|
III. We believe:
School Performance Categories lists provide useful
images of each school’s progress toward 100% proficiency
for all students. PERFORMANCE
PROGRESS RI adds a new
facet – annual judgments – to its
accountability system. Passed in 1997, RI’s education-reform legislation for
school improvement and accountability, commonly known as
Article 31, has been in the process of being implemented
for five years. At this point, the state has collected
copious data, and we know a great deal about the
functioning of our schools.
The state administered the first few New Standards
Reference Exams in 1997, and, for most tests and grade
levels, we now have at least four full years of test
data. The following year, the state both began
administering the SALT survey and first published
Information Works!, adding new facets each year to
expand our ability to examine each school using
comparable data. As part of Information Works!, URI
researchers working with RIDE developed a
“value-added”
model to show schools how their students were performing
as compared with similar students statewide. These
lists, especially useful when compared year to year,
have been published annually. SALT visiting teams
piloted their first-hand observation techniques in 1997,
and as of June 2002, roughly 60% of RI’s schools have
hosted SALT visits. As soon as it became available, this
wealth of information was made public, both through the
RIDE web site as well as on
this website under SALT
Survey Reports. The point of this initiative was to give
school-improvement teams, school committees, principals,
teachers and communities high-quality information about
the functioning of their schools, both the good news and
areas of concern. While some schools have been working
diligently to use their school’s data to drive
improvement, others waited to see if the state and
national passion for school accountability would pass. It did not. Indeed, the new federal legislation, NCLB
2001, intensified the need for all schools to be on the
road to improvement or risk sanctions. NCLB requires
that states develop a criteria to define “failing”
schools. RI resists making the determination of
“failing” at this time, but identifying each school’s
current level of progress and its momentum toward
improvement is an important step both for warning
against such failure and making future determinations.
The
criteria that determine Improving vs. Not Improving
School and the criteria that determine Performance
Levels explain how schools were categorized to make
up the lists. For now,
improvement is what really counts.
Here you’ll find the first of three lists – the
high schools first, followed by the
middle and
elementary schools’ lists. These
schools have been grouped first by those that improved
in both math and ELA – see above for specific
criteria – then those that improved in one but not both
subjects. Finally, you’ll find a band of schools that
did not improve, according to the criteria. Indicated on
the right of the chart is a determination of the
school’s category: ‘high performing,’ ‘moderately
performing’ or ‘low performing,’ also explained under
the
criteria that determine Improving vs. Not Improving
School and the criteria that determine Performance
Levels. In other words, these are RIDE’s
judgment calls as to where schools stand academically –
as of now – and whether they are making progress. RI’s goal is to help all children reach proficiency.
Obviously those schools who are designated as ‘high
performing’ are closer to the 100% mark than the others,
but currently the more important factor is whether the
school is improving. An improving school has
demonstrated a responsiveness, a willingness to change
and an ability to implement changes successfully. In some cases, schools not yet designated as improving
have instituted changes too recently to show up in
student achievement results. The
time had come to generate annual judgments about the
schools. State Education Commissioner Peter McWalters has said:
“It’s not about where you land on these lists; it’s
about how you set targets and move toward targets.
Principals set targets for their schools three years
ago, and now there will be consequences.” Whereas in the past RI’s state charts provided an
impression of school quality from a wide variety of
information, the charts were effectively value-free.
State criteria had not been set, so ‘success’ or
‘failure’ were in the eye of the beholder. Schools might
have been embarrassed to sit at the bottom of their
value-added list (see page 31) over the course of years,
but suffered no real consequences. All along, RIDE’s
plans for ‘progressive support and intervention’ have
been evolving. The increasing wealth of data on
individual schools and districts has been shaping
possible responses to schools and districts that, for
various reasons, are not meeting performance targets. A
whopping 58% of all RI schools were deemed ‘not
improving’. The time had come to take a good hard look at where each
school stood in relation to helping 100% of its children
meet a proficiency standard. Based only on assessment
data over four years, the determinations on these lists
help RIDE and the public draw some conclusions as to the
current health of each school. To some extent, the lists
act as triage, offering the state a way of identifying
those schools – specifically those that are ‘low
performing’ and ‘not improving’ – that need the most
immediate, assertive help. All schools, through their
districts, were required to submit plans for closing the
gaps, even if they are ‘high performing.’
Most of the schools deemed ‘low performing’ are in the
core urban districts and those identified as ‘high
performing’ have children from more affluent
backgrounds. This is not a surprise, but a principal
objective of the statewide school improvement effort is
to make sure that all children have educational
opportunities that can help them achieve and thrive.
Improvement was not concentrated in affluent
communities; indeed, evidence of improvement was spread
quite broadly throughout the state and occurred mainly
where the school community was serious about using data
to drive change. For the moment, the state cares less
about the determination of the over-all performance than
it does about the school’s ability to improve. With
regular improvement, all schools can become institutions
that equip children for bright futures. The judgments rendered in the lists help the public see
that most RI schools have not yet managed to become
fully responsive to the challenges of their children and
the demands of accountability.
Currently 124 schools – about 42% of RI’s schools – are
‘improving.’ With over 50% of their students performing
proficiently in all subtests over three years, 104
schools – 35% – are deemed ‘high performing.’ Even with
48 schools – 16.2% – deemed ‘high performing’ as well as
‘improving,’ no school has arrived at RI’s goal (though
there are those coming close in certain subtests). Fully
70 schools – 23.6% - are ‘low performing’ and ‘not
improving.’ Those 70 schools are located in 20 districts
and concentrated in seven. The districts have serious
work cut out for them. RI’s standards are
high. Remember, the state assessments themselves set a
standard whose demand for substance and quality is
comparable to high standards anywhere in the world. The
tests’ proficiency requirements are not an easy mark.
Furthermore, a 3% gain both for the proficient students
and those at the lowest levels of performance is also a
fairly rigorous goal to meet. No doubt this year’s list
did not pick up some schools that have made substantial
changes that have not yet materialized into a “bump” in
the test scores. Often schools launch a number of
initiatives that together might take, say, three years
to gel, become effective and get results.
|
The Commissioner
emphasizes: |
|
The 42% improving schools show that internal changes –
in curriculum, personalization, the use of time and
resources, among other efforts – affirm that substantial
gains are possible with students at every socioeconomic
level, in schools with widely differing resources. |
The criteria for determining the categories will
probably expand. RIDE is considering a number of additional indicators
that might be included in next year’s evaluation of
schools. Under consideration are: a school’s ability to
improve absenteeism, the dropout rate, student support
and others indicators that demonstrate improvement on a
level deeper than state assessments. You can’t teach a
child who isn’t there, for example, so schools must
address high absenteeism or it will erode gains from
other efforts. Not only is RIDE considering more indicators, but over
time the state will raise the bar for cutoffs for each
category. For 50% or more of a school’s students to be
performing proficiently over three years is good, but
only half way to 100%. According to NCLB, schools should
improve by a fixed percentage each year, though how this
gets interpreted over time will unfold differently in
each state, no doubt. Fortunately, RI is one of the few
states already positioned to make data-driven judgments
about its schools, having built a system that can set
and monitor targets. As always, RI will examine its own
data, especially the Spring 2002 assessment results, to
determine its next steps in regard to these lists.
We recognize: |
|
Four special schools have much to teach us about
improving.
Statewide, four schools improved in all eight of the
tests and subtests used to determine a school’s
improvement. (See http://www.ridoe.net/RHODE_ISLAND.pdf
for specifics of each school’s performance on these
sub-tests.) The schools are:
-
Carl G. Lauro Memorial School, Providence
-
Maisie E. Quinn Elementary School, West Warwick
-
Sackett Street School, Providence
-
Vartan Gregorian Elementary School at Fox Point,
Providence
These schools all have a high proportion of economically
disadvantaged pupils. “They present powerful evidence
that all children can master the state’s standards,”
McWalters said.
All four schools made extensive use of their data.
When asked to identify the possible reasons behind their
impressive success, all four of these schools’
principals independently reported having one particular
characteristic in common. To wit: each school took a
good, hard look at its data, identified key gaps or
problem areas and then decided on specific steps
designed to generate measurable gains in each area. The
individual strategies for addressing the gaps were
different, if not uniquely so, but the data drove the
decisions. Scott Sutherland, principal at Carl Lauro,
said: “The data is the most essential piece to our
success. The SALT Survey tells us what the teachers are
doing and where we have areas of concern. The math
assessments, for example, told us that measurement was a
large area of weakness, so we had each grade design a
measurement unit.”
They increased professional development for their
teachers.
The other common thread among these schools was at least
some degree of increased teacher training. As a
district, West Warwick stepped up its commitment to
professional development by providing 18 hours a year to
every teacher. This opportunity to offer training
allowed Maisie Quinn to get involved with two state
initiatives: standards-based math and Reading Excellence
(contact RIDE’s Office of Instruction for more
information about these programs). These initiatives
added to programs that the School Improvement Team (SIT)
had decided to keep, such as their old phonics program,
which the school felt was working well. In Providence,
two of the three improved schools had Teaching for
Tomorrow grants from the Health and Education Leadership
Project (HELP), which allowed them to retrain and
refocus their teaching and learning.
On-site decision-making and hiring can expedite
improvement.
Significantly, Mary Brennan, principal at Vartan
Gregorian, cites her school’s site-based management as a
strong element of their success. She says: “If I didn’t
have the teachers making the decisions, I’d be imposing
programs, and that’s much, much harder. We’re able to
choose our own literacy and math programs and hire
people who have philosophies already aligned with ours.”
Lincoln Central Elementary School’s leadership helped
several teachers who especially like mathematics to get
involved in curriculum development; this teacher
leadership inspired all of the school’s teachers to
raise expectations for their students. At Anna McCabe,
Raymond Laperche, and William Winsor Elementary Schools,
in Smithfield, teachers participated in focused
professional development to work with the new curriculum
they are implementing and so have had a strong voice in
the development of their new mathematics program.
Further information from the Office of Instruction about
the networks and other matters is available at: http://www.ridoe.net/standards/networks/default.htm
. |
|
The Office of
Instruction advises: |
|
In our experience, the winning
formula for helping students reach high standards is
strong school leadership working with teachers
committed to being reflective about their teaching.
Strong, knowledgeable principals who know and support
their staff can foster a nurturing environment that
helps teachers learn and grow throughout their careers.
Good leadership provides professional development to
enrich teachers’ content knowledge as well as their
understanding of teaching diverse students. The best
leaders facilitate the entire staff’s on-going
reflection of their practices and help both novice and
veteran teachers apply their new knowledge and skills,
solve problems within and about their classrooms, and
communicate their thoughts to one another and to their
students.
Since teachers do not have the time to develop new
materials every day, we recommend using exemplary,
standards-based mathematics and literacy programs to
free time to spend on analyzing teaching strategies and
student work. Given that students each have unique
backgrounds and characteristics, no single approach or
method will work for all of them, which is why we
recommend a supportive cycle of reflective practice.
Several statewide networks have been organized
specifically to help leaders and teachers become engaged
in reflecting on content and techniques, often sharing
practices that have gotten results.
For example, Principal Margaret Iacovelli at the
Sarah
Dyer Barnes Elementary School, in Johnston, regularly
provides professional development in mathematics for her
teachers to support the importance of having a deep
grasp of the content they teach. Similarly, the
principal and teachers at Middletown’s Forest Avenue
Elementary School participated in the Elementary Network
for English Language Arts and now meet for study
sessions to address ways to improve student performance
in writing, using a standards-based approach.
The teachers, administration and mathematics coach at
Pawtucket’s Francis Varieur School – a member of the
Standards and Assessment Network – worked together to
examine and ultimately change classroom instructional
practice and assessment strategies. The payoff was
improved mathematics scores. Lincoln
Central Elementary School’s leadership helped
several teachers who especially like mathematics to
get involved in curriculum development; this teacher
leadership inspired all of the school’s teachers to
raise expectations for their students. At Anna
McCabe, Raymond Laperche, and William Winsor
Elementary Schools, in Smithfield, teachers
participated in focused professional development to
work with the new curriculum they are implementing
and so have had a strong voice in the development of
their new mathematics program.
Further information from the Office
of Instruction about the networks and other matters
is available at:
www.ridoe.net/standards/networks/default.htm. |
|
