

inte

rven

tions

and

st

rate

gies

to ta

rget

are

as

of n

eed.

Sca

led

Sco

re

Res

ults

by

Teac

her N

umbe

r an

d C

ours

e

(Com

para

tive

Rep

ort);

Clu

ster

A

naly

sis

Rep

ort

Site

A

dmin

istra

tion

Nov

embe

rC

lass

room

Te

ache

rs

Site

leve

l pro

gram

im

prov

emen

t de

cisi

ons;

Indi

vidu

al

teac

her a

sses

smen

t of

com

para

tive

perfo

rman

ce o

f hi

s/he

r stu

dent

s

Inde

pend

ent a

nd/o

r dep

artm

enta

l re

view

and

dis

cuss

ion.

Cla

rific

atio

n by

pr

inci

pal a

vaila

ble

upon

requ

est.

Ong

oing

Mod

ifica

tions

to

inst

ruct

iona

l pro

gram

as

indi

cate

d (p

acin

g, k

ey

stan

dard

s/as

sess

men

t)

Site

Sum

mar

y R

epor

ts; S

ub-

grou

p R

epor

tsP

rinci

pals

Aug

ust

Sch

ool S

ite

Cou

ncil;

ELA

C

Site

leve

l pro

gram

im

prov

emen

t de

cisi

ons

Pre

sent

atio

n at

regu

lar c

ounc

il or

co

mm

ittee

mee

tings

; D

iscu

ssio

n an

d re

com

men

datio

ns

S

epte

mbe

r

Verb

al/w

ritte

n re

com

men

datio

ns to

the

prin

cipa

l and

/or B

oard

of

Trus

tees

EL

Stu

dent

P

erfo

rman

ce

Leve

l Sum

mar

y

EL

Pro

gram

S

peci

alis

tO

ngoi

ngP

rinci

pals

&

ELA

C

Site

and

dis

trict

le

vel p

rogr

am

impr

ovem

ent

deci

sion

s

Pre

sent

atio

n at

regu

lar a

dvis

ory

com

mitt

ee m

eetin

gs;

Dis

cuss

ion

and

reco

mm

enda

tions

A

pril

Eng

lish

Lear

ner P

rogr

am

Ann

ual G

oals

Rep

ort

Form

F

Academic Performance Index (API)

All

Stu

dent

sN

AN

A

(V

ario

us

Ass

essm

ents

)

Bas

e R

epor

t; G

row

th R

epor

t; Lo

ngitu

dina

l R

epor

t

Ass

ista

nt

Sup

erin

tend

ent

& P

rinci

pals

Gro

wth

- A

ugus

t

Bas

e-

Fe

brua

ry

1. B

oard

; Sch

ool

Site

Cou

ncil;

E

LAC

2.

Teac

hers

Site

leve

l pro

gram

im

prov

emen

t de

cisi

ons

1. P

rese

ntat

ion

at re

gula

r Boa

rd o

r co

mm

ittee

mee

tings

; D

iscu

ssio

n an

d re

com

men

datio

ns

2. P

rese

ntat

ion

to te

ache

rs

1. O

ctob

er &

M

arch

2. S

ept.

&

Mar

ch

Mod

ifica

tions

to

inst

ruct

iona

l pro

gram

as

indi

cate

d.

California Standards Tests (CSTs)

Ass

ista

nt

Sup

erin

tend

ent

& C

urric

ulum

A

.P.s

Apr

il/M

ay

of E

ach

Year

All

Gra

de

9-11

S

tude

nts

July

, 200

51

S. H

art

Cen

tral

Uni

on H

igh

Scho

ol D

istr

ict

Stud

ent E

ngag

emen

t by

Dep

artm

ent

Gra

phic

Dis

play

of O

bser

vatio

n D

ata:

Dat

a in

a D

ay, F

ebru

ary

2005

43%

29%

52%

25%

20%

16%

33%

16%

30%

25%

15%

5%

9%

31%

18%

11%

9%10

%

15%

2%0%

3%

20%

20%

20%

18%

20%

10%

16%

20%

12%

10%

0%

9%9%

0%0%10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Percentage

All:

95%

or m

ore

0.42

6666

667

0.29

0909

091

0.52

0.2

0.25

0.2

Mos

t: 80

-94%

0.16

0.32

7272

727

0.16

0.2

0.3

0.25

Man

y: 6

5-79

%0.

160.

1818

1818

20.

20.

20.

150.

1

Som

e: 4

0-64

%0.

0533

3333

30.

0909

0909

10.

120.

3142

8571

40.

175

0.1

Few

or 1

on

10.

1066

6666

70.

0909

0909

10

0.08

5714

286

0.1

0.15

Non

e0.

0933

3333

30.

0181

8181

80

00.

025

0.2

Dep

t 1D

ept 2

Dep

t 3D

ept 4

Dep

t 5 D

ept 6

Norms and Expectations 1. Curriculum is aligned:

• to state standards • across department

• course-alike teachers must be on the same pacing schedule 2. Some common assignments are given by all course-alike teachers. 3. One common assessment per unit of instruction is given by all course-alike teachers

• 15 to 30 questions (3-5 questions per standard) • teacher written or district sponsored

4. Assessments are scored using a Pearson or Scantron grading machine • grading system should include a computer interface to prepare data for analysis.

5. All course-alike teachers are willing to participate, be open to discussion, and flexible. 6. Test and reflection dates are calendared at the beginning of the year or semester. Process 1. All course-alike teachers administer the common assessment within a specific window of

time (approximately 3 days). 2. Test coordinator scores answer sheets and gives individual class results to teachers

(approximate 2 day turn-around). • assessments are scored together so that class, and total statistics are available.

*3. Teachers individually review and analyze class test results and reflect on specific strategies used.

• this step is critical to the success of the group discussion. • individual class results must be analyzed ahead of time because there is not enough time

once the reflection meeting begins. 4. Course-alike teachers meet together to compare and contrast results (approx. 45 min. to 1 hr.)

• each teacher briefly shares their class results with the group. • commonalities are identified and anomalies considered.

• Ex. commonality – most classes did poorly on standard 5b • Ex. Anomaly – teacher X had very low results, but teacher X had jury duty for 1

week. 5. As a group, address the issues listed on the Reflection Minutes sheet. decide which quiz

questions to re-write (if it is within your power to do so). • identify which concepts need to be addressed differently or more in-depth. • submit a copy of the minutes to school administration.

6. Decide as a group on a possible new activity or choose one or two volunteers to investigate and design one.

*7. Establish a date to meet again to review/revise the new quiz question(s) or activity. (this step is extremely critical to ensure that the quiz is re-written or the activity is prepared

before it is needed the following year. Experience has proven that if not done immediately, it will not get done).

Start slow. Every teacher has a different comfort zone, and each one is at a different place in their ability to diagnose and design curriculum, instruction and assessment. This process is meant to facilitate collaboration and encouragement.

Bolsa Grande High School

Department/Benchmark Reflection Minutes

Department: ___________________________________________ Date: __________________

Content Area: _________________________ Topic(s): ________________________________

Test No./Name: ___________________________________

1. Issues that teachers dealt with that are beyond teacher control: (copy machines broken, etc)

2. Overall student performance: (Disparity in scores: between classes, teachers, etc.)

3. Proficiency band comparison: (Percentage of students within each category)

4. Questions missed by an abundance of students/validity of question vs. material not covered.

5. Of those questions/standards missed, what topics need to be covered more in-depth or using a different strategy?

Test Question re-writes: _________________________ _____________________________

New Activities: _______________________________ _____________________________

Completion date: ______________________________

Section 1 – Parking Lot Issues

Section 2 – General Analysis

Section 3 – Test Analysis

Section 4 – Standards/Material Coverage

Section 5 – Modifications/Assignments

Department/Benchmark Reflection Minutes

Department: ___________________________________________ Date: __________________

Content Area: _________________________ Topic(s): ________________________________

Test No./Name: ___________________________________

1. Issues that teachers dealt with that do not directly affect test outcome:

2. Overall student performance: (Disparity in scores: between classes, teachers, etc.)

3. Proficiency band comparison: (Percentage of students within each category)

4. Questions missed by an abundance of students/validity of question vs. material not covered.

5. Of those questions/standards missed, what topics need to be covered more in-depth or by using a different strategy?

Test Question re-writes: _________________________ _____________________________

New Activities: _______________________________ _____________________________

Completion date: ______________________________

Section 1 – Parking Lot Issues

Section 2 – General Analysis

Section 3 – Test Analysis

Section 4 – Standards/Material Coverage

Section 5 – Modifications/Assignments

Science

Biology

3rd Qtr Benchmark

Natural selection was low for all except Jones and Smith. Smith had 43% in one class and 61% in another for protein synthesis Baker was much lower than all others in Amino Acid Sequencing

Protein Synthesis, DNA, RNA, Natural Selection

Turner will take Comments back to District Consult

Jones/Smith – Ntl. Selct.

May 18, 2005

Most teachers were within range of each other – only 2 out of 6 teachers had “far below basic students”. Most had between 25% and 35% “proficient”, and 30%-55% “basic”. One teacher was anomalous.

Questions no. 23, 25 – natural selection. Questions no. 13, 14 – gene translation Question no. 19 – amino acids

Natural selection should be covered more in-depth. Perhaps add a few more homework assignments and at least one more class activity. Gene translation – just needs different activity.

Thompson – Gene Transl.

April 11, 2005

Secretaries were not available when some teachers went to get testing materials.

2nd Draft – March 16, 2005

Role of the Team: The Bolsa Grande Data Team consists of teachers and administrators who engage in site-based data collection and research for the purpose of supporting standards-based instruction in the classroom and data-driven decision making. Responsibilities of the Team: The Garden Grove Unified School District and the Faculty and Administration at Bolsa Grande High School support the use of data as a tool to promote improved teaching and learning. The bold statements below are district goals, and the bulleted statements are the actions that the Bolsa Grande Data Team will undertake to help facilitate those goals: 1. Create a mind-set that decisions are made on data, not instinct.

• The Data Team will collect and disaggregate site-based achievement data and provide that data to Administration, Leadership Team, Department Chairs and individual teachers for reflection, instruction modification, and school-wide decision making.

• The Data Team will work with the Principal in collecting and disseminating appropriate data to the School Site Council and parent advisory groups.

2. Offer professional development for principals and teachers on the effective use of data.

• The Data Team will collect site-based achievement and demographic information to assist Administration, Leadership Team, and Department Chairs in designing effective school-wide staff development.

3. Ensure that regular formative and summative assessments are given to monitor student progress

and to facilitate the adjustment of instruction and curricular programs as necessary. • The Data Team will collect and disseminate survey and anecdotal data on teacher knowledge and implementation of

formative and summative assessments. • The Data Team will provide teachers with current research and information on what formative and summative

assessments are available, and their implementation. 4. Ensure that an individual student’s data will remain confidential and only be used for purposes

of planning instruction and communication with the child’s parents or guardians.

• Ensure that teacher’s data will remain confidential and only be used collectively with respect to school improvement and strategy implementation.

5. Fostering a culture of inquiry that supports the use of data at all levels leading to a culture of

continuous improvement. • The Data Team will be trained on the use of DataDirector to collect data and generate reports. • The Data Team will act as peer-coaches on the use of DataDirector. • The Data Team will generate charts and graphs from raw data to assist teachers in its interpretion. • The Data Team will provide tools, such as templates or rubrics, to assist teachers in collecting, disaggregating and

interpreting raw data • The Data Team will set a tone for collegiality during data walks and resulting reflections. • The Data Team will assist the Administration in the planning and implementation of DataWalks.

• The purpose of DataWalks is to collect observational data on the implementation of school-wide or departmental strategies or programs.

• The focus of DataWalks is on student learning and achievement.

Role and Responsibilities

G

arde

n G

rove

Uni

fied

Sch

ool

Dis

tric

tG

arde

n G

rove

Uni

fied

Sch

ool

Dis

tric

t

GO

AL

1 G

OA

L 1

-- A

CA

DE

MIC

PR

OF

ICIE

NC

Y A

ND

A

CA

DE

MIC

PR

OF

ICIE

NC

Y A

ND

P

RO

GR

ES

SP

RO

GR

ES

S

Aca

dem

ic P

rofic

ienc

y S

tude

nts

in o

ur d

istri

ct fi

ve y

ears

or

long

er w

ill m

eet

grad

e-le

vel s

tand

ards

in

core

aca

dem

ic s

ubje

cts

as m

easu

red

by p

rofic

ienc

y on

the:

• C

alifo

rnia

Sta

ndar

ds T

est:

Eng

lish

Lang

uage

Arts

and

Mat

h

• C

alifo

rnia

Sta

ndar

ds T

est:

Sci

ence

and

Soc

ial S

cien

ce

• C

alifo

rnia

Hig

h S

choo

l Exi

t Exa

m

Aca

dem

ic P

rogr

ess

Stu

dent

s in

our

dis

trict

will

ste

adily

pro

gres

s to

war

d m

eetin

g gr

ade-

leve

l st

anda

rds

in c

ore

acad

emic

sub

ject

s as

mea

sure

d by

the

Cal

iforn

ia S

tand

ards

Te

st a

nd d

emon

stra

ted

as:

•

Stu

dent

s at

“Far

Bel

ow B

asic

” will

pro

gres

s to

the

“Bel

ow B

asic

” lev

el

• S

tude

nts

at “B

elow

Bas

ic” w

ill p

rogr

ess

to th

e “B

asic

” lev

el

• S

tude

nts

in lo

wer

“Bas

ic” w

ill p

rogr

ess

to th

e up

per “

Bas

ic” l

evel

•

Stu

dent

s in

upp

er “B

asic

” will

pro

gres

s to

the

“Pro

ficie

nt” l

evel

•

Stu

dent

s re

achi

ng “

Pro

ficie

nt”

will

mai

ntai

n th

is le

vel o

r pr

ogre

ss t

o th

e

“Adv

ance

d” le

vel

A

cade

mic

pro

gres

s w

ill b

e su

ppor

ted

and

indi

cate

d du

ring

the

year

by:

•

Dis

trict

Ben

chm

ark

Ass

essm

ents

•

Dis

trict

Writ

ing

Ass

essm

ents

•

Sta

ndar

ds-b

ased

Rep

ort C

ards

GO

AL

2 - E

NG

LIS

H L

AN

GU

AG

E P

RO

FIC

IEN

CY

AN

D

EN

GL

ISH

LA

NG

UA

GE

PR

OF

ICIE

NC

Y A

ND

D

EV

ELO

PM

EN

T P

RO

GR

ES

SD

EV

ELO

PM

EN

T P

RO

GR

ES

S

Engl

ish

Lang

uage

Pro

ficie

ncy

Eng

lish

Lear

ners

in

our

dist

rict

four

yea

rs o

r lo

nger

will

mee

t th

e E

nglis

h P

rofic

ient

leve

l as

mea

sure

d by

pro

ficie

ncy

on th

e:

•

Cal

iforn

ia E

nglis

h La

ngua

ge D

evel

opm

ent T

est

Eng

lish

Pro

ficie

ncy

on th

e C

ELD

T is

def

ined

as

the

“Ear

ly A

dvan

ced/

Adv

ance

d” le

vel w

ith a

ll s

ub-s

kills

(Lis

teni

ng/S

peak

ing,

Rea

ding

, and

Writ

ing)

at t

he “I

nter

med

iate

” lev

el o

r abo

ve.

Engl

ish

Lang

uage

Dev

elop

men

t Pro

gres

s E

nglis

h Le

arne

rs in

our

dis

trict

will

ste

adily

pro

gres

s to

war

d de

velo

ping

Eng

lish

lang

uage

pr

ofic

ienc

y as

m

easu

red

by

the

Cal

iforn

ia

Engl

ish

Lang

uage

D

evel

opm

ent T

est a

nd d

emon

stra

ted

as:

•

Stu

dent

s at

“Beg

inni

ng” w

ill p

rogr

ess

to th

e “E

arly

Inte

rmed

iate

” lev

el

• S

tude

nts

at “E

arly

Inte

rmed

iate

” will

pro

gres

s to

the

“Inte

rmed

iate

” lev

el

• S

tude

nts

at “I

nter

med

iate

” will

pro

gres

s to

the

“Ear

ly A

dvan

ced”

leve

l •

Stu

dent

s at

“E

arly

Adv

ance

d/A

dvan

ced”

will

pro

gres

s to

the

“E

nglis

h P

rofic

ient

” lev

el

• S

tude

nts

reac

hing

E

nglis

h P

rofic

ient

w

ill

mai

ntai

n th

is

leve

l un

til

desi

gnat

ed a

s R

ecla

ssifi

ed F

luen

t Eng

lish

Prof

icie

nt

R

FEP

den

otes

a s

tude

nt w

ho h

as b

een

recl

assi

fied

Flue

nt E

nglis

h P

rofic

ient

by

mee

ting

th

e E

nglis

h “P

rofic

ient

” lev

el o

n th

e C

ELD

T as

wel

l as

spec

ific

acad

emic

c

riter

ia in

Eng

lish

Lang

uage

Arts

. E

nglis

h La

ngua

ge

Dev

elop

men

t pr

ogre

ss

will

be

su

ppor

ted

and

indi

cate

d du

ring

the

year

by:

•

Cur

ricul

um-b

ased

ass

essm

ents

cor

rela

ted

to C

alifo

rnia

Eng

lish

Lang

uage

Dev

elop

men

t Tes

t Sta

ndar

ds

Dis

tric

t G

oals

Dis

tric

t G

oals

Oct

ober

200

5

64

Academic Performance Index (API)API produces a single numericalrating of a school’s performance. Thatnumber serves as the basis for rankingschools, calculating how much theymust improve their performance eachyear, and comparing their growth tosimilar schools.

AccountabilityThe notion that people (e.g., studentsor teachers) or an organization (e.g.,a school, school district, or statedepartment of education) should beheld responsible for improvingstudent achievement and should berewarded or sanctioned for theirsuccess or lack of success in doing so.

Achievement GapA consistent difference in scores onstudent achievement tests betweencertain groups of children andchildren in other groups. The datadocuments a strong associationbetween poverty, language status,race and in some cases gender andstudents’ academic success asmeasured by achievement tests.Recent legislation, including theFederal No Child Left Behind Act,hold schools and school districtsaccountable for narrowing theachievement gap.

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)An individual state’s measure ofyearly progress toward achievingthe federally-mandated goal of allstudents being “proficient” in Englishand math by 2014. Adequate yearlyprogress is the minimum level ofimprovement that states, schooldistricts, and schools must achieveeach year, according to the federalNo Child Left Behind Act (NCLB).

A-G CoursesThe set of 15 one-year college prepcourses high school students musttake to be eligible to enter either theCalifornia State University (CSU) orUniversity of California (UC) systems.

AlignmentThe degree to which assessments,curriculum, instruction, textbooksand other instructional materials,teacher preparation andprofessional development, andsystems of accountability all reflect

and reinforce the educationalprogram’s objectives and standards.

BenchmarkA detailed description of a specificlevel of student achievementexpected of students at particularages, grades, or developmentallevels. A set of benchmarks can beused as checkpoints to monitorprogress in meeting performancegoals within and across grade levels.

California English LanguageDevelopment Test (CELDT)A test for students whose primarylanguage—as reported by theirparents—is not English. Thesestudents take the CELDT upon initialenrollment and annually thereafteruntil it is determined that they

California High School Exit Exam(CAHSEE)A state exam that California publichigh school students, beginningwith the class of 2006, must pass inorder to graduate. It is a pass-failexam divided into two sections:English language arts (reading andwriting) and mathematics.

California Standards Tests (CSTs)Tests that are part of theStandardized Testing and Reporting(STAR) program and are based onthe state’s academic contentstandards—what teachers areexpected to teach and whatstudents are expected to learn. Theyare primarily multiple choice andcover four subject areas: Englishlanguage arts (grades 2–11);mathematics (grades 2–11); history/social science (grades 8, 10, and11); and science (for high schoolstudents who are taking specificsubjects like biology, chemistry, orintegrated science). CSTs arecriterion-referenced tests, andstudents are scored as “far belowbasic, below basic, basic,proficient, and advanced.”

Charter SchoolA public school operatedindependently under a performanceagreement with a school district, acounty office of education (COE), orthe State Board of Education.Charter schools are funded on a

Appendix II. Glossaryper-pupil basis, freed from moststate regulations that apply toschool districts and COEs, usuallyable to hire their own teachers andother staff, and subject to closure ifthey fail to meet their promises forstudent outcomes.

English Learner (EL) or EnglishLanguage Learner (ELL)Students whose home language isnot English and who qualify for extrahelp. EL students were formerlyknown as “Limited English Proficient”(LEP). (See CELDT and FEP.)

Fluent English Proficient (FEP)A designation that means a studentis no longer considered as part of aschool’s English learner (EL)population.

Free- or Reduced- price LunchProgram (FRLP)A federal program to provide lunchand/or breakfast for students fromlow-income families. The number ofstudents participating in the NationalSchool Lunch Program is used as away to measure the poverty level ofa school or district population.

Golden State Exams (GSE)Rigorous tests given to upper-gradestudents. Established in 1983,California’s Golden State Examswere given to upper-grade studentsin a number of key academicsubject areas. In 2003 the tests werelimited to English language arts for11th graders and mathematics for9th–11th graders. The tests, whichare aligned to state academiccontent standards, include bothmultiple-choice and written-response questions. State educatorsare considering using GSEs todetermine placement in English andmathematics in the California StateUniversity (CSU) system.

High School Exit Exam (HSEE)See California High School ExitExam (CAHSEE).

Immediate Intervention/Underperforming Schools Program(II/USP)A component of California’s PublicSchools Accountability Act (PSAA)designed to provide assistance and

65

intervention for schools identifiedas underperforming. Schools thatmeet improvement goals will beeligible for financial and non-monetary rewards; schools that fail tomeet growth targets over time may besubject to district or state interventions.

Limited English Proficiency (LEP)See English learner.

Local Education Agency (LEA)A public board of education orother public authority within a statethat maintains administrativecontrol of public elementary orsecondary schools in a city, county,township, school district, or otherpolitical subdivision of a state.School districts and county officesof education are both LEAs.Sometimes charter schools functionas LEAs.

No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB)The 2002 reauthorizaton of theElementary and SecondaryEducation Act (ESEA). Originallypassed in 1965, ESEA programsprovide much of the federal fundingfor K–12 schools. NCLB’s provisionsrepresent a significant change in thefederal government’s influence inpublic schools and districtsthroughout the United States,particularly in terms of assessment,accountability, and teacher quality.It increases the federal focus on theachievement of disadvantagedpupils, including English learnersand student who live in poverty,provides funding for innovativeprograms, and supports the right ofparents to transfer their children to adifferent school if their school islow-performing or unsafe.

Professional DevelopmentPrograms that allow teachers oradministrators to acquire theknowledge and skills they need toperform their jobs successfully.Often these programs are aimed atveteran teachers to help themupdate their skills and knowledge.Researchers have found thateffective professional developmentfocuses on academic content andrequires adequate time, resources,and working conditions.

ProficiencyMastery or ability to do somethingat grade-level. In California,students take California StandardsTests (CSTs) and receive scorces thatrange from “far below basic” to“advanced.” The state goal is for allstudents to score at “proficient” or“advanced.”

Program ImprovementAn intervention under the No ChildLeft Behind Act (NCLB). Schoolsand districts that receive federalTitle I funds enter ProgramImprovement when—for two yearsin a row—they do not makeadequate yearly progress (AYP)toward the goal of having allstudents become proficient inEnglish language arts andmathematics by 2013–14. Eachstate, with federal approval, setsmeasurements of what is consideredAYP each year. Once a schoolmakes AYP for two years in a row, itcan leave Program Improvement.NCLB lists a series of increasinglyserious interventions for schoolsthat remain in ProgramImprovement. Schools that do notreceive Title I funds are not subjectto Program Improvement even ifthey do not make AYP.

Public Schools Accountability Act(PSAA)A law that outlines a comprehensiveprocess for measuring schools’academic performance and rankingschools based on that performance.When schools fall short of theexpectations, the state mayintervene—first with assistance andlater with sanctions. Successfulschools are expected to berecognized and rewarded. ThePSAA, which was approved byCalifornia lawmakers in April 1999,has three main components: theAcademic Performance Index (API),the Immediate Intervention/Underperforming Schools Program(II/USP), and the Governor’sPerformance Award program (GPA).

Significant subgroupA group of students based onethnicity, poverty, English learnerstatus, and Special Educationdesignation. Under both Californiaand federal accountability rules,various data must be reported forsignificant subgroups of students. Tobe considered “significant,” asubgroup must include either 100students or a smaller number if theyrepresent at least 15% of the overallschool population. For the state’sAcademic Performance Index (API),the smaller number is 30. Under thefederal No Child Left Behind Act(NCLB), the smaller number is 50.

Special EducationPrograms to identify and meet theeducational needs of children withemotional, learning, or physicaldisabilities. Federal law requiresthat all children with disabilitiesbe provided a free andappropriate education accordingto an Individualized EducationProgram (IEP) from infancy until21 years of age.

StandardsDegrees or levels of achievement.The “standards movement” began asan informal effort grown out of aconcern that American students werenot learning enough and thatAmerican schools did not have arigorous curriculum. The U.S.Congress adopted this concept moreformally with its 1994 reauthorizationof the federal Title I program.

Standards-Based ReformA recent shift in education policyand school reform toward reachingconsensus on and establishingstandards for what students need toknow and be able to do at eachgrade or developmental level.While the momentum for standards-based education is well on its way,tension still exists over how muchinfluence national, state, or localpolicy makers should have oversetting the standards. Although astrong backlash to national controlcontinues, a growing number ofstates are taking on thisresponsibility, including California.

Glossary adopted from EdSource. Used with permissions. © 2005 EdSource.

App

endi

x II

I. S

ampl

e Si

tes:

Dem

ogra

phic

Dat

a C

ALIF

OR

NIA

BE

ST

PR

AC

TIC

ES

ST

UD

Y S

AM

PLE

2004 -

200

5

De

mo

gra

ph

ic A

na

lysis

of

Stu

dy P

art

icip

an

ts

H

igh-

Perf

orm

ing

Scho

ols

B

old

indi

cate

s sc

hool

sta

ts th

at e

xcee

d st

ate

&/o

r dis

trict

sta

ts

Dis

tric

t Nam

e D

ist S

ize

Sc

hool

Nam

e G

eogr

aphy

S

choo

l Si

ze

% F

RLP

%

ELL

%

Bla

ck

% H

isp

Cen

tral U

nion

4,1

29

Cen

tral H

igh

Sout

hern

CA

1,7

06

56.8

0%

35.4

0%

2.50

%

87.7

0%

Cen

tral U

nion

4,1

29

Sout

hwes

t Hig

h So

uthe

rn C

A

2

,243

48

.20%

33

.10%

1.

60%

83

.50%

Lo

s An

gele

s U

nifie

d

747

,009

Sh

erm

an O

aks

Sout

hern

CA

1,7

87

40.8

0%

10.8

0%

8.80

%

35.1

0%

Los

Ange

les

Uni

fied

747

,009

C

leve

land

So

uthe

rn C

A

3

,754

68

.30%

24

.90%

9.

00%

56

.30%

Lo

s An

gele

s U

nifie

d

747

,009

LA

Cen

ter f

or E

nric

hed

Stu

dies

So

uthe

rn C

A

1

,626

31

.70%

0.

80%

36

.30%

17

.50%

M

arys

ville

Joi

nt U

nifie

d

9,6

26

Mar

ysvi

lle

Nor

ther

n C

A

249

35

.60%

0.

90%

5.

30%

5.

80%

Se

lma

USD

6,3

04

Selm

a H

igh

Cen

tral C

A

1

,606

63

.50%

20

.80%

0.

40%

75

.90%

El

Mon

te U

nion

HSD

10,4

46

El M

onte

Hig

h So

uthe

rn C

A

2

,109

79

.80%

38

.40%

0.

30%

80

.70%

G

arde

n G

rove

US

D

50

,030

Bo

lsa

Gra

nde

Hig

h So

uthe

rn C

A

1

,575

65

.80%

41

.90%

1.

60%

35

.50%

W

est C

ontra

Cos

ta U

SD

32

,719

M

iddl

e C

olle

ge H

igh

Nor

ther

n C

A

266

0.

00%

2.

80%

23

.70%

35

.20%

Sa

n Jo

se U

SD

31

,874

Li

ncol

n H

igh

Nor

ther

n C

A

1

,768

35

.80%

13

.90%

2.

60%

54

.60%

Sum

mar

y:

3 N

orth

ern

CA

7 So

uthe

rn C

A

1 C

entra

l CA

Ave

rage

: 1,

699

6 of

11

exce

ed

stat

e an

d/or

di

stric

t av

erag

es

4 of

11

exce

ed

stat

e an

d/or

di

stric

t av

erag

es

6 of

11

exce

ed

stat

e an

d/or

di

stric

t av

erag

es

6 of

11

exce

ed

stat

e an

d/or

di

stric

t av

erag

es

Ave

rage

-Per

form

ing

Scho

ols

Dis

tric

t Nam

e D

ist S

ize

Sc

hool

Nam

e G

eogr

aphy

S

choo

l Si

ze

% F

RLP

%

ELL

%

Bla

ck

% H

isp

AP

dist

rict 1

8,5

43

AP1

N

orth

ern

CA

2,6

86

12.4

0%

4.60

%

4.00

%

12.4

0%

AP

dist

rict 2

58,6

70

AP2

N

orth

ern

CA

2,1

20

58.4

0%

30.5

0%

34.2

0%

24.3

0%

AP

dist

rict 3

2,4

54

AP3

C

entra

l CA

72

4

78.8

0%

26.0

0%

0.60

%

91.4

0%

AP

dist

rict 4

4,5

84

AP4

So

uthe

rn C

A

1

,177

37

.20%

4.

50%

8.

50%

63

.90%

A

P di

stric

t 5

8

,868

A

P5

Sout

hern

CA

2,3

45

28.5

0%

22.1

0%

2.50

%

59.2

0%

Sum

mar

y:

2 N

orth

ern

CA

2 So

uthe

rn C

A

1 C

entra

l CA

Aver

age:

1,

810

3 of

5

exce

ed

stat

e an

d/or

di

stric

t av

erag

es

3 of

5

exce

ed

stat

e an

d/or

di

stric

t av

erag

es

2 of

5

exce

ed

stat

e an

d/or

di

stric

t av

erag

e

4 of

5

exce

ed

stat

e an

d/or

di

stric

t av

erag

es

Com

paris

on o

f Dis

tric

ts to

Sta

te

Dis

tric

t Nam

e

%

FR

LP

% E

LL

% B

lack

%

His

p C

entra

l Uni

on

46.3

0%

16.7

0%

8.60

%

44.4

0%

Los

Ange

les

Uni

fied

76.5

0%

43.8

0%

11.8

0%

72.5

0%

Mar

ysvi

lle J

oint

Uni

fied

73

.70%

23

.50%

3.

50%

26

.00%

Se

lma

USD

78.9

0%

33.8

0%

0.70

%

80.1

0%

El M

onte

Uni

on H

SD

66

.10%

30

.00%

0.

60%

77

.00%

G

arde

n G

rove

US

D

60

.40%

49

.10%

1.

10%

51

.90%

W

est C

ontra

Cos

ta U

SD

53.9

0%

29.4

0%

28.8

0%

38.1

0%

San

Jose

USD

43.7

0%

26.0

0%

3.50

%

50.7

0%

AP1

16.7

0%

6.70

%

5.40

%

14.1

0%

AP2

38.6

0%

18.4

0%

18.9

0%

19.8

0%

AP3

81.4

0%

37.4

0%

0.80

%

92.7

0%

AP4

62.7

0%

18.5

0%

9.90

%

65.2

0%

AP5

15

.70%

17

.80%

2.

60%

44

.60%

C

alifo

rnia

Sta

te A

vera

ge

49

.00%

25

.40%

8.

10%

46

.00%

A

ppen

dix

IV.

Sam

ple

Site

s: A

chie

vem

ent D

ata

Sum

mar

ies

C

ali

forn

ia B

est

Pra

cti

ces S

tudy S

am

ple

2004 -

200

5

C

AH

SE

E

All

Stu

de

nts

%

Pas

sing

M

ath

% P

assi

ng

Engl

ish

C

entr

al

65%

66

%

So

uthw

est

69%

67

%

Sh

erm

an O

aks

96%

97

%

C

leve

land

Hig

h 80

%

77%

LAC

ES

94%

99

%

M

arys

ville

84

%

93%

Selm

a 79

%

71%

El M

onte

73

%

64%

Bol

sa G

rand

e 84

%

76%

Mid

dle

Col

lege

99

%

100%

Ave

rage

HP

82%

81

%

ST

ATE

74

%

75%

AP

1 95

%

92%

AP

2 67

%

66%

AP

3 70

%

67%

AP

4 74

%

76%

AP

5 76

%

76%

Ave

rage

AP

76%

75

%

St

ate

Ave

rage

0.

74

0.75

Mea

n H

P 82

%

81%

Mea

n A

P 76

%

75%

H

ispa

nic

or L

atin

o C

ali

forn

ia B

est

Pra

cti

ces S

tudy S

am

ple

2004 -

200

5

%

St

uden

ts

% C

ompl

etin

g A

-G

Cen

tral

85

.4

27.0

So

uthw

est

83.5

38

.6

Sher

man

Oak

s 35

.1

20.3

C

leve

land

Hig

h 56

.3

40.7

LA

CES

17

.5

86.7

M

arys

ville

5.

8 n/

a

Se

lma

75.9

9.

3

El

Mon

te

77.1

8.

6

B

olsa

Gra

nde

35.5

8.

0

M

iddl

e C

olle

ge

35.2

10

0.0

Mea

n H

P 50

.73

37.6

9

STA

TE

46.8

21

.7

A

P1

12.4

18

.2

AP2

24

.3

12.5

A

P3

91.4

25

.2

AP4

63

.9

22.8

A

P5

59.2

27

.6

Mea

n A

P 50

.24

21.2

6

ST

ATE

21.7

0

M

ean

HP

37

.69

Mea

n A

P

21.2

6

**O

nly

scho

ols

with

10%

or m

ore

His

pani

c st

uden

ts a

re in

clud

ed in

cal

cula

tions

**.

C

ali

forn

ia B

est

Pra

cti

ces S

tudy S

am

ple

2004 -

200

5

Engl

ish

Lang

uage

Lea

rner

s

%

of

stud

ents

%

AYP

Mat

h Pr

ofic

ent

Cen

tral

35

.1%

34

.1%

So

uthw

est

34.4

%

36.7

%

Sher

man

Oak

s 8.

3%

40.7

%

Cle

vela

nd

Hig

h 25

.1%

41

.5%

LAC

ES

0.9%

N

/A

Mar

ysvi

lle

0.8%

N

/A

Selm

a 20

.9%

37

.7%

El

Mon

te

37.7

%

34.8

%

Bol

sa G

rand

e 40

.3%

54

.1%

M

iddl

e C

olle

ge

1.5%

N

/A

Mea

n H

P 32

.3%

39

.8%

STA

TE

25.2

%

31.6

%

A

P1

4.7%

N

/A

AP2

26

.0%

34

.1%

A

P3

26.8

%

36.1

%

AP4

3.

2%

N/A

A

P5

19.6

%

24.1

%

Mea

n A

P 24

.1%

31

.4%

ST

ATE

25.2

%

31.6

%

Mea

n H

P 32

.3%

39

.8%

M

ean

AP

24.1

%

31.4

%

**O

nly

scho

ols

with

10%

or

mor

e EL

L st

uden

ts a

re in

clud

ed in

cal

cula

tions

**.

Appendix V. Bibliography: For Further Reading

EdSource. (2005). Similar Students, Different Results: WhyDo Some Schools Do Better?. Mountain View, CA:EdSource.

Education Trust – West. (2004). Are California HighSchools Ready for the 21st Century?. Oakland, CA:Education Trust – West.

Elmore, R.F. (2002). Bridging the Gap Between Standardsand Achievement: The Imperative for ProfessionalDevelopment in Education. Washington, D.C.:Albert Shanker Institute.

Honig, M.I. and G.S. Ikemoto. (2005). When districts scaleup best practices. A report to Springboard Schools. CEPALOccasional Paper OP-05-01. College Park, MD: Universityof Maryland, College Park.

Horowitz, J. (2005). Inside High School Reform: Makingthe Changes That Matter. WestEd.

Petrides, L. and T. Nodine. (2005). Anatomy of SchoolSystem Improvement:Performance Driven Practices in Urban School Districts.NewSchools Venture Fund.

Phillips, M. (2005). Creating a Culture of Literacy: AGuide for Middle and High School Principals. GatesFoundation.

Shulman, L. (2005). Seek Simplicity…And Distrust It.Education Week, Vol.24, Issue 39, p. 36(48).

Swanson, C.B. (2003). Keeping Count and Losing Count:Calculating Graduation Rates for All Students under NCLBAccountability. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute.

Swanson, C.B. (2004). Projections of 2003-04 High SchoolGraduates: Supplemental Analyses based on findings fromWho Graduates? Who Doesn’t?. Washington D.C.: TheUrban Institute.

Tyack, D. (1974). The One Best System. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.

Walsh Symons, K. (2004). After the Test: Closing theAchievement Gap with Data. San Francisco, CA.Springboard Schools

Appendix VI. California Best Practice Advisory

Jim Lanich, Ph.D.Co-Research Lead, CA Best Practice StudyExecutive Director, JFTK-CATorrance, CA

Ted LobmanStuart Foundation President EmeritusBerkeley, CA

Kent McGuire, Ph.D.Dean, School of EducationTemple UniversityPhiladelphia, Pennsylvania

Hayes MizellDistinguished Senior FellowNational Staff Development CouncilColumbia, South Carolina

Barbara Neufeld, Ed.D.Executive DirectorEducation MattersBoston, Massachusetts

Desiree Pointer, Ph.D.Program ScholarCarnegie FoundationMenlo Park, California

Jorge Ruiz-de-Velasco, Ph.D.Program Officer, EducationHewlett FoundationMenlo Park, California

Jean Rutherford, Ed.D.Director of Educational InitiativesNational Center for Educational AccountabilityDallas, Texas

Marla UcelliDirectorAnnenberg Institute for School Reform,District InitiativeProvidence, Rhode Island andNew York, New York

Angela AddiegoPrincipalParkside Intermediate SchoolSan Bruno, California

Russlynn AliExecutive DirectorEducation Trust WestOakland, California

Cynthia Coburn, Ph.D.Assistant ProfessorUniversity of CaliforniaBerkeley, CA

Elisabeth CutlerProgram AssociateEducation Trust WestOakland, California

Ardella DaileyAssociate SuperintendentAlameda Unified School DistrictAlameda, California

Steve FleischmanPrincipal Research ScientistAmerican Institutes for ResearchWashington, D.C.

Ellen Foley, Ph.D.Principal AssociateAnnenberg Institute for School Reform,District InitiativeProvidence, Rhode Island

Laurie GoodmanPrincipalRafer Johnson Junior High SchoolKingsburg, California

Meredith Honig, Ph.D.Assistant Professor of Education Policy andLeadership & Co-DirectorCenter for Education Policy and Leadership,University of MarylandCollege Park, Maryland

About Springboard Schools

Springboard Schools is a California-based nonprofit and non-partisan network of educatorscommitted to raising student achievement and narrowing the achievement gap. SpringboardSchools was founded in 1995 as the Bay Area School Reform Collaborative (BASRC). Since

that time, Springboard Schools has worked with 325 schools in 74 districts in the San FranciscoBay Area, Central Valley, and Southern California.

Springboard’s “research to action” approach to improving schools consists of three parts: 1) westudy high-performing, low-resource schools to understand what they’re doing right; 2) we provideprofessional development to educators and administrators; and 3) we partner with school districtsto provide intensive, on-site coaching so new ideas are transformed into practical strategies forchange. The Springboard Schools research team has developed a reputation as a reliable source ofinformation that is useful to both practitioners and policy-makers.

We created this unique data-based decision-making process for improving schools because webelieve the best results start with asking the right questions. We also believe that examiningstudent achievement data alone is not enough; we must also closely examine how teachers teachand how schools and districts are organized. All of this has a huge influence on student learning.The Cycle of Inquiry process can be used at multiple levels of a school system, from the classroomto the boardroom.

Springboard works with education leaders at all levels of the system, from teachers to districtadministrators. Our clients are school districts across California. They range from large (FresnoUnified, with more than 80,000 students) to small (Exeter, with 2,000 students) and include urban,suburban and rural districts. Springboard is one of very few organizations in the state that offers amodel for change at the district level as well as the school level—a model that is already showingresults. Over the years, we have worked with more than 70 districts and more than 300 schools.

Springboard’s program for improving schools was rigorously evaluated over a five-year period byan independent research team at Stanford University’s Center for Research on the Context ofTeaching (CRC).4 CRC’s intensive study documented that test scores in Springboard schools rosemore rapidly than those in a carefully matched group of schools that did not take part in ourprogram. Those schools that implemented the Springboard model most faithfully made the biggestgains.

Springboard Schools was founded with a $50 million grant from the Annenberg and the Williamand Flora Hewlett foundations. Today, Springboard is supported in part from fees charged todistricts for our services and in part by a diverse coalition of foundations, corporations andindividuals committed to investing in the improvement of public education.

Springboard Schools’ goal is to provide education organizations and their leaders at every level ofthe system with the knowledge, skills and tools to create school systems in which good teaching isthe norm in every classroom for every student.

For more information, please visit the Springboard Schools website: SpringboardSchools.org oremail info@springboardschools.org.

4Bay Area School Reform Collaborative: Phase One (1996-2001) Evaluation; Center for Research on the Context ofTeaching, Stanford University

181 Fremont, 2nd Floor, San Francisco, California 94105 | 415.348.5500 | Fax 415.348.1340 | www.SpringboardSchools.org