ED 408 697

AUTHORTITLE

INSTITUTION

SPONS AGENCY

PUB DATENOTECONTRACTAVAILABLE FROM

PUB TYPEEDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS

ABSTRACT

DOCUMENT RESUME

EA 028 435

McCary, Mack; And OthersUsing Accountability as a Lever for Changing the Culture ofSchools: Examining District Strategies. First Edition.SERVE: SouthEastern Regional Vision for Education.; NorthCarolina Univ., Greensboro. School of Education.Office of Educational Research and Improvement (ED),Washington, DC.97

69p.RJ960066701SERVE, 345 South Magnolia Drive, Suite D-23, Tallahassee, FL32301 (Item No. RDUAL; $8 plus $2.50 postage and handling).Reports - Research (143)MF01/PC03 Plus Postage.Academic Achievement; *Accountability; *Change Strategies;*Educational Assessment; Educational Improvement;*Educational Quality; Elementary Secondary Education;Evaluation Criteria; Organizational Climate; Performance;School Culture; School Districts; Scores

What does it mean to be a "good" school district? What arethe actions needed to establish a culture of continuous and long-termimprovement? This document was written for school and district leadersinterested in exploring how to frame and understand accountability forquality. It explores what it really means for a school district to holditself accountable at all levels. Chapter 1 summarizes the unintendedconsequences that result from accreditation and accountability policies thatput too much pressure on schools to raise test scores. The second chaptertells the story of one school district--Elizabeth City-Pasquotank SchoolDistrict in North Carolina--that developed accountability strategies aroundthe belief that encouraging good school-based thinking about quality teachingand learning practices would lead to good test results. The districtstrategies evolved over 4 years to include: (1) developing a new set of"process" indicators; (2) district leaders visiting and talking with schoolfaculty; (3) training teachers in classroom assessment; (4) supporting thedevelopment of school-based authentic assessment approaches; (5) developingpromotion/intervention policies that clarify expectations for studentprogress and demand accountability from students and parents as well asschools; and (6) involving school administrators and all teachers in thedevelopment of agreed-upon standards for "good" teaching in the basics.Chapter 3 discusses how the strategies encouraged accountability at severallevels. Appendices include the district's proposed districtwide indicators, asupport staff feedback-survey, components of the grades 1-6communication-skills program, an evaluation rubric for senior projectpresentations, and the K-8 promotion-intervention policy. (Contains 33references.) (LMI)

`In a LeyerfoRhanging theCiUtlitOre ofMoots: Examining

DistrictStrategies

E

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOffice of Educational Research and Improvement

EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER (ERIC)

This document has been reproduced asreceived from the person or organizationoriginating it.

Minor changes have been made toimprove reproduction quality.

SouthEastern Regional Vision for Education

Points of view or opinions stated in thisdocument do not necessarily representofficial OERI position or policy.

c nceouVa

as a Lever foRavow t h eCPIXOre

DC.nOCIS: ExaminingDistrictStrategies

By

Mack McCaryJoe Peel

Elizabeth City-PasquotankSchools

Wendy McColskey

SERVESouthEastern Regional Visionfor Education

Associated with the School ofEducation, University ofNorth Carolina at Greensboro

First Edition

1997

Edited byCharles Ahearn, Director of Publications/Senior Editor, SERVEStephen Chapman, Communications Specialist/Editor, SERVEKelly Dryden, Senior Design Specialist, SERVE

Book and Cover DesignKelly Dryden, Senior Design Specialist, SERVE

The content of this publication does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Officeof Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education, nor does mentionof trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the U.S.Government.

This document was produced with funding from the Office of Educational Research andImprovement, U.S. Department of Education, under contract number RJ96006701.

ii

conTEnTs

About the SERVE Organization v

Acknowledgments viii

Executive Summary ix

Chapter OneAn Expanded Definition of Accountability 1

Accountability as the Bottom LineStudent Test Scores 1

What is Locally-Owned Accountability? 5

Chapter TwoHow One School District Built a Culture of Qualityand Self-Assessment 7

The District Role in Facilitating School Improvement: DevelopingMeaningful Indicators 8

Lessons Learned 10

An Evolving Definition of Accountability 11Year One: Communicating the Vision 11

Lessons Learned 12Year Two: Developing a Shared Vision 13

Lessons Learned 14Year Three: sustaining a Culture of Inquiry 14

Interpreting State Test Results 15Analyzing Our System Needs 16

Year Four: Encouraging Teacher and Student Accountability 17Encouraging Individual Teacher Growth 17Encouraging Individual Student Ownership and Responsibility 19

How Do We Know How We're Doing? 23Informal Sources of Information 23

ill

Formal Evaluation Sources 23Test Results 24

Final Thoughts 25

Chapter ThreeConclusion: Summarizing Strategies to Ensure Quality 27

Strategies to Build a School Commitment to Qualityand Self-Evaluation 27

Strategies to Build a Teacher Commitment to Self-Evaluation 28Strategies to Build a Student Commitment to Self-Evaluation 29Is the Time Right for Locally-Owned Accountability? 30

References 31

Appendix A 33Optional District-Wide Indicators Proposed in 1993 as Part of School

Improvement Planning Process Submitted to the North CarolinaDepartment of Public Instruction

Appendix B 35Support Staff Feedback Reciprocity

Appendix C 36Components of Our 1-6 Grade Communication Skills Program

Appendix D 49Evaluation Rubric for Senior Project Presentation

Appendix E 51

K-8 Promotion-Intervention Policy

Ordering Information 55

iv

About the SERVEOrganization

ERVE, the South Eastern Regional Vision for Education, is a consortium of educationalorganizations whose mission is to promote and support the continuous improvementof educational opportunities for all learners in the Southeast. Formed by a coalition of

business leaders, governors, policymakers, and educators seeking systemic, lasting improve-ment in education, the organization is governed and guided by a Board of Directors thatincludes the chief state school officers, governors, and legislative representatives from Ala-bama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, and South Carolina. Committed to creat-ing a shared vision of the future of education in the Southeast, the consortium impacts educa-tional change by addressing critical educational issues in the region, acting as a catalyst forpositive change, and serving as a resource to individuals and groups striving for comprehen-sive school improvement.

SERVE's core component is a regional educational laboratory funded since 1990 by the Officeof Educational Research and Improvement (OERI), U.S. Department of Education. Buildingfrom this core, SERVE has developed a system of programs and initiatives that provides aspectrum of resources, services, and products for responding effectively to national, regional,state, and local needs. SERVE is a dynamic force, transforming national education reformstrategies into progressive policies and viable initiatives at all levels. SERVE Laboratory pro-grams and key activities are centered around

Applying research and development related to improving teaching, learning, andorganizational management

Serving the educational needs of young children and their families more effectively

+ Providing field and information services to promote and assist local implementation ofresearch-based practices and programs

Offering policy services, information, and assistance to decision makers concerned withdeveloping progressive educational policy

Connecting educators to a regional computerized communication system so that they maysearch for and share information, and network

+ Developing and disseminating publications and products designed to give educators practicalinformation and the latest research on common issues and problems

V

The Eisenhower Consortium for Mathematics and Science Education at SERVE is part of thenational infrastructure for the improvement of mathematics and science education sponsoredby OERI. The consortium coordinates resources, disseminates exemplary instructional materi-als, and provides technical assistance for implementing teaching methods and assessment tools.

The South East and Islands Regional Technology in Education Consortium (SEIRTEC)serves 14 states and territories. A seven-member partnership led by SERVE, the consortiumoffers a variety of services to foster the infusion of technology into K-12 classrooms. TheRegion IV Comprehensive Assistance Center provides a coordinated, comprehensive approachto technical assistance through its partnership with SERVE.

A set of special purpose institutes completes the system of SERVE resources. These institutesprovide education stakeholders extended site-based access to high quality professional develop-ment programs, evaluation and assessment services, training and policy development to im-prove school safety, and subject area or project-specific planning and implementation assis-tance to support clients' school improvement goals.

Following the distributive approach to responding and providing services to its customers,SERVE has ten offices in the region. The North Carolina office at the University of NorthCarolina at Greensboro is headquarters for the Laboratory's executive services and operations.Policy offices are located in the departments of education in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Missis-sippi, North Carolina, and South Carolina.

SERVE-AlabamaPo licgOffice forthcoming

SERVE-FloridaEar lg Childhood,Publications, Lab, FieldServices345 South Magnolia DriveSuite D-23Tallahassee, FL 32301904-671-6000800-352-6001Fax 904-671-6020

vi

Database InformationServices Clearinghouse345 South Magnolia DriveSuite E-21Tallahassee, FL 32301904-671-6012800-352-3747Fax 904-671-6010SERVE-Line (modem only)800-487-7605

Eisenhower Consortiumfor Mathematics andScience Education atSERVE345 South Magnolia DriveSuite E-22Tallahassee, FL 32301904-671-6033800-854-0476Fax 904-671-6010

Policg345 South Magnolia DriveSuite D-23Tallahassee, FL 32301904-671-6029Fax 904-671-6020

Office of the CommissionerThe CapitolLL 24Tallahassee, FL 32399904-488-9513Fax 904-488-1492

SERVE-GeorgiaTechnologg41 Marietta Street, NWSuite 1000Atlanta, GA 30303404-893-0100800-659-3204Fax 404-577-7812SERVE-Line (modem only)800-487-7605

PolicgState Department of Education2054 Twin Towers EastAtlanta, GA 30334404-657-0148Fax 404-651-5231

SERVE-MississippiDelta ProjectDelta State UniversityP.O. Box 3183Cleveland, MS 38733601-846-4384800-326-4548Fax 601-846-4402

PolicgState Department of EducationP.O. Box 771Jackson, MS 39205601-359-3501Fax 601-359-3667E-mail: wmoore@serve.org

SERVE-north Carolina*Executive Services,Operations, Research andDevelopmentP.O. Box 5367Greensboro, NC 27435910-334-3211800-755-3277Fax 910-334-3268

Po licgDepartment of PublicInstructionEducation Building301 North Wilmington StreetRaleigh, NC 27601-2825919-715-1245Fax 919-715-1278

SERVE-South CarolinaPolicg1429 Senate Street1005 Rutledge BuildingColumbia, SC 29201803-734-8496Fax 803-734-3389E-mail:cjackson@sde.state.sc.us

SERVE, Inc.-northCarolinaBusiness OfficeP.O. Box 5406Greensboro, NC 27435910-334-4669910-334-4670800-545-7075Fax 910-334-4671

South East and IslandsRegional Technologg inEducation Consortium41 Marietta Street, NWSuite 1000Atlanta, GA 30303404-893-0100800-659-3204Fax 404-577-7812E-mail: seirtec@serve.org

The Region IVComprehensive CenterP.O. Box 5406Greensboro, NC 27435910-334-4667800-545-7075Fax 910-334-4671E-mail: regivcc@serve.org

Evaluation andAssessment ServicesP.O. Box 5367Greensboro, NC 27435910-334-3211800-755-3277Fax 910-334-3268

Professional DevelopmentInstitute (PDI)P.O. Box 5406Greensboro, NC 27435910-334-4667800-545-7075Fax 910-334-4671E-mail: pdi@serve.org

Southeastern RegionalSafe Schools InstituteP.O. Box 5406Greensboro, NC 27435910-334-4664910-334-4665800-545-7075Fax 910-334-4671

*Main Office Address

http://www.serve.org

e-mail info@serve.org

Roy H. Forbes, Ed.D.Executive Director

vii

AcknowledgmentsAs a Research and Development program within SERVE, our role is to bring researchto educators but more importantly, perhaps, partner with educators to share theirknowledge and experience with others. In our efforts to understand accountability in

a real sensein terms of how it translates into actions at the district levelwe have workedclosely with the leaders of the Elizabeth City-Pasquotank school system in North Carolina.For a school superintendent and assistant superintendent to take the time to put their story topaper represents an incredible commitment of time and energy. We appreciate Dr. Joe Peel'sand Dr. Mack Mc Cary's commitment to furthering the region's understanding of what ac-countability might mean.

We also appreciate the time and effort provided by numerous reviewers who provided veryhelpful comments on early drafts of the publication:

James Causby, Superintendent, Johnston County Schools, North Carolina

Jan Crofts, Director, North Carolina Association of School Administrators

Linda Darling-Hammond, Co-Director, National Center for Restructuring Education,Schools, and Teaching

Linton Deck, Director, Center for the Support of Professional Practice in Education,Vanderbilt University

Debra Hamm, Chief Academic Officer, Richland Two School District, Columbia, SouthCarolina

John Hattie, Professor, College of Education, University of North Carolina at Greensboro

Cindi Heuts, Assistant Superintendent, Nash-Rocky Mount Schools, North Carolina

Roy Forbes, Executive Director, SERVE

Walter Moore, Senior Policy Analyst, SERVE

Weaver Rogers, Executive Director, North Carolina State Board of Education

Sue Summers, Business Officer, SERVE, Inc.

John Taylor, Superintendent, Lancaster County School District, South Carolina

Julia Williams, Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum, Alamance-Burlington Schools,North Carolina

Thomas Williams, Executive Director, North Carolina Business Committee for Education

-LVIII

Executive SummaryWhat does it mean to be a "good" school district? On one hand, districts are judged bytheir relative ranking on student achievement compared to other districts. On theother, it is clear that schools can adopt policies or practices that improve test scores

without any concomitant improvement in instructional quality. Or, they can improve testscores at the expense of other programs that are not tested (science, art, foreign language, etc.).So test scores are not sufficient as indicators of quality. Rather than just test scores, parentsconsider the quality of the school program in making their judgments about school quality.When asked what influenced them the most in choosing a school for their children, in onesurvey (Elam, 1990), parents gave priority to quality of teaching staff, maintenance of schooldiscipline, curriculum, and size of classes. Although stakeholders' beliefs about what consti-tutes "goodness" are important, ultimately it is how the district and school leaders envisionquality that gets communicated to teachers and students. This document is written for schooland district leaders interested in exploring how to frame and understand accountability forquality.

Chapter One introduces the commonly accepted definition of accountability as being thebottom linestudent test scores. It has been shown that the manner in which results of large-scale testing programs are usedparticularly in terms of policies that establish rewards andpenaltieshas a direct impact on teachers and schools. A brief summary of the unintendedconsequences that result from accreditation and accountability policies that put too muchpressure on schools to raise test scores is provided.

One could conclude from such research on the use of large-scale testing results that districtleaders are unlikely to improve the quality of service delivery by simply exhorting teachers topush harder and monitoring student test results more closely and more often. In the long-run,more top-down control is unlikely to make the quality of instruction better for students. Onthe other hand, the current trends toward decentralization and school-based management mayappear to leave district leaders without a role to play. But district leaders are critical to theimprovement process. Fullan and Stiegelbauer (1991) conclude

Individual schools can become highly innovative for short periods of time without the district,but they cannot stay innovative without district action to establish the conditions for continuousand long-term improvement.

It is clear that the district leadership role is critical, but many leaders are struggling with theform this role should take. What are the actions needed to establish a culture of continuousand long-term improvement?

The second chapter tells the story of one district committed to defining accountability ascontinuous improvement toward the goal of transforming schools to meet the needs of thefuture. District leaders can ask themselves, as these leaders did, "What have we done to

ix11

encourage an accountable culture among schools in the district; are we doing enough; andwhat else can we do?" In this case, the district strategies evolved over four years to include

4> developing a new set of "process" indicators for school leaders to use in the schoolimprovement process;

+ district leaders visiting and talking with school faculty often to ask them probing questionsabout their goals and progress;

4.. training teachers in classroom assessment so that they more clearly articulate theirinstructional goals, engage students in meaningful work, and better assess student progress;

supporting the development of school-based authentic assessment approaches such as requiredsenior research projects that go beyond state test requirements;

developing promotion/intervention policies that clarify expectations for student progress anddemand accountability from students and parents as well as schools; and

involving school administrators and all teachers in the development of agreed-upon standardsfor "good" teaching in the basics such as communication skills and mathematics.

The strategies above are embedded in the district's chronological report of their progress(Chapter Two). In Chapter Three, the strategies that emerge from the chronological report arecategorized as encouraging accountability at several levels. Some strategies encouraged acommitment to quality and self-reflection at the school level as part of the school improve-ment process. Some strategies encouraged professional growth and a consideration of profes-sional standards of practice at the teacher level. Finally, some encouraged studentownershipand responsibility for learning and growth. Strategies at all levels are important if account-ability is to become an internally directed process rather than only an externally-imposed,reward and punishment process.

x 12

An ExpandedDefinitionof Accountability

he purpose of this document is toexplore what it really means for aschool district to hold itself account-

able at all levels. Our focus is the districtrole in establishing an accountable culture.This document tells the story of one districtthat developed accountability strategiesaround the belief that encouraging goodschool-based thinking about quality teachingand learning practices would lead to goodtest results. This is a story worth telling forthe support it may offer to other districtsinterested in striving for quality services anda culture that supports individual growth,rather than fixating on raising test scores.

A second reason for examining district strat-egies is that, in an age of school-based man-agement, many district leaders are strugglingwith new roles. Much of the energy aroundschool reform today focuses at the schoollevel. School systems are encouraged to pushmore decision-making authority to the schoolsite, empowering principals and teachers toshape their own schools. The focus on theschool may appear to leave the district lead-ers without much of a role to play in schoolimprovement, but to draw such a conclusionwould be a mistake. What becomes clear inthe next chapter is that district leaders play acritical role in the school improvement pro-cess. They provide the vision, direction,feedback, and capacity building that is the

foundation upon which successful schoolcultures are built.

Accountability as the BottomLineStudent Test ScoresI oo often in education, accountability is

thought of as only reporting on thebottom linestudent achievement. Measur-ing and reporting on student achievement isa critical component of evaluating educa-tional effectiveness. Koretz notes

A common thread runs through manyrecent proposals for the reform ofAmerican education: the notion of usingstudents' performance on achievementtests as a basis for holding educators,schools, and school systems accountable.Indeed, in many reforms, test-basedaccountability is viewed as the principaltool for improving educational practice(Koretz, 1996, pg. 171).

Can test-based accountability improve educa-tion? Can improvements be realized throughrewards and penalties attached to test scores?

Prevailing approaches that focus heavilyon standardized test results are unlikelyto solve what is wrong unless we begin tothink about accountability more broadly.

13

Alternative approaches to educationalaccountability need to be explored inorder to return to a broader sense of whatit means to be accountable, and to lessenthe negative aspects of outcomeaccountability (Haney & Raczek, 1994).

The test-based definition of accountability isusually a top-down approach. The top-downversion of accountability typically involves ahigher level of an organization (the state ordistrict) holding the lower level (districts/schools) responsible for student results ofsome kind (test scores). States sometimes usetest results to provide monetary rewards toschools for meeting target standards or goals.If expectations for student results are notmet, some sanctions typically result.

State testing programs can have positiveconsequences associated with the articula-tion of desired outcomes. That is, curriculumframeworks and testing programs help dis-tricts focus on teaching toward desired stu-dent outcomes. In an investigation of theimpacts of a statewide performance-basedassessment program (the Maryland SchoolPerformance Assessment Program) on lit-eracy instruction, researchers (Almasi et al,1994) were able to identify some schools thatdemonstrated major impacts. In particular,the instructional tasks, methods, and learn-ing environments were altered by teachersand administrators to reflect the nature ofthe assessment and the state-mandatedoutcomes for literacy.

It is how large-scale testing results are used(rewards and penalties) that is often at theheart of the debate about the merits of theseefforts. For example, in Kentucky, schools areheld accountable for results on the statetests. New state tests have been developedwhich use a variety of methods (multiple-choice, open-ended questions, performancetests, and portfolios) to assess more challeng-ing instructional objectives. Cash rewards forschools showing improvement were first

2

awarded in 1995. Schools can be sanctionedfor not making enough progress.

In a recent Rand report (1996) on the Ken-tucky program, based on surveys of teachersand principals, the authors concluded thatthe benefits of the testing program includedteachers spending more time on problem-solving, writing, and communicated math(areas tested by the state). And principalsagreed that the new state tests encouragedeven the most resistant teachers to changetheir teaching methods. However, few princi-pals and teachers expressed support for thefinancial incentives and sanctions. Sixty-seven percent of teachers "strongly agreed"that rewards and sanctions will unfairlyreward or punish many teachers.

A review of the research suggests there canbe unintended consequences of the way testresults are typically used (top-down account-ability). The possible consequences includethe following:

Demoralized teachers, particularly inlow-achieving schools

Instead of motivating low-performingschools, sanctions for low test scores canfrustrate them. In a 1995 SERVE report,Overcoming Barriers to Reform in theSoutheast, the authors concluded that afterseveral years of implementing mandatedstate accountability systems,

14

. . .it is clear that failure of low-performing systems could easily havebeen predicted. By and large, failure isoccurring in the same systems thathistorically lagged behind; with fewexceptions, the typical low-performingschool is rural and poor and frequentlyhas a high proportion of minoritychildren. It should come as no surprisethat raising the accountability bar hasbeen even more challenging for schooldistricts that had difficulty with the less

rigorous standards. However, while thenew accountability measures providehard penalties for low-performing schools,few included provisions to helphistorically weak school systems meet thenew standards.

The authors conclude that rather thanfocusing primarily on sanctions for low-performing districts, policymakers shouldplace an equal emphasis on ways to preventfailures. Several states are moving to a moretechnical assistance role relative to theselow-performing districts, realizing thatthese districts need more resources andassistance (e.g., better facilities, reductionsin class size, long-term professional growthopportunities for teachers)not morepenalties and embarrassment.

Narrowed curriculum and a focus onobjectives that can be tested with paper-and-pencil tests

Researchers have described the impact ofhigh-stakes accountability programs as anarrowing of the curriculum such thatsome teachers feel forced to "teach to thetest" and underrepresent other importanteducational outcomes in their curriculum.In a qualitative study of elementaryschools, Smith (1991) found that teachersbegan to neglect science, social studies, andwriting instruction to teach test-takingskills related to reading and math (theareas tested by the state). Smith alsoconcluded that, over time, high stakesnorm-referenced tests at the elementarylevel led to the increased use of teachingmethods that were more test-like (such asthe use of worksheets) and decreased useof hands-on instruction.

Diminished sense of professionalismamong teachers

Smith and Rottenberg (1991) reported thatoveremphasis on test results diminishedteachers' sense of themselves as

autonomous professionals and authoritieson curriculum and instruction. Teachersoften come to perceive their role ascovering the content in preparation fortests, rather than motivating and engagingstudents with interesting work. Hatch andFreeman (1988) reported that teachers feltconflict between what they believed to begood teaching and the instructionalmethods they felt forced to adopt to raisetest scores.

Unethical placement practices thatartificially boost scores

For schools who feel pressure to raise testscores but are unclear about how toaccomplish this result, unethical practicesmay be adopted. Mehrens and Kaminski(1989) concluded that unethical practicessuch as developing a curriculum based ontest content, presenting items similar tothose that will be on the test, anddismissing some low-achieving students ontest day can boost test scores with nosignificant change in the quality of theinstructional program or student learning.

Even more serious is that some low-achieving schools feel pressured to developplacement practices (high grade retentionrates, use of developmental and pre-firstgrade transition programs, placement inspecial education programs) that artificiallyboost test scores. McGill-Franzen andAllington (1993) were principal investi-gators on a number of research projects onthe effects of state-mandated testinginitiatives on the school experiences oflow-achieving children. They describe oneschool that received numerous awardsbased on high scores on a third gradeassessment. The high scores were dueprimarily to the school's high graderetention rate (nearly 50 % across the K-2years). Another school with the samepopulationbut which retained only 5 %of its K-2 students and which reliablyreduced the proportion of children whose

15

scores fell in the lowest quartile across theelementary gradesdid not score as wellon the third grade assessment and did notreceive awards.

In discussing the increased numbers ofstudents who are labeled as mildlyhandicapped and placed in learningdisability special education classes wherechildren are believed to be disabled by apermanent handicap, McGill-Franzen andAllington (1993) conclude

We found evidence, albeit typicallyindirect, that some decisions to classifychildren as handicapped were motivatedby a desire to remove low-achievingstudents from the high-stakes assessmentstream (and, ultimately, the publicaccountability reports). . . . Since thesestudents typically exhibit lowachievement, removing them from theassessment stream contaminates reportedresults. . . . In our work we have foundthat from 5 % to 25 % of the studentswithin particular schools are identifiedas handicapped by the end of Grade 2,and in one district about 15 % of thechildren had been identified ashandicapped before entry intokindergarten. . . . We found evidence thatreferrals to special education areoccurring earlier now than a decade agoand are concentrated in grades K-2,again before statewide competencytesting, which occurs in Grade 3 in thedistricts we studied (McGill-Franzen andAllington, 1993, pg. 21).

Decreased participation rates in higher-level academic courses

Raising student achievement in higher-level math and science courses at the highschool may be incompatible with the goalof increasing participation in these courses,which is a goal of Tech Prep and otherSchool-to-Work reform efforts. If schoolstaff believe score averages are what count,they may infer that participation levels do

[15

not count and reinforce students'tendencies to take easier courses.

Koretz (1996) summarizes what we knowabout the impact of test-basedaccountability systems:

At first, the logic seems simple andcompelling: student achievement is theprimary goal of education, and holdingeducators accountable for the amount oflearning they induce can only focus andintensify efforts. In practice, however,assessment-based accountability posesserious difficulties. Despite the longhistory of assessment-basedaccountability, hard evidence about itseffects is surprisingly sparse, and thelittle evidence that is available is notencouraging. There is evidence that effectsare diverse, vary from one type of testingprogram to another, and may be bothpositive and negative. The large positiveeffects assumed by advocates, however, areoften not substantiated by hard evidence;and closer scrutiny has shown that test-based accountability can generatespurious gainsthus creating illusoryaccountability, distorting programeffectiveness, and degrading instruction(pg. 172).

Koretz suggests that designing an effectiveaccountability-oriented testing program,whether at the district or state level, iscomplex. Because of this, it is critical thatsuch accountability systems be the subjectof ongoing monitoring and impact studies.For example, a study of the impact of theAlabama state writing test program(McLean, 1996) concluded that teacherssurveyed are in considerable agreementthat the state-mandated writing assessmenthas positively influenced the teaching ofwriting and that the emphasis on writingwould diminish if the writing assessmentprogram was eliminated. The study alsofound that in lower-achieving schools, theteachers did not appear to have the level ofskill necessary to develop a cohesive

16

writing curriculum using the assessmentresults and suggested that these schoolsneed assistance to improve the writingscores (not more penalties).

Although assessment-based accountabilityis not the subject of this document, it ishow accountability has typically beendefined and thus sets the stage for theexpanded definition of accountability thatfollows.

What is Locally-OwnedAccountability?

n contrast to a "high-stakes," test-based,-.accountability system, a bottom-up ap-proach to accountability involves the mecha-nisms through which educators hold them-selves responsible for working toward educa-tional goals. The bottom-up approach toaccountability or site-based accountabilityinvolves developing a culture that encour-ages school faculty to examine practices,represents a commitment to using researchand gathering data to inform decisions andprovides time for reflection and collegialproblem-solving.

Consider the following quotes:

Accountability as a charge will fail unlesswe push the meaning of the word out toinclude the only kind of accountabilitythat has ever worked long and well for afree people, and that is accountability byinner commitment, by a self-directedsense of responsibility. No doubt thereneeds to be external observers andevaluators, but without emphasis ineducation upon the internal commitmentof each of us doing our best, to beingeffective, honest and responsible, noamount of outside policing will suffice tobring about lasting improvement(Rinehart, 1973, pg. 51).

In short, without school professionalscoming to understand and valueaccountability efforts as a legitimatedimension of their work, such externalpolicy initiatives seem likely to befrustrated over and over (Bryk &Hermanson, 1993, pg. 464).

The National Center for Restructuring Edu-cation, Schools, and Teaching (NCREST) atTeachers College, Columbia University, hasproduced several publications examining themeaning of accountability at the local level.Darling-Hammond and Ascher (1991) sug-gest that an accountability system consists ofcommitments, policies, and practices that

Increase the likelihood that students willreceive good instruction and learn in asupportive, challenging environment

Reduce the probability that harmfulpolicies or practices will be used

Provide for self-evaluation to identify,diagnose, and change courses of actionsthat are harmful or ineffective

In Creating Learner Centered Accountability,Darling-Hammond et al (1993) describeaccountability at the local level broadly:

Accountability encompasses how a schoolor school system hires, evaluates, andsupports its staff, how it relates tostudents and parents, how it manages itsdaily affairs, how it makes decisions; howit ensures that the best availableknowledge will be acquired and used; howit generates new knowledge, how itevaluates its own functioning as well asstudent progress, how it tackles problems,and how it provides incentives forcontinual improvement (pg. 4).

Thus, accountability is everything a schoolor school system does to ensure continualimprovement and quality. This definition ofaccountability is consistent with the Total

17

Quality Management approach. A majortenet of Total Quality Management is theimportance of focusing on the continualimprovement of the system rather thanworrying about the bottom line (see SERVEreport, Total Quality Management: PassingFad or "the Real Thing"?).

In the next chapter, leaders of the ElizabethCity-Pasquotank School District reflect ontheir strategies to ensure quality. In thissmall, rural eastern North Carolina commu-nity with ten schools and 6,200 students, anew superintendent and assistant superin-tendent began a restructuring process in1992. Their goals involved making changesin teaching, assessment, and leadership in alow-wealth district where in 1992 theachievement levels were significantly belowthe state average and not improving, wherehalf of the students qualified for free andreduced lunch, and where the district re-ceived low-wealth funding as the 25th-poor-est district in a state with 119 districts.

Is their restructuring process working? Someindicators of their success are listed below.

+ The district received the Governor's MostOutstanding Entrepreneurial SchoolsAward for 1995.

The district superintendent was named the1996 North Carolina Superintendent of theYear by the North Carolina School BoardsAssociation.

J.C. Sawyer Elementary won recognition asone of 11 North Carolina Schools ofExcellence for innovative uses ofassessment (portfolio, student-ledconferences).

Nine of the ten district schools (90 %) real-ized 110 % of an average year's growth instudent achievement on state tests. (Only40 % of all schools participating in this pilot

of a new state accountability system reachedthe 110 % exemplary growth standard.)

In 1992, the North Carolina Department ofPublic Instruction had a state-mandatedaccountability system that required districtand school-improvement plans be builtaround a set of student outcome indicators.These indicators were primarily state-man-dated tests. The Elizabeth City-Pasquotankdistrict leadership felt a need to have theindicators for accountability reflect theirvision for the district, thus starting the pro-cess of defining what accountability meansat the local level.

Keep in mind, as you read their story, someof the facilitating factors that emerge:

Strong and committed central officeleadership with clear goals

School board support for change

Participative decision-making at the districtlevel

Reallocation of district resources to theschool level

Small number of schools (10) in the districtthat permits personal relationshipsbetween schools and central office

Site-based school improvement planningbased on using data and research

Ongoing professional development effortsin instruction and assessment

A commitment to honest reflection

A commitment to listening well

A commitment to learning from mistakes

18

How One SchoolDistrict Built aCulture of Qualityand Self-AssessmentBy Dr. Mack Mc Cary (Assistant Superintendent) and Dr. Joe Peel (Superintendent)

hen the Elizabeth City-PasquotankPublic Schools began its four-yearschool reform effort described in

this paper, the North Carolina state account-ability plan focused only on student achieve-ment as measured by standardized tests. Likemany poor districts, we faced the dilemma ofhow to begin making long-term, lastingimprovements to a system which historicallyhad large numbers of students who hadnever been academically successful. Ourprior experience in school reform convincedus that we would not help these low-per-forming students simply by passing on toschool leaders the exhortation to increasescores and otherwise conduct business asusual. More testing and monitoring of theschools by the district was also not theanswer.

In our initial planning and strategizing fouryears ago, as the new administration, wedrew heavily from the experience of corpora-tions that, facing increasing foreign competi-tion, had to decide how to get their workersto concentrate on producing quality. They

made this transition not through obsessionwith the bottom line of profits (in our case,test scores), but through engaging theirpeople in working cooperatively to focus onthe heart of the businessproducing qualitythat would delight the customer. We decidedto try to engage our people in totally rethink-ing the way schools need to do business,especially the relationships (teacher andstudent, teacher and teacher, teachers andadministrators, etc.) and to focus our effortson encouraging our schools to producequality school work for our students.

One way for us to begin to articulate ourbelief that processthe educational deliverysystemwas the heart of the matter was toadd indicators of the quality of the educa-tional program to the required state indica-tors. We wanted to add additional indicatorsthat reflected our goals and values. Forexample, if a district values participatorydecision-making, then it is in that district'sbest interest to measure progress toward thatend.

19

CHAPTER

PAO

The District Role inFacilitating SchoolImprovement: DevelopingMeaningful IndicatorsApp rior to our leadership, school improveIL ment teams had been responsible fordeveloping, implementing, and evaluatingschool improvement plans for two years.These teams had set goals almost exclusivelyrelated to improving test scores. We hoped toexpand their thinking and give them somealternatives that might have more of animpact on the quality of teaching and learn-ing and the climate of the schools.

We thought that by developing indicators forcritical "process" areas and asking theschools to incorporate these indicators intoschool improvement plans, we would makethe information important enough to collectand use. More importantly, the indicatorswould serve to clearly focus our school anddistrict improvement efforts on more thanjust the end results, i.e., improved studentachievement. We wanted to focus equalattention on the best ways to get to thoseresults through re-thinking and changing theway schools operate. At the same time, wewanted to begin a process of re-thinkingstudent outcome measures as a district,outcome measures that would fit our localneeds and go beyond on-demand state tests.

We developed 42 new local indicators inaddition to the 41 measures of achievement,dropouts, and attendance required by thestate. The proposed indicators were pre-sented to a district-wide committee of 21principals, faculty, county office administra-tors, and community members. The commit-tee met several times during the winter of1992-93 to review, refine, and add to theindicators proposed as well as to clarify howthe indicators would be measured. A finalversion of the indicators was provided to

0

schools to aid them in developing theirschool improvement plans due in spring,1993. Not all the indicators were intended tobe used in the first year. Some were ready togo in the first year, and others needed moredevelopment and were to be phased in thesecond or third year. For example, the ex-panded student achievement outcome indica-tors were to be developed and implementedin 1995-96.

Developing and working with our schools inthe use of these indicators was our firstattempt at an expanded, locally-ownedaccountability system. Below is a discussionof the reasons for each category of indicatorsdeveloped. Actual indicators are italicized.The list of indicators proposed for reportingto the state are included as Appendix A.

These new indicators were broadly groupedinto the following six categories:

1. Expanded student achievement/out-comes: The indicators in this categorymonitor the success of our students as theymove through elementary, middle, and highschool on the way to graduating into "thereal world." If 85 % of the jobs in the 21stcentury will require post-secondary techni-cal and/or professional training, then themission of schools must focus on ensuringevery high school graduate is ready for thefuture workplace and citizenship. Thesestudent achievement indicators weredesigned to help us monitor whether wewere successfully educating everyonetoward standards that are higher anddifferent from those traditionally requiredfor high school graduation or even forcollege admission.

The cohort dropout rate reflected the per-centage of 9th graders who graduated fromhigh school four years later. In contrast tothe watered-down rate used by state andfederal governments, this rate would tell uswhether we were having any impact on the

20

25-30% of students we lose before gradua-tion. The retention rate and course failurerates monitor whether new and expandedlearning opportunities are indeed helpingmore students successfully meet higherexpectations. The percent of graduatescompleting higher-level math and sciencecourses tells us whether we are preparing ahigher percentage of our graduates for anincreasingly technical workplace.

Perhaps the most difficult and importantindicators we proposed were entrancerequirements for the next level of schooling:what should students know and be able todo to enter upper elementary, middle, andhigh school? That is, we wanted to havesome checkpoints at which time we couldassess students' performance relative to thenext level of schooling. Our high schoolteachers would have no hope of moving allgraduates to higher standards without acarefully coordinated effort throughout theentire K-12 continuum. We proposedentrance requirements (to be assessed atgrades 3, 6, and 8) as a way to engageteachers, parents, and students throughoutthe district in determining what studentsmost needed to know and be able to do tobe successful at the next level of schooling.

Our work in this area began with participa-tion in a statewide Outcome-Based Educa-tion pilot that involved the community inidentifying broad goals such as students asself-directed learners and problem-solvers.We found that it was extremely difficult tomove toward operationalizing these broadgoals into standards for student achieve-ment. As part of a subsequent state pilotprogram to look at developing new assess-ments around new state standards, werealized that the outcomes we had devel-oped with the community were actuallybroad goals that helped frame discussionsabout the future for which we were prepar-ing students. The outcomes, however, werenot appropriate for measurement.

Once on track with more measurablestandards from the state pilot program, wespent two years developing the first draft ofour expectations for how students shouldperform and discussing the measures to beused in promoting students to the nextlevel of schooling. Much of this work wasaccomplished by district-wide committees.This work culminated in the winter of1996 with a promotion/intervention policythat provides for the assessment of stu-dents at grades 3, 6, and 8.

2. Community Involvement: A key compo-nent of the changes we wanted to see inthis area was a greater incorporation of"real-life" problems and experiences intoschool work. We set two indicators tomonitor whether opportunities to engagein "real world" applications were increas-ing for our studentsthe extent of theirparticipation in community service projectsand in apprenticeships. Thirdly, we hopedschools would work toward increasedinvolvement of parent and communityvolunteers in the schools.

3. Parent Involvement: One of the mostrobust findings of educational research isthe positive effect that parent involvementhas on student achievement. This set ofindicators was proposed to help schoolshold themselves accountable for creating aclimate that would invite parent involve-ment. The number of books read at home iscorrelated with reading achievement andtherefore was an important indicator forschools to monitor. We also wanted schoolsto assess the extent to which parents feltthey knew what was going on in schoolsspecifically, the extent of parents' knowl-edge of the goals or outcomes for the coursestheir children were taking, and of theprogress their children were making.Finally, by asking schools to monitor thenumber of parent conferences and work-shops, schools could hold themselvesaccountable for proactively finding ways toincrease parent involvement.

21

4. Professional development of teachers:These indicators were developed to focuseveryone's attention on how crucial newadult learning is to transforming schools tomeet higher standards. We asked theschools to consider monitoring the level ofuse of alternative assessment in the class-room and the use of published courseoutcomes reflecting our major emphasis onbetter uses of assessment to improvestudent achievement. Another indicatorfocused on the increased use of integratedunits, reflecting our belief that an increas-ing amount of coursework needs to incor-porate the interdisciplinary thought re-quired by "real-world" problems. Finally,increasing collegiality and teacher involve-ment in decision making are essential normsfor sustaining long-term commitment toimprovement, and thus should be consid-ered as measures of school effectiveness.

5. Quality work designed by leachers andworked on by students: Perhaps the mostcrucial assumption we made about whatwas needed to transform schools for the21st century was the shift in thinkingabout the roles of teachers and students,especially as related to the quality of schoolwork. Phil Schlechty has defined theessential purpose of schools as creatinghigh-quality work for students to do. Hisresearch identified some characteristics ofquality schoolwork: clearly articulated andcompelling standards, protection fromadverse consequences for initial failures,novelty, choice, authenticity, and substance(Vowels, 1994).

We adopted quality work as the overridingconcept guiding all our work in developingcurriculum, new instructional methods,and better assessment methods. To monitorwhether students are experiencing more ofthe features of quality work in their assign-ments, we developed a student survey thatschools could administer annually to allstudents in grades 4 through 12. Ourreason for suggesting a student survey is

11©

that as our teachers develop better ways todesign quality work, our students willconfirm that the school work given to themis indeed of high quality.

6. School climate: In this category, we sug-gested that schools address a few indicatorsin addition to those addressed underprofessional development of teachers. Thenumber of discipline incidents reported inthe schools would help indicate whetherstudents had successfully made the shift totaking more responsibility for their ownbehavior. Student reports of their involve-ment in decision making, like that of busi-nesses involving their employees in decid-ing how to better produce quality productsand services, would also help us monitorand think about this new role for students.Finally, we thought assessing facultyinvolvement in sponsoring extracurricularactivities would be a good way to focusattention on the importance of theseactivities to student success.

Lessons LearnedAs a small district with limited resources, weunderestimated how much work would beinvolved in communicating the need for anduse of indicators, in defining and refining theway the indicators could be measured, and inhaving schools actually collect the data.Because of the ambitious scope of what wewere proposing to the ten schools, we wouldcharacterize their first reaction as one ofshock. If we had it to do over again, wewould start on a smaller scale. However, theindicator package was our way of saying toschools in a concrete fashion, "Here's whatwe think is important in developing improve-ment plans that go beyond state-mandatedtest scores." It signaled to schools that wewanted them to think about goals that areimportant to us as an organization andcommunity, not just base their goals onimproving test scores.

22

An Evolving Definition ofAccountability

We are currently in the fifth year of ourwork in rethinking accountability to

fit our local goals and values. Internalizingaccountability is a slow process and can notbe rushed. Below we provide a history ofhow our efforts began with the identificationof indicators and evolved from there.

year One Communicating the VisionThe goal we set for ourselves in our first yearas leaders was "awareness." We engaged thecommunity and staff in discussing the futureand what students would need to be success-ful. We wanted to create an-awareness of theneed for change and improvement by usingthe following strategies to create awareness:(1) use of the 42 new indicators describedearlier through training for school improve-ment teams, (2) the implementation of asystem for school staff to evaluate centraloffice staff , and (3) the design and imple-mentation of a summer training program forteachers in the areas of alternative or perfor-mance assessment.

1. Training for school improvement teams:The indicators were presented to principalsin the winter of 1993 for use in the nextyear's school improvement process. Part ofthis process included a two-day training bythe superintendent and assistant superin-tendent for school improvement teamsfrom all ten schools. The purpose of thetraining was to set some expectations forhow the school improvement processwould work and how data should informdecisions. The teams received a manual onthe proposed indicators which reinforcedthe need to set priorities and categorizeindicators by major improvement areas.

How did the schools respond to the use ofindicators? As would be expected, theirsophistication and use of indicators in theimprovement process varied. The response

ranged from digging in and studying whatthe indicators had to offer to compliance(another hoop to jump through). How wellschools did in looking hard at indicatorsand data seemed to depend on the qualityof the site-based leadership at each school.The incorporation of the indicators wassubstantive in those schools whose coreleadership team had a commitment to thetraining, planning, and reflection timeneeded to develop a more student-centeredthan adult-centered culture.

At some schools, where the norm of isola-tion and individual teaching versus collegi-ality and common goals was primary, theteams took a more superficial look at theindicators. We estimate that half of the 10schools seriously considered the indicatorsin this first year. Although all administeredthe student work survey described above,not all processed the data in meaningfulways. We concluded that understandingand collecting data on indicators and thenmaking sense of what is found is a signifi-cant time investment. Schools often do nothave the large chunks of time needed toaccomplish this. Those schools that havealready established norms of lookingdeeply at issues and problems understandthe role of indicators and see them asfitting with their priorities. Schools whereteachers work mostly in isolation, comingtogether superficially to handle administra-tive issues, will at first likely see indicatorsas a significant burden.

We learned several lessons that first year.We probably set too many additionalindicators given the size of our district andthe limited human resources we hadavailable for developing the system forcollecting and analyzing all the data. Wewould provide more support and assistancein helping school leaders understand andoperationalize indicators. We should havespent a little more time on the front end ofthe process, clearly communicating whateach indicator meant and how the data

23

were to be collected. We would recommendto a district attempting to duplicate oureffort that a booklet be produced thatclearly lists and explains each indicator andthe grade span to which it applies and thatstates how the data will be collected. Adistrict must also ensure that it has asufficient number of properly-trained staffto implement such a process.

2. Assessment of central office staff: Inorder to build a district-wide team focusedon continuous improvement, schools wereheld accountable through indicators. Butschools were also able to hold central officestaff, including the superintendent, ac-countable for the quality and quantity ofservice provided to their school improve-ment efforts. These assessments (AppendixB) were given to each central office staffperson's supervisor and the superinten-dent's was given to the chairman of theschool board. This bottom-up assessmentprocess was a powerful tool for modelingshared accountability and fostered therealization that we all must help each otherdo a better job. It also greatly encouragedleadership teams at the schools and centraloffice to practice honest and open dialogue.

3. Summer training for teachers in qualityclassroom assessment practices: The needfor different kinds of workers in the futuretranslates into a need to move away from atotal reliance on traditional classroomtesting (short-answer, multiple-choice) to amore balanced assessment approach whichincluded the incorporation of more "real-world" tasks that require higher-orderthinking and challenge students at a higherlevel. In our first year in the district, weembarked on a summer training programfor teachers in the area of quality class-room assessment practices. We developed atwo-day voluntary training program thatincluded alternative assessment, rubrics,and grading practices. This intensivesession was followed by several "reunions"during the year in which teachers workedon and shared alternative assessment

12

projects they were designing and imple-menting. The training and the "reunions"were conducted by the assistant superin-tendent, thus making obvious the districtsupport for teacher growth in this area.

In the first year and a half, about one-thirdof the district's 325 + certified staff weretrained. The use of "reunions" ensuredthey had the support to try out differentassessment methods matched to higher-level instructional goals. They experi-mented with the use of portfolios, student-led conferencing, second-chance grading inhigh school math, and checklists andrubrics to teach quality criteria to studentsand help them learn to self-assess. Theteachers who participated in the assess-ment training (currently over half thedistrict's teachers) reported that explicitlysharing quality expectations with studentsbefore expecting them to complete a taskwas producing some of the highest qualitywork they had ever received from students.

Lessons LearnedIn summarizing our first year, we felt wemade significant progress in creating anawareness of the need for change, honestdialogue, and reflection on quality. Wesucceeded in beginning to help schoolsdevelop better measures of their effectivenessand also demonstrated the central officestaff's willingness to accept feedback on theireffectiveness. The training we provided forteachers in the area of performance assess-ment helped them transform the teacher-student relationship through engaging stu-dents in a dialogue about the definition ofquality and making students more respon-sible for their learning through self-assess-ment, peer review, and student-led confer-ences. The training became a forum fordiscussions about the need for change in theclassroom.

year Two Developing a Shared VisionIn Year Two, we realized the need to talkmore in depth with all staff at the schools

24

about our goals and values. Simply givingthem a package of indicators to use was notenough. A lesson from this year was thedifference between setting direction forpeople and getting commitment from people.Several strategies were used to help build thiscommitment:

District leaders met intensively withschool staff: Toward the end of the secondyear the superintendent and assistantsuperintendent for instructional servicesspent one full day in each school in thedistrict, meeting in small groups with staff.These sessions provided an opportunity fordiscussions about the meaning of indica-tors, goals for teaching and learning,concerns, philosophical differences, andsuccess stories. These visits with schoolstaff have continued and have been instru-mental in building an awareness amongteachers of the need to provide engagingand quality work for students. Teachersand administrators were encouraged torethink the classroom role for teachersfrom that of ultimate authority to coach.From these conversations, a commitmentto a common definition of a problem (thechanging demands of society) emerged. Wetried to explain that schools had not done abad job in the past, but that societalchanges required schools to change.

We found our school site visits, in whichwe engaged administrators and teachers ina dialogue about the quality of their tasks(teaching), produced some of the mostvaluable learning for all of us. Naturally,principals and teachers felt somewhatapprehensive about what we might observein these site visits. What would happen, wewondered, to the quality of schools' im-provement efforts if they knew in advancewhat we were looking forif they, like ourstudents, had the quality criteria in ad-vance? What if they had a list of questions"to study" and discuss related to thedimensions of instructional quality ex-pected before our school visit?

In these "school improvement conversa-tions," district leaders also acted as critics,questioning whether proposed schoolchanges had been properly researched andthought through (i.e., had the schoolleadership done their homework?). Forexample, a request from a faculty to go toblock scheduling was turned down becausethe superintendent felt that the properamount of "homework" hadn't been done(idea researched, data on attitudes col-lected, community input gathered, success-ful sites visited). The request was approvedin a subsequent year after more study.Thus, the conversations between districtleaders and school improvement teamshelped institutionalize the need for study-ing research, collecting data, and involvingparents and staff as part of the planningprocess.

We believe this processgetting schools tofocus on data, research, and a sharedcommitment to explore what instructionalpractices will workis helping build adistrict-wide "culture of inquiry." It is alsoimportant to note that we added a staffmember to the central office whose pri-mary responsibility was to help schoolscollect data, analyze testing results, andfind research. Through this position, wecommunicated again the degree to whichwe planned to support the use of researchand data at school sites.

Central office staff created a participativeprocess for allocating district funds fortechnology and staff development: As asmall, poor district, we had limited fundsfor school improvement projects. We didnot want to foster counterproductivecompetition among schools through theway we allocated our scarce resources. Atthe same time, we wanted schools to realizea higher degree of accountability for fundsreceived for improvement projects. Wedecided to create a district-wide, participa-tive, decision-making process to allocatetechnology and staff development funds aspart of the school improvement planning

2513

cycle. In order to reduce competitionamong all schools and increase the aware-ness of district funding priorities, thefunding decisions were made by commit-tees composed of teacher representativesfrom each school. What we thought was adilemma (competition for scare resourcesin the improvement process) actuallyresulted in school improvement teamsbuilding more thoughtful proposals and indistrict committees taking the needs of theentire district into account in making theirdecisions. Having to develop proposals inthese two areas enhanced the school anddistrict planning process and generateddistrict-wide clarity about problems andchanges needed. When funding was re-ceived by a school, there was a powerfulcommitment to the other schools involvedin awarding funds that ensured effectiveuse and implementation.

.4. District leaders introduced the concept of"quality work" for students through theuse of a teacher action research group:The third strategy for building a sharedvision was the creation of a district-wide"teacher as researcher" group led by thesuperintendent. Fifty teachers volunteeredto work in this study group to explore howstudents felt about schoolwork. The teach-ers conducted interviews with studentsand asked them for their thoughts aboutthe components of quality work (e.g., whatkind of work could you be given that wouldmake you want to persevere?). This re-search went a long way toward helpingmake the concept of quality work forstudents a concrete concept in the minds ofmany teachers.

Lessons LearnedAt the end of the second year, the use ofindicators and self-evaluation of effective-ness were part of the planning process atmost schools. Not surprisingly, the kind ofschool leadership that existed at each schoolmade all the difference in the degree towhich research and thinking about indica-

Ur;

tors became part of the school improvementconversation. Some principle changes weremade to ensure schools had the type ofleadership they needed to lead substantiveschool improvement conversations.

year Three: Sustaining a Culture ofInquiryWe came to recognize over these years thatimproving professional practice and studentlearning required a total team effort and thatthe team had to be the entire district. Writersabout the school reform process have re-ferred to the school as the unit of changewithin public education. There is no ques-tion in our minds that schools are the keyunit of change and that they need to be theunit of accountability.

However, our work has also led us torealize that the culture of a single school istied to the larger organizationthe schooldistrictand that how schools change overtime is directly related to how the districtdirects the change. In our opinion theschool is the unit of change, but the dis-trict must be the unit that sets direction tocreate enduring change.

We felt strongly when we started our reformprocess that unless we were able to become atrue learning organization the new knowl-edge and behaviors needed from adults toimprove conditions for students wouldsimply not be acquired. It is important toemphasize the key role played by the topleadership in the district in creating thisenvironment. Not only did the superinten-dent on numerous occasions tell all employ-ees to focus on improving teaching andlearning and not test scores, but he con-ducted a funeral early in his tenure in thedistrict in order to bury all of the old teach-ing practices. The funeral was complete withmourners and wailers who appropriatelylamented the passing of these old friends.

26

While the Board of Education did manythings to encourage change and reform, themost powerful occurred at the end of thefirst and second years of our efforts. Con-cluding each of these years, the Board spon-sored a party for all school improvementteam members in the district. Toward theend of each party, the board members pro-vided the entertainment for the 150 inattendance. The first year's entertainmentwas the Board dressed as a wild and crazyrock band lip synching music. The secondyear was a game of jeopardy which involvedevery school team in some way. These eventswere certainly fun, but the Board made surethat every person who attended heard themessage, "We appreciate you, we supportyou, and we are willing to do foolish thingsso that you will know that we too are risk-takers." Collectively, through their actionsthe superintendent and the board verypowerfully articulated that this reform effortwas not about just tinkering around theedges but about fundamentally changing theway business was done.

Interpreting State Test ResultsWe describe these ongoing culture-buildingstrategies because they proved important inour third year when we faced a dilemma overour state test results. North Carolina's statetesting program has consisted of two types oftests for some yearsmultiple choice andopen-ended. Like most districts with a highpoverty rate (55 %), our district has alwaysperformed below the state average on thesetests and our performance over time couldbest be described as "flat." The multiplechoice tests measure a child's knowledge ofthe content of the state curriculum in grades3-8. The open-ended tests require students toreceive some information and then to use itto produce an answer. These tests are alsotied to the state curriculum and are given ingrades 3-8.

At the end of our second year (1993-94), werealized some positive growth on the open-ended tests and were encouraged. The resultsfrom our third year (1994-95) were ex-tremely positive. When comparing how wedid by grade level from the previous year(measuring different children), our scoresimproved in reading at grades 3, 4, 6, and 7.Scores improved in math at grades 3, 4, 5, 7,and 8. When we compared our cohortgrowth rate to the state's (same children overtime), we out-performed the state in four offive grade spans in reading and four of fivegrade spans in math. This growth rate issignificantly better than our previous year'sgrowth. A final way to review these data isby school results. Five of our eight schoolsexceeded the state growth rate in over 80 %of the grade spans measured. There were alsoa number of instances in which individualschool averages exceeded those of the state.We believe these tests measure most closelywhat had been the focus of our district overthe last two years. We believe these resultsare the bottom-line profits resulting from ouremphasis on the customers and qualityservices.

Despite our extraordinary gains on open-ended tests in grade 3-8, our scores on thestate's multiple-choice tests in these samegrades showed no change over the sameperiod. While we were not pleased with theresults, they are not surprising given the factthat we exerted little or no organizationaleffort toward that end. This decision wasmade because we felt that doing well onthese tests would not tell us whether or notwe were moving toward our organizationalvision. In other words, doing well on mul-tiple choice tests would not measure whetherwe were preparing our students to live andwork successfully in the 21st century.

Our district paid a price in the media for thisdecision since the multiple-choice test resultsof districts were reported by the state. Thus,

27VS

in the newspaper, it was made to look as ifwe had made no improvement in studentachievement. The open-ended results werenever reported. This became a real test of ourmarketing strategies and of the trust thatexisted between the district and the public.

Analyzing Our System NeedsAfter two years of hard work, we did notwant our concern over lack of progress inmultiple choice test results to throw us into anon-productive focus on raising test scores atany cost. However, we took these resultsseriously and tried to understand possibleexplanations.

We felt a small part of the problem might bethat students were not accustomed to themultiple choice test format. Indeed, whyshould they be, since we had focused onperformance assessment and taking risks toimprove teaching and learning, not multiplechoice tests? Secondly, our students mighthave done well on the open-ended tests,because we had focused on writing skills.The open-ended items might have allowed achild skilled in writing but deficient in somereading or math content to still perform wellon the open-ended tests.

But, most importantly, the test resultshelped us realize that we had seriouslyoverestimated teachers' training in, andskill at, teaching reading, writing, andmath, especially to at-risk populations. Wealready knew that most elementary teach-ers reported they did not feel comfortablewith their own background in mathemat-ics, and we also discovered that most ofthem had taken only one course in teach-ing reading. We were not sure our trainingefforts had adequately prepared all teach-ers to utilize the latest in research andproven instructional methods to success-fully teach all children in our diversestudent population.

16

In our own background of work in largerdistricts, we were accustomed to largernumbers of teachers with Master's degreesand much greater familiarity with the re-search on effective schools, Whole Language,and the implications of the National Councilof Teachers of Mathematics' Standards.Therefore, we had assumed that all teachersknew how to teach reading, writing, andmathematics. We had assumed that if weprovided a better, more collegial, and team-oriented environment for teachers it wouldresolve problems with student achievement.Consequently, our strategies the first threeyears focused on generic teaching skills suchas cooperative learning, cooperative disci-pline, Paidea proposal, etc.strategies thatcan be used in any subject area. In ourreflection in this third summer, we recog-nized the need to help teachers develop moreknowledge about teaching the basics acrossthe curriculum, especially to a diversepopulation.

year Four Encouraging Teacher andStudent Accountability

A New State Accountability PlanAs we entered our fourth year of schoolreform, a new accountability variable en-tered the equation. The state proposed todramatically change its accountability planfrom comparing districts to state averageseach year to the growth of students in eachschool. Previously, the state relied primarilyon comparing how well the entire district'sstudents did on multiple-choice tests bygrade or course, compared to a differentgroup of students who took the tests theprevious year. This plan inevitably led tounfair comparisons of poor districts towealthier ones, in which no matter howmuch poor districts had improved studentachievement, they usually came in "belowstate average" and below wealthier districts.

28

North Carolina's new ABC AccountabilityPlan proposed basing accountability on thegrowth of the same cohort of students asthey moved from grade to grade in a givenschool. The state would give each school inthe state (grades 3-8) growth goals by gradein reading and in math, based on the averagestatewide student growth from one grade tothe next in these two areas. These growthgoals would be greater for schools withstudents who were below the state average sothat over time (it is hoped) they would catchup. The state also proposed a bonus programthat would award money to a school staffthat increased their student achievementscores by 110 % of the expected year'sgrowth.

Our district staff debated the merits ofparticipating in a pilot of this new account-ability plan. On one hand, we were worriedabout the negative impact of high-stakestesting based solely on multiple-choice testsas proposed in the ABC Plan. We knew thestate multiple-choice tests would still notgive a complete and comprehensive pictureof whether our students were developing theknowledge and skills they would need forsuccess after high school.

On the other hand, a strength of the newABC Plan was that it offered an opportunityto base accountability on making progresswith all students wherever they started,rather than on relative comparisons betweenwell-funded and less well-funded districts.Participation in the ABC Plan would alsoallow us a voice in shaping the statewideplan. In the end, the overwhelming majorityof staff in each of our schools voted to par-ticipate in the ABC pilot. This decisiongreatly increased the pressure on each schoolto develop plans focused on implementingthe best instructional strategies for improv-ing reading, writing, and math across thewhole school.

Encouraging Individual TeacherGrowthRealizing that our teachers had very littletraining in research-based strategies forteaching reading and writing, we engaged thehelp of a consultant to help our teacherslearn how to implement research-basedstrategies to teach reading and writing acrossthe curriculum.

One of the first questions our experiencedteachers asked about the outside consultantwas, "On what authority does she speak?" Ineffect, they were asking if the consultant wasthe superintendent's "new guru" andwhether everyone had to do what she said.This concern provided a unique opportunityfor us to further build the culture of inquirywe believe we must have if instruction andconsequently student achievement are tocontinue improving in the district. Our firstresponse was that we did not want theintroduction of a new consultantor anyoneelseto erode the progress we had made ingetting people to stop saying "Just tell mewhat you want me to do." We did not wantjust compliance to yet another set of pre-scriptions; we wanted individual teachercommitment to search for better ways toreach all kids. We affirmed that our outsideconsultant spoke with the same authorityany of us should speak, namely, research andclinical practices based on that research.

The questions asked about the authority ofthe consultant helped us realize that weneeded to encourage all teachers to continueto refine their beliefs about good instruc-tional practices through reading the researchand evaluating what works and doesn't workwith their students. It was obvious from ourprevious school visits that many educatorscontinued to use instructional practices, suchas assigning worksheets or direct instructionin spelling and grammar isolated fromchildren's writing, that research had provedineffective. Research can provide guidance,

29

17

but it must be used in concert with hardlooks at how practices work with children inthe particular classroom or school. Readingthe research and evaluating the impact ofnew practices tried is not the province of justthe school improvement team. We realizedthat a truly accountable school must alsosupport teachers individually in their readingof research and in their evaluation of theirpractices.

We were committed to

Helping teachers become better at evalu-ating their own practice (teacher as self-assessors): Our goal is to develop self-assessment tools through which teacherscan assess how far along they are in beingable to use effective instructional practicesand in using this information not only toplan training but to also support thecrucial dialogue with colleagues regardingwhat they find in implementing newpractices. We also hope this work willresult in clearer guidelines for administra-tors and specialists to use in observing andproviding helpful feedback as they visitclassrooms.

Over the summer and early fall of 1995, weengaged our leaders in training and dia-logue designed to articulate quality instruc-tional standards. The outside consultantprovided intense leadership training inresearch-based practices to improve read-ing, writing, and math instruction. Ineffect, she began to help leaders and teach-ers develop criteria for evaluating thequality of instruction in their buildings.She provided examples of quality instruc-tion through modeling lessons in eachbuilding and provided feedback to teachersand administrators.

These discussions culminated in thedevelopment of a self-rating instrument forK-8 teachers to use in assessing theirinstructional practices in reading andwriting. In the fall of 1996, this self-rating

uo

instrument (Appendix C) was madeavailable to teachers so they could reflecton "where they are." It is very difficult toimprove any skill or performance area inlife without good, individualized feedback.We had hoped principals would be able touse these forms to provide informal feed-back to teachers, thus reinforcing the"standards" for instructional practice.

However, we underestimated the power ofexisting cultural norms. Many teachershad only experienced less-than-helpfulevaluations/feedback from principals.Many interpreted what was intended as aself-assessment guide as a new summativeevaluation instrument. Teachers expressedconcerns about the lack of detail in theself-rating instrument and its rigidity innot taking individual teacher styles intoaccount.

Thus, we are now spending a year indialogue with schools to work on theseissues. A lesson learned from the districtperspective is that developing a norm ofno blame in the use of teacher self-assessment instruments and administra-tor feedback is slow going because it runscounter to most teachers' experiencewith judgmental, evaluation systems.

Encouraging teachers to conduct actionresearch and collect data that informspractice (teachers as researchers): We aredealing with the need for broad-based useof research and evaluation in our districtreform efforts by encouraging all ourleaders to engage teachers as action re-searchers as the entire school seeks tomake sense of the data on student achieve-ment and the implications of currentresearch for instructional practices. We arenot asking teachers to treat research or itsclinical implications as a cookbook ofrecipes which can then be mindlesslyimplemented without regard for the par-ticular circumstances. Rather we areasking our leaders and teachers to make a

30

good-faith effort to try out and fine-tuneresearch-based instructional strategies inthe search for practices that will enable allstudents to succeed. Most importantly, weare asking them to establish the time andcultural norms that would encourageteachers to collect data and share theirexperiences in using research-based in-structional strategies.

This approach is already paying dividendsin teachers' willingness to take risks andimplement promising instructional strate-gies. Recently, in a conversation with theinstructional specialist, an elementaryteacher, who attempted to implementcooperative learning by using groups offour, reported total confusion and off-taskbehavior. The specialist suggested thatsince her students had had no prior experi-ence working in cooperative groups, pairsof students might be a more productiveway to begin. The teacher tried this ap-proach and reported great success. Ratherthan trying something new, experiencingfrustration or failure, and ditching thechange, the teacher successfully experi-enced the evaluation-feedback loop.

Similarly, second grade teachers in anotherschool decided to try new assessment toolsto monitor their students' entry level andmid-year progress in reading. The mid-yearresults these teachers decided to collecthave shown almost all students makingsuch substantial progress that the teachersare feeling affirmed and encouraged intheir willingness to risk new instructionalapproaches. The data on students notmaking progress has enabled them to seekadditional resources and approaches tohelp those students. Thus, these teachersalso experienced success in evaluating theirpractice.

As district leaders we have tried to supportthe idea of individuals studying theirpractice in collegial groups in several ways.Our district-wide leadership team (princi-

pals and central office) started a book studyinitiative to analyze educational research ina variety of areas. This idea in turn waspassed on by some principals to theirindividual schools. We try to share andvalue individual teachers' experiences aspart of a video series for the general publicshown on television and we tell storiesabout experiences of educators in ourdistrict who have reflected on and changedpractice in successful ways.

Reducing pressure to teach to the test:Despite our best efforts to keep state-mandated testing in perspective, we haveencountered instances of teachers over-come with anxiety about doing well onsuch tests. These problem situationsprovide further opportunities for us toengage our key administrators and teacherleadership in an ongoing dialogue aboutwhat really matters and how we can keepour focus on a clear long-term vision ofquality instruction and student achieve-ment, rather than succumb to the tempta-tion of over-focusing on short-term testresults. We are more convinced than everthat analyzing what students need tolearn does not necessarily tell you howthey best will learn it. Building a cultureof inquiry, in which teachers are bothempowered and expected to use researchand collect data and dialogue with col-leagues to improve instructional practices,is the cornerstone of our continuing effortsto transform education in our district.

Encouraging Individual StudentOwnership and ResponsibilitgAs a district, we encouraged our ten schools tocommit to self-evaluation and continualimprovement through our use of indicators,site visits, and other means. Through oursupport for consultants to help teachers de-velop quality teaching standards, emphasis onteachers as researchers, and celebrations ofindividual successes, we began to create aculture of accountability for teaching excel-lence. Finally, we have also realized that

31

students must understand and take responsi-bility for working toward desired outcomes.

Our strategies at this level included thefollowing:

Classroom assessment that focused onstudent self-assessment:

Need: Students do not come naturally toself-assessment of work completed. Thiskind of student ownership must be taughtby teachers. Our summer training programfor teachers in alternative assessment andquality classroom assessment has beeninstrumental in helping teachers bringstudents into the learning process aspartners.

Impact: As a result of the classroom assess-ment training we have offered, we haveseen teachers increasingly use rubrics inthe instructional and assessment process asa way of communicating to students whatis expected. We have also seen increases inthe use of portfolios and student-led parentconferencing as self-assessment tools forstudents. In our district, students are nowmore involved than ever in the process ofassessing their own work. Teachers in-creasingly articulate desired goals, discuss"anchor performances" (the kind andquality of paper, product, project expected),and outline for students the process orsteps that will lead to a quality product. Allcourses at the high school now routinelydistribute a syllabus directed to studentsand parents which articulates courseobjectives, background required for thecourse, and how grades are determined.

A required senior project awakens ourseniors:

Need: Early in our first year in the district,we began looking for high schools that usedsome form of performance assessments orexhibitions of student work to determinereadiness for graduation. With the help of

20

SERVE, we found several sites that usedgraduation exhibitions. These schools wereexperiencing success in asking seniors tocomplete a comprehensive, self-determinedresearch project that pushed them todevelop and demonstrate independentlearning skills. Our district worked withSERVE to bring in two teachers fromMedford, Oregon who had a successfulsenior project program. These teachers latertrained representatives from our highschool faculty on the implementation ofsenior projects. Senior English teachersbegan to experiment with requiring a seniorproject, which became a requirement in allsenior English classes in 1994-95.

The project consists of three categories:research paper, portfolio, and oral presenta-tion. Each student must complete allcategories during a nine-week period. Theoral presentation is the final element of theproject and is judged by a panel thatincludes community members and faculty.Over 100 business leaders are invited toserve as judges over a nine-day time frameand great support is received. (See Appen-dix D for the scoring rubric used.)

Impact: In reflecting on the impact ofimplementing a senior project program,one of the primary benefits was a newcommitment at the high school andthroughout the district to developingstudent competencies that transcendeddisciplines (e.g., research, writing, andspeaking skills). The program representeda distinct move away from compartmental-ization and isolation, fostering a dialogueacross disciplines that resulted in increasedcollaboration on courses taught (e.g., U.S.history and English teachers workingtogether). It increased our instructionalemphasis on oral presentations at the highschool and resulted in introducing a newspeech course as well as increased use ofteaching students to make oral presenta-tions in other courses. The program dra-matically increased student skill and

32

interest in word processing as part ofcreating the paper. It also sparked interestin implementing a junior year project tohelp students identify a topic to pursue inthe senior year as well as develop requisiteresearch and oral presentation skills. Thedevelopment of a senior project rubric forassessing the projects led to other applica-tions of the use of rubrics as instructionaltools in high school classes.

A new promotion/intervention policythat embodies high expectations forstudents:

Need: For too long, children attendingschool in this district had been movedalong from one grade to the nextready ornot. The process of "social promotions"resulted from research that said retainingstudents didn't help, especially whenstudents were given the same things to doall over again. As a result of this socialpromotion practice, teachers have found itincreasingly difficult to meet the needs ofstudents who are years behind in readingand math skills.

In addition, too many students seemed tofeel no accountability, no consequences fortheir own failure to learn, often puttingforth little or no effort and sometimes noteven attending school regularly. Teachersfrequently reported these students felt itdid not matter whether they did any workin school since they would be promotedanyway. Although this work-avoidanceattitude among some students was evidentduring the school year (refusal to partici-pate in class activities, complete assign-ments, or do homework even when theyhad the ability), it was most pronounced insummer school attendance.

In 1994-95, the district continued offeringa traditional summer school program forthose students in grades 3, 6, and 8 whodid not meet grade level standards at theend of the year. Despite the fact that almost

half the students at each of these gradelevels did not meet those standards, manydid not attend the summer program, andattendance was poor among those who did.Participation was highest among thirdgraders, but among sixth and eighth grad-ers, participation was low. Only 30 stu-dents out of almost 200 underachievingeighth graders chose to attend summerschool. Teachers felt that since studentsknew they would be promoted anyway,there was no reason to attend.

Unfortunately, the consequences wererealized in high school, especially in thefreshman year, when large numbers ofstudents failed required core courses. Oftenthese students were surprised to learn thatthey would not be "passed on" to a highschool diploma unless they passed requiredcoursework. The history of social promo-tion contributed to a high school cohortdropout rate approaching 40 % (i.e., around40 % of the freshmen did not graduate withtheir entering class four years later).Teachers, not only at the high school but atall levels, repeatedly asked the district forhelp in addressing the problem of work-avoidant students.

Policy Goals: In a move to reverse thistrend, the district spent considerable timedeveloping a new Promotion/InterventionPolicy (Appendix E). The goals of thepolicy were to help students focus on theirlearning, assist those students in need, andestablish criteria for progressing throughthe levels of schooling. The new policyrequires that students meet specific stan-dards before moving to the next level ofschooling. It is designed to catch studentsearly who are behind and to provide theadditional time and support necessary toaccelerate their learning. It was also de-signed to increase accountability forstudents and their parents, to create areasonable consequenceadditional timeduring the summer for learningfor notmeeting grade level standards.

3321

Students must show they can do the workat the next level of schooling to be pro-moted without conditions at the end of theschool year. The new policy sets entryrequirements at three critical transitionpoints: at the end of primary (third grade)before entering elementary level grades(fourth grade), at the end of the elementarylevel (sixth grade) before moving to themiddle school, and at the end of middleschool (eighth grade) before moving to thehigh school. Before moving on to the nextlevel of schooling, students must show theycan do the work at that level.

The new policy

mandates extra schooling for those notable to meet these new standards. ASchool Year Plus summer program is nowrequired for those students who need morehelp and time to meet grade level expecta-tions in reading, writing, and math. Ifstudents and their parents refuse toattend the School Year Plus program, thechild is retained in the grade. We did notimplement this policy believing thatretention would help the child's achieve-ment, but to establish a serious enoughconsequence to get the attention andparticipation of students in additionalschooling during the summer. Better than95 % of those recommended for SchoolYear Plus attended.

ensures that a student's ability to movefrom one level to another will not bejudged on the results of a single test or bya single person. The policy establisheddistrict-level teacher committees whoreview additional evidence supplied bythe child's teacher to determine whetherthe test results are an adequate indicationof the student's ability to do grade-levelwork.

provides year-long additional support forstudents who need it. In addition to theSchool Year Plus summer, program, every

22

school created a conditional promotionprogram at grades 4, 7, and 9 thatprovided varying degrees of additionaltutorial support, computer assistedinstruction, advisors, and other strategiesto support students who still were eitherslightly or well below grade level stan-dards even after attending the SchoolYear Plus program.

Impact: We made a decision not to retainany child who attended the School YearPlus program and made an effort to learn.Retention rates remained very low in thedistrict. Instead, we planned and providedadditional funds for schools to establishconditional promotion programs at thereceiving levels-4th, 7th, and 9th grade.These conditional promotion programswere designed by the schools and variedfrom additional intensive time and tutorialhelp to semi self-contained programs forlowest-achieving students at the middleand high school. While most students madetremendous gains during the summerprogram, very few reached grade level andwere unconditionally promoted. Themajority are continuing to receive addi-tional assistance during the school year tobe successful at their new grade level.

The issue of how to effectively interveneand accelerate the achievement of studentswho are far below grade level continues tobe a significant topic of debate and researchin our district. More than 20 % of ourkindergarten students start school two ormore years behind their peers. This per-centage stays relatively constant through-out school, with around 20 % scoring atLevel I, "well below grade level," on stateend-of-grade tests (grades 3-8). Teachersand schools continue to struggle with howto involve parents and get them to shouldera fair share of the responsibility in helpingthese students catch up. All of us questionand collect data to evaluate whether theinterventions we design can compensatefor the debilitating effects of poverty,

34

racism, family dysfunction, drug abuse,hopelessness, and despair which character-ize the homes of too many of our students.

In conclusion, we feel with the three strate-gies described above (classroom assessmenttraining for teachers that stressed studentself-assessment methods, a senior projectprogram, and a new intervention/promotionpolicy), we have made significant stridestoward higher levels of accountability at thestudent level.

How Do We Know How We'reDoing?

As a district office, we have severaloptions for evaluating progress: evaluate

informally through listening and observingin schools, evaluate formally through collect-ing data on specific initiatives and throughlooking at school indicators, and look at testscore results.

Informal Sources of InformationAs a small district with limited resources, wedepend heavily on informal evaluations. Ourqualitative evaluations (through school sitevisits, observations at meetings, and feed-back from principals and specialists who areobserving in the classrooms) tell us thatschools are changing and instruction isimproving. As we begin the 1996-97 schoolyear, we observe an extremely powerfulsense of professional pride and confidenceamong our instructional staff as a result ofthe growth they have seen in students'performance. Our seventh grade math teach-ers are rethinking aspects of their instruc-tional program resulting from the increasedknowledge level of this year's enteringseventh graders. Our high school administra-tors and teachers are enthusiastic aboutdealing with School Year Plus ninth graderswho are not only better prepared but have apositive attitude about working hard tolearn. Teachers are reporting that their

students are focused and working with moreconfidence, and discussions about whatconstitutes "good" teaching are increasinglyhappening.

Formal Evaluation SourcesAgain, because of resource limitations wecannot evaluate all new initiatives to theextent we would like, but we do evaluatesome critical initiatives more formally. Aninitiative of critical importance to our suc-cess is the Conditional Promotion Programdescribed earlier in which each school isresponsible for designing intervention strate-gies for students who have attended theSchool Year Plus Summer Program but arestill working below grade level. Our Directorof Research and Testing formally evaluatesthe match between the interventions eachschool designed on paper and what actuallyhappens in providing the services to thesestudents. What the schools say they aredoing is not always consistent with what shefinds with her site visits, observations, andinterviews. The information is used to helpschools improve their intervention programsrather than to blame them or put them onthe defensive. As we found with the indica-tors, some schools with strong leadershipand a commitment to continuous improve-ment accept evaluations of their programsfor what they can learn to improve them.Others are more threatened and tend to"cover up" problems with implementation.

What have we learned from indicators? Asone would expect, not all of our indicatorsfound their way into continuing use (Appen-dix A). Some were necessary to communi-cate our vision but did not make it to thedata collection stage. The most importantindicators to us as district leaders are theentrance requirements for the three levels.Some schools have many more students notyet meeting the requirements for promotionwhich impact resources needed. These aredata we follow very carefully.

35 2S

We have not mandated teacher, student, orparent survey data district-wide but leftdecisions about these data at the school level.Our list of indicators was meant to helpeducate the schools about possibilities inthese areas not as a mandate for what theyhad to collect. Schools have actively usedteacher survey data and typically do makechanges when results indicate lagging sup-port. Student surveys have not been widelyused yet. The commitment to actively con-sider student input comes slowly. The highschool has recently made a commitment tobegin conducting an annual student survey.

Although parent surveys have not been usedextensively, schools have bought into theidea of the importance of parent input andare obtaining that input in more qualitativeways (focus groups, involvement on commit-tees). Finally, we attempted a graduatesurvey which we believe is critical feedbackfor us but were not able to obtain a highresponse rate. We hope to work further onthis source of indicator data.

Test ResultsOur state test results have been positive. The1995-96 results of each school in the districton the state's multiple-choice tests in readingand math (grades 3-8) were very positive.The state estimated that 30 % of the schoolsin the ten pilot districts would achieve the"exemplary growth" standard of 110 % of anaverage year's growth in student achieve-ment. In the first year of the ABC Plan pilot,40 % of the state pilot schools actuallyreached the 110 % exemplary growth stan-dard.

In our district, 90 % of our schools (nine often) reached this standard. The tenth school,a middle school, reached 110 % growth inreading (the only middle school in the stateABC pilot to reach exemplary growth inanything) but missed it in math. Theseresults indicate that students learned in

24

every school, regardless of its demographiccomposition. When we disaggregated thesescores, we found that all subsets of students(gifted, minorities, females, low-performing,etc.) showed growth. On average, every groupof students in each school made extraordi-nary progress.

And we achieved these results withoutexcluding more students from testing, atypical side effect of high-stakes testing. Wetested over 98 % of all students in grades 3-8 the highest percentage ever tested in ourdistrict. Our 2.5 % rate of excluding excep-tional children from testing was half thestate-allowed rate of 5% .

We experienced similar results on the statewriting tests which are administered atgrades 4, 7, and 10. At grade 7, we increasedthe number of students scoring at the statestandard by 14 % significantly above thestate average. At grade 10, we almost doubledthe percent of students performing at thestate standard, which moved us to just .1below the state average. At grade 4, ourwriting scores improved, but we are stillbelow the state average.

In addition to the better-than-one-year-average growth all students made, the num-ber of students performing at or above gradelevel in reading increased 6 % and 9.3 % inmath. However, this still left almost half thestudents functioning below grade level at theend of grades 3, 6, and 8.

After inviting all students who failed to meetgrade level standards to attend an extendedone month summer session, we wound upwith over 500 third, sixth, and eighth gradestudents in the School Year Plus summerprogram.

Using the Degrees of Reading Power Test tomeasure student growth, the third gradersrecorded .6 of a year's growth in reading,

36

sixth graders 2.5 years of growth, and eighthgraders 1.5 years of growth in reading. Tomeasure growth in mathematics, we used aversion of our state tests that reports studentperformance in levels of achievement Ithrough IV. Over 50 % of all summer stu-dents tested demonstrated gains of at leasthalf of an achievement level, and over 25 %of all students progressed by an entireachievement level in math.

Thus, we think our bottom line results areimproving, and we also feel strongly that thequality of our delivery processes is improving.

Final Thoughtsur accountability strategies haveevolved. In our first "cut," we felt

indicators could communicate and be effec-tive when passed on to schools, but theyneeded to represent the district vision of theimportance of process, not just the statebottom line of standardized test scores. Nextwe added the element of site visits, realizingthat dialogue and conversations were neededto help schools in the district buy in andunderstand the vision we were trying toarticulate with indicators. On a side note, aparallel district effort to train teachers ingood classroom assessment practices, particu-larly alternative assessment matched tohigher-level instructional goals, helped usrealize that, with our site visits, we wereassessing school effectiveness without mak-ing our expectations clear to those in theschools.

The development of standards of profes-sional practice in reading, writing, and mathemerged as a need from our state test resultsand our dialogue with teachers. Out of thiswork with a consultant came the growingrealization that we needed to support teach-ers in their roles as action researchers intheir classrooms and self-assessors of theirteaching effectiveness if accountability was

to be internalized at the individual teacherlevel. Principals and specialists realized theirrole in providing good feedback to teachersto help them improve.

At the student level, we worked on betterclassroom assessment, a senior projectprogram, and a promotion/interventionpolicy that would increase student responsi-bility for meeting standards. Thus, there aremany pieces to the school and individualteacher accountability puzzle.

The expansion of our accountability systemhas significantly changed the culture of ourschool district and dramatically improvedstudent achievement. The cultural changeresulted in our district receiving theGovernor's Most Outstanding Entrepreneur-ial Schools Award for 1995. This award isgiven annually by the Governor's TeacherAdvisory Committee to the school or schooldistrict in North Carolina that best exempli-fies bold leadership and responsible risk-taking to advance teaching and improvelearning in the state of North Carolina.

We have come to understand that the paceof change is just as important to continu-ous improvement as the pace of a lesson isto learning. We learned that the best pacefor change is not always brisk. Peoplemust have time to do research, plan, prac-tice, and, finally, internalize the change.

If public education is to continue as theinstitution that creates the public of thefuture, then it will have to develop the capac-ity for continual improvement. Our experi-ence has taught us that this transformationof our 100-year-old notions of schooling is aprofound cultural transformation that willnot take place easily or quickly. Changingthe culture of school and the very natureof schooling requires a monumental shiftin thinking, not the mindless applicationof trivial improvements to the current

3725

institution. This type of significant para-digm shift is potentially dangerous andshould not be attempted without strongvisionary leadership and a board of educa-tion committed to support the effort overtime.

Many have assumed that student achieve-ment is the only thing that matters in im-proving schools. This assumption has cer-tainly helped in moving beyond traditionalmeasures of school performance, such as theprofessional degrees of teachers, the numberof books in the library, and other old accredi-tation requirements which had a question-able relationship to student achievement.However, our experience and reading inschool reform over the last two decades haveconvinced us that the exclusive preoccupa-tion with only the "bottom line" of studentachievement has produced its own set ofunintended consequences and blinded us tothe crucial issues of creating organizationsthat connect quickly to change or of gettingstudents to do quality work. This sameinstitutional blindness almost resulted in thecomplete collapse of the U.S. automotiveindustry before its leaders discovered thatquality must come before profits.

"Traumatic," "difficult," "professionallydangerous," and "frustrating" are all wordsor phrases that describe the act of leadingsignificant school reform. However, if oneconcludes that the success of public schoolsis tied closely to the continued success of ourdemocratic society, that this society is chang-ing rapidly, and that schooling's purpose is tocreate the public which perpetuates theprinciple of civic participation in our society,then caring educators must decide to engagein significant change that cannot be mea-sured by test scores alone.

One can also conclude from our work thatwhile focusing on improving practice andquality will result in long-term improvement,

26

short-term survival requires some attentionbe given to preparing students to perform onthe type of state accountability tests adminis-tered. However addressing such a concernneed not (and we would argue should not)result in an exclusive preoccupation withraising test scores at any cost. Our approachhas been to include not only test scores butalso research-based instructional practices asthe focus of dialogue with teachers andadministrators to build a culture of inquiry.Our belief is that there are no panaceas, noquick and easy solutions for teachers toimplement "off the shelf" with no risk-takingand no ongoing dialogues with colleagues toassess and fine-tune their effectiveness. Ourcommitment is to use every problem, everyoccasion of concern about student perfor-mance and effective instruction, as an oppor-tunity to build this culture.

It is our hope that this document willconvince readers that the only way to besuccessful in this endeavor is to valueteachers and administrators as resourcesto be nurtured. If readers focus on buildingtheir professional capacities and gainingtheir professional commitment to quality,children will benefit. Most importantly,however, is that such an approach will resultin a school district that will create a futurepublic imbued with confidence, a sense ofpurpose, and a respect for learning andtolerancea future public that will continuethe ideals upon which our country wasfounded.

There are no shortcuts.

38

Conclusion:SummarizingStrategies to EnsureQuality

Clearly, district leaders play a signifi-cant role in developing a culture thatvalues high standards of professional

practice, individual growth, self-reflection,and honest dialogue. In reflecting on theexperiences of the leaders in the ElizabethCity-Pasquotank County School District, welearned that district leaders can build ac-countability as self-evaluation and reflectionand a commitment to quality at three levels:the individual school, teacher, and student.Four years ago, as the new leaders of thisdistrict, they started incorporating "process"indicators into school improvement planningin the belief that these indicators would helpthem communicate to school staff theirvision for what the process of schoolingshould look like. Realizing that these indica-tors alone were not sufficient to communi-cate their goals and vision, more strategiesevolved over the four-year period and aresummarized in this chapter.

Strategies to Build a SchoolCommitment to Quality andSelf-Evaluation

Here are the strategies the district used tohelp strengthen the school improve-

ment process.

+ Develop indicators of school effectivenessthat reflect the district vision and that gobeyond test scores. By developingindicators (See Appendix A), the districtprovides structure and communicates thatquality processes (instruction, staffdevelopment, parent involvement) arecritical.

4.. Realize that manuals on the schoolimprovement process are not enough. Theschool improvement process was seen as soimportant that the superintendent andassistant superintendent conducted thetraining for the principals themselves.They also took the time to furthercommunicate their goals and values byvisiting schools and talking and listening tofaculty. These forums helped school staffunderstand the need for and commitmentto change.

39

CHAPTER

THREE

Review ideas proposed by schoolimprovement teams with an eye foradequate study of the problem. If a schoolimprovement team cannot explain theresearch and the background needsassessment data collected to document whythey feel a change is needed, the districtcan keep pushing for more review until theproblem has been adequately studied.

Establish a district-wide, participative,decision-making process for the allocationof technology and staff development funds.In this case, the district established adistrict-wide committee of teachers toreview each school's application for staffdevelopment and technology funds andmake the award decisions.

Model action research. The superinten-dent, who acted as the group leader, askedfor volunteer teachers to study themeaning of quality work for students.

Model a commitment to personalexcellence through developing amechanism (See Appendix B) for districtleaders and staff to receive feedback fromthose they serve in schools (principals,teachers, students, others).

Offer more research support to schools.The district created a research position toserve schools in analyzing state test data,assessing needs, and finding relevantresearch.

The strategies above may not work for alldistricts. They are not proposed as the"right" or only strategies; they are simplystrategies successfully used in one district.Strategies for improving school accountabil-ity need to fit with the skills, knowledge, andattitudes of school leaders. For example, anassociate superintendent from another NorthCarolina district commented upon reviewingan earlier draft of this document that devel-oping additional indicators for school leadersto consider in the improvement planning

22

process would not have worked in theirdistrict. The school administrators in thedistrict previously were accustomed to beingprescribed to by the central office. In theirdistrict, adding more indicators would haveoverwhelmed and confused school improve-ment teams and made it more difficult forthem to prioritize and focus. In workingwith their school leadership teams, newdistrict leaders had more success building the"process" areas as strategies to improveachievement rather than setting additionalimprovement goals around the indicators.

One thing that is clear, however, is thecritical importance of honest, open, andregular dialogues between district leadersand schools. Obviously, the smaller numberof schools in a district, the easier theseconversations are to manage.

Strategies to Build aTeacher Commitmentto Self-Evaluationrr he district used several strategies in_IL trying to build a teacher commitment to

improving practice.

Initiate efforts to develop high standardsfor professional practice.

In Elizabeth City-Pasquotank, districtleaders realized that teachers were notconversant with the research on whatworks in reading instruction. As a firststep toward increasing awareness, thesuperintendent set the tone by having atwo-day retreat with school-level andcentral office administrators. The groupspent the first day looking at and analyzingthe system's data and individual school testresults. The second day addressed whatresearch says about how to teach readingand writing so that students are able tosucceed. From that discussion, an

40

awareness developed among school leadersthat research can provide guidance on howto improve reading and writing instruction.Subsequently, the district made a readingconsultant available to all teachers ingrades 1-8 for staff development(discussions about research, modeling ofstrategies, sharing materials, andobservations/feedback).

As these school conversations aboutreading research continued, questionsemerged regarding the specifics of goodreading and writing instruction (If Iwalked into a classroom, what should Isee?). To answer these questions, at theconclusion of 1995-96, the district officestaff member in charge of language arts andthe reading consultant completed a firstdraft of a self-assessment instrument forteachers based on the many discussionsthat had occurred during the year. In 1996-97, teachers and principals are using theinstrument to assess needs. This draftinstrument continues to evolve as it is usedand critiqued. In its present form, it isincluded as Appendix C.

Through this instrument and as a result ofthe many conversations about whatresearch says, a common vision of whatconstitutes good professional practice inreading and writing instruction isemerging. The district office staff personfeels strongly that this process (of defininggood teaching based on research) wouldnever have worked without thecommitment from the superintendent toengage administrators district-wide in thediscussion of the research base as a firststep. A district-wide committee is currentlyworking on another document that definesgood math instruction.

+ Create book study clubs to encourageteachers to examine their practice relativeto the research. The superintendent ledbuilding administrators in a book study ofBecoming a Nation of Readers (1985).

Subsequently, some school administratorsstarted book study clubs in their schools.

Encourage individual teacher actionresearch by providing training, resources,or support groups.

Address anxiety among teachers that maycome from fear of state policies (sanctionsfor poor or not improving test scores).

Note: Another strategy that SERVE hasfound successful in encouraging a commit-ment to professional development is theimplementation of formative teacher evalua-tion systems for tenured teachers (seeSERVE report, Designing Teacher EvaluationSystems that Support Professional Growth). Inthis Research and Development program,schools and districts work with SERVE todevelop self- and peer-evaluation systemsthat encourage teachers to take responsibilityfor setting their own professional growthgoals.

Strategies to Build aStudent Commitmentto Self-Evaluation

ther strategies are suggested to involvestudents in becoming more accountable

for their progress.

To empower students to self assess,ensure that all teachers receive theassessment training needed tounderstand quality classroom assessmentpractices. This training proved to be a keyin Elizabeth City-Pasquotank'scommitment to self-evaluation because itcreated a core group of teachers with abetter understanding of the importance oflaying out expectations in the form ofrubrics to students and of the need toempower students to self-assess.

41 2q

Consider engaging school faculty inassessment projects like senior projects orportfolio design so students betterunderstand the outcomes expected of them(See Appendix D).

Develop promotion and interventionpolicies and programs that communicateexpectations to students and provideappropriate interventions when standardsaren't met (See Appendix E).

The list above is taken from a review of onedistrict's actions over a four year period. Thecommitment to self-evaluation at all levels isclear. The district participants will likelydiscover more strategies as they continue toreflect on their progress. Another district's listmay look different. School and district leadersmay benefit from building their own strategylist and reflecting on its effectiveness increating a culture of excellence wherecontinuoual improvement and quality servicesare realities.

Is the Time Right for Locally-Owned Accountability?

7.)uring the last decade, most schools andschool districts in the country have

been engaging in some type of school reform.These reform efforts have been drivenpartially by employers who recognize theneed for public schooling to prepare studentsto live and work in a vastly different worldthan the one in which their parents lived.The economic data are clear: schools willhave to educate all children, not only differ-ently but to levels higher than ever before.

This reality dramatically changes the funda-mental purpose of schooling in the country.During the last century (the Industrial Age),the purpose of schools was to sort and selectthe population to determine who would go tocollege and who would work in the factories.

As we enter the Information Age, the pur-pose of schools has to be to develop thecapacity of all students to be successful in ahighly technical, rapidly changing world.

Before districts and schools are able to fulfillthis new purpose, all stakeholders (adminis-trators, teachers, students, parents, andcommunity members) in a community willhave to envision schools in new ways. Theneed is to create a school organization that isconcerned with continuous learning and isfocused not just on knowledge, but, moreimportantly, on the application of knowl-edge. This knowledge must be made mean-ingful for all students by challenging them tothink using "real world" problems. Lastly,students must constantly receive feedback sothey will eventually be able to evaluate thequality of their own work.

The district profiled in this publication,along with other districts in the Southeast, isstaking itself out in favor of going beyond atest-based accountability system. Suchdistricts are designing balanced, expanded,and flexible accountability strategies aroundtheir community's vision of what educationshould be; promoting and encouraging risk-taking; and rethinking the work in schoolsnecessary to achieve higher and differentstandards. The districts and schools that aredefining accountability as monitoringprogress made toward quality services andprograms, understand the close link betweena focus on means (with an eye toward out-comes) and accountability.

42

To judge the value of an outcome or end,one should understand the nature of theprocesses or means that led to that end. . . .

It's not just that the means are appraisedin terms of the ends theg lead to, but endsare appraised in terms of the means thatproduce them (Messick, 1975, pg. 963).

ReferencesAlmasi, J.F., Afflerbach, P.P., Guthrie, J.T., &

Shafer, W.D. (1994). "The impact of astatewide performance assessment programon classroom instructional practice inliteracy." Paper presented at the AnnualMeeting of the American EducationalResearch Association, New Orleans, LA.

Bryk, A.S., & Hermanson, K.L. (1993)."Educational indicator systems:Observations on their structure,interpretation, and use." In Review ofResearch in Education, 19, 451-484.Washington, DC: American EducationalResearch Association.

Corbett, H.D., & Wilson, B.L. (1991). Testing,reform, and rebellion. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1992). Standards ofpractice for learner-centered schools.Teachers College, Columbia University:National Center for RestructuringEducation, Schools, and Teaching.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1993). "Ramming theschool reform agenda: Developing capacityfor school transformation." Phi DeltaKappan, 74 (10), 753-761.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1996). "Restructuringschools for high performance." InFuhrman, S., & O'Day, J.A. (Eds.), Rewardsand reform. San Francisco: Jossey-BassPublishers.

Darling-Hammond, L., & Ascher, C. (1991).Creating accountability in big city schoolsystems. Urban Diversity Series 102, ERICClearinghouse on Urban Education.

Darling-Hammond, L., Snyder, J., Ancess, J.,Einbender, L., Goodwin, A.L., &MacDonald, M.B. (1993). Creating learner-centered accountability. Teachers College,Columbia University: National Center forRestructuring Education, Schools, andTeaching.

Elam, S.M. (1990). "The 22nd annual GallopPoll of the public's attitudes toward the

public schools." Phi Delta Kappan, 71 (1),41-55.

Fink, C., Boggiano, A.K., & Barrett, M. (1990)."Controlling teaching strategies:Undermining children's self-determinationand performance."Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 59, 916-924.

Fullan, M.G., & Stiegelbauer, S. (1991). Thenew meaning of educational change. NewYork: Teachers College Press.

Haas, N.S., Haladyna, T.M., & Nolen, S.B.(1989). "Standardized testing in Arizona:Interviews and written comments fromteachers and administrators" (Tech. Report89-3). Phoenix: Arizona State University,West Campus.

Haladyna, T.M., Nolen, S.B., & Haas, N.S.(1991). "Raising standardized achievementtest scores and the origins of test scorepollution." Educational Researcher, 20 (5),2-7.

Haney, W., & Raczek, A. (1994)."Surmounting outcomes accountability ineducation." Paper prepared for the U.S.Congress Office of Technology Assessment.

Hatch, A., & Freeman, E.B. (1988). "Who'spushing whom? Stress and kindergarten."Phi Delta Kappan, 70 (2), 145-147.

Koretz, D. (1996). "Using student assessmentsfor accountability." In E. Hanushek andD.E. Jorgenson (Eds.), Improving America'sschools: The role of incentives. Washington,DC: National Academy Press.

McGill-Franzen, A., & Allington, R.L. (1993)."Flunk'em or get them classified (Thecontamination of primary gradeaccountability data)." EducationalResearcher, 22 (1), 19-22.

McLean, J.E., Turner, G.A., Moody, A.M.,Heath, R., Snyder, S., Ernest, J.M., &Abbott, G.A. (1996). "A symposium on theevaluation of the Alabama Direct WritingAssessment Program." Presented at the

43

annual meeting of the Mid-SouthEducational Research Association,Tuscaloosa, AL. (Paper can be obtainedfrom Dr. James McLean, University ofAlabama at Birmingham or Dr. GloriaTurner, Director of Assessment, AlabamaState.Department of Education).

Mehrens, W.A., & Kaminski, J. (1989)."Methods for improving standardized testscores: Fruitful, fruitless, or fraudulent?"Educational Measurement: Issues andPractice, 8, 14-22.

Messick, S. (1975). "The standard problem:Meaning and values in measurement andevaluation." American Psychologist, 30,955-966.

National Academy of Education Commissionon Reading (1985). Becoming a nation ofreaders: The report of the Commission onReading. Pittsburgh, PA: National Academyof Education.

Noble, AJ., & Smith, M.L. (1994)."Measurement driven reform: Research onpolicy, practice, repercussion." CSETechnical Report 381. National Center forResearch on Evaluation, Standards, andStudent Testing (CRESST): University ofCalifornia, Los Angeles.

Rand Distribution Services (1996). Perceivedeffects of the Kentucky Instructional ResultsInformation System. Santa Monica, CA:National Book Network. Cite number MR-PCT/FF (800-462-6420).

Rinehart, A. (1973). "Dilemmas ofaccountability for teachers." In R. L. Leight(Ed.), Philosophers speak on accountabilityin education. Danville, IL: InterstatePrinters and Publishers.

Schlechty, Phillip (1990). Schools for the 21stcentury. San Francisco: Jossey BassPublishers.

SERVE (1993). Designing teacher evaluationsystems that support professional growth.Tallahassee, FL: SouthEastern RegionalVision for Education (1-800-352-6001).

SERVE (1994). Overcoming barriers to schoolreform in the southeast. Tallahassee, FL:SouthEastern Regional Vision forEducation (1-800-352-6001).

32

SERVE (1995). A new framework for stateaccountability systems. Tallahassee, FL:SouthEastern Regional Vision forEducation (1-800-352-6001).

SERVE (1995). Total quality management:Passing fad or "the real thing"? Animplementation study. Tallahassee, FL: .

SouthEastern Regional Vision forEducation (1-800-352-6001).

Smith, M.L. (1991). "Put to the test: Theeffects of external testing on teachers."Educational Researcher, 20 (5), 8-12.

Smith, M.L., with Edelsky, C., Draper, K.,Rottenberg, C., & Cherland, M. (1990). Therole of testing in elementary schools. Tempe,AZ: Arizona State University.

Smith, M.L., & Rottenberg, C. (1991)."Unintended consequences of externaltesting in elementary schools." EducationalMeasurement: Issues and Practice, 10, 7-11.

Vowels, Marty (June 1994). "Characteristics ofQuality Work for Students," Keynoteaddress presented at the meeting of theNortheast Leadership Conference, KillDevil Hills, NC.

44

Appendix AOptional District-wide Indicators Proposed in m3 as Part ofSchool Improvement Planning Process Submitted to theforth Carolina Department of Public Instruction

Elementary Schools1. Students meeting 1st grade math criteria2. Students meeting 2nd grade language arts

criteria3. Students meeting 2nd grade math criteria4. Students meeting 2nd grade language arts

criteria5. Students (random sample) meeting 1st

grade science criteria6. Students (random sample) meeting 2nd

grade science criteria7. Students (random sample) meeting 1st

grade Spanish criteria*8. Students (random sample) meeting 2nd

grade Spanish criteria*9. Third graders meeting upper elementary

entrance criteria*10. Sixth graders meeting middle school

entrance criteria*11. Sixth graders qualifying for Pre-Algebra at

7th grade12. K-3 students having read/reading average 3

books/month*13. 4-6 students reading average 2 books/

month *14. Retention (elementary) *

Middle Schools15. 7th graders passing Pre-Algebra16. 8th graders passing Algebra*17. 8th graders meeting high school entrance

criteria *18. Middle school students reading average 1

book/month19. Middle school students involved in one or

more school sponsored extra-curricularactivities

20. Middle school students involved in annualcommunity service project

21. Course failure rates*

High School22. High school graduating class passing

Chemistry23. High school graduating class passing

Physics24. High school graduating class passing

Geometry25. High school graduating class passing

Algebra II26. High school students involved in one or

more school sponsored extra-curricularactivities

27. High school students involved in annualcommunity service project

28. High school students involved inapprenticeship programs

29. High school students taking AP courses*30. High school students taking technology

intensive courses31. High school students involved in decision

making32. High school students participating in

alternative assessment33. SAT verbal scores*34. SAT math scores*

All Levels35. In-school suspensions*36. Out-of-school suspensions*37. Discipline referrals to office*38. Exceptional children with IEPs meeting

75 % of IEP

Provided by Elizabeth Citg-Pasquotank Schools 33

45

39. Number of students passing physicalfitness test*

40. Number of students participating in FineArts (chorus, plays, art shows, etc.)

Parents41. Parents reporting clear understanding of

what student is expected to learn42. Parents reporting clear communication of

student progress43. Parent and community volunteer hours*44. Parent participation in open house and

conferences*45. Parent education opportunities offered

through school

Students46. Students grades 4-12 reporting school work

meaningful and motivating47. Students grades 4-12 reporting frequently

have choice in how to learn48. Students grades 4-12 reporting frequent

use of teaching methods other than lecture,worksheets, independent learning

49. Students grades 4-12 reporting frequentopportunity to work with peers

50. Students grades 4-12 reporting projectslasting one week or more

51. Students grades 4-12 reporting more thanone chance to demonstrate learning

52. Students grades 4-12 reporting objectivesusually clear

53. Students grades 4-12 reporting gradingcriteria clear and fair

54. Students grades 4-12 setting and pursuingpersonal learning goals that showdevelopment in duration

Organization/Climate55. Teachers reporting high degree of

collegiality*56. Teachers reporting high degree of

involvement in decision making*57. Teaching time spent teaching team-

developed, team-taught integrated units ofinstruction of one week duration or more

58. Teachers reporting participation insponsorship or volunteer time devoted tostudent extra-curricular activities (duringschool or after school)

Curriculum59. Middle and high school courses with

published outcomes for student learningthat is distributed to students and parents

60. Grades or departments where teachersreport using team-developed units

61. Number of teacher developed units inwhich fine arts are coordinated with othercurricular areas

Instruction62. Schools successfully meeting panel criteria

for evidence of new learning63. Percent of freshman accepted by one or

more UNC institutions64. Percent of freshmen at UNC institutions

with AP in English65. Percent of freshmen at UNC institutions in

Calculus or above

Note: Indicators marked with a * are thosethat were subsequently implemented andused regularly.

M Provided bg Elizabeth Citg-Pasquotank Schools

46

Appendix BSupport Staff Feedback Reciprocity

The purpose of this process is to provide thesupport staff in the district constructivefeedback from the schools' perspectiveconcerning their work each year. The schoolplanning team is to reach consensus on arating for each individual or department.The rating is based on a person's/department's effectiveness, attitude, avail-ability, and resources provided when calledby the school. The rubric provided below isto serve as a guide. If a team awards a ratingof 3, 2, or 1, it must then provide suggestionsfor improving the rating (this process willalso provide school planning teams theopportunity to review the type of assistancethat they requested during the year).

Department/Unit:

Rating:

Suggestions for Improvement:

Rating

5 Services were provided in a timely andcourteous manner. Expertise resulted inrelevant, high quality, and cost effectiveresources being made available. Creative,challenging, and empowering assistancepromoted client confidence andeffectiveness.

4 Services were provided in a promptmanner. A pleasant, helpful attitude and anadequate knowledge of other resourcesavailable were evident. The service waseffective in what it was trying toaccomplish.

3 Services were sometimes effective andoccasionally resourcefulness wasdemonstrated. Some of the time theresponses were prompt, and helpfulattitudes were displayed.

2 Services were difficult to obtain anddemonstrated limited resourcefulness.Services were delivered in a nonchalantmanner.

1 Services were ineffective with resourcesinadequate or non-available. The serviceswere delivered without concern and in anegative manner.

Provided bb Elizabeth Citg-Pasquotank Schools 36A" a r.

47

Appendix C This is a work in progressand may be revised in a

future edition.

Components of Our 1-6 Grade Communication Skills Program

Good instruction integrates all Blocks ofCommunication Skills and other contentareas whenever possible and appropriate.

Teacher Read AloudTeacher reads a variety of quality literatureto the class daily to model reading strategiesand motivate students to read. (Minimumtime required for this block-15 minutes)

Self-selected Reading Block withTeacher/Student ConferencesDaily periods are provided for students topractice reading independently frommaterials they have selected. The teacheruses the self-selected Reading Block toconference with a minimum of five studentseach day. ( Minimum time required for thisblock-30 minutes)

Teacher Directed Reading BlockDaily periods for direct instruction oncomprehension and metacognitive strategiesare scheduled, using a variety of qualityliterature and materials. Flexible groupingpractices are implemented based on teachingfocus of the lesson. A variety of instruc-tional techniques are incorporated. Thethree components, Before reading, DuringReading, and After reading, should occurdaily. (Minimum time required for thisblock--30 minutes)

Spelling/Phonics BlockThe three components, Spelling/Word Wall(words frequently used in writing), Making

Words (manipulative phonics), HandwritingFormation, occur daily. (Minimum timerequired for this block--20-30 minutes)

Writing BlockDaily periods for direct instruction withinthe framework of the writing process shouldoccur. Instruction in grammar andmechanics is limited to 3-5 minute DailyOral Language Mini-Lesson. The teacherleads the students through the revision andediting process with individual conferencesas the students write. Instruction shouldfollow a developmental process. Thestudents will write in a variety of forms, fora variety of purposes and for a variety ofaudiences. (Minimum time required for thisblock-30 minutes)

Take-Home ReadingAll students are assigned RecreationalReading on their independent reading leveleach night as a homework assignment.(Please note that the take-home reading isnot from the basal reader-Harcourt/Brace orD.C. Heath.) The teacher maintains amanagement system for this Block.(Minimum time required-15 minutes)

Beliefs About TeachingCommunication SkillsFuturists predict that the twenty-firstcentury will bring new challenges inpreparing students for the demands of aninformation age. They expect the need foran increasingly higher level of literacy.

36 Provided bg Elizabeth City- Pasquotank Schools DRAFT

48

While students continue to need mastery ofenabling skills such as reading, writing, andcomputing, they must also prepare for thenew expanded basics which include problemsolving, critical and creative thinking,decision making, flexibility and adaptability,and working collaboratively. The intent ofour communication skills curriculum is toequip students with the level of literacyneeded to participate as informed andeffective citizens in a democratic society, tofunction effectively in the world of work,and to realize personal fulfillment.

Our communication skills curriculum isbased on beliefs that are reflected in currentresearch and best practices. An effectivecommunication skills program must beconcerned with both process and content(with how students learn and what theylearn). The curriculum should focus on theholistic model for teaching and ptomote anenvironment where students learn to employstrategies selectively based upon theirbackgrounds, text (written, oral, or visual),and purposes for activities. In such anenvironment, administrators, teaching staffand students are guided by the followingprinciples:

Communication skills are interrelated,whole-thinking processes utilized by thestudent to comprehend and conveymeaning: oral (listening and speaking),written (reading and writing), and visual(viewing and representing).

Communication skills are a means forlearning and the reading/writing processesare thinking processes.

Reading is the process of constructingmeaning through the interaction among thereader's existing prior backgroundknowledge, the information suggested bywritten language, and the context of thereading situation.

DRAFT

The organization and delivery of readinginstruction should focus on the holisticmodel. This model views reading as aninteractive language process focused oncomprehension rather than a set ofsubskills learned in isolation with decodingas a focus.

Learners use three cueing systems on anintuitive and conscious or metacognitivelevel. Each of these language cueingsystems has its function and place inrelation to other systems. It is essential thatthey each be available and functioning inrelation to each other if comprehension isto occur. Cues used in communication are:

semantic cues (uses concepts, priorknowledge and experiences to makesense of text),

syntactic cues (uses language patterns,word order, or grammatical structure toderive meaning), and

graphophonic cues (uses letter-sound-match and relationships to derivemeaning).

Phonics (graphophonic cues) should betaught systematically and should bereflected in the materials the students read.Phonics strategies should include teachingstudents the sounds of letters in isolationand in words, and teaching them to blendthe sounds of letters together to produceapproximate pronunciation of words.Another strategy to be used is to encouragestudents to identify words by thinking ofother words with similar spellings. Phonicsinstruction should go hand in hand withopportunities to identify words inmeaningful sentences and stories. Phonicsshould be taught early and kept simple.

Writing should be taught as a natural andintegral part of the curriculum. Instructionshould encourage whole pieces of writingfor real purposes and real audiences.

Provided by Elizabeth City Pasquotank Schools 37

49

4. Instruction in grammar (the finer points ofwriting) are learned best while students areengaged in extended writing that has thepurpose of communicating a message to anaudience.

4. Spelling and handwriting are not subjectsbut rather tools that writers use.

4'. Children should spend more time inindependent reading. Independent readingshould occur in school and out of schoolbecause it is consistently related to gains inreading achievement, vocabulary growthand reading fluency.

Children should have ready access to booksin the classroom and school in order tofacilitate independent reading at schooland out of school. Children in classroomswith libraries read more, express betterattitudes toward reading and make greatergains in reading comprehension thanchildren who do not have ready access tobooks.

4> Use of workbook and skill sheet activitiesshould be kept to a minimum and thenonly used if they actually contribute togrowth in the communication skills ofreading/writing.

4. Children need to be read aloud to byteachers and parents each and everyday.This is the single most important activityfor building the knowledge required forsuccess in reading and should be continuedthroughout the grades.

4. Reading and writing like the skill ofplaying a musical instrument, are notthings that are mastered once and for all ata certain age. Rather, they are skills thatcontinue to improve through practice.

4. Reading, writing, speaking, listening, andviewing are processes that enable studentsto clarify thinking, to investigate, and to

increase knowledge in all subject areas.Integrating the-teaching of communicationskills with other subjects enhances thelearner's ability to move from the known tothe unknown, to see relationships and tomake generalizations.

Assessment procedures in communicationskills should be balanced to includetraditional multiple-choice testing andalternative forms such as open-endedquestions, portfolios, demonstrations,debates, reports, and investigations.Assessment should be focused onimproving instruction and should promotequality, depth and extensions of studentwork. Multiple formal and informal toolsshould be used for promoting, supporting,monitoring, and assessing student progress.Assessment should reflect the beliefs of thecurriculum and be integrated with theinstructional process.

4.. The foundation for learning to read beginsin the home and is nurtured as the childgrows and goes to school. The importanceof home and school working together forthe greatest positive influence in helpingchildren become successful readers andwriters should be recognized and stressed.

Practices in TeachingCommunication Skills

f students are to learn how to be strategicreaders and writers, they must have

instructional experiences that lead them toconstruct understandings that are consistentwith what expert readers and writersactually do.

4'. Teachers cannot simply follow thedirections in instructional materials. Theymust assume regulatory control overmaterials rather than be controlled bythem.

50

3 S Provided by Elizabeth Citg- Pasquotank Schools DRAFT

Teachers have to regulate instruction byadapting prescriptions, suggestions, andcommercial materials to particular studentsand flexible groups of students.

Teachers will help students becomeresponsible for their own learning.

4> Teachers will encourage students to talkabout their learning experiences and towork with others.

.1. Teachers begin the process withwell-planned lessons. Teachers mustsummon all their flexibility, adaptability,and problem-solving skills to keep pacewith the varied understandings thatstudents bring to and take from theinstructional experience.

ogo Teachers provide motivation, and respondin whatever ways are necessary to nurtureand facilitate student learning.

We will ensure that all teachers, because theyare simply the most important factor in thesuccess or failure of the students in ourschools, are able to

+ Provide a rich, literate and multi-culturallysensitive environment in every classroom.

0:0 Provide a strong supportive environmentthat accepts children at their develop-mental and achievement levels but will notlessen expectations for student learning.

4.. Employ a wide variety of research-basedteaching approaches, methods practices,strategies and techniques at a brisk pace sothat all children can succeed.

4.0 Maximize opportunities, recognizing thatwith a diverse population all students donot learn in the same way and in the sameamount of time.

DRAFT

voo Provide instruction that will enable everychild to master basic skills and then go asfar beyond the basic level as possible.

Establish and implement effective ways toform successful partnerships with parentsin fostering children's literacydevelopment. The staff will involve parentsin facilitating the growth of their children'sreading by having parents read aloud totheir children, discuss stories and events,encourage reading as a free time activityand support homework.

51

Provided bg Elizabeth Citg-Pasquotank Schools 3ffl

Rubric for Effective 1-6 Communication Skills Instruction

Teacher Date

Administrator School

4 Excellent

3 Satisfactory2 Needs Additional Support .

1 Unsatisfactory

The teacher is an expert in this area and could model for orteach othersThe teacher has mastered this area

. The teacher is exhibiting effort but is not yet proficient inthis areaThe teacher has not made an attempt to implement this area

yS,j % :A'tl i.ructitra,..,1..4.71Loocrel,-,:. ,,, . ,

;,

Teacher Read Aloud

Read Aloud Titles indicated in Plan Book as a part of daily schedule

Shares quality literature from a variety of genres

Reads expressively and models thinking processes

Occurs a minimum of 15 minutes daily

Students are actively listening

Self-Selected Reading Block with Teacher/Student Conferences

Plan book indicates names of the 5 students receiving individual

conferences each day

Classroom library is displayed appropriately for the grade level

Classroom library features a variety of levels and genres

A Management System Incorporated in the Portfolio

Individual Student Conference Forms

John's Basic Reading Inventory

Computerized Point System (Accelerated Reader, Electronic

Bookshelf)

WO Provided by Elizabeth Citg-Pasquotank Schools52

DRAFT

Instructional Blocks

Teacher actively conferencing with individual students during the

Block daily

[Occurs a minimum of 30 minutes daily

All students are actively reading

Teacher Directed Reading Block

Plan book indicates the use of a variety of quality literature and

comprehension strategies

Plan book indicates before, during, and after reading activities

each day

[All students have a copy of the text

Background knowledge is established prior to reading

[Only key vocabulary words are taught

Mini-Comprehension Strategy Lesson is taught

Purpose for reading is set

Implements flexible grouping practices during reading

Involves skillful use of questions focusing on higher order

thinking skills with students of all levels of achievement

A variety of instructional techniques are incorporated

Occurs a minimum of 30 minutes daily

Supports all achievement levels while maintaining high

expectations for every student

All students are actively engaged in learning

DRAFT Provided by Elizabeth City-Pasquotank Schools 111

53

Instructional Blocks

Spelling/Phonics Block

Individualized spelling list generated weekly from words used

frequently in writing

Pretest-study-posttest format used in spelling1

[Word Wall is maintained using high-frequency words

Making Words lesson occurs daily at a brisk pace following

research-based format (a maximum of 8-10 minutes)

Lesson plan indicates words to be made during Making Words

and sorting activity

Handwriting formation lesson indicated in plan book and occurs

at a brisk pace

Occurs a minimum of 20-30 minutes daily

All students are actively engaged in learning

Writing Block

A teacher-led Daily Oral Language/Editing Mini-Lesson should

occur 3-5 minutes daily at the beginning of the Writing Block

Provides an opportunity for students to write in a variety of

forms, for a variety of purposes, and for a variety of audiences

Genre of writing indicated in plan book daily

Process Writing Framework

Day 1 Writing Lesson always begins with a prewriting activity

Subsequent days begin with a Writing Strategy Mini-Lesson

54

aUS Provided by Elizabeth City Pasquotank Schools DRAFT

Instructional Blocks T .2, S U

Leads the students through the revision and editing process

with individual conferences as the students write

Lesson ends with a brief sharingI

Writing Portfolios include dated pieces from a variety of genre,

attached to a rubric, to establish individual progress

Student writing for publication is evident in classroom and

hallway displays

Occurs a minimum of 30 minutes daily

Students are actively engaged in writing during the Writing

Block

Take-Home Reading

All students are assigned Recreational Reading 15 minutes daily

as a homework assignment

A management system is established and in use for all students

Learning Environment

The rare use of worksheets occurs only for a specific engaged

learning activity

Desk arrangement conducive to cooperative learning activities

Student work displayed

Instructional time is fully utilized for active teaching/active

learning

Lesson plans are well developed and implemented using a brisk

pace

DRAFT

'r-

Provided bg Elizabeth City Pasquotank Schools 1153

55

Instructional Blocks

Management system in place indicating the reading and writing

achievement levels and progress for all students1

Teacher Assistants are always actively engaged with student(s)

during the instructional day

Blocks of communication skills and content areas are integrated

whenever possible and appropriate

Students are self-disciplined because they are actively engaged in

learning

56

ga5 Provided by Elizabeth City- Pasquotank Schools DRAFT

Rubric for Effective Middle School Communication SkillsInstruction

Teacher Date

Administrator School

4 Excellent

3 Satisfactory2 Needs Additional Support

1 Unsatisfactory

The teacher is an expert in this area and could model for orteach othersThe teacher has mastered this areaThe teacher is exhibiting effort but is not yet proficient inthis areaThe teacher has not made an attempt to implement this area

Instructional Blocks o

..

Teacher Read Aloud

Read Aloud Titles indicated in Plan Book as a part of daily

schedule

Shares quality literature from a variety of genres

Reads expressively and models thinking processes

Occurs daily1

Students are actively listening[

Self-Selected Reading

Plan book indicates names of the 5 students receiving individual

conferences each day

Classroom library is displayed appropriately for the grade level

Classroom library features a variety of levels and genres

A Management System incorporated in the Portfolio:

1

i Individual Student Conference Forms

- John's Basic Reading Inventory for levels 1 and 2

1

Computerized Point System (Electronic Bookshelf)

DRAFT Provided kJ Elizabeth City-Pasquotank Schools QS

57

Instructional Blocks

Teacher actively conferencing with individual students during

the Block daily

0 a minimum of 30 minutes daily

All students are actively reading

Teacher Directed Reading Block

Plan book indicates the use of a variety of quality literature and

comprehension strategiesI

Plan book indicates before, during, and after reading activities

each day

Allstudents have a copy of the textAll

knowledge is established prior to reading

Only key vocabulary words are taught

Mini-Comprehension Strategy Lesson is taught

Purpose for reading is set

Implements flexible grouping practices during reading

Involves skillful use of questions focusing on higher order

thinking skills with students of all levels of achievement

A variety of instructional techniques are incorporated

Occurs a minimum of 30 minutes daily

Supports all achievement levels while maintaining high

expectations for every student

All students are actively engaged in learning[

58

45 Provided by Elizabeth Citg-Pasquotank Schools DRAFT

Instructional Blocks

Writing Block

IA teacher-led Daily Oral Language/Editing Mini-Lesson should

occur 3-5 minutes daily at the beginning of the Writing Block

Provides an opportunity for students to write in a variety of

forms, for a variety of purposes, and for a variety of audiences

Genre of writing indicated in plan book daily

Process Writing Framework:

Day 1 Writing Lesson always begins with a prewriting activity

Subsequent days begin with a Writing Strategy Mini-Lesson

Leads the students through the revision and editing process

with individual conferences as the students write

Lesson ends with a brief sharing

Writing Portfolios include dated pieces from a variety of genre,

attached to a rubric, to establish individual progress

Student writing for publication is evident in classroom and

hallway displays

Occurs a minimum of 30 minutes daily

Students are actively engaged in writing during the Writing

Block

Take-Home Reading

All students are assigned Recreational Reading 15 minutes daily

as a homework assignment

A management system is established and in use for all students

DRAFT

59

Provided bb Elizabeth City- Pasquotank Schools 1101

Instructional Blocks

Learning EnvironmentThe rare use of worksheets occurs only for a specific engaged

learning

Desk arrangement conducive to cooperative learning activitiesi

Instructional time is fully utilized for active teaching/active

learning

Lesson plans are well developed and implemented using a brisk

pace

Management system in place indicating the reading and writing

achievement levels and progress for all students

Blocks of communication skills and content areas are integrated

whenever possible and appropriate

Students are self-disciplined because they are actively engaged in

learning

60

in Provided bg Elizabeth Citg-Pasquotank Schools DRAFT

Appendix DEvaluation Rubric for Senior Project Presentation

All Senior Project Judges must use during the oral presentations.

Student Presenter:

Presentation Topic:

Class:

Judge's Signature:

Date:

Evaluation RubricPresentation Ratings:

1 Unsatisfactory2 Below Average3 Average4 Above Average5 Superior

Evaluation

Judge's Initials.

Please write comments on the back

1. Was the presenter prepared (all equipment,slide projector, music)?

<LOW 1 2 3 4 5 HIGH>

2. Did presenter have a good command oflanguage?

standard grammar

<11,11A1 1 2 3 4 5 H GH>

proper pronunciation

<LOW 1 2 3 4 5 HIGH>

appropriate language

<LOW 1 2 3 4 5 HIGH>

suitable vocabulary

<16W 1 2 3 4 5 H GH>

3. Did presenter appear to have a goodworking knowledge of his or her subjectmaterial?

speaks and answers questions withease and confidence<LOW 1 2 3 4 5 HIO'H>

Provided bg Elizabeth Citg-Pasquotank Schools

61.

4.. provides relevant examplesCA1 1 2 3 4 5 Tiro>

4. Did the presentation offer new, interesting,or educational information?

<h6W_ 1 2 3 4 5 HIG

5. Did the presenter's method of deliveryenhance the presentation?

well-organized<I* 1 2 3 4 5 HI41>

maintained eye contact<OW 1 2 3 4 5 HIG

used adequate voice projection<LOW 1 2 3 4 5 H I G:B>

6. Was the presenter organized in termsof a/an:

introduction4:6W 1 2 3 4 5 HT1071,

body<0:Trig 1 2

conclusion

3 4 5 HIM>

416W 1 2 3 4 HIG

7. Did the presenter offer quality answersposed to him or her after the presentation?

<LOW 1 2 3 4 5 HIGH>

8. Do you feel the presenter was enthusiasticabout his or her subject?

<0,VAI 1 2 3 4 5 H I O'H>

9. Do you feel the presenter put at least 15hours of preparatory work into thepresentation?

OW 1 2 3 4 5 H I al>

10. Was the presenter dressed appropriately tomake a formal presentation?

<Lf) W 1 2 3 4 5 FTIGH>

11. Were visual/audio aids appropriate for thesubject?

4:6W 1 2 3 4 5 HIG

12. What is the overall evaluation?

< SCAT 1 2 3 4 5 H161:1>

62

SC) Provided bcY Elizabeth Citg-Pasquotank Schools

Appendix EK-8 Promotion-Intervention PolicyThe Elizabeth City-Pasquotank Board ofEducation believes that in order to ensure thatstudents have the opportunity for academicsuccess as they move through the K-12 con-tinuum of schooling, points must be establishedat which students are required to demonstratetheir mastery of knowledge and its application.The Board establishes these points at thenatural transitions which occur in the K-12continuumthe end of grades 3, 6, and 8. TheBoard also believes that decisions with signifi-cant consequences for students, such as promo-tion, should never be based on a single assess-ment instrument given at only one point intime. The Board further charges the superin-tendent to develop entrance requirements forupper elementary school, middle school, andhigh school, and a process for their use by staff.These requirements are to determine eachchild's readiness to enter the next level ofschooling.

Adopted: January 29, 1996

The Elizabeth City-Pasquotank Boardof Education has implemented thefollowing regulations to establish a

process for making decisions concerning astudent's academic readiness to move to ahigher level of schooling by analyzing class-room performance as evidenced by grades,performance on paper and pencil tests,performance tasks, and teacher observation.These regulations are based upon the bestassessment measures available to the districtfor making these decisions. These assess-ment measures will be reviewed annuallyand will be altered as more appropriatemeasures are developed or identified.

This process is designed to ensure that eachchild is objectively evaluated as an indi-vidual. It also ensures that while a student'steacher is responsible for collecting data tosupport whether the child is doing grade-level work, the student's teacher is notdirectly a part of the decision-making pro-cess. This enables teachers to support,collect evidence, and advocate for theirstudents to reach objective performancestandards, putting teachers in a true coach-ing role.

Entrance requirements forGrades 4, 7, and 9

tudents must demonstrate their ability todo grade-level work in reading, writing,

and math. This can be accomplished byscoring a III or better on the previous year'send-of-grade reading and math tests and byearning passing grades in the core courses.Students who score below Level III on thereading or math end-of-grade tests, or studentswho have not earned passing grades on theircoursework, will be required to attend theSchool Year Plus program in order to be con-sidered for promotion, with two exceptions:

1. Special needs and disabled students asdefined in Policy IGB for whom the SchoolBased Committee or the 504 Committeehas determined that they should not beheld accountable for meeting theseentrance requirements.

2. Students whose end-of-grade test scores donot accurately represent their ability to do

Provided bg Elizabeth City Pasquotank Schools

63

grade-level work, as determined by aSchool Entrance Committee.

School Entrance Committeerphe principal and/or designee shall

convene a team of at least three addi-tional members. This team must consist of atleast one teacher from the receiving gradelevel and may not include the child's teacher.It is also strongly recommended that theteam include a teacher at the child's currentgrade level and a teacher from the grade levelbelow.

The Entrance Committee will automaticallyreview students who score in the top half ofthe Level II range in reading or math on theend-of-grade tests. There may be a rareinstance when there is reason to believe thata student scoring at Level I or the lower halfof Level II is actually performing at gradelevel. The principal may refer those studentsto the School Entrance Committee for fur-ther review.

This team is responsible for reviewingadditional data submitted by the classroomteacher(s) to verify whether the end-of-gradetest results and classroom grades accuratelyreflect the child's level of academic achieve-ment. These data will include current andprevious year's test results and grades andmay include a portfolio of student workassessed against grade-level expectations.Every effort will be made to keep thestudent's identity anonymous to ensure anobjective review by the committee. Thecommittee must determine whether theadditional data confirm that the child isperforming at grade level. Based on thatdetermination, the committee will recom-mend either that the student be promoted tothe next level of schooling or that the studentmust attend the School Year Plus program.

School year Plus Program

1. The School Year Plus program will be a four-week extension of the school year for thestudents hoping to enter grades 4, 7, or 9.

2. Students who are referred to the SchoolYear Plus program and who choose not toattend will have to repeat their currentgrade and will not be offered any specialalternative program.

3. Students who attend the School Year Plusprogram will be administered pre- and post-tests to determine their progress. At theend of the School Year Plus program, theprincipal of the student's home school, inconsultation with the School Year Plusstaff, will make one of the followingrecommendations for each student:

(a) Promotion to the next level of schooling

(b) Conditional promotion to the next levelof schooling, but required to receiveadditional academic support

(c) Conditional promotion requiringassignment to a self-contained programuntil requirements are met

(d) Retention at the current grade level.

4. Recommendations for special needs anddisabled students as defined in Policy IGBwill be made by a school-level committeeand/or 504 Committee. The optionsavailable for these students are the same asthose listed under 3 above. If this schoollevel committee recommends (c) or (d)above for a special needs child, then theschool-based committee must meet to makethe final decision.

IMPORTANT NOTE: Students who refuseto meet the provisions of conditional promo-tion (recommendation b and c), as deter-mined by the principal in consultation with

6,2 Provided bg Elizabeth City- Pasquotank Schools

64

the Superintendent, will be demoted orretained in the previous grade level. Recom-mendation (c) may require a student tochange schools. At the high school levelthese students may be assigned to the highschool but will have to successfully completea series of classes before beginning to earnrequired credits toward graduation in thecore academic areas. The focus of all ofthese interventions is to provide studentswith intense academic work designed toprepare them for academic success at thenext level of schooling.

The School Year Plus committee will suggestacademic interventions for students receiv-ing options (b), (c), or (d) above. The mem-bers of this committee are the summer schoolprincipal, the student's home school princi-pal, and other educators familiar with thestudent's academic achievement. The com-mittee will send the names of all studentsand suggested interventions to the appropri-ate instructional specialist. The instruc-tional specialist is responsible for workingwith the appropriate teachers to develop apersonal education plan for each child. Thisplan will outline student and parent respon-sibilities along with outlining instructionalstrategies and services designed to enablethem to meet the entrance requirements.

Reporting to Parentst is the responsibility of the school and theschool system to notify the entire commu-

nity of the entrance requirements for stu-dents. It is the responsibility of the teacherto closely monitor the progress of all studentsand to inform parents quickly when theybecome aware that students are not makingenough progress to meet the entrance re-quirements for the next level of schooling bythe end of the year. This concern could bebased upon not only the academic achieve-ment the teacher has observed during thecurrent year but also previous year's perfor-

mance on end-of-grade tests and otherassessments, such as first and second gradeassessments. Teachers must make everyeffort to determine when students are at riskof not meeting entrance requirements duringthe first semester and notify parents inwriting by no later than the end of the firstsemester of any school year. However, ifacademic problems do not become apparentuntil after the first semester, students are notexcused from meeting the entrance require-ments. The ultimate responsibility formeeting the entrance requirements lies withthe student.

Retention Within a Level ofSchooling

nder this policy it is possible to retain astudent in a grade other than 3, 6, or 8.

It is advised, however, that this option beexercised only after careful examination of astudent's progress, consultation with avariety of professionals, and involvement ofthe child's parents determine that the childwould benefit from this action. This policydoes require that, for each child retained inthese "off-grades," a personal education planbe developed that will result in a signifi-cantly different educational experience fromthe previous year the child spent in thatgrade.

The principal is responsible for assembling acommittee charged with making these deci-sions. It must be remembered that studentsretained within a level of schooling are stillaccountable for meeting the entrance re-quirements for entering the next level.

A principal must report to the superinten-dent at the end of each school year thenames of all students retained in an off-gradeand present a copy of each student's personaleducation plan.

Implemented: January 29, 1996

Provided bg Elizabeth Citg-Pasquotank Schools 53

65

Ordering Information1. Please complete this order form and mail with check or purchase order to SERVE, 345 South

Magnolia Drive, Suite D-23, Tallahassee, Florida 32301. Make check or purchase order out toSERVE (Federal ID 59-6001-468).

2. Discounts are available for most SERVE products when you purchase units of fifty or more.Please call 800-352-6001 for discount information.

3. If you are requesting an invoice, your order must include a purchase order number.

4. We ship by U.S. Mail and United Parcel Service. Please calculate your shipping charges fromthe table below. Shipping charges will be higher for special orders and shipping outside thecontinental U.S. Please allow two weeks for delivery from the time we receive the order in ouroffice. If you require special shipping arrangements, let us know. In most cases, we canaccommodate your needs. Publication prices are subject to change.

5. For more information regarding SERVE's products and ordering procedures, please call800-352-6001.

Shipping and Handling ChargesUp to $30.00 $2.50$30.01 to $60.00 $5.00$60.01 to $100.00 $7.50$100.01 to $150.00 $10.00$150.01 to $200.00 $12.50$200.01 and above call for price

Publications ListingDESCRIPTION ITEM # PRICEAction Research: Perspectives from Teachers' Classrooms MSARP $12.00

Appreciating Differences: Teaching and Learning Culturally DiverseClassroom HTADI $10.00

'Assessment in Early Childhood Education: Status of the Issue ECESI $1.00

Children Exposed to Drugs: Meeting Their Needs HTSEC $10.00

'Children Exposed to Drugs: What Policymakers Can Do PBCED $1.00

Comprehensive School Improvement HTCSI $8.00

Continuity in Early Childhood Education: A Framework for Home,School, and Community Linkages ECECE $12.00

SS

66

56

Designing Teacher Evaluation Systems that Support Professional Growth RDTES $8.00

Does Class Size Make a Difference? RDCSD $4.00

Ed Talk: What We Know About Mathematics Teaching and Learning EDMAT $7.00

Ed Talk: What We Know About Reading Teaching and Learning EDRTL $7.00

Ed Talk: What We Know About Science Teaching and Learning EDSCI $7.00

Evaluation of the Alabama District Assessment of Writing Program RDADE $4.00

Families and Schools: An Essential Partnership SSFSP $6.00 j

Future Plans Planning Guide FPPLG $8.00

Going to Scale with TQM: Pinellas County Schools' Quality Journey SSPCS $12.00

How to Assess Student Performance in Science: Going BeyondMultiple-Choice Tests RDSPS $10.00

How to Improve Schools Now: Accessing SERVE's Programs, Products,and Publications PRHIS FREE

Improving Student Motivation: A Guide for Teachers and SchoolImprovement Leaders RDISM $12.00

Interagency Collaboration: Improving the Delivery of Services toChildren and Families HTICO $12.00

Issues to Consider in Moving Beyond a Minimal Competency HighSchool Graduation Test RDMCT $4.00

Learning By Serving: 2,000 Ideas for Service Learning Programs HTLBS $8.00

A New Framework for School Accountability Systems RDFRA $3.00

Overcoming Barriers to School Reform in the Southeast RDBAR $3.00

Planning for School Improvement: A Report on a ComprehensivePlanning Process SRPSI $1.00

Plugging In: Choosing and Using Technology and TechnologyLInfrastructure in Schools PITI $5.00

Promising Service-Learning Programs SSPSL $8.00

Reducing School Violence: Building a Framework for School Safety HTRSV $8.00

Reengineering High Schools for Student Success HTRHS $8.00

Resources for School Improvement: How to Improve Schools Now HTRSI $10.00

Safe Schools: What the Southeast is Doing PBSSC $1.00

School Board Member Training in the Southeast RDBMT $4.00

Schools for the 21st Century: New Roles for Teachers and Principals HTSTC $8.00

Science in the Elementary Classroom: Portraits of Action Research MSARE $12.00

SERVE Catalog of Products and Publications CATPP FREE

SERVE-Line: Electronic Bulletin Board and On-Line Information System SLEBB FREE

67

SERVE Regional Forum on School Improvement: Proceedings (1996) SIPROC $8.00[

South Pointe Elementary School (Year 1): A Public-Private Partnership RDSP1 $1.00

South Pointe Elementary School (Year 2): A Public-Private Partnership RDSP2 $1.00

South Pointe Elementary School (Year 3): A Public-Private Partnership RDSP3 $1.00[Southern

Crossroads: A Demographic Look at the Southeast SRSCR $3.00

Supporting Family Involvement in Early Childhood Education:A Guide for Business SRSFI $5.00

Together We Can: A Guide for Crafting a Profamily System of Educationand Human Services SRTWC $8.00

Total Quality Management: Passing the Fad or "The Real Thing"?An Implementation Study RDTQM $5.00

Using Accountability as a Lever for Changing the Culture of Schools:Examining District Strategies RDUAL $8.00

Using Technology to Improve Teaching and Learning HTTEC $8.00

.17outh Apprenticeship: A School-to-Work Transition Program HTYAP $8.00

Videotape ListingDrug-Free Schools: A Generation of Hope (Running time: 27:00) VTDFS $19.95

Future Plans Videotape: Making the Most of Technology in theClassroom (Running time: 27:10) and Discussion Guide FPPAK $19.95

Passages: Providing Continuity from Preschool to School(Running time: 32:25) VTPST $19.95

School Improvement: Journey Toward Change (Running time: 30:00 VTCSI $19.95

Southern Crossroads: A Demographic Look at the Southeast(Running time: 22:00) VTSCR $19.95

Southern Solutions in Improving Mathematics and Science: GeneralAudiences (Running time: 60:00) VTMS6 $19.95

Southern Solutions in Improving Mathematics and Science: Policymakers(Running time: 60:00) VTMS6 $19.95

Southern Solutions in Improving Mathematics and Science: Teachers/Practitioners (Running time: 84:00) VTMS9 $19.95

Training and SeminarsFor information on these training programs, please call 1-800-352-6001.Leadership for Collaboration: A Training Program TRNLCJProviding a Safe and Healthy School Community TRNSH

For information on these training programs, please call 1-800-545-7075.Comprehensive Crisis Management TRNCCLegal Principles Related to School Violence, Safety, Security, and Student

Management Discipline TRNLP

68

Order Form

Name:

Title.

Address: home work

City. State: Zip:

Phone: home work (

Fax: home work (

Quantity Description Item No. Unit Price Total

Subtotal

Non-exempt Florida residents

Mail to: add 7% sales tax:

SERVE345 South Magnolia Drive S & H*

Suite D-23Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Total

Please photocopy this form for future orders.

SE

Florida Tax Exemption #:

69

a

Elv

(9/92)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOffice of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI)

Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC)

NOTICE

REPRODUCTION BASIS

../4 0.2 E. -digs

ERIC

This document is covered by a signed "Reproduction Release(Blanket)" form (on file within the ERIC system), encompassing allor classes of documents from its source organization and, therefore,does not require a "Specific Document" Release form.

This document is Federally-funded, or carries its own permission toreproduce, or is otherwise in the public domain and, therefore, maybe reproduced by ERIC without a signed Reproduction Releaseform (either "Specific Document" or "Blanket").