Back to DC Public Schools main page — Press release on report
|
Major Areas State Education
Agency Calendars Columns Directories Organizations |
Note: the Council of the Great City Schools is soliciting comments on
this draft report for a final version.
Superintendent Elfreda W. Massie's Statement on The Report of the Strategic Support Team of the Council of the Great City Schools "The Council of the Great City Schools' report signals a new sense of urgency for the District of Columbia Public Schools. We welcome its direct and honest assessment of DCPS. The Council of the Great City Schools has provided us with a road map to implement an educational plan that calls for accountability for student achievement at every level. DCPS intends to swiftly incorporate the recommendations of the Council of the Great City Schools in a comprehensive and coherent plan to improve student achievement." Restoring Excellence to the District of Columbia Public Schools
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Frances Bessellieu Former Director of Reading Charlotte-Mecklenburg Public Schools Dixie Dawson Ricki Price-Baugh Rebecca Brown |
Maryellen Donahue Research Director Boston Public Schools Mary Ramirez Mary Anne Lesiak |
This report begins with an Executive Summary of the issues facing the D.C. Public Schools as it struggles to boost student achievement and an outline of the proposals the Council and its SST are making. Chapter 1 presents a brief overview of the D.C. Public Schools and a synopsis of student performance in the district. Chapter 2 summarizes the findings of the Strategic Support Team and its recommendations for improving student achievement. It also contains proposals for bringing the district into greater alignment with No Child Left Behind. Chapter 3 synthesizes the report.
The appendices of this report include a number of items that may be of interest to the reader. Appendix A presents the results of the team’s comparison of the D.C. schools with key instructional practices of some of the nation’s fastest improving urban school systems. Appendix B lists the people the team talked with during its site visit. Appendix C lists the documents that the team reviewed. Appendix D presents brief biographical sketches of team members. Appendix E presents a brief description of the Council of the Great City Schools and the Strategic Support Teams it has conducted to improve urban education across the country.
The Council has now conducted over 70 Strategic Support Teams in over 22 major cities in a variety of instructional and management areas. It has shied away from using a specific template to guide its fact-finding or its recommendations. Instead, reports by the organization are specifically tailored to each district and the particular challenges they face.
In the instructional arena, however, the Council has been guided by its own research on why some urban school systems improve and others do not.1 This research has focused on the key organizational and instructional strategies behind the academic gains of some of the fastest improving urban public school systems in the nation and how those strategies differ from those of districts that are not seeing much traction under their reforms.
Finally, we should point out that we did not examine everything that could possibly be analyzed in the D.C. schools. We did not spend time, for example, looking at noninstructional operations in the D.C. schools. We did not review staffing patterns or personnel credentials. And we did not look at the district’s finances or a host of other issues that often find their way into the headlines. Our focus in this report is exclusively on student achievement and how to improve its.
Council staff working on this project included:
Michael Casserly
Executive Director
Council of the Great City Schools
Janice Ceperich
Research Specialist
Council of the Great City Schools
Sharon Lewis
Director of Research
Council
of the Great City Schools
“DCPS is failing.” These were the opening words of the report, Children in Crisis, prepared in 1996 by the D.C. Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority (DCFRA) about the condition of the city’s public schools.
The report detailed serious failures of the District of Columbia Public Schools (DCPS) to teach its children, manage its affairs, provide a safe environment for its students, and deliver basic education services. Children in Crisis and the media coverage it received shocked Washington and resulted in the exit of the School Superintendent, the suspension of the School Board’s powers, the naming of a new Chief Executive Officer, and the appointment of a new Board of Trustees to oversee reforms.
In many ways, the city’s public schools have made substantial progress since 1996. It has substantially reduced the size of its central office. It has improved many of its operations. And it has built a stronger cadre of senior staff than it had before.
Yet, the academic performance of the children in the district’s charge is only marginally better than it was when the 1996 report was written. Some evidence, in fact, suggests that it may be one of the lowest performing big city school districts in the nation.
One message stands out clearly to those who worked on this project. The D.C. school system is facing a critical choice. It can take the steps necessary to substantially improve student achievement, play a central role in the city’s economic revitalization, and increase the public’s confidence in its schools. Or it can keep things pretty much as they are. The first path is steep and risky and requires energy, skill, and determination. The second path is easy and safe but lined with regrets about what might have been for the next generation of the city’s children.
Other urban school systems have faced similar choices between progress and stagnation, including Cleveland, Boston, Houston, Fort Worth, Long Beach, Charlotte, Philadelphia, Buffalo, Detroit, and others. Some of these districts initiated major reforms on their own, while others had the choices made for them by external powers. But none of the cities that took the tougher path has regretted it. In all of these cities, children are learning more than before. Test scores are up. And optimism is returning.
The message for the D.C. Public Schools is that greater payoffs often come from choosing the path of most resistance.
The instructional leaders from cities across the country who worked on this report were asked a simple question when we started our review. “Why is student achievement in the D.C. schools not improving any faster?” Our answer is also simple. “The district hasn’t done anything to improve achievement.”
The district did pursue the imperative that the public seemed to want, however. It paid teachers on time (mostly). It counted, transported, and immunized students. It kept food from spoiling. It quieted the political noise from the school board. It brought in the Army Corps of Engineers to fix some of the buildings. It put into place a universal, fullday kindergarten program. And it generally kept things running on time.
While the school district was trying to solve the problems it thought the public wanted solving, it delegated the challenge of raising student achievement to the schools and individual principals. The result is a school district where everyone could claim that their work was consistent with the goals of the organization no matter what they were doing. The district has lost its instructional focus; its efforts have become fractured and incoherent; its instructional moorings have loosened; and its unity of purpose has splintered. To make matters worse, the district has piled one program on top or another for so many years that one cannot tell what the system is trying to do academically or why.
In short, the D.C. school district abdicated its leadership responsibility for student achievement to the schools and has had trouble hitting its instructional mark over the years because so many people were aiming in different directions. The result is what one sees today: no plan for improving student performance, low expectations for children, no accountability for results, haphazard instruction, incoherent programming, and dismal outcomes.
It gives an organization like ours no pleasure in coming to this conclusion. But we want to do everything we can to improve the D.C. schools, even if it means being publicly critical. It also means that we have an obligation to propose specific steps for improvement, for it gives us even less pleasure to see one of our members flounder. It reflects poorly on everyone. We make our proposals in this spirit.
Ironically, the city is about to embark on another conversation about issues that probably won’t do much to improve student performance, governance. The governance debate is necessary because legislation establishing the current hybrid school board is about to expire. But, if the conversation doesn’t include a parallel discussion about how to improve academic performance, then the city is likely to look back in another four years and wonder why things didn’t improve.
The truth of the matter is that there is no magical governance structure that by itself is likely to produce better schools. There are cities with very traditional school structures — elected board, traditional superintendent, and independent taxing authority — that are seeing significant gains in student achievement. There are also cities with the same setup that have not seen any gains. Conversely, there are cities whose schools are run very untraditionally that are seeing important improvements. And there are cities whose schools are run nontraditionally that have seen little academic progress. In many ways, the organizational boxes don’t mean as much to the improvement of achievement as what the people in the boxes do.
To improve student achievement, the people in the positions — however they are arranged — have to focus relentlessly and single-mindedly on instruction, something noticeably missing in most discussions about who gets to control the D.C. schools.
To address this void, Paul Vance, the outgoing Superintendent of the D.C. schools, asked the Council of the Great City Schools to review the instructional program of the D.C. Public Schools and propose ways to improve it and to boost student achievement. The Council assembled a Strategic Support Team, composed of senior managers from other urban school systems that have made substantial gains in achievement, to do the work. The teams looked specifically at the district’s curriculum and instructional program.
The team visited D.C. in October 2003 and has prepared a detailed list of recommendations for the Acting Superintendent, the school board, and the city. The proposals are summarized below.
The Council of the Great City Schools benchmarked or compared the instructional program of the D.C. Public Schools against those of other urban school districts that were making rapid progress. The organization then drew up a set of recommendations to make D.C.’s instructional practices more like those of districts seeing progress. For D.C.’s progress to be more like these other cities, the district will have to take the following bold steps:
The D.C. Public Schools currently lack a comprehensive plan for improving student achievement. But developing one will require the school board and the superintendent to develop a shared vision for where they want the district to go and what they want the schools to look like. The district’s leadership will need to —
The D.C. Public Schools currently lack a set of goals beyond those for attaining accreditation that would more rapidly improve student achievement across the district. The district needs to —
Academic goals for the improvement of the D.C. Public Schools are of little use unless they are accompanied by the means to hold people responsible for attaining them. The district currently holds only one person accountable, the superintendent. To devise an accountability system that works across the system, the district will need to —
The D.C. Public Schools currently have numerous programs to boost student performance, many of which are selected and implemented at the school level with little coordination or alignment — and little evaluation as to which ones work and which don’t. To create instructional cohesion and focus, the district will need to —
The D.C. school system currently has a very disjointed professional development program that mirrors the incoherence of the instructional strategy. To be more effective, the district needs to —
The D.C. school system currently allows each school to pursue almost any programs or strategies it wants to. This approach has not proved to be effective. The district not only needs to take primary responsibility for raising student achievement districtwide but also needs to —
Develop a plan that can be used by central office administrators, principals, content specialists, and teachers to monitor implementation of the comprehensive reading and math plan.
Finish developing a standardized process that can be used by principals and content specialists to monitor curriculum implementation.
Retain additional reading and math specialists to work directly in the schools to support training, school improvement planning, data-based decisionmaking, coaching, and monitoring.
The D.C schools are getting ever more sophisticated in and committed to the use of data to decide on instructional strategies. But it is unclear whether the district’s data tools are aligned to and consistent with its curriculum. The district needs to —
The D.C. schools have a large and longstanding early childhood program that needs to be upgraded and tied to reading and math reforms at the early elementary school level. The district needs to —
Overhaul the literacy component of the district’s preschool and full-day kindergarten programs and align them instructionally with the full-day kindergarten program.
Increase the required amount of time spent each day on language arts and math.
Standardize the district’s special education referral process so that it is not driven by subjective judgments and redefine the criteria for placements.
Differentiate the instructional program offered in the district’s summer school program so that it addresses the varying needs of students by subject, level of performance, and skill level.
Begin the process of increasing the rigor of the district’s high school courses.
D.C has a number of schools that are unusually low-performing. Many urban school systems across the country are learning that they can improve their overall performance by targeting efforts on boosting the performance of its lowest achieving schools. The district needs to —
The District of Columbia Public Schools is governed by a school board of nine members, five of which are elected and four of which are appointed by the Mayor of the City. The President of the Board is elected citywide. All members serve four year terms. The board meets twice monthly and operates four committees, which meet once a month: Committee on Facilities and Finance; the Committee on Teaching and Learning; the Committee on Special Education and Student Services; and the Committee on Operations and Vision. Each committee has a chair and sometimes a co-chair.
Over the past twenty years the district has had seven superintendents or about one new CEO every 2.9 years.
| Floretta McKenzie | 1981-1988 |
| Andrew Jenkins | 1988-1990 |
| William Brown (Acting) | 1990-1991 |
| Franklin Smith | 1991-1996 |
| Julius Becton | 1996-1998 |
| Arlene Ackerman | 1998-2000 |
| Paul Vance | 2000-2003 |
| Elfreda Massie (Acting) | 2003 |
Elfreda Massie was appointed Acting Superintendent in November 2003, when Paul Vance announced his resignation. The school board is currently discussing the process it will use to appoint a permanent superintendent.
The governance structure of the school system has undergone a number of revisions over the last several years. The city was placed under the aegis of the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority (Control Board) in 1996. The Control Board named a Board of Trustees in the same year that operated for a time side-by-side the eleven-member elected school board. (The elected board had three at-large members and eight members elected by ward.) The Board of Trustees was replaced on January 1, 2000, by the current board.
The DC Public Schools enrolled about 68,449 students in the 2001-2002 school year, the most recent year on which comparable national data are available for other major cities. (Statistics for the current school year, 2003-2004, show that the district enrolls 65,099 students.) Some 60.9 percent of the district’s students were eligible for a free or reduced price lunch in 2001-2002, compared with about 39.7 percent nationwide. (See Table 1.)
About 84.4 percent of DC’s enrollment is African American, compared with about 16.9 percent nationwide. In addition, about 12 percent of the district’s enrollment is composed of English Language Learners and about 18.4 percent are students with disabilities. The district enrolls a high percentage of students in both cases than national averages. In general, the D.C. Public Schools look more like other major urban school systems across the country than they look like the national average.2
| D.C. Schools | Great City Schools | National | |
| Enrollment | 68,449 | 7,274,284 | 48,521,731 |
| % African American | 84.4 | 37.0 | 16.9 |
| % Hispanic | 9.4 | 32.7 | 18.5 |
| % White | .6 | 23.1 | 58.9 |
| % Other | 1.7 | 7.0 | 5.7 |
| % Free/Reduced Price Lunch | 60.9 | 62.4 | 39.7 |
| % English Language Learners | 12.0 | 17.0 | 7.9 |
| % with Disabilities | 18.4 | 12.9 | 13.3 |
| Pupil/Teacher Ratio | 13.9 | 17.0 | 15.9 |
| Number of Schools | 165 | 10,270 | 96,193 |
| Students per School | 415 | 708 | 504 |
| Current Spending per Pupil4 | $10,874 | $7,200 | $6,991 |
The average school in D.C., moreover, enrolls about 415 students, significantly smaller than the average city (708 students per school) or national averages (504 students per school). The district also has more teachers per pupil than either the national average or the Great City Schools average. Finally, National Center for Educational Statistics data indicate that D.C.’s current per pupil expenditure was $10,836 in FY2000.
The Stanford Achievement Tests (Ninth Edition) in reading and math have been administered to all district students, grades 1-11, since 1999. Student reading scores in grades 1, 3, and 4 showed small increases between 1999 and 2003, with the greatest gains among first graders, who improved 8.6 percentage points over the period. Reading scores among third graders increased 0.5 percentage points over the five years and scores among fourth graders improved by 1.1 percentage points.
Reading scores for second graders and students in grades 5-11 decreased over the five year period. Scores among second graders decreased by 1.0 percentage point. And reading scores among fifth graders dropped by 2.1 percentage points; among sixth graders declined by 1.7 percentage points; among seventh graders slumped by 3.6 percentage points; eighth graders by 6.4 percentage points; ninth graders by 2.6 points; tenth graders by 0.5 points; and eleventh graders by 1.5 percentage points. Fewer than 25 percent of D.C. students in grades 5-11 scored at or above proficiency levels on the SAT9. (Graphs 1-2)
| 1999 | 2000 | 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | |
| 1st Grade | 42.2 | 43.1 | 45.3 | 49.0 | 50.8 |
| 2nd Grade | 26.0 | 27.9 | 26.1 | 29.2 | 25.0 |
| 3rd Grade | 30.4 | 33.0 | 27.7 | 29.1 | 30.9 |
| 4th Grade | 28.3 | 31.3 | 27.5 | 29.7 | 29.4 |
| 5th Grade | 24.3 | 25.9 | 21.6 | 22.6 | 22.2 |
| 1999 | 2000 | 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | |
| 6th Grade | 25.9 | 31.2 | 25.4 | 25.0 | 24.2 |
| 7th Grade | 24.5 | 24.9 | 21.8 | 22.2 | 20.9 |
| 8th Grade | 29.3 | 28.4 | 26.9 | 23.5 | 22.9 |
| 9th Grade | 16.4 | 14.7 | 16.8 | 15.4 | 13.8 |
| 10th Grade | 13.4 | 15.5 | 13.9 | 15.6 | 12.9 |
| 11th Grade | 13.1 | 12.7 | 13.9 | 13.2 | 11.6 |
The trends are slightly more promising in math. Over the five year period, math scores on the SAT-9 improved in every grade tested, except the eleventh. The greatest math gains were made among first graders, as was the case in reading. Students in grades 1-5 generally made greater gains in math than students in grades 6-10. Students in grade 11 declined.
Math scores in first grade increased by 13.0 percentage points between 1999 to 2003; second grade scores increased by 7.1 percentage points; third grade scores increased by 9.7 percentage points; fourth grade scores increased by 6.2 percentage points; fifth grade by 4.2 percentage points; sixth grade by 3.0 percentage points; seventh grade by 2.4 points; eighth grade by 1.0 point; ninth grade by 1.5 points; and tenth grade by 0.7 points.
Math scores among eleventh graders declined by 3.4 percentage points between 1999 and 2003. Fewer than 25 percent of D.C. students scored at or above the proficiency level in math in grades 6-11. (Graphs 3-4)
| 1999 | 2000 | 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | |
| 1st Grade | 38.6 | 46.9 | 47.7 | 50.4 | 51.6 |
| 2nd Grade | 29.9 | 36.3 | 34.7 | 38.2 | 37.0 |
| 3rd Grade | 25.4 | 33.5 | 30.8 | 30.8 | 35.1 |
| 4th Grade | 25.8 | 32.2 | 28.8 | 31.1 | 32.0 |
| 5th Grade | 20.8 | 24.1 | 22.9 | 23.1 | 25.0 |
| 1999 | 2000 | 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | |
| 6th Grade | 20.3 | 29.4 | 23.3 | 22.4 | 23.3 |
| 7th Grade | 11.0 | 13.6 | 11.7 | 11.8 | 13.4 |
| 8th Grade | 11.0 | 14.5 | 13.2 | 12.8 | 12.0 |
| 9th Grade | 12.1 | 13.6 | 13.3 | 13.2 | 13.6 |
| 10th Grade | 5.4 | 8.3 | 7.6 | 8.8 | 6.1 |
| 11th Grade | 11.0 | 10.2 | 10.7 | 8.4 | 7.6 |
SAT-9 trends are also available by race. The gaps in reading scores between racial groups are generally large, ranging from about 15 points to around 74 points depending on grade and subject. The gaps between white and African American students ranged from 36.5 percentage points in the first grade 1 to 70.4 percentage points in the tenth grade in 2003. The gaps between white and Latino students ranged from 37.5 percentage points in first grade to 72.3 percentage points in tenth grade. (Tables 2-3)
| 1999 | 2000 | 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | Change in Gap | |
| Grade 1 | 47.0 | 40.4 | 44.0 | 39.5 | 36.5* | -10.5 |
| Grade 2 | 61.4 | 55.7 | 59.4 | 54.4 | 64.0* | 2.5 |
| Grade 3 | 66.3 | 56.5 | 60.1 | 64.3 | 58.8 | -7.5 |
| Grade 4 | 68.6 | 61.4 | 65.1 | 62.7 | 64.4 | -4.2 |
| Grade 5 | 70.2 | 67.6 | 65.2 | 65.3 | 61.3 | -8.9 |
| Grade 6 | 72.6 | 60.0 | 69.2 | 63.5 | 63.9 | -8.7 |
| Grade 7 | 66.0 | 67.5 | 64.8 | 66.0 | 64.1 | -1.9 |
| Grade 8 | 63.2 | 54.4 | 59.3 | 64.2 | 65.9 | 2.8 |
| Grade 9 | 66.9 | 68.6 | 61.4 | 66.2 | 71.4 | 4.5 |
| Grade 10 | 70.3 | 64.1 | 69.3 | 69.4 | 70.4 | 0.1 |
| Grade 11 | 56.6 | 67.4 | 57.1 | 66.9 | 65.7* | 9.1 |
*The reader should interpret with caution since fewer than 100 white students were tested in these grades in 2003.
| 1999 | 2000 | 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | Change in Gap | |
| Grade 1 | 38.1 | 48.7 | 39.7 | 38.7 | 37.5* | -0.6 |
| Grade 2 | 31.9 | 54.0 | 61.0 | 55.7 | 70.1* | 38.2 |
| Grade 3 | 50.1 | 64.1 | 63.5 | 70.9 | 60.3 | 10.2 |
| Grade 4 | 54.9 | 60.3 | 64.8 | 64.5 | 67.8 | 13.0 |
| Grade 5 | 57.0 | 71.7 | 63.6 | 64.2 | 65.6 | 8.6 |
| Grade 6 | 71.8 | 64.9 | 69.2 | 59.2 | 64.4 | -7.4 |
| Grade 7 | 62.5 | 68.3 | 61.7 | 64.2 | 59.1 | -3.4 |
| Grade 8 | 62.5 | 58.8 | 57.7 | 61.9 | 64.9 | 2.4 |
| Grade 9 | 66.9 | 70.6 | 65.2 | 66.1 | 74.6 | 7.7 |
| Grade 10 | 64.1 | 68.4 | 71.8 | 70.1 | 72.3 | 8.3 |
| Grade 11 | 57.0 | 68.3 | 62.4 | 66.9 | 69.7* | 12.7 |
Between 1999 and 2003, the gaps improved in some cases and worsened in others. For instance, the reading gap between white and African American students decreased in grades 1 and 3-7; and the reading gap between white and Latino students decreased in grades 1 and 6-7. All other grades showed the gaps becoming wider.
Gaps in math scores are similar to those in reading. The difference in math scores between white and African American students in 2003 ranged from 28.4 percentage points among first graders to 69.8 percentage points among ninth graders. The gaps between white and Latino students ranged from 36.9 percentage points in first grade to 72.1 percentage points in ninth grade. (Tables 4-5)
| 1999 | 2000 | 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | Change in Gap | |
| Grade 1 | 50.5 | 42.6 | 44.1 | 40.8 | 28.4* | -22.1 |
| Grade 2 | 56.7 | 55.2 | 54.0 | 48.9 | 51.0* | -5.7 |
| Grade 3 | 56.1 | 56.1 | 58.9 | 60.2 | 54.1 | -2.0 |
| Grade 4 | 65.9 | 55.8 | 62.8 | 57.8 | 58.8 | -7.1 |
| Grade 5 | 69.2 | 69.1 | 63.8 | 67.7 | 61.7 | -7.5 |
| Grade 6 | 71.4 | 58.9 | 67.3 | 62.1 | 64.2 | -7.2 |
| Grade 7 | 67.6 | 70.6 | 70.6 | 73.7 | 64.7 | -2.9 |
| Grade 8 | 65.6 | 66.6 | 70.7 | 71.7 | 71.5 | 5.9 |
| Grade 9 | 60.3 | 65.9 | 65.7 | 71.5 | 69.8 | 9.5 |
| Grade 10 | 54.7 | 55.4 | 60.5 | 59.7 | 50.5 | -4.2 |
| Grade 11 | 48.3 | 63.0 | 51.7 | 55.2 | 57.8* | 9.5 |
| 1999 | 2000 | 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | Change in Gap | |
| Grade 1 | 35.9 | 48.4 | 40.0 | 44.9 | 36.9* | 1.0 |
| Grade 2 | 23.8 | 52.7 | 53.2 | 47.0 | 63.0* | 39.2 |
| Grade 3 | 38.6 | 56.5 | 55.0 | 62.4 | 47.6 | 9.0 |
| Grade 4 | 48.6 | 53.9 | 55.5 | 53.4 | 56.4 | 7.8 |
| Grade 5 | 53.9 | 67.2 | 56.1 | 59.3 | 61.6 | 7.7 |
| Grade 6 | 60.9 | 59.2 | 62.4 | 55.9 | 56.3 | -4.5 |
| Grade 7 | 66.9 | 71.0 | 65.1 | 68.4 | 58.4 | -8.5 |
| Grade 8 | 65.6 | 65.9 | 69.2 | 65.8 | 69.9 | 4.3 |
| Grade 9 | 58.2 | 70.4 | 66.0 | 72.0 | 72.1 | 13.9 |
| Grade 10 | 50.8 | 55.9 | 60.8 | 57.9 | 49.9 | -0.8 |
| Grade 11 | 43.7 | 58.0 | 54.3 | 54.3 | 56.3* | 12.7 |
The final indicator on which we have achievement data for the D.C. Public Schools is NAEP, the National Assessment of Educational Progress. The D.C. schools have been participating in NAEP for a number of years, but it is only recently when the district’s scores could be compared with those of other major cities. The results are consistent with data from the SAT-9. The D.C. schools scored lower in 2003 than the nation or any other city reported in reading and math. (Graphs 5-8.)
Finally, the SAT scores for the district have declined somewhat over the last couple of years, as the numbers of students tested increased from 1,684 in 2000-2001 to 1,994 in 2002-03. Only four of the district’s 18 high schools have average SAT verbal and math scores that exceed 400.6 (Table 6.)
| Number Tested | SAT Mean Scores Verbal | Math | Combined | |
| 1999-00 | 414 | 408 | 822 | |
| 2000-01 | 1,684 | 402 | 396 | 798 |
| 2001-02 | 1,730 | 400 | 396 | 796 |
| 2002-03 | 1,994 | 404 | 396 | 800 |
The D.C. school district has 165 schools, 129 of which are Title I schools that serve 42,940 of the systems’ 65,099 students. All but three of these Title I schools are “schoolwide” schools. Data from the 2002-2003 testing cycle indicate that the district did not have any schools that were in school improvement (level I) under No Child Left Behind, but fifteen schools that were in school improvement (level II), meaning that they will be required to offer choice and supplemental services. No D.C. schools are in corrective action or restructuring status. (See Table 7.)
This chapter summarizes the findings and recommendations of the Strategic Support Team.7 Our findings are subdivided into ten subsections. These subsections are defined around themes that the Council of the Great City Schools has identified as critical to the academic improvement of urban school systems nationwide.8 The themes include political preconditions and governance, goal setting, accountability, curriculum, professional development and teacher quality, reform press (or the ability to get reforms into the classrooms), assessments and use of data, low-performing schools, elementary schools, and middle and high schools. The Team’s findings are further subdivided into positive areas and areas of serious concern.
The recommendations to accelerate student performance and to improve systemwide achievement are presented in the same categories in which the team presented its findings. The proposals are based on practices that research is demonstrating make a difference in improving student performance systemwide in urban school districts and what the Team believes that D.C. needs to do to be more like districts that are getting strong achievement gains.
Urban school districts that have improved significantly over the last several years have a number of things in common. These commonalities also set them apart from urban school systems that have not seen significant improvement. One of these key features involves the political unity of the school board, its focus on student achievement, and its ability to work with the administration on the improvement of academic performance. The Strategic Support Team did not conduct a special analysis of the board or its governing structure, but did observe a number of things that bear on the ability of the district to improve student achievement. The Team found things that were worthy of recognition and things that appear to hamper the district’s instructional reforms.
1. Convene the school board at the earliest possible date (probably in retreat form) and begin establishing with the Acting Superintendent a clear vision for improved academic achievement for the students in the D.C. schools. The board should charge the Acting Superintendent with drafting a preliminary instructional plan based on this shared vision that begins to put the board’s broad goals into place. The board should review the draft plans prepared by the staff until it is in general accord with the academic direction of the school system. (A1)
This process need not occur in a single meeting. A series of discussions that are facilitated by an external person that the board trusts and respects might be more in keeping with the scope of the task.10 The board should also come to some agreement about the extent of the community input it will seek. Some districts hold community forums, summits, or town hall-style meetings. Others conduct hearings or school-based forums. Others handle the task internally. No method is necessarily better than another.
Finally, the Mayor and the city counsel have a role in this instructional vision setting process, regardless of the governance discussion. The school board should find a way to ensure that the perspective of the Mayor and City Counsel are obtained.11
Urban school systems that have seen significant gains in student achievement often see this improvement because they have a clear sense of where they are going. This clarity is exhibited in academic goals for the district at large and for individual schools. These goals are measurable and are accompanied by specific timelines for when specific targets are to be attained. The Strategic Support Team looked specifically at the goalsetting process in the D.C. Public Schools.
It is not sufficient for a school system, particularly an urban one, to have goals if no one is held accountable for attaining them. Urban school systems that have seen substantial improvement have devised specific methods for holding themselves responsible for student achievement, usually starting at the top of the system and working down through central office staff and principals. The Strategic Support Team observed the following things about accountability in the D.C. Public Schools.
Urban school districts that have seen substantial improvement in student achievement have a curriculum that is focused, coherent, and clearly articulated. Also, these districts have core supplemental and intervention materials that schools can use. The Strategic Support Team looked at the curriculum that the district was using, particularly to teach reading and math, and found a number of things, positive and negative.
(a) Voyager Universal Literacy, $2.0 million
(b) RealWorld Schools, $1.0 million
(c) Kid Biz, $300 thousand
(d) Edutest, --
- Individual and small group tutoring before, during, and/or after school. Tutorials should be based on individual child assessment data and item analysis of specific reading skill levels. Consider paying teachers to tutor students before, after, or during school (during their preparation periods) and using community volunteers.
- Prevention and intervention services in order to cut down on the rate of placements in special education. These services would provide specific group-oriented intensive reading interventions for students who are at risk of not reading.
- Professional development and training for teachers on specific interventions, lessons plans, data use, and reading strategies for children at varying academic levels. (See subsequent section on professional development.)
Adopt a single, uniform math program for systemwide adoption and implementation.28 (D25)
Ensure that the math program is as closely tailored to align with NAEP math frameworks as possible. (D26)
Select a small number of interventions for use before and afterschool, on Saturdays, and over the summer that will address skill deficits of students.29 (D27)
One of the other features that improving urban school systems have in common is the quality and cohesiveness of their professional development programs. They are often defined centrally, built around the district’s articulated curriculum, delivered uniformly across the district, and differentiated in ways that address the specific needs of teachers. These faster-improving districts also find ways to ensure that some of their better teachers are working in schools with the greatest needs.
- Short term and long term training goals and objectives.
- Standards and new core reading and math curricula (then supplemental materials and interventions) by grade level.
- Specific follow-up and support components.
- Attendance requirements and consequences for not attending.
- Expectations for teacher performance and monitoring.
- Differentiation by teacher experience, content area, and grade.
- Use of pacing guides.
- Use of supplemental materials and intervention strategies.
- Use of imbedded or interim assessment data and how to modify instruction and interventions based on data.
- Lesson plans.
- Formative evaluation of professional development quality.
- Evaluation that is tied to student performance.
Urban schools that are improving student achievement are not waiting for their leadership-initiated reforms to trickle down into the schools and classrooms. Instead, they have figured out specific ways to drive instructional reforms into the schools and classrooms, and they find ways to monitor the implementation of reforms to ensure their integrity and comprehensiveness. The Strategic Support Team looked at ways that the D.C. Public Schools press their reforms into the schools.
- Charge reading and math coaches with working with teachers on instructional planning, conducting “walk throughs,” monitoring implementation of the new reading and math curriculum, and assessing progress on school improvement plans.
- Establish weekly contacts with reading and math coaches to maintain focus, quality, and direction. Regular contacts could be done regionally, by grade level or subject area (reading and/or math).
- Establish a process for evaluating the effectiveness of reading and math coaches.
One of the most noticeable features of faster-improving urban school systems involves their regular assessment of student progress and their use of data to decide on the nature and placement of intervention strategies and professional development before the end of each school year. Data were used, moreover, to monitor school and district progress and to hold people accountable for results. The Strategic Support Team looked specifically at the D.C. schools’ student assessment program, how it linked with the state testing effort, and how the district was using data to improve its achievement.
- Begin the process with in-house staff and curriculum groups and then retain outside assessment consultants if necessary.
- Ensure that assessment results are returned to the district or scored by the district within ten days to two weeks after testing.
- Make sure that results are disaggregated by school, group, classroom, and student in a way that identifies deficits in specified skills.
- Charge the instruction department with analyzing benchmark test results and deciding where and what kind of support and/or specific interventions are needed by school, subject, grade, group, and classroom. (This process should involve curriculum specialists, assessment staff, the superintendent, coaches, monitoring staff, and early childhood specialists.)
- Provide additional professional development and other supports to teachers who appear to have repeated difficulty teaching specific skills to students.
- Disseminate results back to schools and train principals, coaches, and teachers how to interpret and use results. (Part of the school-based professional development days each quarter could be used for this purpose.)
- Secure one of the state criterion-referenced tests that are generally aligned with or consistent with NAEP frameworks in reading and math. Examples would include North Carolina, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Ohio (grades 4-8) and Delaware (math). Louisiana, Ohio, and Delaware have similar item types. This would then require customizing the exams to be as consistent with the district’s curriculum as possible.
- Contract with Achieve, Measured Progress, Inc. (Progress Towards Standards), or one of the standard test developers to custom-make a criterion-referenced exam that is consistent with the NAEP frameworks and the district’s reading and math curriculum.
- Supplement and/or customize an off-the-shelf norm-referenced exam linked to NAEP standardized that could yield results by performance levels.
It is often difficult for urban school districts to improve everything at once. The districts experiencing success in improving student achievement did not take on the entire system at once. Instead, these districts started their reforms at the early elementary grades and worked up to the middle and high school grades. The Strategic Support Team looked at the sequence of reforms in the D.C. schools and their focus on the elementary schools.
- Demonstrate knowledge of 100 “high frequency words” at pre-k, kindergarten, 1st and subsequent grades.
- Identify all 26 letters (upper and lower case) by the end of pre-k.
- Identify at least 13 phonemic sounds by the end of kindergarten.
- Demonstrate print awareness by the end of pre-k.
- Read 60 words per minute by the end of 1st grade.
While many urban school systems that are seeing gains in student performance focus initially on their elementary schools, they do not ignore their middle and high schools. There is not a national consensus on how to improve high schools, particularly in the nation’s urban schools, but the faster moving districts have put a number of tactics in place to ensure that students who did not learn the basic skills in the elementary schools do so before they graduate. The Strategic Support Team looked at the strategies that the D.C. schools were using to improve its middle and high schools.
- Measurable objectives on dropout rates, attendance, course enrollment patterns, course completing, PSAT and SAT participation rates, and high school graduation rates.
- Measurable goals for increasing the number of ninth grade students enrolled in Algebra and decreasing the number of ninth graders in pre-Algebra courses.
- Goals and timelines for placing AP or IB courses in every high school.
- Strategy for tracking and evaluating the success of the reforms.
Finally, urban school systems that are seeing substantial improvement in student performance have a targeted strategy to intervene in and boost achievement in their lowest-performing schools. This is often done differently from city to city, but it is done in almost every case. The Strategic Support Team looked at D.C.’s strategies to boost achievement in its lowest achieving schools.
The Strategic Support Team working on this project found talented and committed people working in the D.C. Public Schools. They are making an effort to make things better for children in the city. Their work is done outside the public’s view and without much recognition or acknowledgement. Their efforts are also made without much support from a system that is happy to take credit for the work but which otherwise acts indifferently towards their efforts.
The system, for its part, doesn’t really work like a system. It is too fractured and unfocused to be characterized as a functioning organization with a focused instructional direction or strategy.
The district’s schools do not have to be this way, however. Any number of major urban school systems across the country are pulling themselves together and beginning to improve student achievement. None of these urban school systems can be said to have attained perfection. But they have taken similar steps that have made their headway possible.
We have borrowed from the lessons learned in these cities to inform the recommendations we are making to the D.C schools. We are proposing that the school district and leadership create a unified instructional direction for itself and its children. We are proposing that fractured instructional practices currently being used be replaced by a cohesive and comprehensive reading and math plan. We are proposing that the district be clear with its principals, teachers, and staff what it expects children to know and be able to do. We are proposing that the central office be reoriented to provide convincing support to its schools. And we are proposing that the district’s instructional efforts be guided by data collected, analyzed, and used before it is too late in the school year to do anything about the results.
The Council of the Great City Schools and its Strategic Support Team has recommended that the school district’s instructional program be overhauled and replaced with a system that has a unified direction, clear goals, strong accountability, cohesive curriculum, consistent professional development, faithful program implementation, and useful and regular data. This means that the district needs to—
The Council, in summary, is suggesting that the school district take responsibility for the instruction of its children. The district should establish its instructional and professional development program, since they shape the school system’s bottom line, student achievement, but retain decentralized staffing and budgeting.
The Strategic Support Team has anchored its recommendations on NAEP. The district — in its role as a state and local school system — has an opportunity to do something that most cities cannot do directly. NAEP is the most trusted and wellrespected measurement tool that the nation has. It is not flawless, but it serves as the instrument that many observers in Congress, the national press, and the community trust to give an objective assessment of how the nation’s schools are doing. The D.C. schools take NAEP as part of the national assessment process every two years and as part of the Trial Urban District Assessment (TUDA). The school district should treat NAEP like the states will eventually have to under No Child Left Behind, that is, as the gauge against which it ultimately measures its progress. The D.C. schools should then replace its SAT-9 test with a criterion-referenced tool that is consistent with NAEP and points toward it.
The restructuring of the instructional program in the D.C. schools will not be easy, of course. In addition to its requiring a lot of hard work, the reforms will be resisted. Some will complain that the reforms are being structured from “the top down.” This observation will be partially correct. But the district, like any large, complex organization, has to take control of its bottom line, student achievement. The current decentralized system allows everyone to make up their own instructional program. It has been an abysmal failure.
Some observers will also object to the reforms because they take away the creativity and decisionmaking authority of teachers. This complaint will also be partially correct. But we would argue that the current level of creativity and instructional decisionmaking has not produced much for students citywide. The creativity of some teachers may work in their individual classrooms, but the goal of the district should be to raise student performance for all children regardless of the classroom they are in. Teachers in other cities have often discovered that they were more effective when they were all pulling in the same direction and could work with each other on the most promising approaches to implementing the curriculum.
There will be skepticism as well from school level staff — and others outside the school system — that the central office can redefine itself to support principals and teachers at the building level. The skepticism is well-deserved. The central office has not been an effective instrument of progress or support to school staff. Many would argue that it is the problem and not the solution. Others would argue, however, that the central office and its leadership in the D.C. schools have no option but to lead change.
There will also be controversy if staff members are removed. But if the superintendent is going to be held explicitly accountable for the academic performance of the children in the district, she or he should have the latitude to pick his or her own team without board interference. This will also be true for principals. They should be allowed to choose their own teams if they are going to be held accountable for the results.
Moreover, there will be complaints that the curriculum will become too narrow. This is a legitimate concern that the district needs to guard against. There is no simple remedy to this problem. But it is important that students master the basic skills, receive grade-level instruction, and see opportunities for acceleration, something that is not currently happening. Eventually, instruction will not become narrower but broader and more differentiated.
Finally, the district will be faced with distractions and fatigue as it works to reform. There will be forces at work that will attempt to take the district off-message. Staying focused on raising student achievement for a prolonged period will be critical if instructional reforms are to work. As the district starts to see progress, it ought to celebrate every small victory. Anyone who has ever tried to remake an urban school system knows that it is not easy or fast.
Anyone who has ever done this work also knows that improving urban education is possible. Every city that has chosen to take the steeper path towards reform and improvement has not regretted it. Student achievement is getting better and the public’s confidence is growing stronger.
There is no reason to believe that D.C. can’t get the same results.
| Recommendations | Six Mos | One Year | Two Years | Three Years |
|
1. Convene the school board at the earliest
possible date (probably in retreat form) and begin establishing with the Acting Superintendent a clear
vision for improved academic achievement for the students in the D.C. schools. The board should
charge the Acting Superintendent with drafting a preliminary instructional plan based on this shared
vision that begins to put the board’s broad goals
into place. The board should review the draft plans prepared by the staff until it is in general accord
with the academic direction of the school system. (A1)
This process need not occur in a single meeting. A series of discussions that are facilitated by an external person that the board trusts and respects might be more in keeping with the scope of the task. The board should also come to some agreement about the extent of the community input it will seek. Some districts hold community forums, summits, or town hall-style meetings. Others conduct hearings or school-based forums. Others handle the task internally. No method is necessarily better than another. Finally, the Mayor and the city counsel have a role in this instructional vision setting process, regardless of the governance discussion. The school board should find a way to ensure that the perspective of the Mayor and City Counsel are obtained. |
v | |||
|
2. Charge the Acting Superintendent with developing
a concrete, five-year instructional plan for the improvement of academic performance in the district schools. This plan should go back to the board for approval and should be reviewed on a regular basis throughout the year. (A2) |
v | |||
| 3. Articulate in the strongest possible terms — at the school board and superintendent leadership levels — a clear sense of urgency for and commitment to raising student performance for all the children in the D.C. Public Schools. (A3) | v | |||
| 4. Begin the search for a permanent Superintendent for the district’s schools (including consideration of Elfreda Massie) who is in general agreement with the vision and broad goals articulated by the board, rather than searching without a vision for a superintendent who brings his or her own. (A4) | v | |||
| 5. Revise the details and tactics — but not the
overall goals — of the instructional plan once a new Superintendent has been retained. The school board and the Superintendent need to work out the final details together and be in harmony about the direction of the school district and the overall theory of action. (A5) |
v | |||
| 6. Devise and roll out a communications and engagement plan to the community for discussion. It will be important that the school board, the Mayor, city counsel, the superintendent, Congress, the U.S. Department, and others be willing to speak out in favor of the instructional plan that they have had a hand in developing. (The district also needs a more convincing plan for how it is going to strengthen communications between the central office and the individual schools.) (A6) | v | |||
| 7. Begin restructuring the agenda of the school board meetings over time to ensure that some portion of each gathering is devoted to an update on the status of the instructional strategic plan, on efforts to boost student performance, and on the results of those efforts. (A7) | v | |||
| 8. Conduct a formal review of the plan at least annually and modify it as necessary. (A8) | v | |||
| 9. Charge the Superintendent with naming a “Project Management Committee” composed of senior staff members who will be responsible for working through the details of the instructional plan, monitoring its status, and reporting weekly on its progress. The Committee might be composed of the Superintendent’s cabinet, but may include various task forces and work groups focusing on specific components or themes raised in this report. (B1) | v | |||
| 10. Charge the Superintendent with reorienting all central office staff around the goal of raising student achievement. The Superintendent might want to schedule site visits to cities that have seen gains in student reading and math achievement (e.g., Charlotte-Mecklenburg, Norfolk, Sacramento, Long Beach, Houston, Fort Worth, Boston, and others.) We also encourage the district to talk with the CEO, board, and staff of the Detroit Public Schools. (B2) | v | |||
| 11. Ensure that the new instructional plan has both districtwide and school-by-school academic achievement targets for at least reading and math. The goals at both the district level and at the schools need to be measurable, aligned with the Adequate Yearly Progress benchmarks articulated under No Child Left Behind, and accompanied by timelines and interim benchmarks. (B3) | v | |||
| 12. Make certain that the new instructional plan includes indicators such as the SAT, NAEP, special education referral rates, attendance, graduation rates, AP course taking, numbers of students taking core sequences of English and math (including Algebra), as well as scores on the district’s regular achievement test. (Additional discussion of testing is found in section G of this chapter.) Targets should be disaggregated by groups articulated in NCLB (i.e., race, language, disability, and income.) (B4) | v | |||
| 13. Include in the plan the specifics that any good strategic plan has — staff responsibilities, budgets, action steps, monitoring process, and evaluation process. (The district’s Business Plan is a good starting place.) The district might want to look at the “balanced score card” method that the Charlotte Mecklenburg schools use to track the progress of their academic reforms and their results. (B5) | v | |||
|
14. Begin building the school-by-school academic targets by student group into the School
Improvement Plans that each school is required to develop and reflects districtwide goals. Like the districtwide goals, the school goals and their interim targets should be measurable, consistent with NCLB’s AYP targets, and be accompanied by specific timelines. Each school improvement plan should be aligned to and roll into the district’s plan and allow the system to meet it broader targets. (B6) |
v | |||
| 15. Charge the district’s individual department heads with developing unit plans that are consistent with and aligned with the larger district instructional plan. (B7) | v | |||
| 16. Put all districtwide and school-by-school goals, targets, and benchmarks on a single wall-sized chart so the Superintendent and the Project Management Committee can closely monitor the progress of reforms in the district. (B8) | v | |||
| 17. Encourage the school board to establish a process of self-evaluation tied to the attainment of the goals they have approved as part of the strategic instructional plan. (C1) | v | |||
| 18. Place the superintendent on a performance contract tied to the district’s academic goals and targets. (C2) | v | |||
| 19. Place all senior staff, particularly instructional staff, on performance contracts tied to attainment of districtwide achievement goals. (C3) | v | |||
| 20. Place all principals on performance contracts tied to their individual school-by-school targets developed as part of the strategic instructional plan. Principals should retain authority to hire staff and develop budgets around broad instructional priorities. This will mean overhauling the principal evaluation process to put more — not less — emphasis on student achievement. (C4) | v | |||
| 21. Rebuild the district’s school improvement planning process to ensure that the plans not only have the school-by-school targets but also include disaggregated student performance data, teacher evaluation data, activities designed to attain goals, extra professional development requirements, strategies for improving parent involvement, and item analysis of reading and math performance data for each student group. (C5) | v | |||
| 22. Consider the use of bonuses and other incentives for performance that meets or exceeds district and school targets. Incentives do not necessarily need to be financial. The district might consider promotions, stipends for extra classroom materials, professional memberships, attendance at national conferences, public recognition or awards for excellence or progress towards excellence, and other possibilities. (C6) | v | |||
| 23. Revisit all staff roles and responsibilities and revise relevant job descriptions as necessary to emphasize the goal of raising student achievement. (C7) | v | |||
| 24. Charge the superintendent or Chief Academic Officer with meeting regularly with Assistant Superintendents and principals on school-by-school academic data and improvement plans. (C8) | v | |||
| 25. Restructure the school board’s procedures for requesting information from staff. Board members currently seek out individual staff members from whom they request information and data. We would encourage the board to send all requests for information and data through the Superintendent or his/her designee. Board members should receive status reports on their requests if they are not responded to within a reasonable time. Copies of responses should go to all board members. (C9) | v | |||
| 26. Recentralize school district instructional decisions about curriculum and professional development. (D1) | v | |||
| 27. Consider a new organizational structure for the curriculum and instructional staff in the central office. (See chart below.) The new organizational structure includes a temporary “Reading Consultant,” reporting to either the Superintendent or the Chief Academic Officer, whose responsibilities would include overseeing reading reforms, and an Assistant Superintendent for Research, Testing, and Evaluation. (D2) | v | |||
| 28. Hire a Reading and a Math Director (reporting to the Assistant Superintendent for Instruction) and five reading specialists (three elementary, one middle, and one high school) and three math specialists (two elementary and one secondary) at the central office to provide professional development, school improvement planning assistance, data review, coaching, and lesson plan development directly to schools. Specialists would report to their respective Directors. The district should be able to pay for both of these positions out of its federal Title I allocations. (D3) | v | |||
| 29. Place a systemwide moratorium on the acquisition of any additional instructional programs and materials. The district should do a systemwide inventory of all the programs that it has. (D4) | v | |||
| 30. Begin phasing out all Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration models currently being used throughout the district. (D5) | v | |||
| 31. Develop specific and concrete criteria for the selecting, evaluating, and retaining all new models, materials, packages, and programs districtwide. (D6) | v | |||
| 32. Limit the site-by-site acquisition of curricula and materials. There is no hard and fast rule about how other cities does this. The district might decide that there are circumstances or schools that ought to have more flexibility in purchasing goods and services. Some districts grant this flexibility for schools that are achieving well on their own; other districts would argue granting flexibility for some but not all schools creates inequities or the perception of inequities. Either way, the completely decentralized system now in place in the D.C. does not appear to work for students. (D7) | v | |||
| 33. Consider having an external review and upgrade the district’s academic standards. The district might consider Achieve ( achieve.org) to do this review. The SST would also suggest that the overhaul of the standards be designed around NAEP frameworks in reading, writing, math, and science. (D8) | v | |||
| 34. Begin revising and upgrading the district’s curriculum (first in reading, then math) to ensure general alignment with NAEP frameworks (grades 4, 8, and 12) and with other assessments the district uses. The curriculum also needs to ensure grade-by grade articulation. (D9) | v | |||
| 35. Approve a formal school board policy requiring two and a half hours per day for language arts (reading, writing, speech) and ninety minutes a day for math, grades K-6. (D10) | v | |||
| 36. Develop a specific plan for rolling out instructional reforms so that central office staff, principals, teachers, schools, and external stakeholders know what to expect. The district should have many of these reforms in place for the 2004-05 school year. (D11) | v | |||
| 37. Revisit the district’s new Business Plan to make sure that the system’s budget coincides with the emerging instructional priorities. (D12) | v | |||
|
38. Define more centrally how federal Title I funds
will be used to support districtwide instructional priorities in reading and math. (D13) |
v | |||
| 39. Develop a comprehensive reading plan that includes a core program, supplemental materials, and interventions. (Develop as a component of the overall instructional plan.) (D14) | v | |||
| 40. Adopt a single, uniform core reading program for systemwide adoption and implementation. The SST would suggest using either the newest Houghton Mifflin reading series (Nation’s Choice) since the earlier version is already widely available in the schools; Open Court (SRA McGraw Hill); or Trophies (Harcourt Brace). If the district considers another package, it should ensure that it incorporates the components and instructional methodologies (direct, explicit, and systematic) of reading identified by the National Reading Panel as critical to reading success. (D15) | v | |||
| 41. Actively involve a committee of stakeholders for providing input in the selection of a reading adoption. The committee should include teachers and external reading experts. The ultimate selection, however, should rest with the superintendent. (D16) | v | |||
| 42. Reanalyze districtwide and school-by-school reading and math data to ensure that the new reading program and its interventions are targeted on the skill deficits identified. (D17) | v | |||
| 43. Begin revising the district’s reading and math pacing guides in week-by-week or twice monthly intervals. The district might want to use a consultant to get this process started. The pacing guides should be revisited once a year for any fine-tuning necessary. (D18) | v | |||
| 44. Conduct an analysis of the gaps between the NAEP reading frameworks and the reading program that the district selects to demonstrate alignment with NAEP. Use this information and student achievement data from the interim assessments (see next recommendation) to purchase supplemental materials to fill the gaps, if necessary. (D19) | v | |||
| 45. Ensure that the new reading program has imbedded assessments that can be used to assess student progress on at least a quarterly basis over the school year. (D20) | v | |||
| 46. Ensure also that the comprehensive reading plan has intensive interventions for students who are identified by the imbedded or interim assessments as beginning to fall behind. (D21) | v | |||
|
47. Attempt to minimize the number of intervention strategies that the district uses before and after school, on Saturday academies, and over the summer. The ideal intervention program would be tied directly to the core reading and math programs that the district adopts. Other intervention programs should be brought into the mix only as they align with student needs. This recommendation may be hard to implement, since the district also has a large number of afterschool supplemental service providers approved under NCLB. It will be critical for the district to ensure that its intervention programs and its supplemental service providers are heading in a direction that will explicitly address the skill deficits of the children. (D22) |
v | |||
| 48. Begin convening groups of the district’s best teachers to write and expand the number of lesson plans available across the district. (The teachers union has a project that can help with this.) The process needs to occur after successful implementation of the comprehensive plan (second or third year) and include a feedback loop for teachers to revise, comment on, and improve suggested lesson plans. (The district might consider putting its lesson plans on its website or intranet. Lesson plans should include a good number of direct or explicit instruction models. (D23) | v | |||
| 49. Consider implementing a program to encourage and monitor outside reading or reading at home. (D24) | v | |||
| 50. Adopt a single, uniform math program for systemwide adoption and implementation. (D25) | v | |||
| 51. Ensure that the math program is as closely tailored to align with NAEP math frameworks as possible. (D26) | v | |||
| 52. Select a small number of interventions for use before and afterschool, on Saturdays, and over the summer that will address skill deficits of students. (D27) | v | |||
| 53. Write a comprehensive strategic plan for professional development that is aligned with the instructional plan described in the previous section and with the adopted reading and math programs. The professional development plan should stress the knowledge, attitude, skills, and habits of teachers, principals, and staff. (The plan should be reviewed and modified annually.) (E1) | v | |||
| 54. Begin implementing a single, uniform, and systemwide professional development program for reading instruction during the summer of 2004. This training should be conducted during the six days devoted to centralized professional development. All principals and central office instructional staff should also be required to attend this training. (E2) | v | |||
| 55. Curtail school-by-school selection of professional development to classroom management, character education, parent involvement, and specialized training that is required to match a unique school challenge. This training should be conducted during the four days devoted to school-based professional development. (E3) | v | |||
| 56. Ensure that the professional development plan is built around a whole series of articulated sessions rather than single, independent, disconnected training sessions. Training in reading should be built around the components and instructional methods described earlier. The plan should include how the district will rollout and maintain its professional development initiatives for teachers and principals and support teachers in the classroom. (E4) | v | |||
| 57. Explore the use of alternative forms of professional development, e.g. study groups, chat rooms, seminars, workshops, videoconferencing, study groups, teacher mentoring, subsidized university coursework, independent study, lesson plan development, lesson plan development, and the like. (E5) | v | |||
| 58. Utilize the professional development component of the new PeopleSoft module to track participation in and coordination of training. (E6) | v | |||
| 59. Design and provide training for central office staff in customer service. (Support of schools, parent involvement, etc.) (E7) | v | |||
| 60. Use a differentiated staffing pattern to support math instruction in grades 3-5 if well-qualified math teachers are in short supply. (E8) | v | |||
| 61. Coordinate federal Title I professional set-asides and Title II funds to support the efforts proposed in this section. (E9) | v | |||
| 62. Renegotiate provisions of the teacher contract during the next cycle to require earlier notification for teachers leaving the district. (E10) | v | |||
| 63. Finish developing an instructional monitoring process for all grade levels to measure fidelity of the implementation of the new reading and math program. The monitoring procedure or “walk throughs” should focus on procedural or classroom appearance issues initially, then on effective instructional practice, lesson components and rigor, status on pacing guides, student progress on unit or interim assessments, and the like. (See the “Implementation Checklists” developed by Sacramento and Houston.) (F1) | v | |||
| 64. Provide explicit training to principals on the use of the “walk throughs” and on instructional leadership. (F2) | v | |||
| 65. Charge principals with forming instructional leadership teams in their schools to assist in the implementation and monitoring of the new curriculum. (F3) | v | |||
| 66. Use Title I funds to hire school-based reading and math coaches to support classroom teachers or require principals to use their Title I funds to hire reading and math coaches. (Try part-time teachers and retired teachers. Hire reading coaches first, then math.) (F4) | v | |||
| 67. Convene regular district-wide meetings of principals and central office reform leaders to establish some unity of direction, to share implementation problems and solutions, and determine school needs.(F5) | v | |||
| 68. Begin developing districtwide benchmark, interim, or quarterly tests aligned to the curriculum, and a new district test to determine whether students are learning according to the pacing guides or are slipping behind, and where instructional interventions need to be targeted. (G1) | v | |||
| 69. Administer interim or benchmark tests (depending on pacing guides) somewhere around October, January, and March. The instruments should be designed or modified to be highly predictive of the end-of-the year assessments. (The district should also publish a testing calendar including interim assessment dates.) (G2) | v | |||
| 70. Replace the SAT-9 with a standards-based, criterion-referenced assessment that is consistent with NCLB requirements. The curriculum unit needs to be involved in the decision. The test ought to be aligned with NAEP reading and math frameworks and include multiple choice, short response, and extended response questions. The instrument should also allow the district to compare results over time and to conduct cohort growth studies. (G3) | v | |||
| 71. Continue end-of-year tests in reading and math for students in grades 1 and 2 even though NCLB does not require it. The district needs to have a way of determining student skills in reading and math prior to the third grade. (G4) | v | |||
| 72. Consider using diagnostic reading and math instruments at the beginning of the school year to determine elementary school students’ skills. Results can be used in the regular classroom and for making decisions about appropriate interventions. (G5) | v | |||
| 73. Consider as well using an objective assessment tool for special education referrals and tie the results to service levels. (The district should also start collecting and reporting exit data on students with disabilities, especially those with behavior disorders, and exit data for English Language Learners.) (G6) | v | |||
| 74. Begin the long-term task of building a districtwide data warehouse to store easily accessible student assessment data, attendance, discipline, program participation, course enrollment, and grades. Results should be universally accessible electronically to teachers and staff. (G7) | v | |||
| 75. Develop a schedule for evaluating the district’s major programs every 3 to 5 years. Program evaluations should be built into every new district initiative (new reading program, extended day programs, coaches, and professional development.) Ensure that programs are evaluated both for how well they are implemented and what kinds of results they achieve. The research unit should be charged with working out a schedule and methodology with various unit heads. (G8) | v | |||
| 76. Transfer the evaluation monies from relevant external grants to the research unit to fund the program evaluations. The research department might also think about forming regular collaborations with local universities (particularly Howard University and George Washington University) to increase capacity to evaluate programs. (G9) | v | |||
| 77. Conduct regular customer satisfaction surveys so that the school board, superintendent, and senior staff have a clear understanding of community and school staff perceptions. (G10) | v | |||
| 78. Ensure that the school-based literacy and math coaches are provided with staff development on the use and interpretation of data. This training should be conducted jointly with the curriculum department. (G11) | v | |||
| 79. Revise school and student report cards to be consistent with requirements under NCLB. (G12) | v | |||
| 80. Begin reforms at the elementary school level first and then work up through the grade levels to middle and high schools rather than trying to reform all grades at once. (H1) | v | |||
| 81. Review the district’s pre-k curriculum (both Head Start and other) to ensure that it is infused with literacy and numeracy components and explicitly link or spiral it to the new kindergarten and first grade curriculum by skill component. (The district might want to consider a core reading program that has an explicit pre-k and kindergarten component that is already linked to first grade material. The district might also want to consider using “Language for Learning” for its pre-k program.) (H2) | v | |||
| 82. Consider instituting an early reading screening or diagnostic tool in the district’s early childhood programs to help identify students who are already behind. (H3) | v | |||
| 83. Establish a district-wide goal and monitor progress on each pupil. (H4) | v | |||
| 84. Begin the district’s gifted and talented program in the elementary schools rather than waiting until the fifth grade. (H5) | v | |||
| 85. Standardize the district’s special education referral process and the criteria and tools teachers use to refer students, particularly those with behavior problems, to special education. (The district should set explicit goals for the reduction in referral rates, districtwide and school-by school. School goals should be included in individual school improvement plans in schools with unusually high rates.) (H6) | v | |||
| 86. Develop and implement new guidelines and procedures for referral to the Teacher Assistance Team (TAT). The new guidelines should place priority on problem solving, research-based intervention strategies, differentiated instruction, and curriculum-based assessment for progress monitoring. (H7) | v | |||
| 87. Provide training and on-going support to TAT members and relevant school staff on the new guidelines and interventions strategies for learning issues associated with ADHD. (H8) | v | |||
|
88. Restructure the district’s summer school
program so that instruction is differentiated by the skill
levels of attending students, i.e. intensive instruction for students at risk of not progressing; strategic instruction to raise students to grade level; and advanced instruction to accelerate learning for students who have already made good progress. (H9) |
v | |||
| 89. Include in the instructional strategic plan an explicit component for middle and high school reform.(I1) | v | |||
| 90. Begin double-blocking reading and math coursework for middle and high school students who have not attained basic skills at the elementary grade level. (I2) | v | |||
| 91. Establish a summer bridge program for incoming high school students. (I3) | v | |||
|
92. Move all pre-Algebra courses down to the eighth grade level and begin phasing out all Algebra equivalent courses in the ninth grade. Algebra should be required for all students. (I4) |
v | |||
| 93. Establish a partnership with local universities to provide temporary high school math teachers with course work in teaching algebra. (I5) | v | |||
| 94. Consider the option of starting to implement end-of course exams at the high school level in key subjects. (This recommendation is controversial because there is mixed data on the effects of high school end-of-course exams. Some research indicates that it helps boost overall performance; and some research suggests that it increases the dropout rate. It is worth the district debating and considering the option, however.) (I6) | v | |||
| 95. Use the results from the PSATs to identify ninth and tenth grade students who have scored well and to counsel them in increasing numbers into a more rigorous sequence of English, math, and science courses. (I7) | v | |||
| 96. Begin the process of examining the rigor of all high school courses in key subject areas (e.g. math, English, sciences and history). Rigor should be “back mapped” from the content of AP courses in core subjects at the twelfth grade, then the eleventh grade, and so forth down to at least the ninth grade. Middle school should then be spiraled to the ninth grade benchmarks. The district should then begin the process — over several years — of increasing the rigor and content of courses in grades 9-12 to match the results of the back-mapping. The district should use professional development to begin raising the level of course rigor a little at a time. (I8) | v | |||
| 97. Begin de-emphasizing career and vocational education and increase focus academic rigor. (These programs should remain in place, of course, but it is clear that some staff in the district use these programs to further lower expectations for students in the district.) (I9) | v | |||
| 98. Continue the district’s Transformation Schools program, but revise it according to the following recommendations. (The district also ought to look at models for boosting student achievement in low performing schools in other cities. Examples include Charlotte-Mecklenburg, Cleveland, and San Diego.) (J1) | v | |||
| 99. Name a specific person to head the Transformation Schools effort and have the person report directly to the Chief Academic Officer of Deputy Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction. (The previous project director left and has not been replaced.) (J2) | v | |||
| 100. Conduct a detailed data analysis and evaluation of the current Transformation Schools program and use results to inform program revisions. The analysis should also include an examination of the practices of higher performing schools in the district with approximately the same demographics. (J3) | v | |||
| 101. Develop specific criteria for deciding which schools are to be included in the program and how and when they will exit. Exit criteria should also include strategies for how the schools will be supported after they leave the program. (The district shouldn’t have any more than twenty schools in the program at any one time.) (J4) | v | |||
| 102. Conduct a special inventory of programs and materials in these schools and jettison those that do not align with the district’s new reading and math courses. (J5) | v | |||
| 103. Consider incentives and bonuses for the district’s best teachers to teach in the Transformation Schools. (J6) | v | |||
| 104. Begin developing and phasing in min-iassessments (administered every six to twelve days) in the Transformation Schools. These assessments should not be any longer than six to eight items linked to the quarterly exams that ensure that students in the lowest-performing schools are progressing. (J7) | v | |||
| 105. Begin developing and phasing in individualized student improvement plans for students in the lowest performing schools. (J8) | v | |||
| 106. Establish a “Rapid Support Team” comprised of the Director of Instruction, the heads of math and reading, Title I and accountability to give extensive support to lowest performing schools. (J9) | v |
The chart below presents the average scores of the curriculum and instructional Strategic Support Team on a tool developed by the Council of the Great City Schools to benchmark school districts against the practices and characteristics of faster-improving urban school systems on domains that the organization’s research shows are instrumental in boosting student achievement districtwide. Scores range from 1.0 (lowest) to 5.0 (highest).
Preconditions for School Reform |
|||||||
School Board Role |
DC Score | ||||||
| 1. Board is fractured and most decisions are made with split vote. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Stable working majority on the board and board in general consensus on hold to run the district. | 2.8 |
| 2. Board spends the majority of its time on the day-to-day operation of schools. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Board spends the majority of its time on policy issues. | 1.6 |
| 3. Board devotes a majority of its time discussing non-academic issues. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
Board sets raising student achievement as first priority and devotes majority of
its time to those efforts. |
1.8 |
Shared Vision |
|||||||
| 4. Board did not set initial vision for the district and encourages superintendent to set vision. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Board sets initial vision for district and seeks superintendent who matches initial vision. | 1.8 |
| 5. Board does not set annual measurable goals for superintendent/district. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Board sets initial goals then Board and superintendent jointly refine vision and goals. | 1.3 |
| 6. Board and superintendent experience repeated turnover. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Board and superintendent have stable and lengthy relationship. | 1.0 |
Diagnosing Situation |
|||||||
| 7. Board and superintendent often make decisions without analyzing factors affecting achievement. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Board and superintendent jointly analyze factors affecting achievement. | 1.8 |
| 8. Board and superintendent do not assess strengths and weaknesses of district prior to reform initiatives | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Board and superintendent assess strengths and weaknesses of district prior to reform implementation. | 1.5 |
| 9. Board and superintendent act quickly on reform initiatives without considering district options and strategies | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Board and superintendent have a plan and act methodically and consider district options and strategies before moving forward with reform. | 1.5 |
| 10. Board is heavily involved in day-to-day operation of district. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Board entrusts superintendent to run district. | 1.2 |
Selling Reform |
|||||||
| 11. Board and superintendent have no concrete or specific goals for district. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Board and superintendent identify concrete and specific goals for district. | 1.4 |
| Board and superintendent do not seek input from the community when developing a reform plan. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Board and superintendent meet regularly with community leaders and listen extensively to community needs. | 2.8 |
| 13. Board superintendent move forward with reform plans without community input. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Board and superintendent sell goals and plans to schools and community before moving forward. | 2.2 |
| 14. Board and superintendent continue to give excuses for poor student performance and do not exclaim an urgency or quest for high standards. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Board and superintendent exclaim urgency, high standards, and no excuses. | 1.8 |
Improving Operations |
|||||||
| 15. Central office business operations function to the exclusion of student achievement. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Central office revamps business operations to be more effective to schools. | 1.0 |
| 16. Central office is not viewed as a support to schools. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Central office develops new sense of customer service with schools. | 1.0 |
| 17. Central office operates on a schedule that does not consider schools' immediate problems. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Central office is designed so that it moves to fix schools' immediate problems. | 1.4 |
Finding Funds |
|||||||
| 18. District moves forward with its reforms without attracting new funds. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | District has a plan to build confidence in reforms in order to attract funds. | 2.6 |
| 19. District may pursue and/or accept funds unrelated to reforms & priorities. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | District pursues and only accepts funds to initiate reforms and launch priorities. | 1.5 |
| 20. District does not make budget adjustments shifting funds into instructional priorities. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | District shifts existing funds into instructional priorities. | 1.2 |
Educational Strategies |
|||||||
Setting Goals |
|||||||
| 21. District may set more general goals and lack specific targets for principals. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | District sets specific performance goals and principals. | 1.4 |
| 22. District moves forward with reforms without considering best practices of similar districts. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | District spends time considering what works elsewhere and incorporates "best practices" in their reforms. | 1.0 |
| 23. District goals lack specific timelines for meeting goals and targets. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | District goals are "SMART"- Stretching, Measurable, Aspiring, Rigorous, and have a Timeline. | 1.2 |
| 24. District focuses its attention on the "problem of the day." | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | District focuses relentlessly on goal to improve student achievement. | 1.2 |
Creating Accountability |
|||||||
| 25. District focuses on the state's accountability system. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | District develops an accountability system that goes beyond state requirements. | 1.2 |
| 26. District has no formal mechanism for holding senior staff accountable for student achievement. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | District puts all senior staff on performance contracts. | 1.0 |
| 27. District has no formal mechanism for holding principals accountable for student achievement. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | District puts principals on performance contracts tied to goals. | 3.2 |
| 28. District has no formal mechanism for holding the superintendent accountable for student achievement. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | District puts superintendent on performance contract tied to goals. | 1.6 |
| 29. District has no formal mechanism for rewards & recognition for principals and senior staff. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | District has a highly publicized system for rewards & recognition for principals and senior staff. | 1.6 |
Focus on Low Performing Schools |
|||||||
| 30. District treats all schools the same and has no formalized method of focusing on lowest performing schools. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | District creates system for improving the performance of lowest performing schools. | 2.8 |
| 31. District has no formalized process to drive schools forward. School Improve Plan exists on paper only. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | District uses school improvement planning process to drive school forward. | 1.8 |
| 32. District lacks detailed interventions for lowest performing schools. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | District has bank of detailed interventions for lowest performing schools. | 2.0 |
| 33. District provides the same support and funds to all schools regardless of need. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | District shifts extra help, funds and programs into lowest performing schools. | 2.6 |
| 34. District lacks plans to improve quality of teachers in lowest performing schools. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | District improves quality of teachers in lowest performing schools. | 1.2 |
| 35. District has no formalized process for monitoring schools. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | District closely monitors schools throughout the year. | 1.0 |
Unified Curriculum |
|||||||
| 36. District has multiple curricula with contrasting instructional approaches. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | District adopts or develops uniform curriculum or framework for instruction. | 1.0 |
| 37. District's reading and math curriculum permits teachers to decide how to teach students. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | District uses more prescriptive reading and math curriculum or tight framework. | 1.2 |
| 38. District does not provide additional time for teaching reading and math. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | District provides additional time for teaching reading and math. | 2.6 |
| 39 District does not differentiate instruction for low-performing students. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | District differentiates instruction for low performing students. | 1.4 |
| 40. District curriculum relies heavily on textbooks and is not tied to state standards and assessments. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | District curriculum is explicitly aligned to and goes beyond state standards and assessments. | 1.6 |
| 41. District aligns a "cluster of grades," e.g. grades 3-5, to its reading and math curriculum. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | District has clear grade-to-grade alignment in curriculum standards. | 2.0 |
| 42. District uses a reading program that is not scientifically based. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | District uses scientifically based reading curriculum. | 3.0 |
| 43. District has no way to ensure that classroom teachers are covering the curriculum. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | District has a formalize system (pacing guides) to ensure that teachers are covering the curriculum standards. | 1.0 |
Professional Development |
|||||||
| 44. District has no formalize way to monitor implementation of the curriculum. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | District closely monitors curriculum implementation through frequent visits to classrooms by curriculum leaders, principals, and other administrators. | 1.0 |
| 45. District permits a majority of a school's professional development to be determined locally with very little, if any, time for district activities. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | District has uniform professional development built on curriculum needs with a moderate amount of time allocated for school needs. | 1.2 |
| 46. District focuses the majority of its professional development on topics not related to classroom practice. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | District focuses the majority of its professional development on classroom practice. | 2.2 |
| 47. District has no way to support classroom teachers. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | District has formalized way to provide classroom teachers supports when needed. | 1.2 |
Pressing Reforms Down |
|||||||
| 48. District reforms are not implemented in a majority of the classrooms. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | District monitors reforms to ensure implementation in all classrooms. | 1.2 |
| 49. District has no way to determine if reforms are being implemented. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | District has system of encouraging and monitoring implementation of reforms. | 1.4 |
| 50 Central office leaves instruction up to individual schools. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Central office takes responsibility for quality of instruction. | 1.2 |
Using Data |
|||||||
| 51. District does not have a system in place to monitor system or school progress. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | District has comprehensive accountability system that uses data extensively to monitor system and school progress. | 1.4 |
| 52. District does not have a formalize way to assess student progress throughout the school year. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | District assesses and reviews data on student progress throughout school year. | 1.0 |
| 53. District does not disaggregard data. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | District goes beyond the requirements of NCLB in disaggregating school, staff, and system data. | 1.2 |
| 54. District does not use student assessment and other data to shape intervention strategies. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | District uses annual and benchmark data to decide on where to target interventions. | 1.2 |
| 55. District does not provide training or provides one time only training in interpretation and use of test score results. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | District provides ongoing training in interpretation and use of test score results to all principals and teachers. | 1.0 |
| 56. District provides professional development to schools and teachers where they "think" it is needed. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | District uses data to target professional development. | 1.0 |
Starting Early |
|||||||
| 57. District has no strategy of where to start the reforms or how to roll them out to all students PK-12. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | District starts reform efforts in early elementary grades and works up. | 1.0 |
Handling Upper Grades |
|||||||
| 58. District has not given any thoughts about how to teach other students. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | District has fledgling strategies to teach older students. | 1.6 |
| 59. District has no interventions at the middle and high school levels. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | District has some research-based middle and high school interventions. | 2.0 |
| 60. District does not provide additional time for teaching basic skills to students who are behind. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | District doubles up on teaching basic skills to students who are behind. | 2.6 |
| 61. District lacks plan to introduce AP courses in all high schools. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | District offers AP courses in most if not all district high schools. | 2.4 |
Frances Bessellieu is a consultant to the U.S. Department of Education’s Reading Excellence and Reading First programs. In this role, she works with State education officials nationwide in implementing comprehensive, scientifically-based reading programs, and advises senior Department staff on related policy issues. Before coming to the Department, Frances spent two years as Director of Reading for the CharlotteMecklenburg School District (CMS) in North Carolina. Her key accomplishments at CMS included implementing a new process for selecting and sustaining scientificallybased reading curricula for grades PreK-12 and introducing these curricula, using new methods to assess children’s reading skills, coordinating professional development for thousands of teachers in the district, and employing new methods of program evaluation. During her tenure, teachers’ skills in reading instruction increased, district-wide reading achievement rose, and the achievement gap between subgroups of students decreased. Frances has also served as Lead Teacher in Direct Instruction and Behavior Management for New Hanover County, NC and spent several years teaching students with behavioral, emotional, cognitive and hearing difficulties in Southeastern North Carolina. In 1999, she earned an M.Ed. in Curriculum and Instruction from the University of North Carolina-Wilmington.
Rebecca Brown is the School Improvement Coordinator, Elementary Language Arts, for the Sacramento City Unified School District. She is responsible for the district's 40 Language Arts Training Specialists (Reading Coaches) and 23 Reading First Schools. Since beginning her tenure with SCUSD 13 years ago, Rebecca Brown has been an elementary classroom teacher, reading coach, mentor teacher in BTSA (Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment), and summer school principal. Rebecca has a B.A. from UCLA in Spanish and Spanish Literature, and graduated Summa Cum Laude with a M.A. from California State University, Sacramento, in Education, Educational Administration.
Michael Casserly is the Executive Director of the Council of the Great City Schools, a coalition of 61 of the nation’s largest urban public school districts. Casserly has been with the organization for 26 years, twelve of them as Executive Director. Before heading the group, he was the organization’s chief lobbyist on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C. and served as its director of research. He led major reforms in federal education laws, garnered significant aid for urban schools across the country, initiated major gains in urban school achievement and management, and advocated for urban school leadership in the standards movement. And he led the organization in the nation’s first summit of urban school superintendents and big city mayors. Casserly has a Ph.D. from the University of Maryland and a B.A. from Villanova University
Dixie Dawson is a K-12 mathematics consultant for the Long Beach Unified School District. She is responsible for strategic planning for mathematics professional development and implementing a standards-based mathematics curriculum. She coordinates and develops yearly end-of-course math exams for all grades K – 8 and all high school math courses. These exams have lead to a dramatic improvement in student’s math scores over the last five years. Her major accomplishments include developing Math Institutes for first and second year teachers, basic facts/integer testing for K-8, endof-course exams, pacing charts for each grade and high school math course, Assessment Portfolios, and Portfolio Student Workbooks. The Student Workbooks have common assessments including authentic assessments for each grade and high school course. Scoring checklists have been developed for each authentic assessment. She has also developed math videos and computer PowerPoint programs that are used by teachers and students in the district to improve student achievement. Dixie has also taught the preservice classes for Teaching Math in a Diverse Classroom, Elementary Math Methods and Computer Literacy for Teachers for the local university. She has presented at the Education Trust Conference in Washington DC and California State Conference on Standards and Assessment Symposium on the use of portfolios and common assessments to implement a Standards Based Curriculum. Dixie has served as a high school math teacher, district computer chairman, and 6-12 Math Consultant. She is a member of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Phi Delta Kappa and California Mathematics Council. She completed a master’s degree in Education at Pepperdine University in Los Angeles and a BS in Mathematics from Northwest Missouri State College.
Maryellen Donahue is the Director of the Office of Research, Assessment, and Evaluation for the Boston Public Schools. She has been in the school system for over thirty years. A third of that time was spent as an elementary classroom reading teacher. The rest of her career in Boston has focused on research, evaluation, and assessment. In 1985, she became the Manager of Testing and in 1987 she moved to her current position where she develops, supervises, and coordinates all district testing, program evaluation, and research activities for the school system. She has served as the President of the National Association of Test Directors and is an active member of the American Educational Research Association. Dr. Donahue is the author of numerous reports and studies on accountability, school improvement, standards, and implementation issues in performance assessment.
Mary Anne Lesiak is a program analyst in the U.S. Department of Education’s Early Childhood and Reading Group in the Office of Student Achievement and School Accountability. In this role, she coordinates the Early Reading First grant program, designed to support local efforts to enhance the oral language, cognitive and early reading skills of preschool-aged children, particularly those from low-income families. Prior to this position, Mary Anne spent three years teaching history, language arts, and computer technology in the District of Columbia. In addition, Mary Anne has served as an adjunct instructor at American University. Mary Anne has a master's degree in teaching from American University and a B.A. in Government and Politics from the University of Maryland.
Sharon Lewis is the Director of Research for the Council of the Great City Schools, where she is responsible for developing and operating a research program on the status and challenges of the nation’s largest urban public school systems. Ms. Lewis maintains a comprehensive database on urban public schools and is considered a national expert on assessment. She has served as an international educational consultant to the U.S. Department of Defense schools, and has been a State of Michigan delegate to the Soviet Union and the Peoples Republic of China. Ms. Lewis has served on numerous state and national committees including the Joint Committee on Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing; the National Academy of Sciences, NAEP Evaluation Committee; the National Academy of Sciences, Appropriate Use of Test Results Advisory Council, the U.S. Department of Education, the National Center for Educational Statistics Advisory Panel, the U.S. Congress Technical Advisory Board on Testing in Americas’ Schools; the National Center for Education Study on the Inner Cities; and the Technical Review Committee of the Michigan Assessment Program. She also worked for 30 years in the Detroit Public Schools and served as its Assistant Superintendent for Research and School Reform.
Ricki Price-Baugh is the Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum in the Houston Independent School District. She is responsible for strategic planning and the design, implementation, and evaluation of the district’s curriculum and instructional initiatives for eight departments: English/language arts, fine arts, early childhood education, foreign language, health/physical education, mathematics, science, and social studies. Since beginning her work thirty years ago in the Houston schools, Dr. Price-Baugh has served as a teacher, department chair, resource coordinator, project manager, and director of curriculum services. Her major accomplishments include a districtwide effort to align curriculum, textbook, and assessment systems, and a substantial increase in student achievement scores in the district. She is a certified curriculum auditor for Phi Delta Kappa and is a member of Phi Beta Kappa. Dr. Price-Baugh has her doctoral degree from Baylor University, a master’s degree in Spanish literature from the University of Maryland, and a B.A. (magna cum laude) from Tulane University.
Mary I. Ramfrez is the Director of the Bureau of Community and Student Services in the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Pennsylvania Department of Education. Her responsibilities include oversight of the Divisions of Nonpublic and Private Schools Services, Student and Safe School Services, and Migrant Education. Ms. Ramfrez also supports such federal and state programs as alternative education, character education, mentoring, homeless children and youth, refugee children, pregnant and parenting teens, correctional education, and 21st Century Community Learning Centers. Ms. Ramfrez previously served as the Director of ESOL/Bilingual programs in the School District of Philadelphia, where she was responsible for overseeing Pre-K-12 Early Childhood, ESOL/Bilingual, Career and Technical education, library, CSRD, field-based learning, summer and gifted programs for over 200,000 students. Under Ms. Ramfrez’ leadership, the Philadelphia School District established effective instructional practices, a Newcomer Center, ELL assessment initiatives and systemwide program evaluation. Ms. Ramfrez holds a Master’s degree in bilingual studies from La Salle University (earned under a U.S. Department of Education Title VII fellowship) as well as principal, supervisor and superintendent certifications. Ms. Ramfrez is also an adjunct professor at La Salle University and a doctoral candidate in educational leadership at the University of Pennsylvania. Ms. Ramfrez has edited a column in the NABE NEWS titled Administration of Bilingual Education Programs, which features efforts to improve bilingual education across the country. She also served as the chair of the NABE bilingual teacher of the year award, and was the local co-chair of the NABE 2002 conference held in Philadelphia. Ms. Ramfrez has been an active member of many professional organizations including the PA Department of Education PSSA Writing Assessment Committee, the Governor’s Institute for Data Driven Decision Making steering committee, ETS Hispanic Equity Network, ASCD, PA-ASCD, Council of Great City Schools Technical Assistance Teams and has been on the boards of Research for Action, Delaware Valley Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Philadelphia Association of Hispanic School Administrators, PennTESOL-East and the Pennsylvania Educational Research Association .
The Council of the Great City Schools is a coalition of 61 of the nation’s largest urban public school systems. Its Board of Directors is composed of the Superintendent of Schools and one School Board member from each member city. An Executive Committee of 24 individuals, equally divided in number between Superintendents and School Board members, provides regular oversight of the 501(c)(3) organization. The mission of the Council is to advocate for urban public education and assist its members in the improvement of leadership and instruction. The Council provides services to its members in the areas of legislation, research, communications, curriculum and instruction, and management. The group convenes two major conferences each year; conducts studies on urban school conditions and trends; and operates ongoing networks of senior school district managers with responsibilities in such areas as federal programs, operations, finance, personnel, communications, research, technology, and others. The Council was founded in 1956 and incorporated in 1961, and has its headquarters in Washington, D.C.
| City | Area | Date |
| Albuquerque | Facilities and Roofing | 2003 |
| Human Resources | 2003 | |
| Information Technology | 2003 | |
| Broward County | Information Technology | 2000 |
| Buffalo | Superintendent Support | 2000 |
| Organizational Structure | 2000 | |
| Curriculum & Instruction | 2000 | |
| Personnel | 2000 | |
| Facilities and Operations | 2000 | |
| Communications | 2000 | |
| Finance | 2000 | |
| Finance II | 2003 | |
| Cleveland | Student Assignments | 1999, 2000 |
| Transportation | 2000 | |
| Safety and Security | 2000 | |
| Facilities Financing | 2000 | |
| Facilities Operations | 2000 | |
| Columbus | Superintendent Support | 2001 |
| Human Resources | 2001 | |
| Facilities Financing | 2002 | |
| Finance & Treasury | 2003 | |
| Budget | 2003 | |
| Dayton | Superintendent Support | 2001 |
| Curriculum & Instruction | 2001 | |
| Finance | 2001 | |
| Communications | 2002 | |
| Denver | Superintendent Support | 2001 |
| Personnel | 2001 | |
| Des Moines | Budget & Finance | 2003 |
| Detroit | Curriculum & Instruction | 2002 |
| Assessment | 2002 | |
| Communications | 2002 | |
| Curriculum & Instruction | 2003 | |
| Communications | 2003 | |
| Greensboro | Bilingual Education | 2002 |
| Information Technology | 2003 | |
| Special Education | 2003 | |
| Jacksonville | Organization & Management | 2002 |
| Operations | 2002 | |
| Human Resources | 2002 | |
| Finance | 2002 | |
| Information Technology | 2002 | |
| Los Angeles | Budget & Finance | 2002 |
| Miami Dade County | Construction Management | 2003 |
| Milwaukee | Research & Testing | 1999 |
| Safety and Security | 2000 | |
| School Board Support | 1999 | |
| New Orleans | Personnel | 2001 |
| Transportation | 2002 | |
| Information Technology | 2003 | |
| Norfolk | Testing & Assessment | 2003 |
| Philadelphia | Curriculum & Instruction | 2003 |
| Federal programs | 2003 | |
| Food Service | 2003 | |
| Facilieis | 2003 | |
| Transportation | 2003 | |
| Providence | Business Operations | 2001 |
| MIS and Technology | 2001 | |
| Personnel | 2001 | |
| Richmond | Transportation | 2003 |
| Curriculum & Instruction | 2003 | |
| Federal Programs | 2003 | |
| Special Education | 2003 | |
| Rochester | Finance and Technology | 2003 |
| San Francisco | Technology | 2003 |
| St. Louis | Special Education | 2003 |
| Washington, DC | Finance and Procurement | 1998 |
| Personnel | 1998 | |
| Communications | 1998 | |
| Transportation | 1998 | |
| Facilities Management | 1998 | |
| Special Education | 1998 | |
| Legal and General Counsel | 1998 | |
| MIS and Technology | 1998 | |
| Curriculum and Instruction | 2003 |
1. Snipes, J., Doolittle, F., Herlihy, C., (2002). Foundations for Success: Case Studies of How Urban Schools Systems Improve Student Achievement. MDRC for the Council of the Great City Schools.
2. Great City School figures are drawn from the National Center for Educational Statistics on school districts that are members of the Council of the Great City Schools.
3. Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES), Common Core of Data, “Public Elementary and Secondary School Universe Survey,” 2001-2002.
4. Data are for the 2000 fiscal year.
5. The Trail Urban District Assessment (TUDA) was administered only in reading and writing in 2002 and in reading and math in 2003.
6. Banneker, Ellington, School without Walls, and Wilson.
7. The SST recognizes that the D.C. schools will need support to implement the recommendations outlined in this chapter. The Council of the Great City Schools would be pleased to provide it, if asked.
8. Snipes, J., Doolittle, F., Herlihy, C., (2002). Foundations for Success: Case Studies of How Urban Schools Systems Improve Student Achievement. MDRC for the Council of the Great City Schools.
9. Executive Office of the Mayor. “A Rationale for School Governance Reform.” October 27, 2003.
10. The board might want to consider using the expertise of the Center for the Reform of School Systems ( crss.org) to assist in its vision and goal-setting process.
11. The Council of the Great City Schools is not making explicit recommendations in this report on the governance of the D.C. Public Schools. The organization would prefer to see this report serve as the basis for reforming the district’s instructional program regardless of how the schools are governed.
12. When asked about who in the district was responsible for student achievement, parents responded, “No one.
13. Principals are represented by the Council of School Officers, Local #4, American Federation of School Administrators, AFL-CIO.
14. Principals are evaluated on a 120 point scale. Twenty eight (28) points are devoted to instructional leadership; 20 points for organization, management, and accountability; 16 points for school climate; 16 points for professional development; 16 points for parent and community involvement; 12 points for effective communications; and 12 points for special education. Evaluation of Principals in the District of Columbia Public Schools, August 15, 2003.
15. The district sent letters to the parents of about 9,503 students on August 1 indicating that they could transfer to another higher performing school in the same ward. The district identified 969 seats in 34 other schools to receive students. Three hundred and fifty seven (357) requested a transfer and 197 did eventually move schools within the district The district and its 19 supplemental service providers expect to serve about 2,000 students this year. The district’s program consists of the Hill Academy and Community Technology Center, DC Public Schools After-School for All, and the DC Public Schools Literacy Arcade. The district has budgeted approximately $2.8 million of its Title I funds for choice and an identical amount for SES.
16. The Sacramento school board went so far as to sign a public pledge that they would step down if they could not improve student achievement. They did and they are still there.
17. The city has approximately 40 charter schools, some of which are chartered by the school board and some of which are chartered by other authorities.
18. Approved NCLB supplemental service providers include Alliances for Quality Education; Calvary Bilingual Multicultural Learning Center; DCPS After-School for All; DCPS Literacy Arcade; DC Scores; The Fishing School, Inc.; Friendship House Association; Heads Up; Hill Academy & Community Technology Center; Howard University, School of Education; Huntington Learning Center; Kaplan K-12 Learning Center; Lightspan, Inc.; Mosaica Education, Inc.; Power Communicators; Princeton Review; Sylvan Education Solutions; U.S. Dream Academy; and Wellness, Inc.
19. The Hill Academy and Community Technology Center (HACTC) provides academic enrichment in math, science, and language arts; and provides student support systems, community service learning projects, and performance art training. The D.C. Public Schools After-school for All program provides focused reading instruction using technology. The D.C. Public Schools Literacy Arcade uses on-line resources to provide students with guided support in writing.
20. The district uses Waterford in eight schools, Voyager in 18 schools, and a Houghton Mifflin intervention in many others.
21. An extensive set of recommendations have been made to the district by the DC Appleseed Center in a report, A Time for Action: The Need to repair the System for resolving Special Education Disputes in the District of Columbia, 2003.
22. To be exited from bilingual/ESL services evidence must be presented that a student meets at least two of the following criteria: a score indicating the designation of Fluent English Proficient (FEP) on the LAS reading and writing subtest; portfolio work samples indicating that the student is working at level 4 or 5 in listening, speaking, reading, writing, and math on the NEP/LEP Student Assessment matrix, or a score at the proficient or advanced level in reading and math on the SAT-9.
23. NAEP’s reading framework is organized along two dimensions, the context for reading and the aspect of reading. The context for reading dimension is divided into three areas that characterize the purposes for reading: reading for literary experience, reading for information, and reading to perform a task. The aspects of reading include forming a general understanding, developing an interpretation, making reader/text connections, and examining content and structure. NAEP’s mathematics framework includes five content areas: 1) number sense, properties, and operations; 2) measurement; 3) geometry and spatial sense; 4) data analysis, statistics, and probability; and 5) algebra and functions. The math frameworks stress conceptual understanding, procedural knowledge, and problem solving. The complete framework is available at www.nagb.org.
24. Consult the “Consumers Guide to Evaluating a Core Reading Program” by Deborah Simmons and Edward Kamenuei for the selection of the core reading program.
25. Teaching Children to Read: An Evidence-Based Assessment of the Scientific Research Literature on Reading and Its Implications for Reading Instruction. National Reading Panel, 2000.
26. In summary, the district’s new reading program should have a comprehensive core component, supplemental materials (if necessary), imbedded or quarterly assessments, and intervention strategies for students who are not keeping pace. Some programs will also come with their own pacing guides.
27. Well-regarded reading intervention programs that the district might consider include PALS for k-2; Open Court Intervention Kit (for supplemental assistance), Soar to Success, Language!, Corrective Reading, Language for Learning, or others for grades k-5; and Read 180, Corrective Reading, Wilson Reading, Language! or others for the middle school grades.
28. The district might consider such math programs as Mathematics (Houghton Mifflin) and Math Advantage (Harcourt Brace). The district should follow the same basic approach for math as was proposed for reading: use an effective, scientifically-tested program, interim assessments, supplemental materials to fill gaps, and a select number of targeted interventions.
29. Well-regarded math intervention programs that the district might consider include Saxon (Scott Foresman), Larson’s Leapfrog, 24 Math Challenge, Afterschool Math Club, or others.
30. One teacher referred to this as “microwave professional development.”
31. The district should aggressively negotiate for substantial amounts of initial professional development from the companies providing the reading and math programs. Professional develop should then evolve to be more district-provided and more driven by data on student performance.
32. The SST suggests eliminating the term “seat time” for professional development.
33. The Council is generally in accord with recommendations made in this area by The New Teacher Project in its report Missed Opportunities: How We Keep High-quality Teachers Out of Urban Schools.
34. LSRT’s are headed by individual school PTA president and include three teachers (picked by the teachers), a union representative, four parent representatives, and the principal. The LSRTs sign off on the school improvement plans and have considerable discretion on school budget matters.
35. The new reading and math programs may come with imbedded quarterly assessments. If so, they will need to be carefully reviewed to ensure alignment with NAEP and a new district assessment. If they do not, then the district should look at assistance from such groups as Measured Progress.
36. The district might consider any number of diagnostic tools, including PALS, the Texas Primary Reading Inventory (TPRI), Dibels, Running Records, the North Carolina Reading Assessment (pre-k), the Test of Phonological Awareness, the High Frequency Word Assessment, the Development Reading Assessment, the Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test, or others depending on grade level and age.
37. The Woodcock Johnson or the TPRI might do what the district needs, but there are other instruments as well.
38. Quality Improvement Plan. DCPS, Office of Citywide Early Childhood Initiatives, Head Start Programs.
39. The Head Start program appears to use the “Early Screening Inventory” in many of its classrooms, however.
40. Training in the program is provided by the vendor.
41. In the reauthorization of the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act set to be completed in the fall of 2003, there is a provision in the approved House bill and the proposed Senate bill allowing up to 15% of total funds to be allocated to “pre-referral intervention services,” aiming to reduce the referrals to special education by providing targeted intervention before referrals occur.
42. High School Reform: Road Map to Improving Student Achievement. (Draft) D.C. Public Schools.
43. The schools used a number of improvement strategies including America’s Choice, Waterford Reading, Modern Red Schoolhouse, Earobics, FOSS Science Kits, Houghton Mifflin Reading, the Letter People, etc.
44. The models were put on hold in September in all but the Transformation Schools.
![]()
Send mail with questions or comments to webmaster@dcpswatch.com
Web site copyright ©1997-2009, DCWatch