final report: recommendations · final report: recommendations to the board of education from the...

Final Report: Recommendations

To the Board of Education

From the Ad Hoc Committee

on Student Distribution

February 6, 2006

Cynthia L. Heidorn, Ph.D. Superintendent

Mundelein Elementary School District #75

470 N. Lake Street, Mundelein, IL 60060 847-949-2700

www.d75.lake.k12.il.us

Recommendations of the Ad Hoc Committee February 6, 2006

of 116

Table of Contents

List of Tables ...................................................................................................................... 4 Letter of Transmittal ........................................................................................................... 5 Our Charges ........................................................................................................................ 9

Board of Education Motion ............................................................................................ 9 Guiding Principles .......................................................................................................... 9 Premise............................................................................................................................ 9 Study Goal ...................................................................................................................... 9 The Dilemma ................................................................................................................ 10 Ad Hoc Committee Mission ......................................................................................... 10 Parameters for the Study............................................................................................... 10

Ad Hoc Committee ........................................................................................................... 12 Timeline for Committee Work...................................................................................... 12 Committee Process........................................................................................................ 12 Communication from Ad Hoc Committee.................................................................... 14 Final Report .................................................................................................................. 14

The Need for Change ........................................................................................................ 16 Demographic Changes .................................................................................................. 16 No Child Left Behind: Student Achievement............................................................... 19 Understanding How Poverty Affects Students ............................................................. 22 Socioeconomic and Cultural Diversity ......................................................................... 24 Our Strategic Focus: Organization Alignment ............................................................. 25

Recommendation: Attendance Patterns ............................................................................ 27 Grade Span Organization.............................................................................................. 27

Models Considered But Not Selected ....................................................................... 27 Recommendation for Student Attendance Centers ....................................................... 28

PreK-K-1 Primary Early Learning Literacy Center (Washington School)............... 28 Two Grade Level Centers, Grades 2-5 (Lincoln and Mechanics Grove) ................. 29 One Grade Level Center, Grades 6-8(Carl Sandburg Middle School) ..................... 30

Recommendations for Student Placement .................................................................... 30 Placing Washington Students for 2006-2007 ........................................................... 32 Placements in Future Years ...................................................................................... 33

Enrollment Plans........................................................................................................... 33 Classroom Space....................................................................................................... 33 Staffing Allocation Formula ..................................................................................... 34 Student Enrollment Projections ................................................................................ 35 Projecting Enrollments for Full Implementation ...................................................... 38 Strengths and Challenges of Full Implementation.................................................... 43 Kindergarten and 4th Grade Transition Plan Option ................................................. 43 Strengths and Challenges of K and 4th Transition Option: ....................................... 46

Central Registration ...................................................................................................... 47 Positive Impacts on Teaching and Learning................................................................. 47

Positive Impacts on Curriculum and Instruction ...................................................... 48 Positive Impacts on English Language Learners ...................................................... 49 Positive Impacts on Project Challenge ..................................................................... 51


of 116

Positive Impact on Special Services ......................................................................... 51 Positive Impact on JumpStart Pre-Kindergarten At Risk Program .......................... 53

Recommendations for a Unified Calendar........................................................................ 54 Recommendations for Teaching and Learning ................................................................. 57

Closing the Achievement Gap ...................................................................................... 57 Collaboration and Communication............................................................................... 61 Parent Involvement ....................................................................................................... 64 Public Perception .......................................................................................................... 67 Staffing and Resource Allocation ................................................................................. 68 Support for Students ..................................................................................................... 70 Teacher Effectiveness ................................................................................................... 72 Time for Learning ......................................................................................................... 76

Transportation ................................................................................................................... 80 Financial Implications....................................................................................................... 83

Staffing Allocations ...................................................................................................... 83 Cost Savings.............................................................................................................. 83 Additional Costs........................................................................................................ 83

Facility Changes............................................................................................................ 84 Food Service ................................................................................................................. 84 Reallocation of Resources/Materials ............................................................................ 84 Packing and Moving ..................................................................................................... 84 Summary ....................................................................................................................... 85

Transition Plan .................................................................................................................. 87 Monitoring and Evaluation Plan ....................................................................................... 92

Monitoring the Transition ............................................................................................. 92 Monitoring Progress on Maintaining Socioeconomic Diversity .................................. 92 Monitoring Progress on Student Achievement ............................................................. 92 Establishing Long Range Performance Targets............................................................ 93 Evaluation Plan ............................................................................................................. 93

Unifying the District ......................................................................................................... 95 Benefit to All Students...................................................................................................... 97 Appendix A: Configuration Options Brainstormed.......................................................... 98 Appendix B: Space Feasibility Studies............................................................................. 99

PreK – 1 Early Childhood Primary Literacy Center, two grades 2-5 schools, and a 6-8 Middle School............................................................................................................... 99 Three Controlled Choice Schools ............................................................................... 101 Grade Level Centers: K-1, 2-3, 4-5, 6-8 ..................................................................... 102 Maintain Lincoln as a K-5 controlled choice and reorganize two grade level centers, K-2 and 3-5, with a 6-8 Middle School........................................................................... 104 Maintain current neighborhood schools...................................................................... 106

References....................................................................................................................... 107


of 116

List of Tables Table 1: Historic Number of Low Income Students by School........................................ 17 Table 2: Historic Percentage of Low Income Enrollment by School ............................... 18 Table 3: 2005-2006 Low Income Enrollments by Grade and by School ......................... 19 Table 4: 2005 Reading Achievement Gap Analysis: Non-low Income and Low Income

Students (Source: 2005 School Report Cards).......................................................... 21 Table 5: 2005 Math Achievement Gap Analysis: Non-low Income and Low Income ... 22 Table 6: Enrollment History ............................................................................................. 35 Table 7: Enrollment Projection 10 6 2005........................................................................ 36 Table 8: Projected New Developments within District Boundaries ................................. 36 Table 9: 2005-2006 K-8 Enrollment by School by Grade Level...................................... 37 Table 10: 2006-2007 Enrollment Estimates in Current Configuration with Special

Programs. .................................................................................................................. 37 Table 11: Estimate of Number of District 75 Students to Move to New Attendance

Centers ...................................................................................................................... 38 Table 12: 2006-2007 Enrollments By Grade By School .................................................. 39 Table 13: Economically Disadvantaged (Low Income) Student Enrollment ................... 40 Table 14: Available Placements at Lincoln and Mechanics Grove .................................. 41 Table 15: 2004-2005 Mobility Rates (2005 School Report Card).................................... 41 Table 16: 2006-2007 Projected Full Time Bilingual Students ......................................... 42 Table 17: 2006-2007 Projected Number of Classroom Sections by Elementary School . 42 Table 18: 2005-2006 Classrooms Needed in Grades 2-5 for K & 4 Transition Option ... 44 Table 19: 2006-2007 Classrooms Needed in Grades 2-5 ................................................. 45 Table 20 2007-2008 2nd Year of Transition in Kindergarten and 4th Grade Transition

Option ....................................................................................................................... 46 Table 21: Financial Impact of Proposed Model for Implementation Year....................... 86


of 116

Letter of Transmittal February 6, 2006 Dear Mr. Wells Frice, President And Members of the Board of Education, In response to the charges given to the Superintendent, the Ad Hoc Committee, whose membership represents a cross-section of our school community, was formed to develop and recommend long range plan (s) to consistently provide a mutually acceptable educational program for all students of the District. There are two issues facing our District addressed in this report:

1) Maintaining socioeconomic and cultural diversity to assure equitable access to educational opportunities for ALL students, and

2) Increasing achievement for ALL students. The following report describes the need for change and explains the recommendations for:

• Student attendance patterns and grade level organization • Strengthening our methods of curriculum and teaching • School calendar, and • Resource allocations.

We believe that these recommendations are feasible within existing resources and facilities. The recommendations minimize the number of students that would be moved, although the greatest impact is on Washington school students in grades 2-5. As a result of the recommendations, Washington school would belong to the whole community rather than serving half of the community. The recommendations also improve our educational program delivery. The District 75 Program Directors reviewed the recommendations. For this report, they developed a list of the positive impacts on their programs and how students would benefit in each of these areas:

• Curriculum and Instruction • English Language Learners • JumpStart At Risk Preschool • Project Challenge • Special Services

We believe that by following the recommendations for curriculum and teaching, we will better align our school system so that students receive access to the same curriculum and


of 116

expectations for achievement, thus more consistent preparation for future academic work. Teacher collaboration across grade levels will allow us to better serve students. Articulation between grade levels will help align our curriculum expectations and create a continuum of learning as students advance from one grade to the next and as they change buildings. Our focus must be on increasing achievement for ALL students. To that end, we suggest monitoring and evaluation processes to be used to assess and report our progress as a result of implementing these recommendations. We believe that by adopting a unified calendar we can work more effectively together as a school community and use our time more efficiently to maximize opportunities for learning. We believe that this plan reallocates our staffing and our resources to more efficiently and effectively meet the needs of our students. As a result of implementing these recommendations, we will have more consistent class sizes aligned with the intent of our staffing allocation, increasing teacher contact time with all students. Students can be clustered or grouped to better meet their instructional needs. Clustering will reduce the wide variations of student abilities currently present within many of our classrooms. We recognize that change is difficult in a community with strong loyalties to its schools. Many of the issues that divide us such as having two different calendars and the existence of an option school were discussed at great length within the Ad Hoc Committee. However, we also recognize that this is a community that has demonstrated a commitment to work together on behalf of its children. It is time for us to come together proactively to meet the challenges of the future: changing demographics and the requirements of No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. We are a successful school district and maintaining that success requires that we adapt to changing circumstances. Because of the complexity of our task and the Board’s expectation to make a decision in time for implementation in 2006-2007, we did several things to facilitate the review process of our recommendations:

1. We gathered public comments on our proposed model, managing transitions, parental help with implementation and the effects of changes to the calendar. This feedback influenced our final recommendations.

2. We included the plan for next year and bulleted recommendations in each section

which would allow the Board to accept or reject individual components to tailor the recommendation so that it is mutually acceptable to the Board and the community.

3. We developed a feasible timeline and a plan to make the transition which involves

many stakeholders. The Ad Hoc Committee believes that decisions on the implementation of many of the recommendations for teaching and learning should


of 116

be made by the “experts” working in each affected area. These recommendations for teaching and learning may be prioritized for implementation over the next year or two.

4. The Committee also believes strongly in parental involvement and recommends

that parents be invited to serve on transition teams, District and Building level teams.

5. Further, in our monitoring and evaluation plan, we suggest that a multi-

stakeholder group monitor the District’s progress and report to the superintendent and Board on the results. We suggest in 2009 that an independent study group assess progress from the baseline data offered in this report.

A variety of measures are suggested to monitor the implementation of recommendations for teaching and learning. However to evaluate organizational effectiveness as a result of implementing the recommendations, the Ad Hoc Committee established five overall goals to measure the progress of all students. To achieve socioeconomic diversity, our goal is to:

1) Maintain socioeconomic diversity between Mechanics Grove and Lincoln grades 2-5 centers as measured by the prior year’s district average for economically disadvantaged students compared to the actual enrollment at each school annually.

To improve achievement for all students, our goals are to:

2) To increase the percentage of economically disadvantaged and non-low income students as well as all other student subgroups who meet and exceed state standards as measured by the Illinois Standards Achievement Test (ISAT) and the Illinois Measure of Academic Growth in English (IMAGE); and,

3) To close the achievement gap between economically disadvantaged and non-low

income students as well as all other student subgroups who meet and exceed state standards as measured by the Illinois Standards Achievement Test (ISAT) and the Illinois Measure of Academic Growth in English (IMAGE).

4) To increase the number of economically disadvantaged students and non-low

income students as well as all other student subgroups that meet and exceed one year’s growth as measured by the RIT scale on the MAP assessment from spring to spring for each grade level.

5) To increase the student attendance rates for each school.


of 116

We want to thank the Board of Education for the opportunity to serve our community and for the knowledge we gained about improving student achievement in our schools. We urge you to adopt our recommendations and to begin the journey of creating our future. Sincerely, The Ad Hoc Committee on Student Distribution Cynthia L. Heidorn, Ph.D., Superintendent Mark Pilut Shawn Walker Chris Pittman Phyllis Lubel, Ed.D. Dan Christensen Sharon Herington Jill Lambert Lucy Rowell M. Mullen Teofilo Julie Stein Carolyn Stadlman Scott Walton Mickey Emde Roxane Felder Charlene Lovejoy Barbara Zander Bob Hernquist Shannon Dunleavy Amy Hamilton Matt Milne Melissa Kitzmiller Lisa Green Roland Ramirez Joanne Nagel Tim Johnson, Ph.D.


of 116

Our Charges

Board of Education Motion The Board directed the Superintendent to form an ad hoc committee with membership from each schools’ administration, certified staff, non-certified staff, parents and community stakeholders (residents who currently do not have students attending District 75 schools) to review all relevant information, including but not limited to historical and future demographic trends, teaching practices, school calendars and grade span such that the committee form a consensus recommendation relating the student attendance pattern and other elements of the district educational program that, in their opinion, based on the current research, is most likely to provide a learning environment at each school where all students will be able to achieve at high levels. The committee shall make interim reports to the Board of Education no less than every month including all research reviewed. The recommendation will be communicated to the Board of Education no later than the first regular meeting in January 2006. The Board will act on the recommendation, a modification of the recommendation or affirm to make no changes no later than the last scheduled meeting in February 2006.

Guiding Principles • Each student must have an equal opportunity to learn, succeed and reach his/her

potential. • The major objective of District 75 is to set the conditions for increased achievement for

all students regardless of background. • Student subgroup achievement must increase at an accelerated pace to close the

achievement gap. • A diverse student body produces educational and societal benefits for embracing the

uniqueness of others, and learning and succeeding together. • Each District 75 school must have the same capacity to provide equal access to learning

and opportunities for individual growth.

Premise Given the District 75 student demographics, it is possible for each school to have a majority of middle class students with a modest level of poverty. Historically, a school with a strong core of diverse achievers in each classroom ensures maintaining a rigorous and rich curriculum. Schools not overwhelmed by large numbers of academically at-risk students can more effectively provide individual assistance and support for closing the achievement gap. However, some schools with different educational delivery programs or different levels of resources may be able to attain this same level of achievement even with high levels of at-risk students.

Study Goal The committee will develop a recommendation or recommendations that will include (but not limited to), establishing attendance patterns, curriculum and teaching methods, school calendars and resource allocations that in the opinion of the committee, based on current research and within the law, is most likely to provide a learning environment at each school where all students will be able to achieve at or above expected benchmarks.


of 116

The Dilemma While the Succeeding Together Initiative demonstrated initial gains in decreasing the low-income percentage gap between the elementary schools, current demographic information shows a reversal for Washington School, which has stalled at closing the gap.

Ad Hoc Committee Mission The Ad Hoc Committee will develop and recommend a long range plan(s) to consistently provide a mutually acceptable educational program for all students of the district.

Parameters for the Study 1. The Ad Hoc Committee will consist of:

• The Superintendent 1 • Each elementary school principal 3 • Middle school administration 2 • 3 teachers from each elementary school 9 (at least 2 classroom teachers) • 1 teacher from middle school 1 • 2 parents from each elementary school 6 • 1 parent from middle school 1 • 2 community members 2-4

Total 25-27

2. On call: Curriculum and ELL Coordinators, Special Ed. Director, Business Manager….

3. Budget: $2,000 (consultants, visitations, publications, etc.)

4. Time Line: • Committee names submitted by each school April 29th • Organizational Meeting May 26, 2005, 5:30 pm • Regular Meetings Board Meeting Mondays

September 12 and 19 October 3 and 17 November 7 and 21 December 5

• Interim Reports to the Board Sept., Oct., Nov., Dec. • Recommendation(s)/Report to the Board January 9, 2006

5. Getting Started

a. Knowledge Building The Committee will:

• Review all demographic data, trends and other basic information, • Review all aspects of the Succeeding Together Initiative, • Review the various options explored by the Board of Education, • Review all the research from the previous studies,


of 116

• Review other previously assembled information as determined appropriate,

• Build a common vocabulary: low income/poverty level, middle class, academically at-risk learners, equal access/opportunity, etc.

b. Information Gathering

The Committee will: • Assemble current data and assess trends, • Look at updated school boundary maps with student residences, • Decide new information and data that must be assembled, • Review the research and literature on all relevant topics: school configurations, impact of low income, etc. • Other information as needed throughout the study.

c. Clearly Define the Issue(s), Which Face the District

The Committee will: • Use the school “Learning Capacity” Index to help define the problem.

6. Communications

• The committee will assign a recorder and keep minutes of each meeting. These minutes will be sent to the Board. • The Committee will provide the Board with key literature and pertinent data collected. • The Committee will provide a monthly update to the Board at a regularly scheduled meeting. This report should include key details and ideas being explored and will be projected on a screen for the public to view at the meeting. • The Board and administration will decide how best to disseminate the information from the interim reports to the public.

7. Final Report to the Board of Education

The January 2006 Report to the Board will include a recommended plan or prioritized plans, which meet the study goal, address the identified issue and the committee’s mission. The plan(s) will include how the learning environment at each school will allow all students to achieve at or above expected benchmarks, specifics of the plan, changes that will occur, a monitoring plan and an evaluation model.


of 116

Ad Hoc Committee

Timeline for Committee Work The Ad Hoc Committee held an introductory meeting with retiring Superintendent Dr. Ray Partridge. The new Superintendent, Dr. Cynthia Heidorn, initiated Committee meetings on July 26, 2005. The Committee met a minimum of twice a month (often more frequently) throughout the remainder of 2005 and in January 2006. Minutes were taken at each meeting by committee members on a rotating basis. Meetings were scheduled from 6:00 -8:30 p.m. with a few meetings extending until 9:00 p.m. or later. Committee members spent approximately 2-3 hours per week in addition to committee meetings to read and gather research, prepare presentations, and review feedback.

Committee Process The Committee reviewed demographic data, staffing patterns, past efforts of both the Diversity Committee and the Succeeding Together Initiative, and past options previously explored by these groups. The Committee toured each school, studied focus group data from staff and parent organizations, and listened to presentations on educational programs and practices within each school. The Committee read extensive research on poverty, closing the achievement gap, equity, grade span configurations, extended time for learning and calendars. Based on research, the Committee identified strengths and opportunities for each school and the District. The Committee presented a mid-term report, Findings of the Ad Hoc Committee on Student Distribution, to the Board and to parents in a special presentation in October. This report summarized the strengths and opportunities for each school and for the District. The full report is available at www.district75.org Closer examination of the opportunities yielded several themes which will help the District improve teaching and learning for all students. For each theme, the committee considered specific, measurable, attainable, relevant and tactically sound, (“SMART”) outcomes. The eight themes were developed into research-based recommendations for teaching and learning included in this report: Closing the Achievement Gap; Communication and Collaboration; Parent Involvement; Public Perception; Staffing and Resource Allocation; Support for Students; Teacher Effectiveness; and Time for Learning. A future vision for the successful implementation of the recommendations helped to guide the Committee’s work:

• We will improve achievement scores for ALL students and close the achievement gap between all student subgroups.

• All schools will be perceived as a quality place to learn and to teach.


of 116

• There will be equitable opportunities for all students. • Improved working conditions will increase teacher effectiveness.

The Committee reviewed student attendance patterns proposed by previous groups and brainstormed several possible new patterns. After careful consideration, five models were discussed in detail. The Committee reached consensus that the recommended model offered the most potential and met the guiding principles of the Board of Education. The Committee decided to gather feedback on the proposed model framework from the parent community on January 9-11, 2006 using five questions. The feedback was used to revise the model framework and create recommendations for the calendar and the placement of students. The Ad Hoc Committee appreciates the time and consideration given by the Board, the staff and the community members who attended the presentation or submitted questions and comments to the Superintendent. Our five questions were: 1. What do you like about the proposed model? 2. What challenges do you see with the proposed model? 3. What are some ways we can help students and families adjust to the changes? 4. How can parents help with implementation? 5. How would students and parents be affected by changing our calendar? While some community members felt constrained by the use of breakout sessions and five questions about the proposal, many community members also appreciated the chance to be heard in a smaller group setting and to be asked for their perspective prior to developing a recommendation. The comments received in the breakout sessions were directly recorded and published. The five questions allowed the Committee to sort the feedback from over 500 people efficiently. The data was coded by topic and a statistical software program was used to calculate the frequency of topics reported for each question. Email, index cards, faculty feedback and Board feedback were also analyzed. One community member suggested that more group discussion activities be used in the future to talk about education topics. It was helpful to hear many different points of view. During the feedback process, the Lincoln Leadership Team hosted a parent meeting with their principal, which concerned some Mechanics Grove parents who also wanted a meeting. The superintendent and the principal hosted a special meeting to hear Mechanics Grove parent concerns prior to finalizing the recommendations. The concerns of the Mechanics Grove parents were shared with the Ad Hoc Committee to assure that all feedback was received prior to finalizing recommendations. The Washington PTO invited the Superintendent to attend their next meeting to answer questions after the Board presentation. As a result of the feedback received several changes and additions were made to:

• the proposed model framework to include a grade level strand at Lincoln; • recommendations for the unified calendar; • student placement recommendations were developed; and • a K and 4th transition option was explored.


of 116

The information received from our community was very useful and will continue to be used to guide implementation for recommendations that are approved by the Board of Education.

Communication from Ad Hoc Committee The Ad Hoc Committee established a page on the district’s website (www.district75.org) for the purpose of publishing its charges, minutes and communications. Monthly updates were sent home in backpack mail, school newsletters and placed in teacher mailboxes. The Board hosted an Ad Hoc Power Point Presentation at the first Board of Education meeting each month to receive updates from the committee. Board members received complete Ad Hoc packets and copies of all Ad Hoc correspondence. Press releases were issued to notify the public of the mid-term report, Findings of the Ad Hoc Committee on Student Distribution, October 17, 2005; and of the proposed model presented to the community on January 11, 2006. A special letter was mailed home to parents in English and in Spanish explaining the feedback process and providing an overview of the Ad Hoc proposal framework. A letter will be sent to all parents in backpack mail on February 7, 2006, providing a summary of the recommendations to be provided to the Board of Education on the evening of February 6, 2006. The detailed report will be available on the website, in the school offices and at Fremont Public Library on February 7, 2006. Because of the complexity of the recommendations and the time required for the presentation on February 6, 2006, the Board of Education designated its February 13, 2006 meeting to receive public comment. Translators will be available on February 13, 2006. This will allow the community a week to review the full report. A special meeting will be held for bilingual parents on February 8, 2006 to hear the recommendations in Spanish. The Board will begin its discussion of the recommendations at a special public meeting on February 21, 2006. A Board decision is expected shortly thereafter. The draft of Calendar recommendations were turned over to the Calendar committee on January 25, 2006. The Calendar committee is a negotiated item in the teacher’s contract. For 2006-2007, building administrators and Ad Hoc Committee members may serve on the committee. In lieu of the Ad Hoc Committee parent member from MG, the MEEA Executive Board and the Superintendent appointed the MG PTA President to serve as an MG parent. The Calendar committee is expected to generate specific calendar options and to survey both parents and teachers on the proposed calendars before finalizing its calendar recommendation to the Board of Education on March 6, 2006. The Board is expected to adopt a calendar for 2006-2007 on March 20, 2006. A separate section of this report addresses calendar recommendations.

Final Report This Final Report includes a plan and recommendations which meet the study goal. The report addresses the issues stated in the charges, explains the changes that will occur,


of 116

suggests changes for the learning environment at each school to allow students to achieve at or above expected benchmarks, and creates a monitoring plan and an evaluation model.


of 116

The Need for Change Mundelein Elementary School District #75 is nationally recognized for its innovative programs. In 2005, the District earned the Bright Star Award for student achievement in the top third of all districts in the state while spending in the bottom quartile. Overall 80.7 percent of our students meet or exceed state standards for performance on the Illinois Standards Achievement Test (ISAT.) If we’re so good, why do we need to change? As Jim Collins states in his well-known book, Good to Great, “Good is the enemy of great. We don’t have great schools; principally because we have good schools…Can a good school district become a great school district?” (Collins, 2001, p. 34) The answer is yes, if we are willing to discuss what’s working well and what’s not working for all students and then do something about it. The District must address current changes in student demographics and enrollment patterns to prevent a decline in the effectiveness of the educational system. The recommendations in this plan are intended to improve the effectiveness of the K-8 system.

Demographic Changes Mundelein, and hence District 75 is a constantly changing place. Mundelein is one of the few Lake County villages with a significant proportion of affordable housing. The records show that the overall low income student population in District 75 has increased from 311 or 13.9% in 2000 to 642 or 31.04% in 2005. This represents an overall growth rate of 106% over 5 years. For the past ten years, the District has struggled to find a balance in serving the increasing needs and growing population of economically disadvantaged students. Additional resources have been added to support the needs of economically disadvantaged students. New programs such as offering breakfast, sponsoring homework clubs, hiring parent coordinators, etc. have been instituted. Even boundary changes and the Succeeding Together Initiatives were tried. Each of these provided some help for the district, but they cannot provide the long term solution required given the dynamics of the community. Over the last two years, Washington School enrollment declined by 21% and the percentage of economically disadvantaged students attending Washington school has risen to 48% with some grade levels at 58%. Mechanics Grove Class sizes have increased. While the number of economically disadvantaged or low income students at Lincoln has grown, it has not been representative of the District.


of 116

Table 1: Historic Number of Low Income Students by School

Low Income(Number of Students)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

Wash 98 109 112 126 152 165 155 162

MG 65 64 54 64 83 103 125 161

Lincoln 36 29 34 56 69 79 92 121

CSMS 112 96 75 119 111 139 172 198

District 311 298 275 365 415 486 544 642

1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06

The number of low income students is similar at Washington and Mechanics Grove as shown in Table 1. However as a percentage of total enrollments, low income students are 47.8 % of the student population in Washington and 29.8% at Mechanics Grove as shown in Table 2 below. Low income enrollments have been increasing at all schools.


of 116

Table 2: Historic Percentage of Low Income Enrollment by School

District Trends: Low Income(Percentage of Students)

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

90.00%

100.00%

Wash 19.10% 21.70% 23.70% 27.20% 37.40% 38.10% 41.20% 47.79%

MG 10.30% 10.20% 9.00% 10.90% 14.60% 19.00% 24.30% 29.76%

Lincoln 8.80% 6.90% 8.00% 12.50% 15.00% 18.40% 21.90% 29.02%

CSMS 16.60% 13.80% 10.40% 15.30% 14.60% 18.50% 22.60% 25.78%

District 13.90% 13.30% 12.50% 16.00% 18.70% 22.50% 26.30% 31.09%

1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06

In Table 3, the grade level averages for each school indicate that Washington’s low income enrollment percentages range from 42.9% to 57.5%. The range at Mechanics Grove is from a low of 22% to 36.8%. At Lincoln the range is from a low of 20.5% to a high of 48.4%. Sandburg is the lowest with an average of 25.8% across all grades.


of 116

Table 3: 2005-2006 Low Income Enrollments by Grade and by School

Formula: Low Income (LI) / Number of Students Enrolled (En) = Low Income Percentage (%)

Grade Washington Mechanics Grove Lincoln Sandburg DistrictLI En % LI En % LI En % LI En % LI En %

K 18 42 42.9% 30 92 32.6% 25 58 43.1% 73 192 38.0%1 26 51 51.0% 32 87 36.8% 22 72 30.6% 80 210 38.1%2 25 58 43.1% 28 84 33.3% 15 73 20.5% 68 215 31.6%3 30 66 45.5% 18 82 22.0% 31 64 48.4% 79 212 37.3%4 42 73 57.5% 23 89 25.8% 10 76 13.2% 75 238 31.5%5 21 49 42.9% 30 107 28.0% 18 74 24.3% 69 230 30.0%6 61 243 25.1% 61 243 25.1%7 69 266 25.9% 69 266 25.9%8 68 259 26.3% 68 259 26.3%

Totals: 162 339 47.8% 161 541 29.8% 121 417 29.0% 198 768 25.8% 642 2065 31.1%Aug. 2005

Feb. 2005 42.80% 25% 23% 22.50% 26.80%Oct. 2004 41.20% 24.30% 21.90% 22.60% 26.30%

Elementary School AverageFeb. 2005 29.40%Aug. 2005 34.97%

Low Income ReportOctober 1, 2005 (Fall Housing Report)

Last spring the Board discussed implementing a process called, “Controlled Choice” to increase the percentage of low income students attending Lincoln School. “Controlled choice”, used by Cambridge Public Schools in Massachusetts, is a process for establishing enrollment practices which manage the assignment of economically disadvantaged or low income students while allowing parents to choose among different school options. In lieu of immediately implementing “Controlled Choice”, the Board charged the Superintendent with forming an Ad Hoc Committee “to develop recommendations for attendance patterns, curriculum and teaching methods, school calendars and resource allocations that in the opinion of the committee, based on current research and within the law, is most likely to provide a learning environment at each school where all students will be able to achieve at or above expected benchmarks.”

No Child Left Behind: Student Achievement In 2001, the Congress of the United States enacted the federal No Child Left Behind legislation. This legislation requires that school districts show that the overall student population and each defined subgroup (ethnic, economic, limited English proficient, students with disabilities) meet ever increasing yearly achievement goals. This year the District moved to federal District Improvement Status under No Child Left Behind despite the fact that all schools made annual yearly progress (AYP). The NCLB federal program uses a three year window of performance and the Illinois State Board of Education uses a two year window of performance to define both school and district


of 116

status. Three years ago, student data was recorded inaccurately and cannot be adjusted. For the 2004 School Report Card, Carl Sandburg did not make annual yearly progress (AYP). These two events placed the District on Improvement Status. The Sandburg staff undertook an ambitious project to realign its instructional delivery model, to establish an overall educational philosophy for the school and to meet North Central Association accreditation standards. For the 2005 School Report Card, Carl Sandburg made annual yearly progress and both low income and non-low income math students made significant gains. Both Sandburg and the District must make annual yearly progress (AYP) for a second year to be removed from Improvement Status. Each year that a District or School does not meet AYP, the sanctions imposed range from submitting improvement plans to restructuring and other penalties. Each year the AYP bar is raised higher under the Illinois State Board of Education’s No Child Left Behind accountability program. District overall scores improved from 73.0 points in 2003 to 80.7 points in 2005 or an average of 3.85 points per year. Beginning in 2007, the AYP expectations increase 7.5 points per year as shown in Figure 1 below. While some may not agree with the legislation, it is the current law. Opting out means loss of federal funding (about $250,000), but does not remove the district from the requirements. The Illinois State Board of Education confers “recognition” to school districts which is based on the same system of measurement as No Child Left Behind. “Recognition” is authority to operate the public school system. Figure 1: Illinois State Board of Education Annual Yearly Progress Requirements for No Child Left

Behind Act of 2001 Compared to District 75 Overall Annual Yearly Progress

0.010.020.030.040.050.060.070.080.090.0

100.0110.0

% M

eet

and

Exce

ed

AYP 40.0 40.0 47.5 47.5 55.0 62.5 70.0 77.5 85.0 92.5 92.5 100.0

D75 73 76.9 80.7 80.7 80.7 80.7 80.7 80.7 80.7 80.7 80.7 80.7

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

While overall 80.7 % of our students met or exceeded state standards on the ISAT. Many of our subgroups, ethnic, economically disadvantaged, IEP (Individual Education Plan –


of 116

Special Education students) are significantly below this level. Please review the 2005 School Report Card published by the Illinois State Board of Education for more information. The Ad Hoc Committee’s mid-term report, Findings of the Ad Hoc Committee on Student Distribution, October 17, 2005, indicates that reading achievement gaps between low income and non-low income students increased in upper grades.

Table 4: 2005 Reading Achievement Gap Analysis: Non-low Income and Low Income Students (Source: 2005 School Report Cards)

2005 ISAT Reading Gap Analysis: Non Low Income and Low Income

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

W NLIW LIMG NLIMG LICS NLICS LI

W NLI 79.4 62.5W LI 73.4 55.5MG NLI 81.8 83.8MG LI 85.7 55.5CS NLI 87CS LI 65.2

3 5 8

Lincoln did not have sufficient low income students in grades 3 and 5 to meet reporting requirements. In 5th grade, the achievement gaps in reading are almost 10 percentage points at Washington and 28.3 percentage points at Mechanics Grove. In 8th grade the reading gap is 21.8 points for low income students. If scores do not improve for 5th grade low income students, Washington and Mechanics Grove will barely make the 55% bar for AYP in 2007.


of 116

Table 5: 2005 Math Achievement Gap Analysis: Non-low Income and Low Income

(Source: 2005 School Report Cards)

2005 ISAT Math Gap Analysis: Non Low Income and Low Income

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

W NLI 94.2 95.8

W LI 100 85.2

MG NLI 91 90.1

MG LI 100 66.7

CS NLI 75

CS LI 43.5

3 5 8

In Math, low income students out-performed non-low income in 3rd grade. In 5th grade, the achievement gap is 10.6 points at Washington and 33.4 points at Mechanics Grove. Low income scores in 8th grade math increased 10.1 percentage points over the prior year while non-low income scores improved 7.3 percentage points. Scores in 8th grade improved significantly over the prior year and helped to narrow the achievement gap from 34.3 to 31.6 points. All students benefited from changes made in the delivery of instruction at Sandburg. Overall fewer 8th grade students meet and exceed standards in math than students in 3rd and 5th grade. Not changing to respond to current academic needs is not an option.

Understanding How Poverty Affects Students Literature indicates that there are two types of poverty: “situational” and “generational.” Situational poverty usually tends to be temporary with families needing short term assistance due to circumstances relating to employment, immigration, death, illness or divorce. Generational poverty is defined as being in poverty for two generations or longer. A larger number of economically disadvantaged or low income students in District 75 come from families which have always been in a cycle of poverty. The Federal government has defined the poverty level for a family of four at $25,155. (Source: Federal guidelines for Free and Reduced Lunch)


of 116

Poverty at its very essence is about survival. Limited resources must first provide for housing, utilities, groceries, transportation, and health care. Families are generally less able to provide books, educational games and enrichment experiences which promote language experiences and vocabulary development. These students have had less exposure to abstract words and thinking. Without abstract thinking, it is difficult to plan. When they have difficulty planning, they may not understand cause and effect. When they don’t understand cause and effect, they can’t predict consequences. When they cannot predict consequences, they have difficulty controlling impulses which may lead to inappropriate behavior for social norms or impulsive decisions. Parents may work two jobs and not be available to help with homework. Some parents may have limited reading and math skills or little formal education experience. Children who are impoverished are equally capable of learning, but face more obstacles to learning. When children who live in poverty come to school, they may face a new environment with different expectations and rules than those in place at home. In a recent study, low-income elementary students perform significantly better when they attend middle class schools with fewer than 50% low income students (Gottleib, 2002). High concentration of poverty is associated with poor performance of ALL students in a school. Middle class schools provide a good environment for teaching and learning. Middle class schools work for all students. Middle class schools have lower mobility rates for students and teachers. Middle class parents are more actively involved in schools. Middle class values motivate achievement and model it for less advantaged peers. Middle class students do more homework and share experiences which influence the behaviors of less affluent classmates. Middle class peers come to school with a greater vocabulary than low income students, so children expand their vocabulary through peer interaction. Linchevski and Kutscher (1998) report on two studies in the Journal for Research in Mathematical Education. The findings indicate that “the achievements of students need not be compromised in a heterogeneous setting; on the contrary, the achievements of our average and less able students proved to be significantly higher when compared to their peers in the same ability classes, whereas highly able students performed about the same” (Linchevski & Kutscher, 1998, p. 533). This study focused on students with differing levels of mathematical ability. As stated above, Carl Sandburg realigned its math curriculum and raised the scores of low income students 10.1 points and non-low income students 7.3 points. Non low income students scored 31.6 points higher than low income students. All students benefited from improvements in the instructional delivery model. The public schools are one of the primary vehicles for transmitting societal values. In the United States, equality and tolerance are fundamental values. In our rapidly increasing multi-cultural society, children benefit from learning to treat individuals who have


of 116

different backgrounds as equals and to judge each other on personal character. Public schools have always provided the mechanism for social mobility and equal opportunity. The demographic and student achievement data presented above indicate that soon Washington School will no longer be considered a middle class school. We have reached an academic “tipping point.” We know that high poverty schools are detrimental for the achievement of all students. We also know that middle class schools work well. Both advantaged and disadvantaged students can be successful in middle class schools. This recommendation is designed to maintain all middle class schools in Mundelein and to maximize educational opportunities for all Mundelein Elementary District 75 students regardless of where they live within our community. References for this section:

Bredhoff and Kaiser. (1999). The Benefits of a Diverse Student Body in Elementary/Secondary Education, NEA Journal. February 9, 1999. Lyman, L.L. & Villani, C.J. (2002, December). The Complexity of Poverty: A Missing Component of Educational Leadership Programs. College of Education, Research Report. Illinois State University. www.coe.ilstu.edu Diversity Study Report, Mundelein Elementary School District #75, 2002. Gottlieb, A. (2002). Economically segregated schools hurt poor kids, study shows. The Term Paper. News and Analysis on School Reform from the Piton Foundation. Volume 1. Number 1. May 2002. www.piton.org Illinois Principals Association. Interview with Dr. Ruby Payne. www.ilprincipals.org/RubyPayne.htm Kutscher, B. & Linchevski, L. (1998). Tell me with whom you’re learning, and I’ll tell you how much you’ve learned: Mixed ability versus same-ability grouping in mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, Vol. 29. No. 5. 533-554. Payne, Ruby. (2001). A Framework for Understanding Poverty. Aha, Process, Inc. ISBN 1-929229-14-3.

Socioeconomic and Cultural Diversity To maintain a diverse learning environment, the District should establish enrollment targets for economically disadvantaged students to assure equal opportunity for all students. Each school should strive to maintain an enrollment percentage which reflects the district average for students receiving free and reduced lunch under the Federal poverty guidelines for the prior year. By maintaining the District average, all schools will generally reflect a majority of economically sound students and derive the educational


of 116

benefits from a diverse student body while avoiding the negative educational consequences that accompany isolation. The recommended plan will ensure the benefits of both socioeconomic and cultural diversity among all schools. As our world becomes increasingly integrated, our graduates will work in culturally diverse environments. To this end, District 75, offers a special opportunity to prepare our students for a global society. Recent case law has upheld school board decisions to develop diversity plans for educational reasons. Some districts have fallen under court ordered desegregation plans, others have implemented voluntary plans. The District’s attorneys have reviewed this recommendation and found that the recommendations are consistent with the types of plans that have been supported by the courts.

Our Strategic Focus: Organization Alignment To address these challenges presented above, our successful core strategies will remain the same. We will continue to:

• Focus on meeting student needs. • Improve the alignment of our curriculum and instruction with state standards. • Practice shared decision-making involving stakeholders in the process as defined in

the Governance Framework. • Provide cutting edge staff development. • Support the District’s Vision for Exemplary Schools Dedicated to Excellence (July

2000). We recommend changing our strategic focus from individual schools to a K-8 system for improving achievement for all students.

“Systems thinking is guided by the idea that the behavior of systems follows common principles. The elements of a system continually interact and do so in predictable ways. Systems thinking is comprised of a body of principles, methods and tools for understanding these interactions and creating more effective systems. The goal of systems thinking is to take those actions that will most positively influence the system as a whole. Without deliberate attention to alignment issues, the system is highly susceptible to organizational drift. The espoused values must drive and shape the climate of the schools. The quality of relationships in the organization will largely determine how well the organization produces. Continuous improvement is paying attention to the quality of what we do.” (National Association of School Boards, Key Work of School Boards.)

Thompson and March (2003) report high performance school systems are noted for the following characteristics:


of 116

1. The system is standards-based. 2. The school system takes as its purpose enabling all students in all schools to

meet high standards. 3. The climate of the school system is nurturing and supportive. 4. The system holds itself accountable for the success of all of its schools. 5. The system ensures intensive ongoing high quality professional development

for all employees. 6. System resources (personnel, funds, material resources, time, and so on) are

strategically focused on supporting powerful instructional practices in all schools.

7. The system collects and uses data effectively. 8. The system engages in active, open, substantive and clear two-way

communication. By reorganizing student attendance and staffing patterns as proposed in the plan presented below, we believe we can improve achievement for all students. We can better align our instructional program both vertically and horizontally increasing teacher collaboration. All of this can be done within the existing footprint of our school building and within existing funds. The current organizational plan has created “friction” in the system and divided our community. We must be proactive in reducing obstacles that prevent students from receiving the instructional support they need. All students will benefit from greater consistency in class sizes and clusters that increase teacher contact time. Grade level organization plans should be designed around providing alternatives for student instructional needs rather than limiting opportunities based on where a student happens to live in the community. The educational program should drive the system. As Carl Sandburg has clearly demonstrated, on overall educational philosophy can help align the efforts of individual classroom teachers towards achieving our shared goal of increasing student achievement and providing extended opportunities for learning. We must create working conditions which enhance teacher effectiveness to better meet the needs of all students. As a result of our efforts, the Ad Hoc Committee envisions that we will look back in five years and find:

• We will improve achievement scores for ALL students and close the achievement gap between all student subgroups.

• All schools will be perceived as a quality place to learn and to teach. • There will be equitable opportunities for all students. • Improved working conditions will increase teacher effectiveness.

For ALL children to be successful, we need to work together.


of 116

Recommendation: Attendance Patterns The mission of the Ad Hoc Committee as defined by the Board of Education in its charges is to develop and recommend a long range plan (s) to consistently provide a mutually acceptable educational program for all students of the district. This plan provides stability for enrolled students and allows through the enrollment process an opportunity to provide alternatives for learning while balancing socioeconomic diversity. This plan also includes recommendations based on research for the learning environment at each school so that all children will be able to achieve at or above expected benchmarks.

Grade Span Organization Currently, Mundelein Elementary School District #75 is organized in three (K-5) elementary schools, one (6-8) middle school and three classes of at-risk preschool housed in the District Office. Over the years, District 75 has existed in many configurations. In the late 1970’s the district closed Lincoln school due to lower enrollment. In the early 1990’s grade level centers were created at Mechanics Grove and the former Jefferson school which is now known as Sandburg “South.” In the late 1990’s, Washington and Mechanics Grove were expanded and Lincoln was reopened as an option school. The current configuration of boundary-defined neighborhood schools in combination with Lincoln as an option has not been able to keep up with the rapidly changing demographics of the community. We currently have higher class sizes at Mechanics Grove, a 21% decline in enrollment at Washington, and despite the marketing of Lincoln, an under representation of low income students at Lincoln.

Models Considered But Not Selected The committee brainstormed thirteen potential models. (See Appendix A: Configuration Options Brainstormed ) Some of the models had already been considered and not supported by the Diversity Committee. Given existing facility limitations and strong parental preferences for traditional grade level configurations, there were limited options within existing resources or building space. From our list, there were five that received the most serious consideration and preliminary space feasibility studies were prepared for each. The feasibility studies may be found in Appendix B: Space Feasibility Studies . Below is a summary of the committee’s reasons for not recommending four of the models considered. Neighborhood Schools The Ad Hoc Committee examined the possibility of having three neighborhood schools and quickly realized that this would not provide a long term solution. It would require frequent boundary changes to maintain socioeconomic diversity.


of 116

Four Grade Level Centers (K-1, 2-3, 4-5, 6-8) At first, four grade level centers appeared to be an easy answer. All students would attend each of the four schools. We learned through our research that too many transitions have a negative impact on students. Hawthorn District #73 students had four transitions (K, 1-4, 5-6, 7-8.) With passage of a referendum, they built a new school and reorganized in a traditional configuration (K-5, 6-8) with an overall educational philosophy for two of their schools (International Baccalaureate, Glasser Quality Schools). Diamond Lake District #76 students have three transitions (K-1, 2-4, 5-8). This has worked well for them. Our committee was concerned that pure grade level centers would also mean that we would lose an option for parental choice. Then we learned in the feasibility study that the four grade configurations would not fit within our schools without additions. Three Choice Schools (K-5) and One Middle School When examining three choice schools (K-5) as an option, we realized that this model would continue our current challenge of balancing the distribution of our economically disadvantaged students in all grade levels. It would increase competition in the district rather than provide unity. At the elementary level, successful magnet programs are difficult to implement because of the focus on building literacy and math skills in all schools. Subsequently, the Ad Hoc Committee focused its efforts on analyzing blended models which incorporated both grade level centers and parental choice. Two Grade Level Centers (K-2, 3-5), Lincoln (K-5) and Sandburg (6-8) The Committee considered a model which retained Lincoln in its current form and created grade level centers, K-2 at Washington and 3-5 at Mechanics Grove. This model was proposed by the Diversity Committee to equalize diversity, consolidate services for students, to equalize class sizes, to increase uniformity of curriculum, to provide opportunities for cross grade reading instruction, specialized projects for the age level and greater teacher collaboration. However, it was not approved by the Board of Education and raised concerns about treating one school differently than the others. The committee was concerned this model would not address both balancing socioeconomic diversity and improving student achievement for all students.

Recommendation for Student Attendance Centers

PreK-K-1 Primary Early Learning Literacy Center (Washington School) All students will begin their education at Washington in the primary center, including students in our at-risk pre-kindergarten program, JumpStart. This would allow intensive focus on early learning and literacy skills for reading and math. Washington was selected for the primary center for the following reasons:

• 1st floor building with enough classroom space to accommodate two grade levels and the Pre-K program. Class sizes are smaller in Kindergarten and First grades so


of 116

more classroom spaces were needed than were available at Lincoln. Lincoln is also a multi-level building.

• Neighborhood location rather than a busy thoroughfare. • Public perception for the school will be more positive with a focus on early

learning.

Two Grade Level Centers, Grades 2-5 (Lincoln and Mechanics Grove) Based on the PreK-1 school experience, teachers and parents can help families make informed decisions about which alternative program, Lincoln or Mechanics Grove is better suited for their students. The Ad Hoc Committee recognizes that parents feel strongly about their choice of either a traditional program or the “Lincoln” model. In order to provide a mutually acceptable educational program, this proposal provides for both alternatives. Recognizing that more families have chosen traditional programs at Washington and Mechanics Grove, a traditional grade level strand in grades 2-5 will be offered at Lincoln. The following year the teacher will move with the same group of students to the next grade level, a concept referred to as “looping.” Lincoln will continue to offer its current instructional program which includes a multi-age family atmosphere with students grouped in grades 2/3 and 4/5. Both types of classroom configurations will continue to use the research-based practices for teaching and learning (multiple intelligences, problem-based learning, and thematic-integrated teaching) that have been part of the Lincoln model components for several years. Lincoln uses the same leveled readers and math textbooks as Mechanics Grove. Mechanics Grove will continue to offer its current program of traditional grade level classrooms. The school stresses academic achievement with a keen emphasis on basic skills and citizenship development. Current best practices and instructional models will continue. The Grade 2-5 configuration will offer new opportunities for students to work within and across grade level groups. Both Mechanics Grove and Lincoln have performed well on the Illinois Standards Achievement Test and are expected to continue to do so. Over time, it is expected that the best of each approach will be adopted by both schools. Although there will continue to be distinctions between these two approaches, it is expected that over the next several years the gap will narrow. This will maximize the educational effectiveness of the district and further enhance our ability to support ongoing change in the community. Both grade 2-5 schools will work together to provide joint activities across grade levels and between schools which will help to maintain friendships begun in the primary literacy center as well as to prepare students for middle school. Teachers will collaborate in grade level teams within each school and between buildings.


of 116

One Grade Level Center, Grades 6-8(Carl Sandburg Middle School) All students are reunited at Carl Sandburg, which will continue to operate under its middle school philosophy. This will be aided by the need to align only two schools from an articulation perspective and the long standing relationships (both student and family) created at the PreK/K/1 level. In order to meet all the needs of its students, Carl Sandburg Middle School strives to implement a wide range of academic and extracurricular programs. All program decisions are based around the following 12 middle school principles:

1) Develop and implement curriculum that is challenging, integrative and exploratory.

2) Use assessment and evaluation that promotes learning. 3) Implement a varied teaching and learning approach in the classroom. 4) Develop a flexible organization structure. 5) Ensure that there is an adult advocate for every student. 6) Provide Comprehensive guidance and student support services. 7) Have a shared vision which is clearly communicated to all Sandburg Community

members. 8) Create a positive school climate. 9) Have high expectations for everyone within the Sandburg Community. 10) Hire educators who are committed to the success of young adolescents. 11) Develop and implement programs and policies that foster health, wellness, and

safety. 12) Create opportunities to develop family and community partnerships.

Carl Sandburg will continue to provide two different environments to meet the needs of its accelerated students. The first is a multi-grade level, flexible, self-contained classroom environment for language arts and math. The second accelerated environment for students of advanced ability is provided through cluster grouping strategies in language arts and math classes, and relies on a differentiated classroom environment to meet student needs. In addition to the academic offerings, Sandburg offers over thirty extracurricular activities, which include club, intramural, and competitive athletic programming. CSMS is an exciting place to engage in learning with a staff that understands adolescence and is committed to the overall growth and success of each and every student.

Recommendations for Student Placement The District has a national reputation for the quality of its educational programs. A significant effort has been made to establish the curriculum and instructional philosophy in each school. This recommendation seeks to maximize the return on this investment by retaining two alternatives for learning. Within the process of choosing between two alternatives, the Ad Hoc Committee recommends the following commitments to the enrollment process.


of 116

• Each school should strive to maintain an enrollment percentage which reflects the

district average for students receiving free and reduced lunch under the Federal poverty guidelines for the prior year. For 2005-2006, the percentage is 35% for grades 2-5.

• 2005-2006 students at Mechanics Grove and Lincoln in grades 1-4 may remain in

their current school placement. They may also request a change in placement during the registration process and participate in the lottery. If a student is currently enrolled in either school in grades 1-4, they may stay.

• Siblings present concurrently within grades 2-5 will be placed in the same school

unless a parent requests a different assignment. A brother or sister must be currently attending the school and enrolled in grades 2-5 otherwise, entering 2nd grade students are considered a “new” student for placement purposes and must participate in the lottery, if necessary.

• Washington students will be placed within Mechanics Grove and Lincoln by

lottery. Suggested guidelines placing Washington students are explained in the next section.

• The lottery will annually assign families computer-generated random numbers

which will be drawn in accordance within the lottery recommendations.

• Centralized registration assures an independent process for student placement. Recommendations for central registration are explained in a separate section of this report.

• Proof of Residency must be established as part of the registration process.

• Establish enrollment plans for each school annually. The plans will include

estimates for the number of sections needed at each grade level and the number of economically disadvantaged students for each school based on the prior year’s enrollment as described above.

• New families who register before the lottery will be assigned through the lottery

process.

• Families who move in after the lottery or during the school year will be placed based upon space availability and socioeconomic balance.

• Families who do not receive their first choice will attend the alternative or second

choice school and may participate in the lottery again next year.

• Within Lincoln, students will be assigned between traditional and multi-age classes to assure socioeconomic balance.


of 116

• Registration for current students should be held in April or May so that vacancies

for each school and grade level can be determined. All students living within the District boundaries will be placed.

• Applications for Free and Reduced Lunch with supporting documents for income

levels must be submitted with registration forms. The District will use this information to maintain socioeconomic diversity between the 2-5 grade centers.

• Following initial placement, students will continue in the same school unless

significant enrollment growth necessitates a change in enrollment policy approved by the Board of Education.

• Develop an appeal process to the Superintendent or designee based on proven

hardship.

• Two additional key recommendations are required to support the implementation of grade span organization: centralized registration and a unified calendar.

Placing Washington Students for 2006-2007 With the initial transition, the Ad Hoc Committee recommends the following process for placing current Washington Students in Grades 2-5 for 2006-2007:

• Families will list their preference for Lincoln, Mechanics Grove, or no preference and verify their eligibility for Free and Reduced Lunch. Families will be drawn in the lottery process within the grade level of the oldest child in grades 2-5.

• Three lottery groups will be formed, drawn and placed in the following order:

1. Economically disadvantaged families (must be verified eligible for Free and Reduced Lunch) in Grades 5,4,3,2.

2. Other families with preference in grades 5,4,3,2. 3. And other families with no preference in grades 5,4,3,2.

• Beginning with 5th grade, family names will be drawn from a lottery and all

siblings within grades 2-5 will be placed by preference until sections are filled. Once 5th grade is placed, the lottery will continue in descending order from 4th grade to 2nd using family names until all Washington students are placed.

The Ad Hoc Committee is sympathetic to the concerns for Washington School families in this transition. The Committee discussed whether to include all students in the initial lottery. The Committee decided that moving the fewest number of children would


of 116

minimize the amount of disruption in the transition. The Committee STRONGLY recommends that Mechanics Grove and Lincoln Schools develop plans to welcome and support Washington students moving into grades 2-5. Similarly, STRONGLY recommends that Washington School develop plans to welcome and support Kindergarten and 1st grade students from Mechanics Grove and Lincoln. The Committee suggests the following efforts to minimize the effects of transitions:

• Place Washington teachers in both Mechanics Grove and Lincoln so that children see familiar faces.

• Place Mechanics Grove and Lincoln teachers in Washington so that children see familiar faces.

• Use a buddy system and group students so that no student is isolated. • Schedule school visits this spring with welcoming activities • Welcome all students as we would any new student. • Plan school activities that allow students to become acquainted and to see friends

from their previous school.

Placements in Future Years In subsequent years, the Ad Hoc Committee recommends:

• Placement for 2nd grade will be made in the following order: o 2nd grade student who has brothers or sisters enrolled for the next year

in grades 3-5 will be placed in the same school (so that families may be kept together.)

o By lottery in the following order: Economically Disadvantaged students (verified by application

for Free and Reduced Lunch) Others with preference Others with no preference

Enrollment Plans For illustrative purposes, the Ad Hoc Committee developed two enrollment plans: one for full implementation and an alternative plan which retains Kindergarten and 4th grade students in their current school placement. This section reviews basic assumptions used to create the plans for student placement, the number of existing classrooms in each elementary school, the District’s staffing allocation formula. The actual plan for 2006-2007 may vary depending upon actual enrollment.

Classroom Space Stacey Bechard and each of the principals reviewed maps of the schools and determined the number of classrooms in each building. They excluded the following spaces: gym, art, music and computer labs except at Washington. Resource rooms were left in place.


of 116

Washington has 22 classrooms including the current computer lab. Because Washington has a second computer lab in the library, this room may be used as a classroom. The computers could be dispersed to classrooms for student use. When the addition was placed on Washington school, three smaller teaching spaces were built with removable walls. Two of these would be converted to one large classroom. Lincoln currently has 20 classrooms which include three smaller converted spaces (teacher’s lounge, primary bilingual room across from the office, and a small classroom behind the library.) Because of its multiple levels and smaller number of classrooms, Lincoln cannot accommodate the primary center. Mechanics Grove has 24 classrooms. Three of the small classroom teaching spaces currently being used are not included in this count. Together Lincoln and Mechanics Grove have 44 available classrooms. 45% of the rooms are at Lincoln and 55% are at Mechanics Grove.

Staffing Allocation Formula Staffing allocations are based on the following current ratios for regular classrooms:

• 21.25 for K-2 classes, • 24.25 for students per class in grades 3-5, and • 27.25 for grades 6-8.

We applied these ratios to our current enrollment to project the number of classes or sections for each grade level needed for each school. This method also allowed us to test the possibility of grandfathering our current Kindergarten and 4th grade students for 2006-2007 only.


of 116

Student Enrollment Projections

Table 6: Enrollment History

MESD #75 Enrollment History

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

Wash MG Lincoln CSMS

Wash 579 496 514 502 503 472 464 432 369 339

MG 638 621 631 627 620 589 568 533 517 541

Lincoln 275 374 409 420 413 422 426 431 418 417

CSMS 628 671 674 698 699 717 758 756 764 771

1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06

Boundary Change

In November, the Board of Education reviewed enrollment projections prepared using the cohort survival method. This method calculates an average retention ratio from one grade to the next school year and averages the retention ratios over a five year period. This statistical method is used by most demographers. For Kindergarten, we reviewed the long range projections for the District prepared by Information Management Systems (2002-2012) and the Lake County Department of Planning and Development (1995-2000). The first used live birth data for Lake County and the second used live birth data for the Village. Both reports comment on the variability of Kindergarten projections. Lake County reported a retention ratio for live births entering Kindergarten of 52.4%. An average enrollment over the past five years was used to estimate Kindergarten enrollments. The projected 217 Kindergarten students is high in comparison to recent trends. Census data by block and track or conducting a pre-school census may help determine projections in the future. For purposes of illustrating the implementation of this model, we used current 2005-2006 enrollments advanced one year. For Kindergarten, we used the 2005-2006 enrollment of 192.


of 116

Table 7: Enrollment Projection 10 6 2005

Grade 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11 K 192 217 211 211 209 209 1 210 193 216 210 210 208 2 215 213 196 219 213 213 3 212 216 214 198 220 214 4 238 209 213 212 197 217 5 230 241 212 216 215 201 6 246 227 238 210 213 212 7 266 245 226 236 208 212 8 259 268 246 227 238 210 Total 2068 2029 1973 1939 1923 1896 Five new residential developments are planned within District attendance boundaries. Construction is expected to take place over the next five years. The projected number of students from the new construction will help to maintain current enrollment levels or lessen the decline. Over time the district has experienced cycles of generational turnover in which families stay in their homes after their children finish elementary school lowering enrollment and when empty nesters sell their homes to young families increasing enrollment. We are currently in a period of decline. New development may help to sustain enrollment at current levels or slightly higher. Table 8: Projected New Developments within District Boundaries

Development Construction

Phase Projected # of Students

Hampton Reserve ( 83 Units ~ 70% complete)

2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008

60 (Actual: MG = 8;L = 3, Total 11)

Tall Grass (43 Units)

Not scheduled

45

Quig’s (70 Units)

2007-2008 2008-2009

75

New Urban Town homes (27 Units)

2007-2008 6

Teng Condominiums (114 Units)

2007-2008 5

Total # of Students 191 After reviewing the projections and estimates for development, the administrative team recommended constructing the model based on this year’s current enrollment which is the


of 116

largest of future enrollments projections for the next five years. The numbers we used are in Table 9 below.

Table 9: 2005-2006 K-8 Enrollment by School by Grade Level

Grade

Washington Mechanics

Grove Lincoln

CSMS DistrictK 42 92 58 1921 51 87 72 2102 58 84 73 2153 66 82 64 2124 73 89 76 2385 49 107 74 2306 246 2467 266 2668 259 259

Total 339 541 417 771 2068 We advanced all students one grade level to project 2007-2008 in Table 10. There are 67 fewer students after our largest 8th grade class graduates.

Table 10: 2006-2007 Enrollment Estimates in Current Configuration with Special Programs.

Grade

Washington

Mechanics Grove Lincoln

CSMS District

PreK 100 + ECSE 12/2 Max + SEDOL LOP 12 Max + K 42 92 58 1921 42 92 58 1922 51 87 72 2103 58 84 73 2154 66 82 64 2125 73 89 76 2386 230 2307 246 2468 266 266

Total 332 + 526 401 742 2001 +


of 116

Projecting Enrollments for Full Implementation Next, enrollments were projected by grade for each school in the new organizational model. Based on rolling forward current enrollments, the number of students who would change schools is shown in Table 11.

Table 11: Estimate of Number of District 75 Students to Move to New Attendance Centers

(2005-2006 placement)

Grade Lincoln Mechanics

Grove Washington Total

PreK ECSE SEDOL LOP 8 8 K 58 92 150 1 51 51 2 58 58 3 66 66 4 73 73 Total 58 92 256 406 Total 2005-2006 Enrollment

417 541 339 1297

% Moving 14% 17% 76% 31% JumpStart is currently a state-funded program for at risk preschoolers. JumpStart offers five half-day sections with a maximum of 20 students per class for a total of 100 students. JumpStart has not been counted in previous enrollment data. It is included in Table 12. For the Grade 2-5 schools, the percentage of classroom spaces were 45% at Lincoln and 55% at Mechanics Grove. Since both schools will use the same staffing allocation formula to determine the number of sections, the same percentage can be applied to the enrollment. In Table 12, two student placements were moved to Lincoln in 4th grade and 13 student placements in 5th grade to avoid having large class sizes at Mechanics Grove.


of 116

Table 12: 2006-2007 Enrollments By Grade By School

Grade Lincoln (45%)

MechanicsGrove (55%)

Washington Sandburg Total

Pre-K 100 ECSE 12 /2 Max SEDOL LOP 12 Max K 192 192 1 192 192 2 93 118 211 3 96 119 215 4 90+2=92 122-2=120 212 5 105+13=118 133-

13=120 238

6 230 230 7 246 246 8 266 266 Total 399 477 + LOP 384 +

JumpStart ECSE

742 2002

After calculating the distribution of students between schools, the distribution of low income students was calculated using the same ratio of 45% Lincoln and 55% Mechanics Grove in Table 13. The recommendation is to base placement for economically disadvantaged students on prior year District percentages.


of 116

Table 13: Economically Disadvantaged (Low Income) Student Enrollment

for Grades 1-4 in 2005-2006

Grade Lincoln MechanicsGrove

Washington Total Low Income

% Low Income

District Total Enrollment

1 22 32 26 80 38% 211 2 15 28 25 68 32% 215 3 31 18 30 79 37% 212 4 10 23 42 75 32% 238 Total 78 101 123 302 34.5% 876 % Low Income

26% 33% 41% 100%

Ratio L/MG

45% 55%

# of Low Income Students

136 166 302

Total 06-07 Enrollment

399 477 876

% Low Income

34% 34.8% 34.5%

Student placement guidelines allow current Lincoln and Mechanics Grove students in grades 2-5 to remain in their current placement. In Table 14, the number of available spaces for low income and non-low income students is calculated for each school. Total enrollments exclude special placements for JumpStart, ECSE, and SEDOL LOP.


of 116

Table 14: Available Placements at Lincoln and Mechanics Grove

Formulas Lincoln Mechanics Grove Washington O5-06 Enrollment 417 (K-5) 541 (K-5) 339 (K-5) 06-07 Enrollment 399 (2-5) 477 (2-5) + LOP 384 (PreK-1) + Less: Current Students in Grades 1-4

285 342 249

Available Places 114 135 = 249 06-07 Low Income Target

136 166

Less: Current Low Income in Grades 1-4

78 101 123

Available Low Income Places

58 65 =123

Available Places 114 135 =249 Less: Low Income Places

58 65 =123

Non Low Income Places

56 70 =126

Having illustrated the calculations work in a theoretical sense, the actual distribution of students could vary based on mobility.

Table 15: 2004-2005 Mobility Rates (2005 School Report Card)

Lincoln Mechanics Grove

Washington Sandburg District

12.1% 13.5% 19.0% 6.4% 12.8% The lottery may also have a slight impact in the placement of students drawn near the end so that families may be kept together. Each year the district estimates student enrollment and projects the number of classrooms needed for each grade level. Adjustments are made as actual enrollments are known. Using central registration and a lottery help to place students in order to derive the educational benefits of socioeconomic and cultural diversity. Bilingual students are included in the totals for each grade level above. The number of estimated full-time bilingual students for 2006-2007 is shown in Table 16. In 2005-2006, we offered 2/3 multi-age native language instruction because of the small number of third graders. In this model, we include native language instruction for 2nd grade. Based on the results of ACCESS testing and the recommendations of the Bilingual Study team we will


of 116

determine how best to serve 3-5 graders. Currently, 4-5 graders receive full-time resource assistance (600 minutes per week.)

Table 16: 2006-2007 Projected Full Time Bilingual Students

Grade level Number of full-time Bilingual students

K 51 1 40 2 36 3 21 4 9 5 4 Total 161

The number of classroom sections for each of the schools was determined as shown in Table 17. The number of students for each school was divided by the staffing allocation ratio for the appropriate grade level. This will help guide staffing decisions.

Table 17: 2006-2007 Projected Number of Classroom Sections by Elementary School

Grade Lincoln Mechanics Grove

Washington

PreK 2.5 ECSE 1 SEDOL LOP 1 (Multi-age 2-5) K 9 1 9 2 6-2/3 Multiage

1 2nd grade level 1 2nd Native Language

5 grade level 1 Native Language

3 1 grade level 5 grade level 4 7- 4/5 Multiage

1 grade level 5 grade level

5 1 grade level 5 grade level Total 18 22 21.5 Avail Rooms 2 2 .5

If enrollment were to grow at the Primary Center, the Pre-kindergarten classes could be returned to the District office. This would provide space for three more sections of Kindergarten or First Grade at Washington School as needed. While not ideal, it does provide space without the expense of construction.


of 116

If enrollment were to grow in grades 2-5, there are two additional classroom spaces in each building allowing for approximately 100 more students in grades 2-5.

Strengths and Challenges of Full Implementation The Ad Hoc Committee recommends the District fully implement the attendance pattern recommendation for the following reasons: Strengths

• It directly addresses the guiding principles and charges given to the Committee. • It achieves socioeconomic balance. • It equalizes class sizes. • It provides some flexibility in the event of mild enrollment growth. • Everyone is affected at the same time. • Everyone can be a part of building the new school community. • All resources will be available to deliver programs in each school. • It efficiently distributes resources among the schools. • A list of benefits for students was generated for each of our program areas:

Curriculum and Instruction, Special Services, English Language Learners, Project Challenge and JumpStart. These may be found later in this report.

Challenges

• 2005-2006 students in Kindergarten and 4th grade will have one extra transition. Special attention should be given to how these transitions are managed to minimize the impact on these students. One consideration is to “grandfather” Kindergarten student’s return to their current school assignment for 2nd grade, if they attended Lincoln and Mechanics Grove.

• Implementing change in school communities is always controversial and challenging. The Board’s timeline for 2006-2007 is aggressive, but feasible. A tentative timeline for implementation and transition design teams was created to involve others in determining how to implement the recommendations in a timely way.

Kindergarten and 4th Grade Transition Plan Option Parents have expressed concerns for students who are in Kindergarten and 4th Grade in 2005-2006 will have an extra transition as a result of implementing the recommendations. One parent suggestion was to grandfather Kindergarten and 4th Grade students in their current school assignment. To examine the viability of this option, staffing ratios were applied to the current enrollment. The number of sections needed was determined in total and for each school. These are shown in Table 18.


of 116

Table 18: 2005-2006 Classrooms Needed in Grades 2-5 for K & 4 Transition Option

Enrollment 2005-2006 Staffing Ratio

# Total Rooms Needed

Lincoln (17-20)

MG (24)

W (22)

Pre K 3- DO ECSE 1 1 LOP SEDOL 1 1 K 190 21.25 10 3 4 3 1 207 21.25 11 4 4 3 2 205 21.25 11 4 4 3 3 222 24.25 10 3 4 3 4 238 24.25 10 3 4 3 5 229 24.25 9 3 4 2 Total 1291 66 20 24 20 Student enrollments were rolled forward from 2005-2006 to 2006-2007. We estimated that Kindergarten enrollments would remain at the same number for next year and advanced all enrollments one grade level. The current Kindergarten and 4th grade students were retained within their current school assignment. The number of sections required at each school was determined to implement the recommended organization grade span configuration. The following changes would be implemented in the recommendation:

• For 2006-2007, PreK (JumpStart) would be relocated to Washington School. • Early Childhood Special Education would remain at Washington School. • The SEDOL LOP class would move to Mechanics Grove School so that for 2006-

2007 students could be mainstreamed in grades 2-5. • Washington School would enroll all Kindergarten students in the District. Estimates

indicate 9-10 sections will be needed. • First grade students remain in their 2005-2006 school and will continue within their

school assignment for grades 2-5 unless parents choose a different alternative. • Students in Grades 2-5 at Mechanics Grove and Lincoln will remain in their current

school assignment. • Students in Grades 2-4 at Washington will choose between Lincoln and Mechanics

Grove. • Both Lincoln and Mechanics Grove will add one section of grades 2, 3 and 4 to

accommodate Washington students. • 5th graders would remain in their 2005-2006 school to complete their last year. At

Washington, there will be three fifth grade sections. To avoid isolating these students, the District will provide opportunities for 5th grade students at Washington to participate in activities with both Lincoln and Mechanics Grove. This will help all students build friendships towards transition to middle school the following year.


of 116

If the 5th graders do not remain at Washington during the transition year, we are not able to accommodate retaining current Kindergarten and 4th grade students and reduce the number of transitions for these students. Table 19 shows how each school would be configured with this plan for the transition year.

Under this plan, three fewer classrooms are needed overall. Washington will have three classrooms available. Lincoln will continue to use the library classroom, the classroom near the teacher’s lounge and the small classroom across for the office for one year. Mechanics Grove will continue to use all 24 of its classrooms. Table 19: 2006-2007 Classrooms Needed in Grades 2-5

Enrollment 2006-2007 (using 05-06 #s)

Staffing Ratio


Lincoln (17-20)

MG (24)

W (22)

Pre K 3 3 ECSE 1 1 LOP SEDOL 1 1 K 190 21.25 9 9 1 (Transition Yr) 190 21.25 10 3 4 3 2 207 21.25 10 4 (1) 4 (1) 3 205 24.25 10 4 (1) 4 (1) 4 222 24.25 9 3 (1) 4 (1) 5 (Transition Yr) 238 24.25 10 3 4 3 Total 1252 63 17 (20) 21 (3) 19 In 2007-2008, we would reach full implementation of the recommendation.

• All JumpStart, Kindergarten and First grade students would attend Washington School.

• Both Mechanics Grove and Lincoln would add a section for 5th grade. • Washington would not have any 5th grade students.

Because of projected enrollment declines and our assumption holding lower Kindergarten enrollments constant, we project 3 fewer classrooms will be needed than the prior year. In Table 20, we can see the projected distribution of classroom sections. With students grouped in only two attendance centers rather than three, we can achieve more consistency in class size. Both grade 2-5 schools will offer Special Education, English Language Learner, and Project Challenge services. Attendance at a particular school should not limit identified special needs students from receiving services.


of 116

Table 20 2007-2008 2nd Year of Transition in Kindergarten and 4th Grade Transition Option

Enrollment 2007-2008 (using 05-06 #s)

Staffing Ratio


Lincoln (17-20)

MG (24)

W (24)

Pre K 3 3 ECSE 1 1 LOP SEDOL 1 1 K 190 21.25 9 9 1 190 21.25 9 9 2 190 21.25 9 3 (1) 4 (1) 3 207 24.25 9 3 (1) 4 (1) 4 205 24.25 9 3 (1) 4 (1) 5 222 24.25 9 3 (1) 4 (1) Total 1204 59 12 (4) 17 (4) 22

Strengths and Challenges of K and 4th Transition Option: The Ad Hoc Committee does not recommend this option for the following reasons: Strengths

• Minimizes transitions for Kindergarten students at Mechanics Grove and Lincoln and for 4th graders in all schools next year.

• It eases parent concerns.

Challenges • The plan will not work unless next year’s Washington 5th graders remain at

Washington. • This plan isolates next year’s Washington 5th graders as the only intermediate

students in the primary center. Teachers and principals expressed concern for students feeling stigmatized for being in the “baby” school.

• Busing Washington 5th graders to other schools for joint activities will cost 40 minutes in instructional time for each trip and add extra transportation expense.

• Space constraints yield larger class sizes for Mechanics Grove and Lincoln. • Resource programs are stretched with travel time to Washington for a small number

of students. • It complicates planning for program delivery in other schools. • It splits the move over two years and increases moving costs. • It may be difficult to find staff volunteers to remain at Washington for the one year

5th grade program. • Washington 5th grade staff members will have fewer choices for openings the next

year and will miss being a part of creating a new school community. • This option doesn’t meet the Ad Hoc Committee’s goals for improving working

conditions to enhance teacher effectiveness.


of 116

• It doesn’t meet socioeconomic diversity goals because next year’s 5th grade class is made up of 58% low income students.

The Ad Hoc Committee does not recommend this option.

Central Registration The Ad Hoc Committee recommends that the District organize the registration process to assure the community consistent information and fairness in placing students. Specific recommendations to facilitate the registration process are:

• Employ a clerical person centrally to process registration forms, enter student information into the student record system, process applications for free and reduced lunch as well as proof of residency. School secretaries would assist the clerical person during registration of current students. This person would also maintain information brochures for prospective residents and employees.

• Registration materials should be available in all schools as well as at the District

office.

• A date for the lottery should be established annually as part of the calendar process.

• Orientation activities should be conducted at each of the schools in the spring and at the start of the school year to welcome students and families.

• A Registration Design Team should be convened to recommend specific procedures

to implement the centralized registration process. Details on proposed team membership and charges may found near the end of this report.

• A Kindergarten Registration Design Team is also recommended to plan for

screenings and orientations.

Positive Impacts on Teaching and Learning The Program Directors for Curriculum and Instruction, English Language Learners, Project Challenge and Special Services reviewed the proposed model. The instructional leaders generated the following advantages for students, staff and delivery of instruction for each of their programs. They requested that these be included with the Ad Hoc Committee recommendations. Each set of impacts is divided into two sections, one for the Primary Learning Center and the other for Grade 2-5 Centers.


of 116

Positive Impacts on Curriculum and Instruction Early Literacy Center at Washington School

• All primary students would be housed in one building giving students from all of District 75 to get to know each other.

• There would be more opportunities for articulation/collaboration among teachers at each grade level and across grade levels since they are all in one building.

• The addition of the JumpStart program will make articulation between PreK and K easier and more consistent.

• The transition from PreK to K will be much easier. • The establishment of one program would allow for the development of a

consistent report card for Kindergarten and 1st grades. • With the addition of the JumpStart program a new continuum of skills could be

created to enhance the flow of progress from preschool through 1st grade. • With the compilation of primary library materials, both the English and Spanish

collections would be greatly increased. • Staff development would be more meaningful since it would be directed

specifically to primary levels of teaching. • With the compilation of primary bookroom materials, the Washington bookroom

would greatly expand its leveled book selections and a Spanish section could be created.

• Learning excursions, Young Author presentations and assemblies could be directed specifically to a primary audience.

• There would be more opportunity for better use of our resource teachers since scheduling would only be for two grade levels and they would all be in one building.

• Resource materials for primary, both At Risk and bilingual, would be compiled into one building. There would be less duplication of materials in the future.

• Collaboration between resource teachers, bilingual resource and classroom teachers will be focused between two grade levels.

Two Grades 2-5 Centers

• Collaboration and articulation among teachers would be easier (2 buildings instead of 3).

• Compiling materials, both English and Spanish would be cost effective. • The Spanish collection in the libraries would increase. • Staff development (bilingual, ISAT, writing) could be directed specifically to

intermediate needs. • More opportunities for better use of our resource teachers at four levels instead of

six. • Delivery of the curriculum would be more consistent. • The opportunity for development of a program philosophy at MG would unify the

staff with a common goal. • More classes at each grade level would allow MG to group students more

creatively.


of 116

• Given the option to attend either school will create a mixture of students from throughout Mundelein.

• A common calendar and time schedule will facilitate meetings with grade level teachers for collaboration, articulation and curriculum development.

• Learning excursions, Young Author presentations and assemblies could be directed specifically to an elementary audience.

• Leveled book collections will increase in both bookrooms. • Having only 2 intermediate buildings will allow the Project Challenge coordinator

to more easily schedule classes with these students.

Positive Impacts on English Language Learners The proposed model of an early literacy center at Washington and two 2nd-5th grade buildings would have a positive impact on the district’s ELL program based on the following: Advantages of an Early Literacy Center:

All primary native language classes (Pre-K, Kindergarten and 1st) would be housed in one building with the exception of 2nd grade.

There would be more equity in the distribution of full-time ELL students in each of these classes per grade level. For example, instead of having one native language class with 14 students and another with 22, the class sizes could be equalized at 18.

Consolidating students at a primary center could be cost effective if the number of students does not justify retaining three native language classes at a particular grade level. Next year there may be two 1st grade native language classes instead of three based on projected enrollment numbers.

Class sizes would be more similar to mainstream class sizes. The low numbers of students in the native language classes compared to the class size for a similar grade level class has been a concern in the past.

There would be more options in clustering full-time students. Many students stay together for 2-3 years in a particular building as they continue in the native language program. With native language classes available at each school, students will interact with students from across the community.

There will be more time available for collaboration among full-time ELL teachers if they are housed in the same building. This will help to ensure continuity in curriculum and instruction.

There may be more opportunities for articulation between full-time ELL teachers and classroom teachers at particular grade levels, especially in the area of curriculum and planning units of study.

There would be increased articulation among the bilingual JumpStart teachers and the native language Kindergarten teachers which would enhance continuity in instruction for primary ELL students.

Consistency in curriculum for both the full and part-time ELL program could be established with all primary ELL curriculum materials housed in one building.


of 116

ELL teachers providing part-time ESL services would be able to maximize planning instruction with fewer grade levels. Scheduling of part-time ELL students would be easier with only two grade levels at this center.

Students receiving part-time ELL services can be clustered and placed in several mainstream classrooms rather than having high numbers in fewer classrooms.

Sharing of curriculum materials among full and part-time ELL teachers would be easier to facilitate when the classes are in one building.

A bilingual section to the book room with Spanish guided reading materials can be established. The part-time resource ELL teachers would also have access to more variety of materials.

An expanded selection of Spanish books for primary students can be established in the learning center.

There could be the possibility of providing bilingual reading recovery at a future date with all bilingual 1st graders being in the same building.

It may be more feasible to implement dual language classes in the future with the large pool of Kindergarten students in one building. The district would have to decide whether to pursue this option

Advantages of two 2nd-5th grade buildings:

With two intermediate buildings, 2nd grade full time students can be consolidated into two classes instead of three.

There is more flexibility in assigning part-time resource teachers to two intermediate centers and equalizing the distribution of students on their case lists.

Part-time ELL resource teachers can plan and provide more effective instruction at a particular grade level if there fewer grade levels at a building, especially if students are clustered in several classrooms. Scheduling of students would be easier.

There may be an opportunity to establish sheltered English/other options for full-time 3rd-5th grade students.

Since there are two intermediate schools instead of three, there may be increased collaboration among part-time ELL teachers.

Additional articulation can take place between part-time ELL resource teachers and classroom teachers to enhance learning in the content areas.

There would be an opportunity to share more curriculum materials. Full and part-time curriculum materials for these grade levels would be housed at two buildings and not spread out among three schools.

The book rooms at each of the two buildings would have more variety of materials for part-time ELL teachers to choose from.

Appropriate intermediate technology tools (such as English software programs) would be available to more ELL students since these materials would not be spread among three schools.

Site-based staff development related to ELL programming, instructional strategies, etc. can be geared toward particular grade levels when there are fewer grade levels in a building.


of 116

A consistent report card for ELL students can be more easily implemented with students when they are consolidated into fewer buildings.

Positive Impacts on Project Challenge The proposed model of an early literacy center at Washington and two 2nd-5th grade buildings would have a positive impact on the district’s Project Challenge Program based on the following: Advantages of an Early Literacy Center:

• More feasible to group kindergartners who are already reading and use appropriate books and activities to enhance their learning.

• Identify and pull out students in kindergarten & 1st grades to do enrichment activities at their highest level of readiness in both reading and math.

Advantages of two 2nd-5th grade buildings:

• Pullout groups can be formed for the highest ability students in language arts and for a second group of high level readers who perform well in school but do not necessarily have the advanced ability scores.

• Pullout math groups can be formed at each grade level that addresses the highest ability students as well as those advanced students who need acceleration and appropriate challenge but not at the same rate as the highest ability students.

• Math students can be grouped for instruction according to ability level. There could be two high levels of acceleration in math, high and mid-high, in the third, fourth, and fifth grades to prepare for those math acceleration levels at Sandburg.

• More resources, advanced novels, and materials appropriate for advanced students can be housed at the two buildings in order to be available to all teachers for purposes of differentiation for their advanced learners.

• Less time used on travel by the coordinator and better scheduling opportunities within just two buildings.

• Exceptionally gifted students could/should be grouped to maximize their learning. Since the number of these students is usually small, there is a better chance that 4 or 5 of them will be together at each grade level if they are only divided by two buildings. These gifted students feel more accepted when they are able to work with other gifted students. They thrive on the challenge of working together and the pullout group minimizes their “down time” that they feel when working in a heterogeneous group. Gifted students comment that they spend a great deal of class time waiting. They need to feel connected and this happens best when they are allowed to work in a group at a higher level and at a faster pace with curriculum that is interesting and challenging to them. Working with their other high ability students helps gifted students remain humble also. Consistent academic competition makes them strive to get better and be more active learners.

Positive Impact on Special Services • The new model keeps the SEDOL classes within the district


of 116

• We can provide early intervention services to PK-1 students that are developmentally appropriate

• A strong emphasis on early intervention services can prevent the need for special

education services in the future

• We can combine/share curriculum materials for the 2-5th grade ILP (Instructional Learning Program) classes

• The 2nd-5th grade level ILP students can be combined into 2 buildings instead of 3,

which will allow the special education teachers to provide more REI (Regular Education Initiative) and resource assistance

• ILP curriculum will be delivered in a more consistent manner

• The transition from Pre-K to K will be easier for students and staff

• Articulation meetings between Pre-K and K staff will be less disjointed (we used

to have to travel to all three buildings) and ongoing throughout the year

• There will be more mainstreaming opportunities for the SEDOL Early Childhood (ECSE) students (can go into a JumpStart, Regular K, or Bilingual K class)

• 5th to 6th grade transitions will be easier since CS staff will only have to travel to 2

buildings instead of 3 for Annual Review meetings and staff articulation

• 6th grade special education teachers will see more consistency in the skills of the incoming 5th grade students

• MG and L special education teachers can concentrate their efforts on 4 grade

levels instead of having to cover 6 grade levels

• JumpStart staff will finally have a home school where they can be part of the building staff and can share information/resources with the K teachers

• JumpStart staff can coordinate parent education activities with the Washington

staff

• With all buildings on the same calendar, there would be more opportunities to share service providers between buildings

• SEDOL Itinerant services can all start at the same time in all 4 buildings instead

of on a staggered schedule


of 116

Positive Impact on JumpStart Pre-Kindergarten At Risk Program Benefits for Students

1. There will be an outside playground available for recess. 2. There will be a different building security system which will allow parents to

be checked in when visiting the classrooms. 3. There will be nursing services available for sick or injured students. 4. There will be an opportunity for some “buddy” programs with the upper grade

students. 5. Students will have running water available to them within the classrooms. 6. The bathrooms are child-friendly! 7. There will be a gym available when students need an indoor recess area. 8. Students will be able to participate in district and building fund raisers. 9. Students will be able to attend assembly programs at an age appropriate level. 10. There will be better custodial services during the day to help with various

needs of the preschool. 11. There will be better parking available for parents when coming to the school

for programs. 12. There will be a library with appropriate books for preschool children. 13. Students may be able to participate in a Book Fair.

Benefits for Faculty

1. There will be a better variety of AV and computer equipment available for teacher use.

2. Faculty meetings will be on a regular basis and have more relevance to the Pre-K program.

3. There will be more staff development opportunities. 4. There will be more staff interaction and social interaction. 5. Early dismissal days (if on calendar) will be more relevant to pre-K teachers. 6. There will be a chance for collaboration with Kindergarten teachers. 7. Speech/language services will be localized with better schedule flexibility for

students. 8. Social work services will be available.


of 116

Recommendations for a Unified Calendar In order to facilitate the coordination between grade level centers and lessen the impact on parents of the proposed model for grade span organization, the Ad Hoc Committee recommends that the District adopt a unified calendar for all schools in the District. The unified calendar draws on the strengths of both the traditional calendar and the continuous learning calendar in ways that maximize the use of time for learning. Both calendars have the same number of student and staff attendance days. The difference between the two calendars is the number of weeks during each break and how break time is used. Breaks are called “Intersession” in a continuous learning calendar. Breaks are a term used with traditional calendars for non-attendance periods such as Winter Break, Spring Break or Summer Break.

• The calendar should align with the Mundelein High School calendar wherever possible. Aligning with the high school calendar helps families plan for childcare and for family activities. The current Mundelein High School Calendar starts two weeks after the continuous learning calendar and two weeks before the traditional calendar in District 75. The District currently pays higher rates for busing for 13 days because the high school is not in session when the continuous learning calendar begins. Aligning with the high school calendar will save busing costs (approximately, $25,000) which could be used to add more buses or provide extended learning opportunities during breaks. Aligning with the end of the high school calendar allows students to participate in the broad range of early summer programs offered by Mundelein High School.

• Align with the County calendar for winter and spring breaks.

• Allow for “Heat Index” days as allowed by the Illinois State Board of Education.

Because the District does not have air conditioning in all areas of all of its buildings, the District will establish Heat Index when the temperature and humidity are measured above the specified degree, the District will call a “Heat Index Emergency Day” in the same manner that “Snow Emergency Days” are taken. The days are made up from the five calendar days added at the end of the calendar which are removed if not needed.

• Mandatory Summer School for students who may be subject to retention and

Summer Scholars should be offered for four weeks at the end of the school year.

• Special Education summer school should continue to be offered.

• Breaks should be long enough to offer extended learning opportunities for students. Extended learning opportunities provide more instructional time for students.


of 116

• Continue waiving all holidays so that non-attendance days may be taken to consolidate break periods. For example, this year some schools attended only one day during Thanksgiving week. Applying a non-attendance day would allow a full week break.

• Where possible consolidate individual holidays within the break period. For

example, if a fall break is offered consider keeping Yom Kippur and Columbus Day holidays within the break period when they fall close together.

• Do not schedule parent conferences during break weeks that include holidays. It

limits parent participation.

• During breaks consider offering remediation and enrichment options. Offering a fall break can provide time for students to catch up on summer lag or to extend learning with enrichment activities. Work with the Park District to develop activities during break weeks so that parents who need to arrange for child care have appropriate options for their students. Programs should be offered for middle school students as well as elementary students. Work with local childcare providers to assure that affordable child care is available during break periods.

• Provide opportunities for extended time for learning after school. The calendar

should allow students to participate in extracurricular activities such as homework clubs, intramurals, interscholastic sports and activity clubs. Break periods should not preclude students from participating in interscholastic activities.

• During breaks consider offering staff development opportunities. Staff will need

time during the first two years of implementation for articulation between grade levels and schools as well as collaboration within the new school communities.

• When working on new report cards for the new configuration, consider trimesters

rather than quarters.

• Align future breaks with quarter or trimesters so that everyone returns fresh for the next section of the school year.

• The school year should end no later than the traditional calendar. Staff can attend

university classes during the summer to earn advanced degrees. Families can attend summer camps and other traditional activities.

A unified calendar offers more possibilities for coordinating parent involvement within all schools, staff development for all teachers and collaboration with the high school. Within the community there has been significant concern about both Lincoln intersession and the effect of breaks on student participation in athletic conference events. Clarifying information is provided below by the principals.


of 116

Lincoln Intersession: Fall Break: Remediation was offered for 3-4 days; enrichment classes and field trips everyday for the three week period. Elementary Experience provided child care services. Funding was provided by the Lincoln Leadership Team and parent fees. Winter Break: No classes are offered if the break is not a full three week break. Spring Break: Remediation 3-4 days; enrichment classes and field trips offered for two week period. No classes are offered when the rest of the district is on break during winter and spring. Student Participation in Athletics during Breaks: Under the Illinois Elementary School Athletics (IESA) and our conference guidelines: Students may participate in athletic events, practices and meetings on non-attendance days as long as those days fall within the designated season start and end dates. For example: Girls Volleyball season starts about September 6 and ends around October 28th. If we had a fall break of any length, Sandburg students would be able to participate in practice, games and meetings during days off.

See the later section on Time for Learning for more information on calendar recommendations.


of 116

Recommendations for Teaching and Learning The recommendations for teaching and learning are organized into eight themes. These recommendations suggest how District 75 can work together more effectively to increase achievement for all students.

Closing the Achievement Gap The Ad Hoc Committee recommends School District 75 provide an education to all children, which will allow each student to achieve high standards so the achievement gaps between identified subgroups are narrowed or eliminated as required by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB).

• Progress towards this goal can be measured by the increase in the percentage of low income and non-low income students who meet or exceed state standards as measured on the Illinois State Achievement Test (ISAT) and Illinois Measure of Annual Growth in English (IMAGE).

• In addition, we will measure the success of all students by the increase in the

percentage of students in each subgroup who meet and exceed state standards as measured on the Illinois State Achievement Test (ISAT) and Illinois Measure of Annual Growth in English (IMAGE).

NCLB requires school districts to meet Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) goals as measured by a standardized state assessment. Although District 75 uses many different forms of assessment, the District is held accountable to the NCLB Federal Act, measured through the results of state assessments such as the Illinois Standards Achievement Test, IMAGE and AIA. The current Annual Yearly Progress requirement for the 2005-2006 school year for all schools, students and subgroups is 47.5%. For the 2006- 2007 school year AYP increases to 55% and continues to increase an average of 7.5% per year until it reaches 100% in 2014. The Annenberg Institute for School Reform at Brown University in its report on School Communities that Work for Results and Equity suggests that two actions can help close achievement gaps:

• Ensure Equity. School needs and resources differ. Provide varying supports based on the needs of individual schools, teachers and children—to ensure results for all children.

• Emphasize Results. Expect all children to grow up to be knowledgeable,

productive, caring adults—this is the only way to ensure equity for all children in all schools in a system.


of 116

The Educational Testing Service Policy Information Report, Parsing the Achievement Gap: Baselines for Tracking Progress, identified 23 correlates of achievement within five factors. These are listed below: School Factors for Teaching and Learning: • Quality of Leadership • Pedagogy • Professional development • Rigor of the curriculum • Teacher preparation • Teacher experience and attendance • Class size • Availability of appropriate technology-assisted instruction.

School Factors for Learning Environment: • Expectations • Commitment of Teachers and Staff • School Safety

Before and Beyond School: Development Environment: • Weight at birth • Exposure to lead and other environmental hazards • Environmental stimulation necessary for cognitive development • Hunger and Nutrition

Before and Beyond School: Home Learning Connection: • Parental expectations for academic achievement • Reading to young children • Access to quiet study space • Attention to physical health needs • Amount of TV watching • Parent availability

Before and Beyond School: Community • Extent to which institutions support or hinder efforts of families and schools. • Student mobility

A consortium including Learning Points Associates, Teachers College Columbia University and The College Board researched affirmative development of academic ability. The following characteristics promote academic ability:

1. High Quality Teaching and Instruction 2. Trusting Relationships in School 3. Supports for Pro-Academic Behavior such as: 4. Access to Education Relevant Capital 5. Supportive environments 6. Socialization to attitudinal and behavioral demands of high academic achievement. 7. Academic and social integration 8. Exposure to various forms of supplementary education


of 116

9. Exposure to models of excellence and exemplars of scholarly practice. Based on a review of the research the Ad Hoc Committee recommends that School District 75 should: • Ensure the alignment of curriculum and instructional practices across all grade levels

"With the state curriculum standards as a starting point, all members of the [teaching] team can show students the relationships that exist among their disciplines and grade levels." (Rottier 2003) "It is meaningful that schools of all grade spans set achievement in the basic skills (including subject mastery) as the foremost goal for all students." (Epstein 1990)

• Provide a variety of programs and instructional strategies to meet the needs of all

students.

"Principals who assign greater importance to higher-level skills, report more use of active-learning approaches to instruction, which are believed to help students improve their critical and creative thinking." (Epstein 1990) "Years of brain research reveal that middle level age students learn best when they are actively engaged with content. Multimedia approaches can assist learners' understanding of concepts and relationships not explainable in print text." (Valentine 2001) "NMSA's position paper This We Believe (2005), asserts that developmentally responsive middle level schools provide curriculum that is challenging, integrative, and exploratory addressed through varied teaching and learning approaches." (Quinn 2001)

• Provide a variety of assessments that align with the articulated curriculum,

"Regular assessments at different stages of students' lives should require every student to demonstrate a firm grasp of demanding material in each of the articulated curricular areas, a grasp extending far beyond the trivial demands of most multiple-choice tests. They should assess not only the mastery of essential facts, but also the students' ability to write, reason, and analyze." (National Education Commission on Time and Learning)

• Offer parent education programs about how to help students be successful in school.


of 116

“A review of the last two decades of education research shows that schools are more likely to improve when they can get the following types of supports: …respectful and trusting relationships that connect school staff, students, and parents – both on a person-to-person basis and through formal organizations like community based groups and subject matter networks…Substantive parent and community involvement in schools and in the lives of students. …Schools are not likely to improve if they have to go it alone.”(Foley et al. 2002)

“To move all students to the top [under NCLB] by 2014, the National Study Group concludes that…academic success is associated with community and family environments that strongly support academic development, families, and communities should be strengthened in their capacity to provide a wide variety of supplemental educational supports for the academic and personal development of children.”(Bennett et al. 2004)

“…Students with parents who are involved in their school tend to have fewer behavioral problems and better academic performance…. Schools need to set the climate for strong connections with parents…” (Barton 2004)

• Provide appropriate staffing allocations and professional training that supports the

needs of all student subgroups such as, English Language Learners, student with Individual Education Plans, Project Challenge Students, etc. through ongoing District 75 goal setting and budget processes.

A local education support system must “…Perform the following three essential functions to promote results and equity for young people:

1. Provide schools, students, and teachers, with the needed support and timely interventions.

2. Ensure that schools have the power and resources to make good decisions. 3. Make decisions and hold people throughout the system accountable by

using indicators of school and district performance and practices.

…Local education support systems need to allocate resources to schools in an equitable manner, provide schools with the flexibility to use the resources the way they see fit, and facilitate school connections to other supportive services.” (Foley et al. 2002)

• Continue to identify at risk students for the District 75 JumpStart Program. Due to

socioeconomic differences and for other reasons, all children do not come to school with academic preparation.


of 116

“Factors that correlate with student achievement before and beyond school are birth weight, lead poisoning, hunger and nutrition, reading to young children, television watching, parent availability, student mobility, and parent participation.”(Barton 2004) Many students begin their public school career inadequately prepared to meet the standards set under NCLB. JumpStart Programs are designed to accelerate inadequately prepared students to meet the challenges of Illinois State Standards.

Research References for this section: Burney, D., Canada, G., Corcoran, T., Erskine, R., Fruchter, N., Garcia, E., Guiney, E.,

Hernandez, A., Hill, P., Hodge, G., Lam, D., McAdams, D., McLaughlin, M., Mills, R.P., Price, H. (2002, June). School Communities that Work for Results and Equity. The Annenberg Institute for School Reform. Providence, RI: Brown University.

Barton, P. E. (2004). Why Does the Gap Persist? Educational Leadership. Barton, P.E. (2003). Parsing the Achievement Gap: Baselines for Tracking Progress. Policy

Information Center. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

Epstein J. L. (1990, February). What Matters in the Middle Grades--Grade Span or Practices? Phi Delta Kappan. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Center for Research on Elementary and Middle Schools.

Bennett, A., Bridglall, B. L., Cauce, A.M., Everson, H.T., Gordon, E.W., Lee, C.D., Mendoza-

Denton, R., Renzulli, J.S., Stewart, J.K. (2004). All Students Reaching the Top: Strategies for Closing Academic Achievement Gaps. North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. Naperville, IL: Learning Point Associates.

NECTL, Prisoners of Time. Report of the National Education Commission on Time and

Learning. Quinn, D.M. & Valentine, J.W. (2001). National Middle School Association Summary #19: What

impact does the use of technology have on middle level education, specifically student achievement? Westerville, OH: National Middle School Association.

Rottier, J. (2003, October).Variation on a Team: Changing Paradigms. Middle Ground.

Collaboration and Communication Bryk and Schneider (2002) found that when conditions of trust between teachers and students, teachers and other teachers, and teachers and parents existed, the likelihood for implementation of new practices and meaningful actions increased. They also advocate that teachers are more likely to engage in risk taking behavior or activities they do not


of 116

fully support when trust of the organization has been developed. In addition, Little (1993) asserts that teachers benefit from meaningful intellectual, social, and emotional collaboration of ideas and the sharing of materials based in the form of inquiry. The Ad Hoc Committee recommends that a plan for clear communication between and amongst all stakeholders, including the Board of Education, administrators, teachers, parents, students and the community, be developed. The purpose of the communication plan is:

• To reduce the gap between perception and reality about what is occurring in the schools of District 75

• To ensure articulation between grade levels and collaboration across grade levels to improve alignment of instructional strategies, curriculum and state standards

• To share effective research-based practices currently used in each school throughout the district.

• To clarify where we need to be alike as a system and where it is okay to be different.

• To support District 75’s commitment to shared decision-making involving stakeholders in the process as defined in the Governance Framework.

The National Education Association’s Keys to Excellence recommends the following indicators on collaboration and communication: Key 1. Shared Understanding and Commitment to High Goals 1.1 Shared goals for achievable education outcomes are clear and explicit. 1.2 Teachers, administrators, education support personnel, and other school employees take

responsibility for the achievement of challenging standards for all students. 1.3 Curriculum is student centered. 1.4 School operates under the assumption that all students can learn. 1.5 School district administrators support staff efforts and monitor progress toward achievement

of goals. Key 2. Open Communication and Collaborative Problem Solving 2.1 In a climate of non-threatening, two-way communication, school administrators and staff

collaborate in problem solving. 2.2 Parents are involved in supporting the work of the school. 2.3 Teachers, administrators, education support personnel, and other school employees

collaborate to remove barriers to student learning. 2.4 Teachers work closely with parents to help students learn and improve education. 2.5 Teachers discuss standards and approaches for curriculum and instruction. 2.6 Teachers are involved in decisions about student learning. 2.7 Teachers are involved in decisions about school operations. 2.8 Parents, community, and staff other than teachers are involved in decisions about school

goals. 2.9 Teachers communicate regularly with each other about effective teaching and learning

strategies.


of 116

• Use the NEA’s Keys to Excellence: Indicators of a Quality School as a measurement instrument to assess teacher perspective on communication and collaboration and organizational climate. The survey can be taken online or administered within a faculty meeting. The NEA has an extensive database with national norms for each question.

Darling-Hammond & McLaughlin (1995) state that, “A major task for district leadership is to encourage and sustain reflective communities of practice both within and among schools and to make resources available for teachers to use according to their needs and preferences” (New Structures and Institutional Arrangements section, paragraph 33). Marzano (2003) in What Works in Schools: Translating Research into Action, recommends that we identify and communicate the content considered essential for all students versus that considered supplemental. The need for curriculum articulation for all teachers at all grade levels should be clearly understood. Many districts have undertaken curriculum mapping projects to clearly align expectations for each grade level. Schumacher (1998) states the need for curriculum articulation for all teachers at all levels should be clearly understood. Articulation allows teachers from sending and receiving schools meet to discuss curriculum and instructional practices so that students are prepared for the next year’s work. The intended outcome of the Ad Hoc Committee recommendations is to ensure that all students reach high academic achievement and the achievement gap is narrowed or closed between specific subgroups of students.

• Create a multi-stakeholder group to examine the characteristics of a high performance school system and clarify where we need to be alike as a system and where it is okay to be different.

• Review the District’s shared decision-making guidelines and clarify the

guidelines so that everyone understands how and where decisions will be made.

• Implement a framework within each school and across the District which assures articulation between and amongst grade levels so that students will have the same exposure to curriculum and special programs.

• Provide a process and time for collaboration across and between grade level

teams and buildings, and to assure alignment of curriculum and the exchange of effective practices.

• Support the use of Building Leadership Teams or School Improvement Teams to

provide a coordinating council within each school to facilitate collaboration and communication.

• Develop District wide and School-based Communication plans.


of 116

• Encourage teachers to visit other schools within the district to observe classes. These recommendations will help to move the District from a focus on individual schools to forming a K-8 educational system designed to benefit all students. Progress on implementing recommendations for communication and collaboration could be measured in several ways. For example:

1. Increasing stakeholder involvement on transition teams: measure the number of people involved

2. Collaboration across grade levels and between schools: keep minutes and agendas. Do minutes reflect discussion of curriculum alignment and research-based practices? Have MAP or ISAT scores changed as a result of actions taken?

3. Conduct a parent and staff satisfaction survey focused on frequency and effectiveness of communication.

4. Communicate school improvement goals to all stakeholders and report progress.

5. Utilize the Keys to Excellence Survey with professional staff to measure collaboration and communication based on national norms.

Research for Collaboration and Communication: Byrk, A. S. & Schneider, B. L. (2002). Trust in schools: A core resource for improvement. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Darling-Hammond, L., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1995, April). Policies that support

professional development in an era of reform [Electronic version]. Phi Delta Kappan, 77(8).

Little, J. W. (1993). Teachers’ professional development in a climate of educational reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15(2), 129-151. Marzano, R. ( 2003) What Works in Schools, ASCD. NEA. Keys to Excellence: Indicators of a Quality School. www.nea.org Schumacher, D. (1998, June). The Transition to Middle School. Eric Digest, EDO-PS098-6.

Parent Involvement Henderson and Mapp (2002) from the National Center for Family and Community Connections with Schools report that programs and interventions that engage families in supporting their children’s learning at home are linked to higher student achievement. In their meta analysis of research studies on family involvement and student achievement,


of 116

they describe a framework by Joyce Epstein and other researchers from the Center on Family, School, and Community Partnerships at Johns Hopkins University. Six types of parent involvement were identified: Parenting, Communicating, Supporting School, Learning at Home, Decision-making, and Collaborating with Community. Funded by the National Science Foundation, a meta-analysis of 25 research studies on parent involvement by Fan, Xitao & Chen (2002) found:

• Parent aspirations for their children have a significant impact on achievement. • Parents communicating expectations to their children have the most effect on

student achievement. The Partnership Model (teachers and family members work together to help all children learn) has the greatest effect. Parents are involved in all aspects of school life rather than limited to specific contributions (Swap, 1993). The Ad Hoc Committee recommends the following strategies in order to increase parent involvement and more equally distribute volunteers within the District:

Provide orientation to parents on articulation between grade level centers prior to each transition. Provide visitation opportunities at each school. Explain what to expect, what is needed and how to help.

Create a framework for parent involvement illustrating each of the six types as

appropriate for each grade span center: Parenting, Communicating, Supporting School, Learning at Home, Decision-making, Collaborating with Community. Share examples of behaviors in each type that can help to improve their student’s achievement at school.

Involve parents in school decision-making teams such as the Building Leadership

Teams or School Improvement Teams and on District level committees.

Coordinate efforts of parent organizations to support new grade level organizations including bilingual parents’ advisory group.

Create a district-wide parent brochure that highlights the importance of parent

involvement to increase student achievement. Build on the work of the Parent Vision Team. Review the family contract to create positive relationships between school and home. Starkey and Klein (2000) found that parent programs and interventions work best when the strategies respect the needs of families.

Create district-wide volunteer training sessions for classroom volunteers (held at

each school).

Include a Volunteer Corner in school newsletters.


of 116

Create teacher needs assessments and match parents to teacher/school needs.

Form a district-wide parent committee that meets regularly in order to identify

and place district and community volunteers: o Sign in sheets at each school to monitor volunteer distribution o Time and talent sheets.

Increase parent outreach to all demographic groups.

Provide parent education opportunities on new curriculum adoptions and special programs, such as: understanding assessment data, parent teacher conferencing, helping your child learn at home, etc.

We can measure our progress by examining participation rates in activities such as parent-teacher conferences, open house attendance, volunteer activities at school and on district or building level shared decision making teams, improvement in student attendance rates, bilingual parent involvement, and parent surveys. "Data also suggests that schools that welcome parental involvement are likely to have highly involved parents." and "Students with parents who are involved in their school tend to have fewer behavioral problems and better academic performance..." (The Child Trends Data Bank, 1994) Further information can also be found at this website: www.childtrendsdatabank.org\family\the family\39parentalinvolvementinschools.htm "Parents and community members are able to provide different types of support for schools. In some cases, parents and the greater community are very active outside the school. They may raise funds, provide material resources such as technology and other equipment, or support efforts for new programs or playgrounds. In other cases, parents and community members are active as volunteers, serving in the classrooms by assisting the teacher, tutoring children, or handling clerical tasks that ease the day to day burdens. In both these instances, parents and community members who support their schools are valuable members of the school community and contribute to the overall success of the school." (Case Studies of High-Performing, High-Technology Schools: Final Research Report on Schools with Predominantly Low-Income, African-American, or Latino Student Populations, 2004) "Teachers and administrators are aware of the time and financial limitations of their parents and community members, yet involve them in meaningful ways.....It is this apparent mutual appreciation among the schools, families, and communities of each other's efforts on behalf of the children that sets these schools apart." "Because academic success is associated with community and family environments that strongly support academic development, families and communities should be strengthened in their capacity to provide a wide variety of supplemental education


of 116

supports for the academic and personal development of children." (All Students Reaching the Top: Strategies for Closing Academic Achievement Gaps, 2004). References for this section: Fan, Xitao & Chen. (1999). Parent Involvement and Student’s Academic Achievement: A

Meta-analysis. National Science Foundation. Henderson, A.T. and Mapp, K.L. (2002). A New Wave of Evidence: The impact of

School, Family and Community Connections on Student Achievement. National Center for Family & Community Connections with Schools Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. Annual Synthesis 2002.

Swap, S.M. (1993). Developing Home School Partnerships: From Concepts to Practice.

New York, NY: Teacher’s College Press; Columbia University. Starkey and Klein. (2000). Fostering Support for Children’s Mathematical Development:

An intervention with Head Start Families. Early Education and Development. (Case Studies of High-Performing, High-Technology Schools: Final Research Report on Schools with Predominantly Low-Income, African-American, or Latino Student Populations, 2004) (All Students Reaching the Top: Strategies for Closing Academic Achievement Gaps, 2004). (1994). The Child Trends Data Bank. www.childtrendsdatabank.org\family\the family\39parentalinvolvementinschools.htm

Public Perception The Ad Hoc Committee recommends that the District implement a comprehensive marketing/communication plan so that all stakeholders are informed about the quality of the district’s educational programs and the efforts to improve student achievement.

• Use surveys to determine current perceptions and to discover misconceptions. • Centralize registration and present brochures representing each school to assist

parents in making choices as offered and to represent all schools fairly.

• Increase publicity for school accomplishments in local news media.

• Implement an overall educational philosophy for each school and develop language to articulate each school’s focus. Prepare a brochure for each school.


of 116

• Publicize the instructional philosophy and accomplishments of all schools.

• Implement an intra-district “Fulbright” program which allows teachers to participate in exchange programs in other District 75 schools for an extended period of time.

• Encourage faculty and administrator presentations at professional conferences.

• Invite a university partnership for joint research on raising student achievement and

closing the gap and on creating a unified collaborative culture within the District.

• Establish a district leadership team or expand membership in the Curriculum Coordinating Council with representation from all stakeholders to improve communication between groups.

The handbook, Communicating with the Public: A guide for school leaders by Susan Meeks (ASCD) provides a framework for both school and district wide communication plans. Within this handbook are outlines for communication plans for schools and for districts. We can measure our success through satisfaction surveys, focus groups and randomly selected qualitative interviews.

Staffing and Resource Allocation The Annenberg Institute for School Reform recommends in its report for Results and Equity:

1. Provide schools, students, and teachers with needed support and timely interventions.

2. Ensure that schools have the power and resources to make good decisions. 3. Ensure equitable allocations to schools through student-based budgeting. 4. Make decisions and hold people throughout the system accountable by using

indicators of school and district performance practices. Student-based budgeting results in more total resources dedicated to achieving desired student outcomes. When resources are intentionally and visibly linked to school and student needs and to important local priorities, deeper appreciation is gained of the resources that are required to help all students reach high standards and their own potential. (Annenberg Institute for School Reform at Brown University. School Communities that Work: First Steps to a Level Playing Field: An Introduction to Student-based Budgeting. 2002). Good local education support systems allocate resources such as materials, time, and staff assignments to advance the core instructional framework and to avoid diffuse, scattered improvement efforts. (Annenberg Institute for School Reform at Brown University,


of 116

Generally Accepted Principles of Teaching and Learning and their Implications for Local Education Support Systems, June 2002)

"Although the way school systems groups students either within schools or among schools is important, research suggests that grouping per se is not the key element. Rather, it is other aspects of school that play crucial roles. For example: ....the size of classes, the nature and strengths of in and out-of-school support systems..." (Amico, J.D. (2001). A Closer Look at the Minority Achievement Gap. Arlington, Virginia: Educational Research Service.) In order to ensure an equitable education for all students, with the main purpose and goal to close the achievement gap, the Ad Hoc Committee recommends that we:

• Revise staffing allocation formulas to reflect new grade span configurations and programs (parent coordinator, math specialist, etc.)

• Examine the weighting for economically disadvantaged, bilingual, gifted, reading

and math intervention, special education students and make recommendations.

• Review student-based budgeting procedures to assure that resources are distributed fairly within the new grade span configurations.

• Provide a minimum allocation to provide core education program (art, music,

physical education, technology, library/media, social worker, Middle School related arts.)

• Establish procedures to address enrollment changes throughout the year

(additions and subtractions of allocations) • Establish a timeline for staffing decisions related to allocation that consider

legal, registration timelines and teacher contractual obligations.

References for this section: Annenberg Institute for School Reform at Brown University. School Communities that Work: First Steps to a Level Playing Field: An Introduction to Student-based Budgeting. 2002. Annenberg Institute for School Reform at Brown University. School Communities that Work: Results and Equity. 2002. Annenberg Institute for School Reform at Brown University, Generally Accepted Principles of Teaching and Learning and their Implications for Local Education Support Systems, June 2002


of 116

Amico, J.D. (2001). A Closer Look at the Minority Achievement Gap. Arlington,

Virginia: Educational Research Service.

Support for Students In addition to providing more time for learning, the Ad Hoc Committee identified the need to provide additional support for students with special needs. For many students, understandings acquired before coming to school may be incomplete, inaccurate, and in conflict with what the curriculum demands of them. (DeSessa, 1988.) Specific teaching and learning strategies are needed to provide a framework to refocus the learning process. In a presentation to District 75 on November 25, 2002, Jim Grant noted the following best practices to meet the needs of children in poverty:

Small class sizes (18-22) Small school size (<750) Preschool Full day Kindergarten Transition programs Looping classrooms and buildings Multiage classrooms Title 1 services Teaching assistants Modify school calendar Furnish breakfast/lunch Homework clubs Before/After school care Special needs services before age 7 Reading Recovery Accelerated learning Summer school Private tutoring Remedial math/ Remedial reading Remedial language arts Promotion/retention strategies School entrance dates

• Provide professional development for teachers on understanding poverty and

effective instructional strategies to support impoverished students. Based on the Effective Schools research, August & Hakuta, 1997, identified the following factors which contribute to the success of programs for English Language Learners:


of 116

1. supportive school wide climate, 2. strong leadership, 3. a balanced curriculum incorporating both basic and higher order skills, 4. opportunities for practice, 5. some use of native language instruction, 6. quality staff development, 7. home and parent involvement, 8. smaller class sizes, 9. effective program of early reading instruction, 10. early intervention programs for struggling students, 11. safe and orderly school environment 12. and a fully qualified, certified teacher, proficient in English and the student’s language,

skilled and knowledgeable in the content areas as well as the process and strategies of language acquisition.

Thomas and Collier (2001) report that the minimum length of time it takes to reach grade level performance in a second language is four years. • Provide training in literacy instruction and language acquisition for bilingual teachers. • Provide ESL training for classroom teachers with ELL clusters. • Provide remedial math specialists in each school as part of the staffing allocation. • Implement a buddy system to aide students changing schools. • Seek volunteers to tutor students. • Provide training in understanding gender differences in learning and classroom

behavior. • Consider recommendations from Project Challenge review to improve services to gifted

and academically talented students. • Support student councils in the 2-5 grade center schools to promote student leadership. • Encourage student goal setting process and recognize accomplishments. • Provide after school clubs • Offer tutoring for students: seek community volunteers, procedures for teachers, etc. • Initiate motivational activities/strategies to engage average students and extend their

learning. We can measure the implementation of these strategies through documentation of participation rates, pre-post test data where appropriate and recognitions. Ultimately, the measure of success is in the improvement of attendance rates at school, assessments, and growth. References for this section: (2002, February). Teaching English Language Learners: What Does the Research Say? AFT (American Federation of Teachers) Policy Brief #14. Washington D.C.: AFT Educational Issues Department. (DiSessa, 1988 as cited in Learning Pointe Associates, 2004, All Students Reaching the Top)


of 116

Teacher Effectiveness The National Study Group for the Affirmative Development of Academic Ability (2004) suggests: “In the continuing professional development of teachers and administrators, special attention should be given to better enabling staff to meet the instructional requirements of an increasingly diverse student body. Such instructional requirements should build on what we know from research about the conditions necessary for the successful transfer of knowledge (p.31).” The Ad Hoc committee recommends that teacher effectiveness to meet diverse needs of all students be supported through the following initiatives. • As a district, there needs to be a single, driving philosophy for reading and math so

that curriculum goals are consistent across the district. This philosophy should be supported by ongoing professional development, ongoing training in formative assessment to drive instruction, and providing time for collaboration and planning that is built into weekly schedules.

“The coherence of the curriculum, the instructional approaches and methods employed by teachers, and the ways in which student learning is assessed are critical elements of the learning experiences provided as each school.” (Case Studies of High-Performing, High-Technology Schools: Final Research Report on Schools with Predominately Low-Income, African-American, or Latino Student Populations North Central Regional Educational Laboratory – Nov. 2004) The Annenberg Institute at Brown University in its report, School Communities that Work for Results and Equity: A National Task Force on the Future of Urban Districts recommends: "The local education support system would provide the following services to schools: assistance in curriculum development and mapping against standards; support in selecting curriculum materials that reflect these standards and high expectations; assistance in analyzing student work and the lessons teachers assign; structural and substantive supports to involve teachers in content-based coaching; collaborative teaching, and other effective forms of professional development; opportunities to receive mentoring for all new teachers..."

In particular, the Annenberg Institute suggests the school districts "Allocate resources such as materials, time, and staff assignments to advance the core instructional framework and to avoid diffuse, scattered improvement efforts". "Establish structures or mechanisms to measure the contributions of all staff in order to connect educator's practice with student achievement." "Provide all children with ongoing and varied learning supports and opportunities" "Provide all children access to the full range of the curriculum" (Generally Accepted Principles of Teaching and Learning and their Implications for Local Education Support Systems; School Communities that Work: A National Task


of 116

Force on the Future of Urban Districts Annenberg Institute at Brown University)

• Balance the span of student needs within the classroom so that teachers can more effectively focus on individual needs of students.

• Maintain socioeconomic diversity when making classroom placements. District teachers report frustration and "burn-out" due to the span of ability ranges in one grade level class. Mishel and Rothstein report that class size reductions are beneficial in specific circumstances—for specific groups of students, subject matter and for teachers. Finn (2002) summarizes findings from studies regarding smaller class size which indicate:

• Teacher morale is improved. • Teachers spend more time in direct instruction rather than on classroom

management. • There are fewer disruptions. • Student engagement is increased. • In-grade retentions are reduced. • No overall differences were found between the performance of students in teacher

aide classes and non-aide classes. Finn further cautions that pupil-teacher ratio is an economic formula for resource allocation. It does not describe the proximal setting in which pupils are learning. Ratios are computed for large, heterogeneous units. There is no relationship with academic achievement. • A flexible model and/or tool should be developed to help teachers prioritize

expectations for students with multiple needs. • Develop a school schedule that coordinates service delivery to minimize disruptions in

the classroom and maximize student learning. Classroom teachers need more time with all students present in the classroom.

Washington School implemented “flex time” as a test model in 4th grade at Washington School this year in response to the recommendation and the Washington School Improvement plan. “Flex time” lets students move to out of classroom placements at the same time and increases the amount of uninterrupted class time. The Flex-time schedule was an incorporation of a recommendation that came out of bilingual study team at the end of last year. This recommendation was based on our study of how better to serve "part-time" bilingual students. The flex-time schedule was developed following site visits to Palatine District #15 schools and Schaumburg District Schools and discussions with their bilingual program directors. In another example, some districts have implemented “Reading Blocks” during which students spend 90 uninterrupted minutes with their reading teachers, reading specialist or resource teacher. The grade levels block


of 116

these times as reserved for classroom instruction to minimize interruptions. This is NOT a recommendation to move to block scheduling like the high school. • The school calendar and the school day should be organized to most effectively provide

necessary support for all students. • Develop new report cards to reflect new grade configurations. Identify those

components that should be consistent for all report cards and those components that should reflect the school grade span organization.

• Provide ongoing professional development to increase teacher skills to meet the needs

of diverse students in all subject areas. Professional organizations have adopted resolutions and guidelines about professional development. The National Staff Development Council (2001) and The National Foundation for the Improvement of Education (1996) have recommended that professional development be school-based and collaborative in nature. They have further recognized that professional development should include opportunities for teachers to observe, analyze, and discuss instructional practices. The U.S. Department of Education’s Professional Development Team (cited in Peixotto & Fager, 1998, pp. 7 & 8) have identified ten principles of high-quality professional development to serve as guidelines (Office of Educational Research and Improvement [OERI], 1997).

High-quality professional development:

1. Focuses on teachers as central to student learning, yet includes all other members of the school community;

2. Focuses on individual, collegial, and organizational improvement;

3. Respects and nurtures the intellectual and leadership capacity of teachers, principals, and others in the school community;

4. Reflects best available research and practice in teaching, learning, and leadership;

5. Enables teachers to develop further experience in subject content, teaching strategies, uses of technologies, and other essential elements in teaching to high standards;

6. Promotes continuous inquiry and improvement embedded in the daily life of schools;

7. Is planned collaboratively by those who will participate in and facilitate that development;

8. Requires substantial time and other resources;

9. Is driven by a coherent long-term plan; and


of 116

10. Is evaluated ultimately on the basis of its impact on teacher effectiveness and student learning; and this assessment guides subsequent professional development efforts.

School leadership is essential to providing necessary supports for teacher effectiveness. The National Association of Elementary Principals recommends that principals should:

1. Lead schools in a way that places student and adult learning at the center. 2. Set high expectations and standards for the academic and social development of

all students and the performance of adults. 3. Demand content and instruction that ensure student achievement of agreed-upon

academic standards. 4. Create a culture of continuous learning for adults tied to student learning and

other school goals. 5. Use multiple sources of data as diagnostic tools to assess, identify and apply

instructional improvement. 6. Actively engage the community to create shared responsibilities for student and

school success.

• To support increasing teacher effectiveness, provide training on leading school improvement processes, aligning professional development with improving student achievement, and creating collaborative cultures for the administrative team.

In addition to measuring activities such as participation rates in professional development and observation of specific instructional strategies, we can measure the our success in increasing teacher effectiveness by increasing the number of economically disadvantaged and non-low income students who meet and exceed annual RIT growth targets on the MAP assessment from spring to spring for each grade level. References for this section: Bennett, A., Bridglall, B. L., Cauce, A.M., Everson, H.T., Gordon, E.W., Lee, C.D.,

Mendoza-Denton, R., Renzulli, J.S., Stewart, J.K. (2004). All Students Reaching the Top: Strategies for Closing Academic Achievement Gaps. North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. (p.31). Naperville, IL: Learning Point Associates.

Burney, D., Canada, G., Corcoran, T., Erskine, R., Fruchter, N., Garcia, E., Guiney, E.,

Hernandez, A., Hill, P., Hodge, G., Lam, D., McAdams, D., McLaughlin, M., Mills, R.P., Price, H. (2002, June). School Communities that Work for Results and Equity. The Annenberg Institute for School Reform. Providence, RI: Brown University.


of 116

Finn, M.(2002, March). Small classes in American schools: Research, Practice and Politics. Phi Delta Kappan.

Foley, E. (2002, June). Generally Accepted Principles of Teaching and Learning and their

Implications for Local Education Support Systems; School Communities that Work: A National Task Force on the Future of Urban Districts. The Annenberg Institute for School Reform. Providence, RI: Brown University.

Mishel and Rothestein. (2002, March). The Class Size Debate. Phi Delta Kappan. National Association of Elementary School Principals. Standards for what principals should know and be able to do. National Staff Development Council. Retrieved March 15, 2003, from http://www.nsdc.org/educatorindex.htm. Peixotto, K., & Fager, J. (1998). High-quality professional development: An essential

Component of successful schools. (Report No. SP 038 606). Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Lab. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 431 741).

Sweet, J.R. (2004, November). Case Studies of High-Performing, High-Technology

Schools: Final Research Report on Schools with Predominantly Low-Income, African-American, or Latino Populations. North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. Naperville, IL: Learning Point Associates.

Zuniga-Hill, C., & Yopp, R.H. (1996). Practices of Exemplary School Teachers of

Second Language Learners. Teacher Education Quarterly. (2002, February). Teaching English Language Learners: What Does the Research Say?

AFT (American Federation of Teachers) Policy Brief #14. Washington D.C.: AFT Educational Issues Department.

Time for Learning Below is a collection of citations supporting the need for students to have more instructional time. In 1994, The National Education Commission on Time and Learning published, Prisoners of Time, which offered recommendations. These support examining how we use the time currently provided and suggestions for how we can find more time for learning. These recommendations still hold true today:

• Reinvent schools around learning, not time. • Use time in new, different and better ways


of 116

• Reclaim the school day for academic instruction • Offer a longer school day to provide extra time for special needs • Remain open throughout the year • Provide teachers the time they need to do their job • Invest in technology • Develop plans to transform schools

Without doubt, one of the most controversial aspects in education is providing time for learning. The biggest obstacles are overcoming resource limitations, cultural expectations and contractual restrictions. The Ad Hoc Committee sought feedback on how staff and families were affected by changes in the school calendar. The community holds strong feelings about this topic and how families are individually affected. The need for additional time for learning and support for students has been clearly established. The challenge is how to find the time in a mutually acceptable way. Based on its research on improving student achievement and its recommendation for new attendance patterns and grade span configurations, the Ad Hoc Committee recommends:

• District 75 adopts a unified calendar aligned with Mundelein High School. • Any modifications to the calendar should be considered in ways that create

additional learning opportunities for students.

• The following options should be reviewed and considered for implementation in the future. Some options may be subject to finding adequate funding sources.

o Offering the Saturday Scholars Program for students who need extra assistance throughout the school year.

o Extended day o Increasing the number of student attendance days during the school year o Providing remediation and enrichment classes during breaks o Offering Evening/after school/Saturday tutoring or homework clubs o Offering tutoring or remediation assistance through the Saturday

Scholars program and extend it throughout the year for students who need extra assistance.

o Increasing learning time by fewer interruptions in the school day o Examining scheduling opportunities within the school day that increase

instructional time blocks for classroom teachers o Providing planning/collaboration time for teachers

In order to ensure an equitable education for all students, with the main purpose and goal to close the achievement gap, the Ad Hoc Committee has determined that learning time and instructional support should be considered for review. The effectiveness of plans to implement these recommendations can be quantified and directly measured through data such as:


of 116

1. Number and scope of remedial offerings for students during breaks and on regular school days.

2. Number of students that participate. 3. Review the school schedule to identify the number of blocks of uninterrupted

time for teachers to teach. 4. Measure the expansion of Saturday Scholars by the number of students,

number of units covered and improvement in test scores. Highlights from the research: The achievement gap in reading between low income and high income students gradually increases for low income students over the course of their elementary school years. In a study comparing cumulative reading development between high poverty and low poverty schools over time found “a seven month difference in reading achievement between the two groups of students at the beginning of grade 2 widened to a difference of two years and seven months by the end of grade 6.” ~Alington and McGill-Franzen, The Impact of Summer Setback on The Reading Achievement Gap, Phi Delta Kappan. September 2003. According to the research report, Time for Change, additional time in school strongly suggests an increase in proficiency on high standards. If more content needs to be taught, it stands to reason that there must be more time to teach it. In this study, extended learning time opportunities in the schools showed a substantial increase in scores. (Massachusetts 2020 Research Report: Time for Change. Fall 2005) “Standards-based education accentuates the need for more time. Students will need considerably more time if they are to master more challenging curriculum content. In addition, since different students learn in different ways and at different rates, more time is needed to ensure that all students are to be able to attain standards.” (Improving Student Achievement by Extending School: Is It Just a Matter of Time? www. Wested.org/wested/papers/timeandlearning/) “The commission believes that time for planning and professional development is urgently needed…the real issue is education quality….We will never have truly effective schools while teachers’ needs are met at the expense of students’ learning time.” (Report of the National Education Commission on Time and Learning. Prisoners of Time) “Armed with data that promised significant academic gains for African-American, Hispanic, and low-income children, he knew that merging the year-round and traditional schedules was the right thing to do…If you look at the history of school calendars, the shape of the calendar has never been dictated by what’s best for kids…it’s shaped by the economics of the community and the nation.” (Cook, Glenn. Calendar Wars. American School Board Journal/January 2004) “Modified calendar means students and teachers make far more effective use of the time they spend in class…better retention. With a shorter summer break, children don’t forget


of 116

so much of what they’ve learned during the previous year. …Teachers say burnout is less of a problem when the semester doesn’t stretch out so far ahead…Many schools devote a portion of their breaks to “intersession” classes which can be used for voluntary enrichment courses or to give extra academic help to students who need it. (Wildavsky, Ben., Scholars of Summer. U.S. News & World Report, August 2, 1999) “A pilot project in New Mexico gives kindergartners and some 1st graders, 20 extra days before the school year begins to learn the ropes and jump into their lessons…such a program, Feldman added, could make a big difference in the lives of our poorest children. (Jacobson, Linda. Ahead of Their Class. Education Week August 21, 2005) “The convention of requiring students to attend for 9 or 10 months and then take a long vacation is counterproductive to long-term learning…The summer learning loss is greatest among low-income children, who often lack the enriching out-of-school opportunities available to their more affluent peers.” (Cooper, H. The Effects of Summer Vacation on Achievement Test Scores: A Narrative and Meta-analytic Review, Review of Educational Research, 66, no. 3 (1996):227-228.)


of 116

Transportation Stacey Bechard, Business Manager, met with Jones School Bus Services in order to brainstorm the options available to the District for transportation services and develop possible scenarios and cost implications. Our goal was to create routes that run efficiently with the least amount of financial impact to the District keeping in mind the time factor for students. One of the challenges with the new model is that we would not have boundaries and would need to bus students who are not within walking distance of their attendance center. Currently, Lincoln bus routes travel across the district. The District currently uses 17 buses to serve all schools. Fortunately, the District is only 9 square miles and because of Lincoln we have a good handle on route times and feasibility for busing students from all sections of the community. We considered the following scenarios:

1. Transporting families together by neighborhood to the three elementary schools

keeping Carl Sandburg as separate routes. 2. Transporting students on separate routes for each building as we do now. 3. Transporting students on separate routes for Washington and Carl Sandburg and

combining routes for the two Grade 2-5 centers at Mechanics Grove and Lincoln. 4. In all scenarios we felt it best to keep the JumpStart students on their own routes

utilizing the small busses we currently use for safety reasons including seat belts and door to door service. The JumpStart program transportation is already funded through the Early Childhood grant.

1. Busing by Neighborhood Transporting families together by neighborhood to the three elementary schools is not a viable option due to the length of time students would spend on a bus. It’s not a big issue in the morning to have one route drop at three schools. However, in the afternoon it takes longer to load busses than to unload, so a student could potentially be on a bus for 45 minutes prior to starting the actual route home making this option less attractive. 2. Separate Routes by School Transporting students on separate routes for each building would require the District to add 2 busses to our fleet for a total of 19 busses. The cost for one bus if shared with Mundelein High School is $99/day for a total of $17,226 per bus and $215/day if it is not shared with the High School for a total of $37,410 per bus. The High School has approached Jones School Bus Services for pricing to add 2 busses next year so it is a good possibility that the additional 2 busses could be shared. The only caveat to this scenario is that our bell times for each building would need to remain the same as they are today to make the most efficient use of the busses. The routes would basically mirror the current Lincoln routes with adjustments for efficiencies depending on where the students reside.


of 116

3. Separate K-1 and Sandburg Routes; Shared Mechanics Grove and Lincoln Transporting students on separate routes for Washington and Carl Sandburg and combining routes for the two Grade 2-5 centers at Mechanics Grove and Lincoln would also require the District to add 2 busses to our fleet for a total of 19 busses. The cost implications would be the same in this scenario, however, combining the Mechanics Grove and Lincoln routes allow us some flexibility as far as shorter routes and changing bell times. It allows us to use 16 of the 19 busses at each Grade 2-5 building by staggering them as 8 busses at each building and then they would switch to the other building and run the route, therefore allowing 16 shorter routes rather than 10 longer routes. The bell times would need to be as follows for this scenario to work: Carl Sandburg 7:45 A.M – 2:41 P.M Lincoln 8:00 A.M. – 2:15 P.M Mechanics Grove 8:00 A.M. – 2:15 P.M. Washington 8:30 A.M – 2:45 P.M Changing bell times would allow for coordination of student activities and better teacher collaboration meeting time between Mechanics Grove and Lincoln. This option appears to offer the best support for collaboration between the Grades 2-5 centers but requires changing school start times at both Mechanics Grove and Lincoln. Overall the District would be looking at adding 2 buses for a total cost of either $34,452 or $74,820 depending on sharing with the High School. Approximately 80% of the additional cost would be reimbursed through Transportation State Aid. These costs could be offset by savings of $29,025 from a unified calendar as discussed below and state reimbursement for transportation (80%). Other transportation concerns to be addressed The above scenarios do not exhaust all possibilities but give an idea of the potential impact on transportation with the proposed model. The Transportation Design Team would plan for safe implementation. Some other areas to be addressed while planning routes and bell times are:

• Parents driving – traffic flow at Washington School. • Walking zone for Washington School • The above scenarios assume smaller numbers of students (35 vs. 50 students)

on K-1 routes. • Santa Maria congestion with Washington walkers. • Elementary Experience students at two elementary buildings. • Older siblings being home prior to younger siblings for supervision.


of 116

Cost Factors Dependent upon the Calendar Other cost factors to consider will be dependent on the calendar changes proposed by the calendar committee.

• Based on the 2005-2006 Calendar, starting all schools when the High School started on August 15th would have saved the District $25,155 (13 days X $215/day X 9 busses) plus an additional 2 days for Veterans Day and Martin Luther King of $3,870 for a total of $29, 025. The savings could cover a portion of the additional busses.

• Currently, transporting students for intercession does not cost the District any additional funds due to the buses already being on the road for the other schools. However, if the District decides to align the calendars and bus for extended learning opportunities during breaks, there would be an additional cost of $99/day per bus or $215/day per bus. This depends on whether the route is shared with the high school. These costs should be considered in any plans for extended learning opportunities during breaks.


of 116

Financial Implications This recommendation does not require a referendum to fund either operating expenses or additions to our schools. The intent of the Ad Hoc Committee is to live within our means. This recommendation efficiently reallocates district resources and results in first year savings to the District between $42,000 and $57,000. We estimate the grade span reorganization will save the district of $160,000 during the first year which will be used to offset one-time transition costs of $74,000 and ongoing costs of operation of $43,000 for the new configuration. Recommendations to expand program and service offerings are intended to be funded within the annual budgeting process and may be implemented as funding allows or by restructuring current expenditures. Below is a brief overview of estimates prepared by our business manager based on the grade span configuration, central registration, transportation and the transition costs.

Staffing Allocations

Cost Savings Based on the Building Space Projections and classroom/section needs at each grade level there is an opportunity to:

• Decrease the number of classrooms/sections needed for 2006-2007 by 4

sections ($160,000). • Assuming that enrollment continues to decline at its current rate, we would

decrease the number of classrooms/sections needed for 2007-2008 by another 3 sections ($120,000).

The savings are based on the District’s current trend of declining enrollment and could be less with increasing enrollment due to new subdivisions or program changes.

Additional Costs One-time Costs • Purchased Services for Communications Consultant/Printing/Mailings to update

district publications and prepare 4 newsletters to the community during the transition ($20,000).

• Additional staff time for implementation. • Summer work opportunities to plan for implementation. • Substitute Costs for building visits and observations – buildings would schedule

multiple staff throughout the day to minimize substitute costs. • Release time for site visits when developing new models at individual buildings. • New student information system software for 2007-2008. (Cost to be determined.

This item would be needed regardless of reorganization.)


of 116

Ongoing Costs • Stipends for extended learning opportunities during breaks and busing. • Additional Clerical staff to support central registration and database changes ($15,000

- $20,000 per full-time clerical). • Increase Network Manager time (4 to 5 days) for implementation and new initiatives

($8,500). • Additional FTE may be required due to changes in the staffing allocation (see

Staffing Allocation Smart Outcome recommendations). • Annual Maintenance fees for student software.(TBD)

Facility Changes Based on the movement of staff and students, the following facility changes may be needed ($30,000 budget): • Remove temporary walls in Washington’s new wing to make 3 small classrooms one

full size classroom and one resource classroom. • Restroom Facilities – evaluate for younger students. • Special Services and Resource area space – evaluate with the new model. • Washington – parking lot reconfiguration possible. • Move Technology Lab at Washington – wiring, electrical requirements. • Future Air Conditioning as part of Capital Projects planning. While installing air

conditioning in all rooms is not feasible during implementation due to financial and time constraints, all current units will be evaluated and air conditioning will be considered as part of the Capital Projects Long Range Plan.

Food Service Minimal costs to implement model, possible reconfiguration of K-1 lunch lines to replace pin pads with scanners to move lines quicker. All building lunch programs will be reviewed. ($600)

Reallocation of Resources/Materials • No increase in costs with the reallocation of resources/materials. Some efficiencies

may be found. • Building Budgets would need to be realigned based on the new configuration.

Packing and Moving The District has received quotes from 2 reputable companies that specialize in classroom and library moves. The District is looking at moving approximately 30+ classrooms, partial libraries, book rooms, and student records. Both companies toured the buildings and classrooms; the prices below include technology, moving furniture, as well as providing the boxes. Both companies are planning a 3-day time frame to move.


of 116

• Nelson Westerberg • Move Only $19,372.50 • Pack and Move $24,620.50

• Midwest Moving and Storage • Move Only $16,117.50 • Pack and Move $23,507.50

The District recommends that we use professional movers, our Maintenance Staff will not be able to handle a move of this magnitude and their time is better spent managing any facility changes that may be required plus the normal summer work. A smooth transition in this area will go a long way towards the morale of staff during this process.

Summary Some components of the recommendation, such as professional development, stipends, and extended learning opportunities, will be developed through the implementation of the model. Funding for these areas will go through the normal budgeting process and be approved by the Board of Education. We do not anticipate major financial impacts in areas that have not been mentioned above. The implementation teams will make specific recommendations that will include cost estimates as needed for any unanticipated major expenditures. The intent of this plan is to work within existing resources. Table 21 below shows a summary of the financial impact to the District of implementing the proposed model. Note that there will be cost savings in future years and that additional costs are broken down into two categories: one-time and ongoing. The different totals represent a best case scenario if the District is able to share transportation with the High School and District staff pack classrooms and a worst case scenario if the District is not able to share transportation and decides to have a moving company pack classrooms. Overall, the District will see a net savings of approximately $57,893 or $42,429 depending on the scenario in the first year. The District will also see more cost savings in future years because the majority of the additional costs are one-time expenditures. The cost savings can be used to fund other areas of the model as they are being developed or to fund new initiatives such as extended time for learning through the normal budgeting process.


of 116

Table 21: Financial Impact of Proposed Model for Implementation Year

Financial Impact of the Proposed Model

Implementation Year

Cost Savings Additional Costs Total Costs

One-Time Ongoing Staffing Allocations - Year 1 $160,000 $ 28,500 $ 28,500 Purchased Services $ 20,000 $ 20,000 Facility Changes $ - $ 30,000 $ - $ 30,000 Food Service $ - $ 600 $ - $ 600 Transportation- with Sharing* $ - $ - $ 6,890 $ 6,890 Transportation- without Sharing*

$ - $ - $ 14,964 $ 14,964

Reallocation of Resources $ - $ - $ - $ - Packing & Moving $ - $ 23,507 $ - $ 23,507 Move Only $ - $ 16,117 $ - $ 16,117 Total w/o Sharing & Packing/Moving

$ 160,000 $ 74,107 $ 43,464 $ 117,571

Total w/ Sharing & Move Only $ 160,000 $ 66,717 $ 35,390 $ 102,107 * Transportation is reimbursed by the state at approximately 80%; the costs shown in the above table are net of state reimbursement.


of 116

Transition Plan The Board’s charges suggest implementation for the 2006-2007 school year. To do so requires concurrent planning for implementation. The Ad Hoc Committee intended for its recommendations to be developed into implementation plans by existing District Teams or by new Transition Teams. The plan below illustrates the various teams needed to plan for implementation for 2006-2007 and the timeframe in which work must be completed.

Charges are being drafted for each team by its facilitator to clarify the roles and responsibilities of each transition team. A flyer was sent to parents and teachers seeking volunteers to serve on each team. Below is brief description of the purpose of each team. Calendar Committee The Calendar committee is chaired by MEEA Presidents. Members are appointed by the MEEA Executive Board, two teachers per school. Building Administrators and members of the Ad Hoc Committee may also serve on the committee. Parent members of Ad Hoc will serve representing each school with the exception of Mechanics Grove. The Mechanics Grove PTA President will serve in the place of the Ad Hoc Committee member. This committee will develop specific calendar recommendations considering the Ad Hoc Recommendations and staff/community feedback. Staff and parents will be surveyed regarding the calendar options developed. MEEA will vote on a calendar during the week of February 28th. A final recommendation will be made to the Board of Education on March 6th with Board action to adopt expected in March, 2006.

Tentative Implementation Plan

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC

Calendar Committee

Facility Changes

On time!

Staffing Assignments

Kindergarten Registration

Registration Design Team

Decision!

Packing and Moving

Logistics Design Team

Staffing Adjustments

Technology Set Up

Transportation / Food Service Design Team

District & Building Leadership Teams

Instructional Programs & Resources Design Team

Parent Involvement Design Team

Communications Design Team


of 116

District Transition Team The purpose of this team is to monitor and coordinate the efforts of the design teams and schools to implement Board approved Ad Hoc Recommendations. The team will meet as part of the regular Administrative Team meeting. The Team will serve as a resource for coordination between teams and solution-creating as needed. The Team will issue a monthly update to all stakeholders on each design team’s progress. Facilitator: Dr. Cynthia Heidorn, Superintendent Membership: Board member, Design and Building Team Leaders, one parent organization representative from each school, MEEA Presidents. Meeting Times: 9:30-11:00 a.m., 1st Tuesday of each month beginning in March Building Leadership Team (one per school) The purpose of the Building Leadership Teams is to: • Plan for important traditions/rituals and procedures including welcoming new staff

members and students; opening school and other operation tasks as needed. • Develop an overall educational philosophy and integrated instructional program

appropriate to the grade levels served. • Establish a positive and collaborative culture which invites participation by all

members of the school community. • Initiate a site-based decision-making structure which includes parents in meaningful

ways. • Increases parent involvement in supporting student learning. • Prepare a brochure with the assistance of the Communications Design Team to explain

the school’s instructional philosophy, educational programs and services to parents and the community.

• Develop and implement a School Improvement Planning Process • Develop a communications plan which keeps all members of the school community

informed of student achievement and progress towards school improvement goals. Facilitators: Building Principals Membership: One teacher from each grade level or subject area, specialist teacher, parent coordinator, parent organization leader and one additional parent. Meeting Times: To be determined Timeline: March- ongoing (Rotation of membership to be determined by each team) Parent Involvement Design Team The purpose of this team is to develop and implement a comprehensive parent involvement philosophy for the District. This design team will plan for changes to parent organizations as a result of new grade span configurations. Facilitator: Mark Pilut, a parent co-facilitator will be chosen by the group Membership from each school: Current parent organization leader and one other parent involved in the current parent organization, building principal, Bilingual coordinator, Parent coordinator, one teacher. Meeting times: 6-7 p.m. before Board meetings on the following dates: 2/6, 2/13, 3/6, 3/20, 4/3, 4/17, 5/1, 5/15.


of 116

Kindergarten Registration Team The purpose of this team is to coordinate the enrollment of new Kindergarten students and their families to our District, plan for screening, Teddy Bear Picnic and other associated activities. Facilitator: Chris Pittman Membership; Kindergarten teachers, one secretary from current elementary schools, JumpStart coordinator, Parent Coordinator, Bilingual Coordinator, Nurse, Tech Facilitator and one current parent from each school. Meeting Times: To be scheduled: during school hours Timeline: March- August Registration Design Team The purpose of the Registration Design Team is to establish District procedures based on approved Ad Hoc recommendations for enrollment and placement of students. Facilitator: Sue Mazur Membership: One secretary from each school, parent coordinator, Bilingual Coordinator, District Marketing Team member, Special Services Secretary, Technology Facilitator, Principals as needed, Teacher representative, one parent from each school. Meeting Times: To be scheduled---during school hours Timeline: February-September Instructional Programs and Resources Design Team The purpose of the Instructional Programs and Resources Design Team is to plan for implementing current instructional and resource programs within the new school configuration. The team will have five subgroups: Curriculum, Bilingual, Special Services, Project Challenge and Technology. Facilitator: Judy Giannamore Membership: One parent for each subgroup plus appropriate staff members to be determined. Meeting Times: To be determined—during school hours Timeline: March-September Transportation/Food Service Design Team The purpose of this design team is to develop a student transportation plan with the assistance of the busing contractor to provide efficient, appropriate and cost effective service to students. The team will consider traffic coordination around the primary center, walk zones and other related issues. Facilitator: Stacey Bechard Membership: Jones Bus Service representatives, one parent from each building, one teacher from each building, principals as needed, Village of Mundelein safety personnel as needed. Meeting times: To be determined—during school hours Timeline: February- April


of 116

Logistics Design Team The Logistics Design team consists of three subgroups designed to coordinate: Facility Changes, Technology Set Up, Packing and Moving. Facilitator: Stacey Bechard Membership: Facilitators and one other member from each of the subgroups below

Facility Changes: Director of Buildings and Grounds (facilitator) , Business Manager, Maintenance Team, Independent contractors (if needed), one parent and one teacher from each building, building principals as needed, architect (if needed). (Construction expertise welcomed!)

Technology Set Up: Network Manager (facilitator), Business Manager, Director of Special Ed (as needed), Technology facilitators, one parent and one teacher from each building (Technology expertise welcomed!)

Packing and Moving: Don Nicoline and Dan Christensen (Co-Facilitators), Business Manager, Buildings and Grounds secretary, Maintenance Team, Independent Contractors (if needed), one parent and one teacher from each building (Logistics expertise welcomed!)

Meeting times: To be determined---during school hours Timelines: March-August Communications Design Team The purpose of this team is to develop a district wide and school-based communication plan to promote proactive communications and to enhance the reputation of the District and its schools. This team will develop a communication strategy for keeping stakeholders informed about the implementation process. This team will review all district publications to be revised to reflect the new organization pattern and to promote all schools as quality places to learn and to teach. Facilitator: Dr. Cynthia Heidorn, Superintendent Membership: parent or community members with expertise in public relations, marketing, publishing, website development and other media; graphic designers; public relations consultant (if needed); printer, one parent, one teacher from each school and principals as needed. Meeting times: To be determined---by membership; some work may be done independently from home Timelines: February- ongoing Grant Design Team (New) The purpose of this team is to draft competitive grant proposals to help fund District programs and services. Team members will seek grant opportunities from a variety of sources, draft proposals with input from appropriate District staff, and file grant completion reports as required. Facilitator: Dr. Cynthia Heidorn, Superintendent


of 116

Membership: Parents, Teachers, Community members with an interest in research and writing to support our efforts to improve student achievement and to provide learning opportunities for all students; administrative staff and professional staff as needed. Meeting Times: To be determined—by membership, independent work from home Timelines: March—ongoing


of 116

Monitoring and Evaluation Plan

Monitoring the Transition In order to manage the transition and monitor the District’s progress in implementing the reorganization, the Ad Hoc Committee recommends the use of a District Transition Team as discussed above. This team will assess progress monthly and report to all stakeholders on the progress towards implementation for each team.

Monitoring Progress on Maintaining Socioeconomic Diversity The Superintendent will provide annual reports on Demographic Data, Enrollment Plans, Fall Housing and Climate Surveys to the Board. The baseline data for 2005-2006 is included in this report. To achieve socioeconomic diversity, our goal is to:

1) Maintain socioeconomic diversity between Mechanics Grove and Lincoln grades 2-5 centers as measured by the prior year’s district average for economically disadvantaged students compared to the actual enrollment at each school annually.

Note: Both the Primary Early Learning Center at Washington and Carl Sandburg will reflect the socioeconomic enrollment for the District for their respective grade spans because all students will attend these two centers.

Monitoring Progress on Student Achievement With training, Curriculum Coordinating Council could become a multi-stakeholder group which monitors and reports on our progress. The Curriculum Coordinating Council provides a central network which connects all District Teams. If the District were to add a Board member and a MEEA President, it would have representation from all stakeholder groups. CCC could take responsibility to: • Coordinate the efforts of various District Teams to implement recommendations for

teaching and learning as well as closing the achievement gap. • Measure and report progress to the Superintendent on implementing recommendations

for teaching and learning. • Report on the progress of Building Leadership Teams or School Improvement Teams

on school improvement plans to increase student achievement and close the achievement gap. Demonstrate progress using assessment data.


of 116

• Report to the Superintendent and present to the Board of Education on progress towards increasing achievement for all students and closing the achievement gap.

• Recommend plans designed to achieve progress towards increasing achievement for

all students and closing the achievement gap annually to the Superintendent. • Collect baseline data for reporting purposes on all teaching and learning

recommendations. To improve achievement for all students, our goals are to:

2) To increase the percentage of economically disadvantaged and non-low income students as well as all other student subgroups who meet and exceed state standards as measured by the Illinois Standards Achievement Test (ISAT) and the Illinois Measure of Academic Growth in English (IMAGE); and,

3) To close the achievement gap between economically disadvantaged and non-low

income students as well as all other student subgroups who meet and exceed state standards as measured by the Illinois Standards Achievement Test (ISAT) and the Illinois Measure of Academic Growth in English (IMAGE).

4) To increase the number of economically disadvantaged students and non-low

income students as well as all other student subgroups that meet and exceed one year’s growth as measured by the RIT scale on the MAP assessment from spring to spring for each grade level.

5) To increase the student attendance rates for each school.

Establishing Long Range Performance Targets The Ad Hoc Committee recommends that the Board take actions which will help to shape and support the recommendations for aligning District 75:

• Review the mission statement and vision statements to assure that they reflect the desired focus for the organization.

• Establish long range performance targets and how progress towards these

targets will be measured. These targets will help to focus on organizational priorities.

• The Superintendent should report progress towards these targets and

recommend plans designed to achieve progress.

Evaluation Plan The Ad Hoc Committee recommends that an independent multi-stakeholder committee be appointed in the spring of 2009 to evaluate the success of this plan and to make recommendations for necessary changes to achieve the desired goals of


of 116

1. Maintaining socioeconomic balance in schools to assure equitable access for all

students; 2. Increasing student achievement for economically disadvantaged and non-low

income students as well as all student subgroups; 3. Closing the achievement gap between economically disadvantaged and non-low

income students as well as all student subgroups.


of 116

Unifying the District In the Mid-Term Report, the Ad Hoc Committee identified unity as a significant opportunity in the District. The Committee decided it would present a recommendation that would also unify the District. Any options that were presented for recommendation were debated and analyzed using this requirement. As with all the requirements for an acceptable proposal, this one also had obstacles to overcome such as; having two calendars, Lincoln being an option school, the location and size of each school, and where the majority of the low-income students reside. Members of the committee also put aside their own personal biases for the future of the entire district. The Ad Hoc committee came to a consensus and agreed that these recommendations presented to the Board of Education will best meet this requirement of unifying the District into a dynamic organization with a bright future. The recommendation allows for: • Maximized learning - The learning experience will be maximized for all students in

the district. This recommendation allows for the balancing of learning abilities and economically disadvantaged students across all the schools. It better enables the district to effectively use resources to better serve students across all spectrums. It will initiate common district goals such as a curriculum that is consistent across all the schools and provide better opportunities for collaboration as well as articulation. It aligns our focus as a K-8 system.

• Central Registration – All new incoming students and their parents will have

information available to them about each of the schools at one location. Parents will be informed about the commonalties and differences between schools. It will improve consistency in class sizes and provide the educational benefits of socioeconomic balance.

• Parent Involvement- Staff, parents, and administrators will have an opportunity to

work cohesively and effectively as a team for the good of the whole district. Parents will have the opportunity to be involved in decision-making transition teams that will build a new district identity. This gives our district the opportunity to move forward and put inaccurate perceptions about each of our schools behind us.

• PreK-1 Center – Having all the children start together will give them a better sense of

their school community. All students will begin and finish their education in the district together. Students will have a consistent learning opportunity that will prepare them for success in either Mechanics Grove or Lincoln. Shared activities between Mechanics Grove and Lincoln will help to maintain friendships across the community.


of 116

• Unified Calendar – Having one calendar will broaden the alternatives for parents with students in grades 2 through 5. It will also provide more opportunities to coordinate parent involvement between all the schools. It will allow us to align with Mundelein High School and improve the ability for both educational organizations to serve our student populations and our families.

The District now has the opportunity to be unified and to implement an innovative solution that will help to meet the increasing expectations for NCLB while continuing to provide an equal opportunity for all students to learn and reach their full potential.


of 116

Benefit to All Students The Ad Hoc Committee believes these recommendations form the organizational and program delivery model with the most potential for all students to achieve to the best of their abilities. This study’s goals are broad, extending beyond attendance patterns to include curriculum and teaching methods, school calendar and resource allocation. The Ad Hoc Committee developed strategies based on research which has been demonstrated to improve student achievement. Implementing these strategies will result in:

• increased amount of contact time between teachers and students • consistency and alignment of curriculum within and throughout grade levels • increased time for quality learning • better distribution of services and resources to support student achievement • increased collaboration for teachers between grade levels and schools • improvements to the service delivery of all programs • opportunity for broader student relationships • educational and societal benefits as a member of a diverse student body

This recommendation addresses both goals for maintaining socioeconomic diversity in all schools and improving student achievement. It is efficient and effective. It does not raise taxes and can be implemented within available resources. We can measure our results. To be successful, we need the collaboration of our teachers and our parents, working together on behalf of all students. Building on our strengths, the District will continue to be innovative and focused on our mission: To provide each student with the opportunity to obtain an education to the limits of his/her capabilities and to prepare all students to shape a changing world!


of 116

Appendix A: Configuration Options Brainstormed

1. School with grade configurations 2. 4 schools – K-8 (Address issues of LI and ELL, extra curriculum) 3. 2 choices: a) Lincoln = K-5 b) 2 grade centers = PreK-2 and 3-5; continuous

calendar/blending (unintended consequences) 4. 2 K-8; K-5; 6-8 5. Blend choice within grade level center 6. 2 K-3; 4/5; 6-8 (multiage loop) 7. K-2; 3-5 and Lincoln 8. Blend 6 LC and Choice 9. Non-graded philosophy/instructional philosophy 10. Choice School; PreK-1; 2-5; 6-8 with Lincoln best practices 11. PreK-1; 2-5; 6-8; Choice – grade centers + choice (solid academics, help families

decide) 12. Mega Center

Additional Considerations

1. Newcomers’ Center 2. Communication with Others 3. Calendar Affects Others 4. Periodic Adjustments 5. Transitions 6. Come Together as a District 7. Calendar – short summers + intersession 8. Appreciate Each Other 9. What is Good for Kids 10. Fear Repercussions/Riot 11. Best Practice 12. Who Will Leave? 13. Change People Around 14. Re-teach During Intersession 15. No Hasty Decision 16. All Support Committee Work 17. Children, Not Business 18. Not Where We Put, What We Do With Them 19. New Strategies – Not the Same Old; Help Others Come Along 20. Central Registration 21. Address Needs of LI and ELL 22. Lower Class Size 23. Embrace and Celebrate Uniqueness and Differences 24. Transportation Transitions 25. Exit Bilingual – school transition from native language to mainstream classrooms


of 116

Appendix B: Space Feasibility Studies

PreK – 1 Early Childhood Primary Literacy Center, two grades 2-5 schools, and a 6-8 Middle School

Classroom Capacities (not including resource areas, Art, Gym, Music, existing Computer Labs, and classrooms currently converted into small classroom space):

Washington 24 Classrooms (changed to 22- 1/24/06) Mechanics Grove 24 Classrooms Lincoln 17 Classrooms (changed to 20 – 1/24/06) Carl Sandburg 38 Classrooms Students by Grade Level (# of sections/students):

Kindergarten 1 2 School Sections Pupils Sections Pupils Sections Pupils Washington 3 43 3 48 3 55Mechanics Grove

4 89 4 85 4 76

Lincoln 3 58 4 74 4 74

Totals 10 190 11 207 11 205# of Classes 9.05

9.86 9.76

3 4 5 School Sections Pupils Sections Pupils Sections Pupils Washington 3 68 3 70 3 47Mechanics Grove

4 89 4 91 4 106

Lincoln 3 65 3 77 3 76


9.92 9.54


of 116

PK – Early Childhood - 3 Classes Using current class size configurations as a baseline of K-2 = 21, 3-5 = 24, 6-8 = 27 per the current staffing allocation:

• PK – 1

• Under the current configuration it would require 24 (PK – 3, K - 10, 1st - 11) sections/classes. Combining sections allows us to reduce the number of sections to 22 (PK – 3, K – 9, 1st – 10) sections/classes.

• Grades 2-5 • Under the current configuration it would require 41 (2nd – 11, 3rd – 10,

4th – 10, 5th – 10) sections/classes split between the two buildings. Combining sections/classes allows us to reduce the number of sections to 40 (2nd – 10, 3rd – 10, 4th – 10, 5th – 10) or possibly 39 with multi-age for one

building. • If split evenly each 2-5 building would need to house 20 classes or sections,

other configurations could apply.

Conclusions: The PK – 1 would work at MG or Washington with 24 classrooms available, Grades 2-5 or 40 sections/classes would need to be split over the remaining two buildings. Splitting them evenly will not work since Lincoln has 17 classrooms and the other building (Washington or MG) has 24 classrooms available. However, splitting them at 17 and 23 still gives us the 40 sections/classes we need to make this option work. My recommendation would be that the PK – 1 be at Washington and make Lincoln and MG option schools. This option allows us to reduce the number of sections/classes by 3 sections and creates cost savings or allows for additional space for increased enrollment. Moving the PK from the District Office may also make room for a possible Newcomers Center at the District Office.


of 116

Three Controlled Choice Schools

Classroom Capacities (not including resource areas, Art, Gym, Music, existing Computer Labs, and classrooms currently converted into small classroom space): Washington 24 Classrooms Mechanics Grove 24 Classrooms Lincoln 17 Classrooms Carl Sandburg 38 Classrooms Students by Grade Level (# of sections/students):

Kindergarten 1 2 School Sections Pupils Sections Pupils Sections Pupils Washington 3 43 3 48 3 55 Mechanics Grove

4 89 4 85 4 76

Lincoln 3 58 4 74 4 74

Totals 10 190 11 207 11 205 # of Classes

9.05 9.86 9.76

3 4 5 School Sections Pupils Sections Pupils Sections Pupils Washington 3 68 3 70 3 47 Mechanics Grove

4 89 4 91 4 106

Lincoln 3 65 3 77 3 76


9.25 9.92 9.54

PK – Early Childhood - 3 Classes Conclusions: Our students currently fit into our 3 elementary buildings, the change to choice schools would not change that, however, we would need to establish enrollment capacities at each building and set our parameters for controlled choice accordingly.


of 116

Grade Level Centers: K-1, 2-3, 4-5, 6-8


Kindergarten 1 2 School Sections Pupils Sections Pupils Sections Pupils Washington 3 43 3 48 3 55 Mechanics Grove

4 89 4 85 4 76

Lincoln 3 58 4 74 4 74


9.05 9.86 9.76

3 4 5 School Sections Pupils Sections Pupils Sections Pupils Washington 3 68 3 70 3 47 Mechanics Grove

4 89 4 91 4 106

Lincoln 3 65 3 77 3 76


9.25 9.92 9.54


of 116


• K – 1

• Under the current configuration it would require 21 (K – 10, 1st – 11) sections/classes. Combining sections allows us to reduce the number of sections/classes to 19 (K – 9, 1st – 10).

• Grades 2-3 • Under the current configuration it would require 21(2nd – 11, 3rd – 10)

sections/classes. Combining sections allows us to reduce the number of sections/classes to 20 (2nd – 10, 3rd – 10).

• Grades 4-5 • Under the current and new configuration would require 20 (4th – 10, 5th –

10) sections. Conclusions: Based on the available classroom space at the buildings; Lincoln 17, MG 24, and Washington 24 this option does not make the most efficient use of space in our buildings. While it reduces the number of sections/classes by 3 it does not fit into our current building footprints. We would have plenty of room at MG and Washington, however, we would have 3-4 excess classrooms in those buildings and Lincoln would need at least 20 classrooms when they only have 17 available. This option would most likely require additional space at Lincoln.


of 116

Maintain Lincoln as a K-5 controlled choice and reorganize two grade level centers, K-2 and 3-5, with a 6-8 Middle School (Formerly Option 1 – Diversity Study)



4 89 4 85 4 76


6.33 6.24

Lincoln 3 58 4 74 4 74


4 89 4 91 4 106


6.71 6.38

Lincoln 3 65 3 77 3 76


of 116


• Assuming Lincoln remains as is with current students and implementing

controlled choice going forward. • K-2

• Under the current configuration it would require 21(K – 7, 1st – 7, 2nd – 7) sections/classes. Combining sections allows us to reduce the number of sections/classes to 18 if you raise the class size to 22.

• Grades 3-5 • Under the current and new configurations it would require 21 (3rd – 7, 4th –

7, 5th – 7) sections. Conclusions: Lincoln would remain at least with its current enrollment, MG and Washington would need at least 18 or 21 classroom depending on which grade level to implement this option, which they both have 24 classrooms available. This option allows us to reduce the number of sections/classes by 3 sections and creates cost savings or allows for additional space for increased enrollment. The three to six additional classrooms at MG and Washington could help with new students from new subdivisions if our enrollment increases or we could move the PK from the District Office to the K-2 building and make room for a possible Newcomers Center at the District Office.


of 116

Maintain current neighborhood schools. Classroom Capacities (not including resource areas, Art, Gym, Music, existing Computer Labs, and classrooms currently converted into small classroom space): Washington 24 Classrooms Mechanics Grove 24 Classrooms Lincoln 17 Classrooms Carl Sandburg 38 Classrooms Students by Grade Level (# of sections/students):


4 89 4 85 4 76

Lincoln 3 58 4 74 4 74

Totals 10 190 11 207 11 205# of Classes 9.05 9.86 9.76


4 89 4 91 4 106

Lincoln 3 65 3 77 3 76

Totals 10 222 10 238 10 229# of Classes 9.25 9.92 9.54 PK – Early Childhood - 3 Classes Conclusions: Our students currently fit into our 3 elementary buildings, the change to neighborhood schools would not change that, however, we would need to establish enrollment capacities at each building and set our parameters for boundaries accordingly.


of 116

References The references listed below represent the research reviewed by the committee and by individual members to develop recommendations. Due to the extent of this report, there may be a few individual citations within the text for which the reference is not listed below. In these cases, please contact the District Office and we will contact the authors of the section of this report to assist with finding copies of the reference. Because of copyright and fair use laws, we are limited to providing the citations on the website. The research documents will be available at Fremont Library on Tuesday, February 7th. Allington, R.L., McGill-Franzen, A. (2003, September). The Impact of Summer Setback

on the Reading Achievement Gap. Phi Delta Kappan. Amico, J.D. (2001). A Closer Look at the Minority Achievement Gap. Arlington,

Virginia: Educational Research Service. Ansalone, G. (2000). Keeping on Track: A Reassessment of Tracking in the Schools.

Race, Gender & Class in Education. V7, n3, p 108-132. Avila, O., & Olivo, A. (2005, November 1). Latinos choosing suburbs over city. Chicago

Tribune Online. Baker, E. L., & Linn, R. L. (2000). Alignment: Policy Goals, Policy Strategies, and

Policy Outcomes. The CRESST Line, pp. 1-3. Bain, O. (2003, August). Comprehensive School Reform for Culturally and Linguistically

Diverse Students: What Does the Research Say? Research Brief: The National Clearinghouse for Comprehensive School Reform (NCCSR). Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Education of Elementary and Secondary Education.

Barton, P.E. (2004, November). Why Does the Gap Persist?

Educational Leadership: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. www.ascd.org.

Barton, P.E. (2003, October). Parsing the Achievement Gap. Policy Information Center. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

Bennett, A., Bridglall, B. L., Cauce, A.M., Everson, H.T., Gordon, E.W., Lee, C.D.,

Mendoza-Denton, R., Renzulli, J.S., Stewart, J.K. (2004). All Students Reaching the Top: Strategies for Closing Academic Achievement Gaps. North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. Naperville, IL: Learning Point Associates.


of 116

Bracey, G.W. (2001, June). School Involvement and the Working Poor. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappan. www.proquest.umi.com/pqdlink?Ver=1&Exp=07-01-2003&FMT=TG&DID=.

Brandon, A. (1998). Quality Counts ’98: Concentrated Poverty. Education Week on the Web. www.edweek.org/sreports/qc98/challenges/poverty/po-n.htm.

Brantlinger, E. (2003). Dividing Classes: how the middle class negotiates and

rationalizes school advantage. New York: RoutledgeFalmer. Bredhoff & Kaiser. (1999, February 8). The Benefits of a Racially-Diverse Student Body in Elementary/Secondary Education. National Education Association.

www.nea.org/publiced/racially.html. Brown, W., & Sackney, L. School Grade Organization: A Study of Preferred

Arrangements and Practical Accomodations. Prepared for Saskatchewan Rivers School District Division #119. Saskatoon, SK: University of Saskatchewan.

Bryk, A.S., & Schneider, B.L. (2002). Relational Trust. Trust in Schools: A Core

Resource for Improvement, Chapter Two. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

Burkhardt, G. (2005). NCREL’s Position Statement on Closing the Achievement Gaps.

North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. Closing the Achievement Gap Website. Naperville, IL: Learning Point Associates.

Burney, D., Canada, G., Corcoran, T., Erskine, R., Fruchter, N., Garcia, E., Guiney, E., Hernandez, A., Hill, P., Hodge, G., Lam, D., McAdams, D., McLaughlin, M., Mills, R.P., Price, H. (2002, June). School Communities that Work for Results and Equity. The Annenberg Institute for School Reform. Providence, RI: Brown University.

Cary, S. (2000). Working with Second Language Learners: Answers to Teachers’ Top

Ten Questions. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Clewell, B.C., de Cohen, C.C., & Deterding, N. (2005, September). Who’s Left Behind?

Immigrant Children in High and Low LEP Schools. Program for Evaluation and Equity Research. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute.

Cohen, G.S. (2002, October). Charlotte-Mecklenburg, NC: Investing in Equity.

Strategies for School System Leaders on District-Level Change. Secaucus, NJ: Panasonic Foundation.


of 116

Collier, V.P., & Thomas, W.P. (2001). A National Study of School Effectiveness for Language Minority Students’ Long-Term Academic Achievement. CREDE (Center for Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence). Berkeley, CA: University of California/Berkeley.

Collier, V.P., & Thomas, W.P. (1997). General Pattern of K-12 Language Minority

Student Achievement on Standardized Tests in English – Reading Compared Across Six Program Models. Data aggregated from a series of 3-7 year longitudinal studies from well-implemented, mature programs in five (5) school districts.

Collins, J. (2001). Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap…and Others

Don’t. (Chapter 1, p.1). New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers, Inc. Conchas, G.Q. (2001). Confronting Segregation and Stereotypes: Latinos’ High School

Experience. North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. Closing the Achievement Gap Website. Naperville, IL: Learning Point Associates.

Conchas, G.Q. (2001). How to Explain Latino Students’ Poor Academic Achievement?

School Factors Should Play Important Role. North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. Closing the Achievement Gap Website. Naperville, IL: Learning Point Associates.

Cook, G. (2005, January). Calendar Wars. American School Board Journal. Alexandria, VA.

Cotton, K. (2001, August 31). Educating Urban Minority Youth: Research on Effective Practices. NW Regional Laboratory.

Cox, T. Jr. (1994). Cultural Diversity in Organizations: Theory, Research & Practice.

San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc. Crowell, N.A., & Phillips, D., Editors. (1994). Cultural Diversity At Home. Cultural

Diversity and Early Education; Report of a Workshop: Chapter Two. Washington D.C.: The National Academies Press.

Culturally Responsive Teaching. Online Article. LAB at Brown: Teaching Diverse

Learners – Culturally Relevant Teaching. www.lab.brown.edu.

Darling-Hammond, L., & McLaughlin, M.W. (1995, April). Policies that support

professional development in an era of reform [Electronic version]. Phi Delta Kappan, 77(8).


of 116

Davis, J. (2005). Census Poverty Report Shows Continuing Struggle. Palatine, IL: Daily Herald Newspaper.

DeStefano, J. (2002, June). Find, Deploy, Support, and Keep the Best Teachers and School Leaders. The Annenberg Institute for School Reform. Providence, RI: Brown University.

Dubner, S.J., & Levitt, S.D. (2005). FREAKONOMICS: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything. New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers, Inc.

Dufour, R., & Eaker, R. (1998). Professional Learning Communities at Work: Best Practices for Enhancing Student Achievement. Bloomington, IN: National Education Service.

Epstein, J.L. (1990, February). What Matters in the Middle Grades – Grade Span or Practices? Phi Delta Kappan. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Center for Research on Elementary and Middle Schools.

Fan, Xitao, & Chen. (1999). Parent Involvement and Student’s Academic Achievement: A

Meta-analysis. National Science Foundation.

Farbman, D., & Kaplan, C. (2005). Time for a Change: The Promise of Extended-Time Schools for Promoting Student Achievement. Massachusetts 2020. Boston, MA. www.mass2020.org.

Finn, J.D. (2002, March). Small Classes in American Schools: Research, Practice and Politics. Phi Delta Kappan.

Foley, E. (2002, June). Generally Accepted Principles of Teaching and Learning and their

Implications for Local Education Support Systems; School Communities that Work: A National Task Force on the Future of Urban Districts. The Annenberg Institute for School Reform. Providence, RI: Brown University.

Gibbard, M.D. (2005, November 1). Hard work and a little luck lead immigrant to

Mundelein. Chicago Tribune Online. Gottlieb, A. (2002). Economically Segregated Schools Hurt Poor Kids, Study Shows.

Denver, Colorado. Piton Foundation. www.piton.org/Admin/Article/TermPaper. Grant, J. (2002, November 25). The Effects of Low Income on Student Achievement.

Paper presented at a staff development session, Mundelein, IL.

Heckman, J.J. (2006, January 10). Catch ‘em Young. University of Chicago. Dow Jones & Company, Inc.


of 116

Henderson, A.T., and Mapp, K.L. (2002). A New Wave of Evidence: The impact of School, Family and Community Connections on Student Achievement. National Center for Family & Community Connections with Schools Southwest Educational Development Laboratory, Annual Synthesis 2002.

Henninger, D. (2005, October 14). How One School Found a Way to Spell Success. The

Wall Street Journal Online.

Hill, P., McAdams, D., DeStefano, J., Miles, K.H., Ogilvy, J., Orr, M., Richmond, G., Wong, K. (2002, June). First Steps to a Level Playing Field. The Annenberg Institute for School Reform. Providence, RI: Brown University.

Jacobson, L. (2005, August 31). Ahead of Their Class. Education Week. Johnson, D. (1998). Critical Issue: Enhancing Learning Through Multiage Grouping.

North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. Closing the Achievement Gap Website. Naperville, IL: Learning Point Associates.

Kafer, K. (2004, September 1). Individual Student Growth is Focus of California Analysis Model. The Heartland Institute. San Francisco, CA: Pacific Research Institute.

Kahlenberg, R.D. (2002, September 16). Economic School Integration: An Update. Issue

Brief Series. New York, NY: The Century Foundation. Kneese, C.C. (2002). The Impact of Year-Round Education on Student Learning: A

Study of Six Elementary Schools. Arlington, Virginia: Educational Research Service.

Kotlowitz, A. (1992). There are no Children Here. New York: Anchor Books. Kozol, J. (2005, November). American Apartheid. NEA Today Online. Kozol, J. (1991). Savage Inequalities: Children in America’s Schools. New York: Crown

Publishers, Inc. Kluver, J., & Rosenstock, L. (2003, April). Choice and Diversity: Irreconcilable

Differences? Principal Leadership. Kutscher, B., & Linchevski, L. (1998). Tell Me With Whom You’re Learning, and I’ll

Tell You How Much You’ve Learned: Mixed-Ability Versus Same-Ability Grouping in Mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, Vol. 29. No. 5. 533-554.

Langdon, D. (2000). Aligning Performance: Improving People, Systems, and

Organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer.


of 116

Lee, C., & Orfield, G. (2005, January). Why Segregation Matters: Poverty and

Educational Inequality. The Civil Rights Project. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.

Little, J. W. (1993). Teachers’ professional development in a climate of educational reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15(2), 129-151. Lopez, G.R. (2001). Some Immigrant Families Take a Non-Standard Approach to

Involvement in Their Children’s Education. North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. Closing the Achievement Gap Website. Naperville, IL: Learning Point Associates.

Lyman, L.L., & Villani, C.J. (2002, December). The Complexity of Poverty: A Missing Component of Educational Leadership Programs. College of Education, Research Report. Illinois State University. www.coe.ilstu.edu.

Marzano, R. ( 2003). What Works in Schools, ASCD. Mayer, S. (2001). How Economic Segregation Affects Children’s Educational

Attainment. JCPR Working Paper 235: University of Chicago. Metzker, B. (2002). School Calendars. ERIC Digest 156. Eugene, OR: ERIC

Clearinghouse. Mishel and Rothestein. (2002, March). The Class Size Debate. Phi Delta Kappan. Noguera, P. (2003). City Schools and the American Dream: Reclaiming the Promise of

Public Education. New York: Teachers College Press. Norwood, H.S. (2002, December 15). Update on the Relationship Between Elementary

Grade Span and Student Achievement: Identification of Human Interactions and Behaviors in a Kindergarten-2nd Grade Configured Young Primary Elementary Which Resulted in Superior Student Achievement Observed in the 4th and 5th Grade. U.S. Department of Education: OERI;ERIC.

Orfield, G. (2001). Is There a Relationship between School Configuration and

Achievement? North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. Closing the Achievement Gap Website. Naperville, IL: Learning Point Associates.

Paglin, C., & Fager, J. (1997). Grade Configuration: Who Goes Where?

Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory. Portland, OR: Office of Educational Research/Department of Education.

Payne, Ruby. (2001). A Framework for Understanding Poverty. Highlands, TX: Aha! Process, Inc. ISBN 1-929229-14-3.


of 116

Peixotto, K., & Fager, J. (1998). High-quality Professional Development: An Essential

Component of Successful Schools. Report No, SP 038 606. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Lab. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 431 741).

Quinn, D.M., & Valentine, J.W. (2001). National Middle School Association Summary #19: What impact does the use of technology have on middle level education, specifically student achievement? Westerville, OH: National Middle School Association.

Rancie, E.T., & Steinbach, P. (1989). We turned a tide of opposition into a ground swell of support. The American School Board Journal, v176.

Raze, N. (1985, January). Primary and Intermediate Grade Configurations: A Review of the Literature. Published as Information Analyses – Reports-Evaluative/Feasibility. Redwood City, CA: San Mateo County Office of Education/SMERC Information Center.

Reeves, K. (2005, March). Figuring and Reconfiguring Grade Spans. The School Administrator. American Association of School Administrators.

Rothstein, R. (2004, November). The Achievement Gap: The Broader Picture.


Rothstein, R. (2004). CLASS AND SCHOOLS: Using Social, Economic, and Educational Reform to Close the Black-White Achievement Gap. Washington, D.C.: Economic Policy Institute.

Rottier, J. (2003, October). Variations on a Team: Changing Paradigms, Middle Ground. Scherer, M. (2004, November). Perspectives: Not Just About the Facts.


Schlechty, P. (1993). On the Frontier of School Reform with Trailblazers, Pioneers, and Settlers. Journal of Staff Development. Oxford, OH: National Staff Development Council.

Schumacher, D. (1998, June). The Transition to Middle School. Eric Digest, EDO-PS098-6.


of 116

Seiler, W. (2004, August). Configuring Schools: A review of the literature. OISE/UT Northwestern Centre.

Swap, S.M. (1993). Developing Home School Partnerships: From Concepts to Practice, New York, NY: Teacher’s College Press; Columbia University.

Sweet, J.R. (2004, November). Case Studies of High-Performing, High-Technology

Schools: Final Research Report on Schools with Predominantly Low-Income, African-American, or Latino Populations. North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. Naperville, IL: Learning Point Associates.

Thernstrom, A.,& Thernstrom, S. (2003). No Excuses: Closing the Racial Gap in

Learning. New York: Simon & Schuster Paperbacks. Thomas, D.C. (2003). Are You a Global Manager? Cultural Intelligence: Chapter One.

San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc. Thomas, D.C. (2003). Understanding Culture: What Culture Is and Is Not.

Cultural Intelligence: Chapter Two. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.

Thompson, S. (2003, March). Creating a High Performance School System. Phi Delta Kappan, pp. 489-495.

Trotter, A. (2005, December 14). High Court Won’t Hear Race Appeal. Education Week. Valentine J. (2001). National Middle School Association Summary #19. Weaver, T. (1992). Controlled Choice: An Alternative School Choice Plan.

ERIC Digest 70. Eugene, OR: ERIC Clearinghouse. Wenglinsky, H. (2001). Teachers Make a Difference in Student Performance. North

Central Regional Educational Laboratory. Closing the Achievement Gap Website. Naperville, IL: Learning Point Associates.

Wildavsky, B. (1999, August 2). Scholars of Summer. U.S. News & World Report. Wren, S.D. (2003). The Effect of Grade Span Configuration and School-to-School

Transition on Student Achievement. U.S. Department of Education: OERI;ERIC. Zimmerman, J. (1998, April 20). Improving Student Achievement by Extending School:

Is It Just a Matter of Time? Paper prepared for the PACE Media/Education Writers Seminar.

Zuniga-Hill, C., & Yopp, R.H. (1996). Practices of Exemplary School Teachers of

Second Language Learners. Teacher Education Quarterly.


of 116

(2005, July). Measuring the Minority Education Gap in Metropolitan Chicago. The

Institute for Latino Studies. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame. (2005, February). Grade-Span Configurations: Essentials on education data and analysis

from research authority AEL. District Administration Publication/Research Corner.

(2005). Learning Point Associates, Teachers College Columbia University, The College

Board, All Students Reaching the Top: Strategies for Closing Academic Achievement Gaps. A Report of the National Study Group for the Affirmative Development of Academic Ability.

(2004). Connecting Schools with Families and Communities. Renewing Our Schools,

Securing Our Future National Task Force on Public Education, Recommendation #4.

(2004). More and Better Use of Learning Time. Renewing Our Schools, Securing Our

Future National Task Force on Public Education, Recommendation #1. (2003).Choice. Education Week.

www.edweek.org/issues/choice. (2003-2004). Cambridge Public School District. Schools at a Glance.

Cambridge, MA: Office of Public Information.

(2002-2003). Diversity Study Report, Mundelein Elementary School District #75.

(2002, February). Teaching English Language Learners: What Does the Research Say? AFT (American Federation of Teachers) Policy Brief #14. Washington D.C.: AFT Educational Issues Department.

(2002, June). Central Office Review for Results and Equity. The Annenberg Institute for

School Reform. Providence, RI: Brown University. (2000, October 24). The School Board of Pinellas County, Florida Choice Plan (Student

Assignment Plan). Information obtained online. (1994). Prisoners of Time. Report of the National Education Commission on Time and

Learning. (1994). The Child Trends Data Bank. www.childtrendsdatabank.org\family\the.

family\39parentalinvolvementinschools.htm Illinois Principals Association. Interview with Dr. Ruby Payne.

www.ilprincipals.org/RubyPayne.htm.


of 116

National Association of Elementary School Principals. Standards for what principals

should know and be able to do. National Staff Development Council. Retrieved March 15, 2003, from:

http://www.nsdc.org/educatorindex.htm. NEA. Keys to Excellence: Indicators of a Quality School. www.nea.org. U.S. Department of Education declines to publish report on literacy education of

bilingual children. An article from the International Reading Association. www.reading.org.

final report: recommendations · final report: recommendations to the board of education from the...

Documents