comprehensive overview iec public

Program Overview:

An Integrated Ecology Curriculum (IEC) for New York City Public Middle Schools

Center for Environment, Economy, and SocietyColumbia University

29 June 2010

Submitted by:

Don J. Melnick, PhDThomas Hunt Morgan Professor of Conservation Biology

Department of Ecology, Evolution and Environmental BiologyDirector

Center for Environment, Economy, and Society

Integrated Ecology Curriculum Program

Overview 3

Our Core Curricular Approach 3

Our Goals: Scientific and Environmental Literacy, and Academic Engagement 3

Building School Capacity: Curriculum Development, Training, and Logistics 4

Learning by Doing 5

IEC is Designed to Promote Engagement 6

How Are We Doing? 7

ORIGINS OF IEC AND LESSONS LEARNED 8

Post-Pilot: New Opportunities 9

APPENDICES 10

Appendix A: An Overview of the Literature on Engagement 11

Appendix B: Standardized Test Results 14

Appendix C: Non-Test Indicators for High School Dropout 16

Appendix D: Our Partner Schools 18

Appendix E: Overview of IEC projects 2008-2010 19

Appendix F: References 20

Columbia University Center for Environment, Economy, and Society

Overview

Our Core Curricular Approach The Integrated Ecology Curriculum (IEC) program developed by CEES represents a unique approach to middle school education that uses topics in environmental science as a framework for problem-oriented, place-based learning. Ecology becomes the conceptual “hook”, placing disciplinary content in a larger context, encouraging cross-disciplinary collaborations among teachers, and providing motivation for academic pursuit. Our mission is to increase scientific and environmental literacy, promote awareness and stewardship of local ecosystems, and bolster student academic engagement and commitment to learning. We do this by helping teachers develop and deliver integrated, cross-disciplinary projects based around authentic scientific exploration of nearby natural locations. We provide teachers with intensive training on project curriculum and implementation, outdoor and field education, and environmental concepts and skills.

Authentic field investigationsThe IEC curriculum is focused around field research and hands-on activities that provide middle school students with opportunities to carry out authentic investigations in nature. These investigations are modeled after research undertaken by experts and scientists at Columbia University and other institutions in NYC. We want middle school students to learn to apply real world skills and strategies to answer real world questions and tackle real world issues.

Integrated Project-Based UnitsThe field component of the program is the centerpiece of a more extensive, integrated project that provides background, context, and content knowledge and skills needed to successfully carry out the fieldwork. Non-field activities range from readings and reflective writing, to hands-on investigations of natural objects, to focused field trips designed to guide the student through an intellectual path that deepens their understanding of information, issues and methods. Projects are developed together by CEES staff and partner teachers, who are trained to repeat and replicate project units and package the methods for their colleagues. Each unit is modified to fit the needs of the participating school. Social science, ELA, and math skills are woven into the many project activities. Some schools also implement Integrated Projects Week (IPW), a way to join the entire school in an intensive week of field-oriented projects, culminating in a showcase of student work.

Our Goals: Scientific and Environmental Literacy, and Academic Engagement Environmental Literacy and Connection to the Natural WorldThrough ecological field study, students gain an understanding of scientific inquiry and also a sense of connection to the natural world. We make this connection close to home: students conduct all their work in the local environment, studying local ecosystems and environmental issues in their own neighborhoods and city. We hope this will inculcate a sense of belonging to their school community, to their neighborhood, and to the place we call New York. In turn, we hope they will embrace stewardship of the natural resources and processes that surround them.

Higher Cognitive Skills through ScienceCEES promotes environmental education, but the benefits of IEC go beyond science, strengthening academic outcomes across subjects. Field investigations provide a means to gain very specific skills: sustained observation, inference, developing testable questions, gathering, evaluating, and synthesizing information, and analysis and presentation. More generally, we want students to develop inquisitive habits of mind, and to think meta-cognitively: to understand “how we know what we know.” These skills are critical in science but are transferable to any subject and indeed, to any profession. Student mastery

3


of these skills will serve them well in their academic and work careers and as private citizens facing a highly technical, quickly changing society. In addition, higher thinking skills work to reinforce content knowledge so that students are likely to better retain and apply what they’ve learned in their subject classes.

Providing Motivation and Opportunity for Student Engagement Project-based, integrated education also promotes student academic engagement, which extensive research shows is consistently highly correlated with academic outcomes and graduation rates 1. Engagement includes behavior, attitudes and cognitive strategies that demonstrate a student’s investment in learning. From staying on task, to feeling positive and motivated, to figuring out how to solve a problem, engaged students do what’s needed to succeed academically. And IEC provides precisely the type of learning that studies show engages students:

Authentic work with real-world relevance, that allows for the development of products Opportunities for greater attention and support from teachers Collaboration (among students, and among teachers) A variety of tasks and experiences to showcase different talents and skills Sense of community and membership – to a project group, classroom, or entire grade or school Choice and autonomy in learning: opportunities to “own” what one learns and creates High academic expectations and use of higher cognitive skills

Student engagement is difficult to gauge and measure, but educators know it when they see it. They also know that it is essential for academic success. CEES ensures activities are student-based and inquiry-oriented, so that students actively participate in their education in order to succeed. They cannot “get by” as they might with more passive pedagogical methods. Integration across subjects provides reinforcement, context, and coherence to skills and content that can otherwise seem disconnected.

Building School Capacity: Curriculum Development, Training, and LogisticsCurriculum Planning and DevelopmentCEES staff work intensively with teachers, directly in their schools where they work every day. Our curriculum specialists spend an average of one day per week at each school, to:

Tailor the curriculum modules we provide to their existing curriculum Attend regular planning sessions with all involved teachers Introduce and demonstrate activities and lessons needed for field- and project-based units Support the teachers as they implement IEC lessons on their own Plan for Integrated Projects Weeks (IPWs)

We promote a thematic approach to learning that involves multiple teachers and subjects in integrated units, sometimes team-teaching and sometimes linking lessons separately.

Teacher TrainingCEES trains teachers in the same content and skills they will impart in IEC, and guides them in innovative teaching methods so that they feel comfortable applying them independently. We provide:

Workshops and retreats offsite, where teachers practice carrying out field studies and hands-on activities, and reflect on the teaching approaches they will use to instruct their students in such projects.

Background information, classroom resources and materials that cover topical areas they may not yet have fully mastered.

1 See Appendix A for a review of the academic literature on Engagement

4


Training in using informal education settings such as museums, parks and zoos; and identification of locations nearby that can serve as field sites.

Model- and co-teaching in the classroom to demonstrate pedagogical methods teachers may not have previously tried.

Introduction to contacts and organizations ranging from scientists to community gardens to NGOs who can act as a resource in project learning.

School-Wide EffortsCEES works to build a professional learning community throughout the school, which provides mutual support and promotes ongoing reflection and adaptation of curriculum and teaching. To do so, we provide very practical support, such as:

Ensuring administration support and buy-in. Identification of a point person within each school as a liaison. Providing material resources and funding for planning time and trainings. Focus on low-cost activities that can be continued within the school budget. Provision of non-consumables and/or technology that can be used long term. Ensuring the documentation of all student work and teacher planning, so that units can be

replicated by other teachers.

Learning by DoingIEC promotes learning by doing, and teachers do exactly that: they learn how to create and teach project-based curriculum by delivering it to their students. Thus through the IEC program students get the full benefit of immediate access to innovative learning methods. We use essential concepts and questions to connect different subject areas, and provide both conceptual and real-world context for the skills and content students learn. The aim is to motivate students, by making the “why” of learning, and the value of their output, self-evident as they answer questions and solve problems. Projects also allow students to display strengths that are not always evident in conventional classroom lessons. Activities are more varied, with opportunities to demonstrate learning via vocal, artistic and kinesthetic expression in addition to writing. This can boost the confidence of students who may have weak literacy or math skills, encouraging them to participate where they may have otherwise retreated into apathy or acted out disruptively. The IEC holds students accountable for their project work, because it is part of the normal curriculum, and is graded and counted toward evaluation of their academic performance for the marking period. Project units (whether IPWs or marking-period length projects) link to the regular academic scope and sequence and, while they are centered on field-based ecology investigations, the deliverables that students produce demonstrate skills across all subjects. Students are expected to practice higher thinking skills and scientific habits of mind, ranging from detailed and thoughtful observation and recordkeeping, to development of questions and hypotheses, to evaluation of information and building arguments.

We are very pleased with the progress of the teachers and students in our partner schools and have confidence that our 18-month model is valuable and effective. At the end of our most recent round of partnerships, we have provided hundreds of hours of personalized training and planning in and out of the classroom, with 15 grade-wide projects delivered. A list of our partner schools, and a rubric detailing the various projects can be found in Appendix D and E.

Added Support for LiteracyCEES has made special efforts to address literacy through our projects, as this was identified by all of our schools as critical to bolster academic achievement. The IEC requires cross-disciplinary collaboration

5


and reinforcement of basic skills no matter which subjects/teachers are the designated partners for our program. Thus all of the projects require extensive reading, such as read-aloud texts, readings for content and comprehension, and shared readings. There is constant practice of literacy skills, even in non-ELA classes. In at least two science classrooms, the teachers have instituted a wholly new policy of assigning a text associated with the lesson for every class session. These may be readings for comprehension, readings to understand vocabulary in context, readings to gather facts and background, or readings for discussion and context. Students are asked to take notes rather than copy notes from the board, for example. The former, obviously, requires them to understand the main points of what they read, evaluate the most salient facts and messages, and synthesize this into their own words.

IEC is Designed to Promote EngagementCEES has developed and refined a program of curriculum development specifically designed to both create the conditions for engagement in our partner schools, and provide intensive training to teachers to effectively implement and replicate curricula conducive to engagement. We strive to create supportive learning communities in our schools among students and teachers who participate on a grade-wide level in projects that integrate different subjects and promote collaboration among teachers. Our projects are explicitly designed to address real-world processes and questions, and to provide opportunities for authentic exploration and practice of authentic skills. Students are motivated to use what’s learned in the classroom when its in service to solving a problem they care about. We choose current, topical issues of the day, and give students tools to address these issues themselves. Whether gathering data as a citizen scientist, evaluating advocacy efforts, working in a community garden, or writing journalistic articles, we show students they can be influential and that their work matters. They can learn the skills and tools to make a difference in whatever arena they so choose. Students are given open-ended investigations – such as a beach survey, leaf litter investigation, or neighborhood transect activity – where the outcome is not pre-determined and student work provides self-generated insight into genuine questions. High-level cognitive skills are required as students are led through a carefully designed unit that introduces them to skills and concepts that they are asked to apply at ever-higher levels, with increasing independence, as the unit progresses. Within each unit students are offered choices for assessments and roles in activities. They can choose their role in a survey team or report group; select the object of observation, description, or drawing; or decide between different texts and topics for literacy assignments. Group work has the benefit of creating motivation and cooperation as well as “academic press” from peers and teachers as members work to complete the task at hand. Choice of role and activity allows students to build confidence and gain recognition for different types of output than might be possible in traditional classroom activities. Finally, a broad range of activities, locations, trips and speakers maintains variety and interest even as these are continually related back to a unifying theme or essential question that reinforces primary concepts and skills. We work to ensure that units are challenging but with sufficient scaffolding along the way, and that student work is elevated and showcased in products that promote pride, accountability and perceived value and usefulness.

It takes careful and thoughtful planning, to create such curricula, as well as a cadre of appropriately trained and supported teachers. CEES uses the Understanding by Design method of backward planning to ensure that each and every activity and task is created with end goals and competencies in mind. Teachers require support and dedicated time and resources to work on curriculum and CEES staff are on hand for planning meetings, in-class guidance and model-teaching, logistics support for trips and speakers, and ensuring support from the administration. Our modules give enough of a framework for teachers to work with immediately but are completely modifiable to adapt to the schools’ particular schedule and identified needs as well as the preferences of the teachers and students. Curriculum specialists present an array of resources, locations, and activities and are adept at helping develop new ones if necessary. In this way, teachers are freed from the time-consuming ‘legwork’ of designing a new unit so that they can focus on

6


the “brainwork” of targeting needs, integrating concepts and skills, collaborating with other teachers, and learning new methods. The space to think, experiment and practice techniques is invaluable for teachers to assimilate best practices. Too often curricula are provided or recommended to teachers but the training needed to properly implement them is lacking. Teachers may need guidance and support in conducting lessons in the field, or in constructing embedded assessments, or identifying useful external resources. We allow the teacher to develop a unit that he or she can take ownership of, to practice techniques in a supportive atmosphere, to try new types of activities and assessments, and to relate to students in new and hopefully more rewarding ways. Project work allows for more personal interactions with students and a joint sense of mission helps develop a supportive classroom ethos. At the school level, teachers and administrators work together as part of a community effort to contribute to better teaching and practices.

How Are We Doing?We are proud to report that all of our schools have made large gains in Math and ELA scores during the 2008-9 year (see box below; and Appendix B for detailed data). Research indicates, however, that standardized test scores may provide only an imperfect gauge of students’ future academic success and likelihood of graduating from high school. Furthermore, there has been controversy regarding possible inconsistency from year to year in the difficulty of standardized tests, rendering comparisons potentially invalid. Because of this, we’ve begun to track three alternative indicators identified in the literature as predictive of high school dropout: attendance in middle school; behavior (reflected in suspension rates) in middle school; and core ELA or Math course failures (as opposed to standardized test scores). In our short time with each school, we have seen very encouraging results with regard to these indicators.

Summary of AccomplishmentsMost recently, CEES has implemented its Integrated Ecology Curriculum (IEC) in five high-poverty NYC public middle schools over the past 18 months. We’ve seen a major positive effect on the approximately 1000 students we’ve reached: Severe Truancy has dropped by an average of 41.0%; Suspensions have dropped by an average of 74.0%; there has been a 58.0% decrease in failures in ELA courses; a 36.5% decrease in failures in Math courses; a 48% increase in students who performed at grade level on their ELA standardized tests; a 28% increase in students who performed at grade level on their Math standardized tests; and IEC schools surpassed their peer schools in performance at grade level on standardized tests in 54% of the comparisons, as compared to the previous year when these same schools surpassed their peers in only 33% of the comparisons – a 64% improvement. Details of the results summarized above and the research that underpins their use can be found in Appendices A, B, & C.

Measuring our EffectivenessIEC successfully promotes many of the practices identified as most conducive to student engagement. But how do we measure our effectiveness? Measuring engagement per se is difficult; it requires untreated control groups, extensive observation, self- or teacher- surveys of attitudes and behavior; and significant time and expertise in creating, using and interpreting valid instruments. We have so far not had the resources to engage in this kind of measurement. Indicators of Dropout; Relation To EngagementAlthough measuring engagement is difficult, it turns out that measuring desired outcomes of engagement is much less so. One of the ultimate goals of the program is to improve academic success and persistence, increasing high school graduation rates. We cannot know if we are truly successful in that goal for several years. However, several longitudinal studies have succeeded in identifying indicators that serve as robust and trustworthy “flags” or predictors of dropout. These are:

Receiving a failing grade in fundamental ELA and Math courses Behavioral and/or discipline problems (suspension) Attendance lower than 80%

7


These indicators were compiled in several longitudinal cohort studies, in different states, evaluating data on thousands of students for up to 10 years2. They were selected according criteria that would assure their utility and validity. For example, researchers in the largest study, in Philadelphia (Balfanz et al 2008), set a decision rule to only accept indicators that would identify a large proportion of at risk students (at least 25%) and that would hold true for at least 75% of non-graduates. They only included indicators in the final set that had “independent and additive effects” on a student’s probability of graduating (See Balfanz, 2007; Balfanz, 2008; Gleason and Dynarski, 2002; Jerald, 2006; Klem and Connell 2008; Pinkus 2008).

By collecting data on these indicators for our partner schools pre- and post-IEC implementation, we were able to see if the number of students exhibiting one or more of these flags declined. Such a decline would logically suggest a decline in the risk of students dropping out. When we compiled the data for our partner schools, the results were very positive. After 9 to 18 months in each school, depending upon the indicator, the percentages of students exhibiting grade specific indicators of risk declined in 18 of 24 (75%) cases, and with them presumably the risk of dropping out. Detailed data are shown in Appendix C.

Origins of IEC and Lessons LearnedBringing the science and economics of environmental change to future public and business leaders is critically important to future actions by individuals, governments and the private sector--but it’s not enough. These stakeholder groups will fill their ranks from below, with graduates who either have a deeper understanding of environmental issues, or do not. It is essential to bring the knowledge we produce to students who have yet to reach college age.

The IEC program emerged from this conviction, and developed at first from a simple coincidence of mutually reinforcing goals among partners. Our goal to promote environmental and scientific literacy dovetailed neatly with the poverty alleviation mission of a major funder, the Robin Hood Foundation. The Foundation believed field-based education would better engage students, and thus increase attendance in middle school, which in turn is known to increase the rates of high school graduation and ultimately, economic self-sufficiency.

Attempts to translate our adult level field programs to a secondary school setting proved logistically difficult, requiring substantial curricular and schedule changes, and time outside school walls. Curriculum integration using ecology concepts better fit existing school culture and structures. Applying concepts both in integration and in field-based ecology, our IEC curriculum was created and refined initially via a 3-year pilot with Middle School 88 in Brooklyn.

Accomplishments in our Pilot SchoolMS88 is a large school of 1000 students with a fairly typical curriculum and school schedule. The key to our success there lay in providing a “test run” that would provide proof of concept, build confidence, and demonstrate how IEC would work in practice. The test --dubbed Integrated Projects Week (IPW)—would later become a cornerstone of IEC, and of the school culture. During IPW, regular classes are suspended so that groups of students and teachers can work together on projects driven by an ecology framework. These projects are team-taught and allow integration of knowledge across all the disciplines. They feature guest speakers, field study, and experimentation, and a final product or event.

The success of IPW paved the way for full integration of 6 th through 8th grade curriculum at MS88, planned during faculty retreats and phased in semester by semester. Three and a half years later, our collaboration with MS88 was complete, with IEC assimilated into the school community and culture. 2 Alabama (Mobile), Colorado (Pueblo) Illinois (Chicago), Indiana (Indianapolis), Maryland (Baltimore), Massachusetts (Boston and Great Falls), and Pennsylvania (Phila.)

8


IPW is institutionalized and eagerly anticipated each semester; a science coordinator helps new teachers gain any needed scientific literacy; and Assistant Principals support teachers to work on the ongoing integration of lessons over time.

The results for student achievement and engagement at MS88 were extraordinary. Test scores improved immediately, such that the school was removed from SURR status at the end of the first year. Over the duration of the program standardized test results continued to improve by leaps each year until by 2008-9 nearly 75% of students were earning a 3 or 4 on both ELA and Math tests. The school was recognized each year for exemplary gains made by the lowest third of students by performance. A primary goal of increasing engagement was borne out in increased rates of attendance over the program duration, rates that outpaced increases in city, borough and district attendance by 150-200%. Percentage of 8 th graders required to attend summer school plummeted to 21% from 33%, and the school earned an “A” report card grade for student progress two years in a row. Impressive as these results are, they pale in our own view in comparison to the changes in school culture and student attitudes we have observed. Collaboration is now the norm as teachers prepare for IPW every semester and review the fully mapped curriculum during grade meetings. Students eagerly look forward to IEC/IPW, and Facebook entries to teachers from alumni extol it as one of their fondest and most valuable experiences of middle school.

Post-Pilot: New OpportunitiesBeginning in September 2008, the IEC Program expanded to five additional schools to attempt implementation of IEC in a shorter, 18-month period. Each school was carefully selected based on Title I status and their willingness to undertake an integrated, project-based approach to curriculum. The partners all implicitly value project-based learning as evidenced by the links between disciplines outlined in their school-wide goals. Each school has a unique curriculum, culture and structure that lend itself to different formats for Integrated Project work. The flexibility of the IEC approach allowed us to meet the needs of different sized schools, improve buy-in and broaden our partnership model.

As we embarked on our new partnerships, we reviewed the progress of IEC at MS88, and found that though we were able to fully integrate the entire curriculum for grades 6-8 “on paper,” actual implementation on a day-to-day basis was inconsistent. Faced with the daily pressures of teaching, teachers tended to revert back to the "regular" curriculum and conventional methods with which they are most comfortable. Teachers had been given a curriculum map with concepts, content guidelines, and links between subjects, but they bore the burden of retooling their daily lessons and finding new resources and materials, as well as carrying out new methods on their own. Teachers were not always confident in their ability to do this, and although coaches in MS88 provided guidance, important support suffered when grade-wide planning meetings were eliminated by the school administration.

In response to these challenges, we adopted an intensive approach to teacher training and curriculum development that retains the most successful aspects of integration through ecology projects, while adding services that ensure school faculty truly build capacity to implement such curriculum over the long term. By providing a menu of ecology-based modules, along with materials and sample activities, teachers are able to focus their initial energies on getting accustomed to methods and content that may be new to them. The modules are only guides, however, and our curriculum specialist works closely with teachers to tailor and modify them to fit within the existing scope and sequence and meet the pedagogical goals the teacher has already identified. In this way teachers take ownership of the unit that eventually emerges, and are committed to successful implementation.

As the unit progresses, we guide and support teachers as needed by previewing specific lessons, model-teaching and co-teaching, taking care of the logistics of organizing trips and activities, and helping them to review and assess the unit and make any necessary changes or updates. At the completion of each project, the teacher has a portfolio of all the materials, plans, and resources needed to repeat the project on

9


their own. Most teachers conduct the same unit again the second year and thus are able to improve their practice by revisiting the methods and activities in a more independent way, although still with the full support and services of the Curriculum Specialist. Generally teachers gain confidence, add modifications or improvements of their own, take on activities and trips independently, and can pinpoint specific areas for improvement, which allows us to focus our efforts even more on the teachers’ specific needs

10


APPENDICES

11


Appendix A: An Overview of the Literature on Engagement

CEES’s IEC was originally developed to reflect our primary funder’s conviction that increased engagement in middle school would lead to increased performance in those grades, which in turn would lead to increased high school graduation rates, and thus to greater economic self-sufficiency among adults in New York City. We believe the evidence from the IEC program to date supports that conviction: a curriculum that increases engagement, like IEC, increases academic performance, and therefore is likely to increase graduation rates. This outcome is consistent with the current literature on engagement and academic performance, which not only sees low levels of engagement as a predictor of failure, but sees increasing engagement as an important factor in increasing performance. The CEES IEC program provides preliminary empirical support for the commonsense notion that the more students are engaged in their academic studies, the better their performance will be, irrespective of their capacities or home environments. If increasing engagement increases performance generally as it appears to do, increasing engagement for students who would be likely to drop out should increase the likelihood that they will graduate high school.

Promoting Engagement Promotes High School Graduation The principle that increased engagement will lead to an outcome of increased graduation rates is validated by extensive literature in the fields of education, psychology and school policy. The link between engagement and high school graduation is particularly strong when engagement in middle school is increased. Students who exhibit greater engagement have a lower probability of dropping out of school (Finn & Rock, 1997; Wehlage, Rutter, Smith, Lesko, & Fernandez, 1989) (Croninger & Lee, 2001), while a lack of engagement (also termed “alienation”) begins a cycle of disconnection, dysfunctional behavior, and lowered achievement that can lead students to abandon school (Finn, 1989; Newmann, 1981, 1992; Steinberg, 1996; Wehlage, Rutter, Smith, Lesko, & Fernandez, 1989). Numerous studies illustrate how emotional and behavioral disengagement in particular contribute to student dropout (Finn, 1989; Newmann, 1981; Fine, 1991; Mehan, Villanueva, Hubbard, Lintz, Okamato, & Adams, 1996; Wehlage et al., 1989; Cairns & Cairns, 1994; Ekstrom et al.,1986; Wehlage & Rutter, 1986). In sum: “Student Engagement is one of the most robust predictors of achievement, performance and persistence in school controlling for all other factors” (Klem and Connell 2008).

But Engagement is not merely a predictor: depending on the nature of the independent variable in question, Engagement can act as a mediator or moderator variable (Baron and Kenney, 1986). Engagement acts as a mediator of such independent variables as socioeconomic status (SES), home environment, or spending per pupil; it is in part via engagement that these types of variables effect their influence on outcomes. For this reason, the CEES IEC treatment to increase Engagement influences outcomes without the need to act on the original independent variable (Alexander, Entwisle, & Horsey, 1997; Newmann, Wehlage, & Lamborn, 1992; Perry, 2008, Rumberger & Thomas, 2000). If inherent student qualities (e.g. sex or disabilities) are treated as the independent variable, Engagement would act as a moderator variable, interacting in a way that alters the effect of the quality in question on school performance outcomes. Once again, if the CEES IEC treatment positively affects Engagement as it appears to do, both the interaction

12


and the main effect of Engagement alone will improve outcomes. Unlike more intractable variables such as SES, home environment, per pupil spending, or inherent student qualities, Engagement is amenable to being changed with targeted interventions such as CEES’s IEC. This is why Engagement has become the most common variable targeted by dropout prevention programs across the country (Christenson, et al 2001).

Recognizing EngagementWith this recognition that student engagement is crucial to academic performance and persistence, there have been a plethora of studies aiming to define engagement and its pre-cursors, mediators and effects. There is much overlap in terminology, but in general, “engagement” is used as a meta-concept encompassing several phenomena. Behavioral engagement is usually described in terms of participation: school attendance, effort and attention in class, remaining on task through completion, and classroom conduct (neither apathetic nor disruptive). Emotional or psychological engagement deals with student attitudes and feelings toward school and academics, including general positive or negative feelings, a sense of belonging to the school community, connectedness and caring from teachers and peers, and confidence in the value and benefit of what they learn. Finally, cognitive engagement describes such traits as thoughtfulness, willingness to tackle complex ideas and difficult tasks, problem solving, and using meta-cognitive strategies. (Corno, 2004; Fredericks, 2004; Jerald, 2006)

Practices that EngageA great deal of attention has been given to understanding the factors that mediate or influence engagement, and these can be clearly understood and acted upon. A suite of conditions and qualities for schools and classrooms have been consistently highly correlated with engagement:

School Factors that are Positively Associated with Engagement Small communities of learning Academic work that allows for development of products Curriculum that emphasizes authentic work and diverse tasks Opportunities for student and teacher collaboration High academic standards Continuity and consistency of adult care Sense of school community and membership

These factors have all been positively correlated with behavioral and emotional engagement, and posited to affect cognitive engagement (no study has yet looked at cognitive engagement specifically, separate from other forms of engagement).

(See: Fredericks, 2004; Institute for Research and Reform in Education, 2003; Jerald, 2008; National Research Council, 2004; Newmann, 1991; Wehlage, 1992)

Classroom Factors that are Positively Associated with Engagement Teacher support and caring

o Positively associated with all forms of student engagement o Influences the participation-identification cycle o Correlated with higher participation in learning and on-task behavior, lower

13


disruptive behavior, and a lower probability of dropping out of school “Academic Press” where teachers press students for understanding in a respectful and

supportive environment; sometimes includes peer culture and support for learning Practices that provide opportunities for autonomy, within structure

o Choice, with guidanceo Internal (as opposed to external) rewards for performance

Pride, satisfaction, problem solving, accountability

(See: Battistich, Solomon, Watson, & Schaps, 1997; Croninger & Lee, 2001; Fine 1991; Finn, 1989; National Research Council, 2004; Ryan & Patrick, 2001;Steinberg, 1996)

Tasks that are Positively Associated with Engagement Authentic work: application of complex reasoning in real-world settings or

to real problems; students readily perceive the utility in the outside world Work that allows students to “own” concept, implementation and product Collaborative activities Expression of diverse skills and talents Higher cognitive skill development

(See: Connell, 1995; Fredericks, 2004; Jerald, 2008; Marks, 2000; National Research Council, 2004; Newmann, 1991; Newmann et al., 1992)

The National Research Council describes many of these factors in more detail in a 2004 report, and importantly notes that “schools need to develop a professional learning community among staff to ensure that teachers develop the skills they need to provide these conditions.” Schools need professional development that goes beyond short-term workshops to provide ongoing support and intensive training as teachers take on new skills and concepts and learn new ways of working together and with students. IEC provides this.

14


Appendix B: Standardized Test ResultsIn studying the literature related to dropout indicators, we found that standardized test scores were generally not listed as reliable predictors of future graduation. For example, in the Philadelphia study 9th grade attendance was much more predictive than 8th grade scores, and 25% of high-scoring 8th graders would be off-track by the end of 9th grade with only 37% of those eventually graduating (Allensworth and Easton, 2005). Great emphasis was placed on the transition years where engagement and performance in 6th and 9th grade may dramatically fall off. This is not to say that test scores are never relevant. One study found that the lower the level of proficiency on 6th grade tests, the less likely a student is to eventually graduate high school (Neild and Balfanz, 2006). Another longitudinal study found some correlation to dropout for students scoring in the lowest 15th percentile when course failure rates were not consistently available for analysis (Balfanz, 2006; Jerald, 2008)

We compiled and analyzed standardized test data for our partner schools, comparing numbers and percentages of students performing at grade level (achieving a 3 or 4 on the test) before and after exposure to IEC. Nearly all grades in all schools saw increases in students performing at grade level for ELA and Math. Across all schools, we saw performance at grade level on standardized tests increase 48% in ELA and 28% in Math from 2008 (pre-IEC) to 2009 (post-IEC).

ELA Test Results Summary # at GL # at GL AVG %

2008 2009 ImprovementLyons Community School 6/46 23/56 215.4%Secondary School/Law 55/162 64/131 43.9%Secondary School/Journalism 62/144 67/142 9.6%Secondary School/Research 39/115 56/101 63.5%Middle School 267 134/404 184/354 56.7%

Math Test Results Summary # At GL # At GL AVG %

2008 2009 ImprovementLyons Community School 9/55 20/55 122.0%Secondary School/Law 87/162 98/130 40.4%Secondary School/Journalism 77/146 80/116 30.8%Secondary School/Research 75/119 66/8 23.2%Middle School 267 230/405 243/350 22.3%

Peer ComparisonsMindful of the fact that the NYC school system as a whole experienced significant gains in test scores last year, we made a further effort to compare the results of partner schools with those of each school’s peer group as designated by the NYC DOE 2009 Progress Reports. A summary of those results indicates that after just one year the majority of grades in IEC partner schools

15


outperformed the median percent improvement in grade level performance of their peer schools. Across all schools, all grades, and both tests, IEC partner schools had greater positive changes in percentages of students achieving grade level in 14 out of 26 peer school comparisons.

Summary: Did IEC schools outperform median peer school increases in performance at grade level from AY08 to AY09?School Grade ELA MATHLyons Community School 6 Yes YesMiddle School 267 6 Yes Yes

7 Yes No 8 No

Secondary School of Journalism 6 No Yes 7 No No 8 No Yes

Secondary School of Law 6 Yes Yes 7 No Yes 8 No Yes

Secondary School of Research 6 Yes No 7 Yes Yes 8 No No

Peer Comparisons Pre- vs. Post- IECThere is no a priori expectation of how many of the above comparisons should be in favor of the IEC partner schools vs. their peers. So we have no way to assess the above data other than to look at the same comparison – changes in IEC partner school performance at grade level vs. the median change in performance at grade level in their respective peer schools – from 2007 to 2008, when we were not present at all in any of the IEC partner schools.

To make this comparison, we conducted the same analysis as above for the period 2007 to 2008, for the four IEC partner schools in existence in 20073. IEC partner schools saw greater positive changes in percentages of students achieving grade level, in 8 out of 24 peer school comparisons between 2007 and 2008 before IEC. Limiting our 08-09 comparisons to the same four schools, IEC partner schools saw greater positive changes in percentages of students achieving grade level in 12 out of 24 peer school comparisons after IEC. Thus, IEC partner schools saw a 50% increase in the number of peer comparisons for which they outperformed the median change in their respective peer groups after IEC was introduced into the schools.

3 Lyons Community School did not open until AY 2008 and therefore was not included in the 2007 to 2008 analysis. Similarly, any schools/grades not open in 2007 were excluded from the comparison data set for 2008-2009 as well, to ensure equivalence across both periods

16


Appendix C: Non-Test Indicators for High School Dropout

Suspension: % change in the # of students suspendedSept. ‘08 – April ‘10 Trend Magnitude

( ±5% threshold) (% change, in 10% increments)

SS of Research 6th Decrease 607th Decrease 808th Decrease 90

Attendance: % change in the # of low-attendance students [attending <80%]Sept. ‘08 – April ‘10 Trend Magnitude

(±5% threshold) (% change, in 10% increments)

Lyons 6th Decrease 50

SS of Journalism 6th Decrease 407th Decrease 508th Decrease 50

SS of Law 6th Decrease 207th Decrease 408th Increase 10

Failures: % change in the # of students failing ELA or Math courseSept. ’08 – June ‘09 Trend Magnitude

(±5% threshold) (% change, in 10% increments)

Lyons 6th ELA Decrease 70

6th Math Decrease 707th ELA NA no 7th Grade in 2008

7th Math NA no 7th Grade in 2008SS of Journalism

6th ELA Decrease 206th Math Increase 300a

7th ELA Increase 250b

7th Math Decrease 308th ELA Decrease 20

8th Math Decrease 50

SS Research 6th ELA Decrease 100c

17


6th Math Increase 20d

7th ELA Decrease 907th Math Increase 20e

8th ELA Decrease 808th Math Decrease 80

aSSJ 6th grade Math failures: yr avg 3 in 2009 from 1 the prior year = 300% increasebSSJ 7th grade ELA failures: yr avg 10 in 2009 from 4 the prior year = 250% increasecSSR 6th grade ELA failures: from 0 failures in 2008 to 2 failures in 2009 =100% increasedSSR 6th grade Math failures: absolute decline of 1 but % increase due to a decrease in total # studentseSSR 7th grade Math failures: from 8 in 2008 to 9 in 2009. % increase is larger due to decrease in total # of students

18


Appendix D: Our Partner SchoolsLyons School (180 students) Newly formed in AY2008, Lyons must prove itself to win the confidence of local parents and grow their student body. Their foremost challenge is improving student achievement. Lyons posted the lowest ELA test scores city-wide during their inaugural year, and school administrators responded with innovative curriculum, designating a full day per week to ‘field studies’. CEES recognized this course structure as a perfect place to adapt the essential ideas of IPW and we worked with the faculty to develop an integrated field study curriculum that combined literacy, science, math and art.

Secondary Schools for Journalism, Law & Research (450 total; 150 each floor) These themed schools each occupy one floor in a 3-story building, and are governed by separate principals. An Art/Science collaboration was conceived in response to decreased math and science instruction time in these schools. By integrating science and art through the project, all Art and Science periods together could be used to conduct the project curriculum. The 8 th grade multidisciplinary integration included Teachers College Reading and Writing workshops.

MS267 (450 students) This is our largest partner school, with the most traditional schedule and curriculum. MS267 has sufficient faculty to dedicate specific teachers to specific grades (rather than teachers covering multiple grades or subjects). For that reason we were able to plan units with the entire faculty of each grade without duplication, overlap or omission.

19


Appendix E: Overview of IEC projects 2008-2010Grade/Year

MS 267 Lyons School SS for Law SS for Research SS for Journalism

6 (AY 2009) Exploring Local Ecosystems: The Deciduous Forest

Science, ELA, Math

Deciduous Forest Book: Compare and Contrast

Our Connection to the Ocean: Exploring Marine Ecosystems

Science, ELA, Field Studies

Exploring Local Ecosystems: The Deciduous Forest

Science, Art


Science, Art

Published Naturalist Notebook

Think Globally and Act Locally:The Importance of Community Gardens and Greenspaces

ELA, Math

7 (AY 2009 Teacher Planning for unitThink Globally Act Locally: PlaNYC and Greenspaces


Science, Field Studies

Water Pollution and the City: Study of the Gowanus and Water Filter Contest

Writing to make a Difference: Issues of Sustainability for our bodies and our lives

Published essays

8 (AY 2009) Teacher Planning for UnitSustainability- Urban Planning and Green Ideas

No 8th grade class enrolled this year

Environmental Justice in an Urban Setting:

Planning for a Healthier and more Just NYC

ELA, Science

Environmental Justice in an Urban Setting: Planning for a Healthier and more Just NYC

ELA, Science

Published essays

6 (AY 2010) Exploring Local Ecosystems: The Deciduous Forest

Science, ELA, Math

Published Deciduous Forest Book: Writing Realistic Fiction


Science, ELA


Science, Art

Think Globally and Act Locally: The Importance of Community Gardens and Greenspaces

ELA, Science, Math

7 (AY 2010 Think Globally Act Locally: PlaNYC and Greenspaces

Sustainability:

Understanding Green Alternatives


Mini-unit: How does Social Change Happen at The Individual, Group and Government Levels?

A Case Study of The Clearwater

Sanitation Issues from the Industrial Age to Now : A NYC Study

Writing to make a Difference: Issues of Sustainability for our bodies and our lives

ELA, Science

8 (AY 2010) Sustainability- Urban Planning and Green Ideas

Our Connection to the Ocean: Exploring Marine Ecosystems


Env’l Justice in an Urban Setting: Planning for a Healthier and more Just NYC

ELA, Science, Social Studies

Writing to make a Difference: Issues of Sustainability for our bodies and our livesELA, Science

Environmental Justice in an Urban Setting: Planning for a Healthier and more Just NYCELA, Science

20


Appendix F: References(2003). First Things First: A framework for successful school reform. E. K. Foundation. Kansas City, MO, Institute for Research and Reform in Education.

Alexander, K. L., Entwisle, D. R., & Horsey, C. S. (1997). “From first grade forward: Early foundations of high school dropout.” Sociology of Education, 70, 87-107.

Balfanz, R. (2008). Early Warning and Interventions Systems: Promise and Challenges for Policy and Practice. Workshop on Improved Measurement of High School Dropout and Completion Rates--National Academy of Education and National Research Council. Washington, DC, Center for Social Organization of Schools/Everyone Graduates Center.

Balfanz, R., L. Herzog, et al. (2007). "Preventing Student Disengagement and Keeping Students on the Graduation Path in Urban Middle-Grades Schools: Early Identification and Effective Interventions." Educational Psychologist 42(4): 223-235.

Battistich, V., D. Solomon, et al. (1997). "Caring school communities." Educational Psychologist 32: 137-151.

Brown, B. B. (1993). School culture, social politics, and the academic motivation of US students. Motivating students to learn: Overcoming barriers to high achievement. T. M. Tomlinson. Berkeley, McCutchan.

Cairns, R. B. and B. D. Cairns (1994). Lifelines and risks: Pathways of Youth in our time. New York, Cambridge University Press

Cairns, R. B., B. D. Cairns, et al. (1989). "Early School Dropout: Configurations and determinants." Child Development 60: 1437-1452.

Chapman, E. (2003) Assessing Student Engagement Rates. ERIC Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation ED482269,

Chapman, E. (2003). "Alternative approaches to assessing student engagement rates." Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation 8(13).

Christenson, S. L., Sinclair, M. F., Lehr, C. A., & Godber, Y. (2001). “Promoting successful school completion: Critical conceptual and methodological guidelines.” School Psychology Quarterly , 16, 468-484.

Connell, J. P. (1995). "Hanging in There: Behavioral, psychological, and contextual factors affecting whether African-American adolescents stay in school." Journal of Adolescent Research 10: 41-63

Corno, L. and E. Mandinach (2004). What We Have Learned About Student Engagement in the Past Twenty Years. Big Theories, Information Age Publishing, Inc.: 297-326.

Croninger, R. G. and V. E. Lee (2001). "Social Capital and dropping out of school: Benefits to at-risk students of teachers' support and guidance." Teachers College Record 103: 548-581.

Dweck, C. S. (1986). "Motivational processes affecting learning." American Psychologist 41: 1040-1048.

Ekstrom, R. B., M. E. Goertz, et al. (1986). "Who drops out of high school and why? Findings from a national study." Teachers College Record 87: 356-373.

21


Ensminger, M. E. and A. L. Slusarcick (1992). "Paths to high school graduation or dropout: a longitudinal study of a first grade cohort." Sociology of Education 65: 95-113.

Fine, M. (1991). Framing dropouts: Notes on the politics of an urban high school. Albany, State University of NY Press.

Finn, J. D. (1993). School engagement and students at risk. N. C. f. E. Statistics. Washington, DC.

Finn, J. D. and D. A. Rock (1997). "Academic success among students at risk for school failure." Journal of Applied Psychology 82: 221-234.

Fredericks, J. A., P. C. Blumenfeld, et al. (2004). "School Engagement: Potential of the Concept, State of the Evidence." Review of Educational Research(74): 59.

Gleason, P. and M. Dynarski (2002). "Do We Know Whom To Serve? Issues in Using Risk Factors To Identify Dropouts." Journal for Education for Students Placed at Risk 7: 25-41.

Hammond, C., Linton, D., Smink, J., & Drew, S. (2007). Dropout Risk Factors and ExemplaryPrograms. Clemson, SC: National Dropout Prevention Center, Communities In

Schools, Inc.

Hines, C. V., et. al. (1986). “Teacher behavior, task engagement, and student achievement: A path analytic study”. Florida Journal of Educational Research, 28 (1), 25-40.

Jerald, C. (2006). Identifying Potential Dropouts: Key Lessons for Building an Early Warning Data System. Staying the Course: High Standards and Improved Graduation Rates,a joint project of Achieve and Jobs for the Future and the Carnegie Corporation. New York, Carnegie Corporation.

Klem, A. and J. Connell (2008). Engaging Youth in School. Boston, Massachusetts, INSTITUTE FOR RESEARCH AND REFORM IN EDUCATION: 1-9.

Marks, H. (2000). "Student Engagement in Instructional Activity: Patterns in the Elementary, Middle, and High School Years." American Educational Research Journal 37: 153.

Mehan, H., I. Villanueva, et al. (1996). Constructing school success: The consequence of untracking low-achieving students. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press

Moore, D. T. (2010). Forms and issues in experiential learning. In D. M. Qualters (Ed.) New Directions for Teaching and Learning (pp. 3-13). New York City, NY: Wiley.

Multon, K. D., S. Brown, et al. (1991). "Relation of self-efficacy beliefs to academic outcomes: a meta-analytic investigation." Journal of Counseling Psychology 38(1): 30-38.

Murphy, Joseph et al. (1982) “Academic Press: Translating High Expectations into School Policies and Classroom Practices” www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/journals/ed_lead/el_198212_murphy.pdf

Neild, R. C. B., R. (2006). "An Extreme Degree of Difficulty: The Educational Demographics of Urban Neighborhood High Schools." Journal of Education for Students Placed At Risk 11(2): 123-141.

22


Newmann, F. (1981). "Reducing student alienation in high schools: Implications of the theory." Harvard Educational Review 51: 546-564.

Newmann, F. (1992). Higher-order thinking and prospects for classroom thoughtfulness. Student engagement and achievement in American secondary schools. New York, Teachers College Press.

Newmann, F. M. (1989). "Student engagement and high school reform." Educational Leadership 46: 34-36.

Perry, J, Liu, X and Pabian, Y. (2010) “School Engagement as a Mediator of Academic Performance among Urban Youth: The Role of Career Preparation, Parental Career Support, and Teacher Support “Counseling Psychologist, 38(2):269-295

Pinkus, L. (2008). Using Early Warning Data to improve Graduation Rates: Closing Cracks in the Education System. Washington, DC, Alliance for Excellent Education.

Rumberger, R. W., & Thomas, S. L. (2000). The distribution of dropout and turnover rate among urban and suburban high schools. Sociology of Education, 73, 39-67

Ryan, A. M. and H. Patrick (2001). "The classroom social environment and changes in adolescents' motivation and engagement during middle school." American Educational Research Journal 28(437-460).

Skinner, E. A. (2009). "A Motivational Perspective on Engagement and Disaffection: Conceptualization and Assessment of Children's Behavioral and Emotional Participation in Academic Activities in the Classroom." Educational and Psychological Measurement 69: 493.

Steinberg, L., B. B. Brown, et al. (1996). Beyond the classroom: Why school reform has failed and what parents need to do. New York, Simon and Schuster.

Wehlage, G. G. and R. A. Rutter (1986). "Dropping out: How much do schools contribute to the problem?" Teachers College Record 87: 374-392.

Wehlage, G. G., R. A. Rutter, et al. (1989). Reducing the Risk: Schools as communities of support. Philadelphia, Farmer Press.

Wehlage, G. G. and G. A. Smith (1992). Building new programs for students at risk. Student engagement and achievement in American secondary schools. New York, Teachers College Press.

23

comprehensive overview iec public

Documents