lmu family of schools working group data, results, outcomes august 11, 2007 discussion draft

LMU Family of Schools Working Group

Data, Results, OutcomesAugust 11, 2007

DISCUSSION DRAFT

Agenda

I. Working Group Overview

II. Sharing our Results- Academic Interventions- Accountability Models- Charter Schools/Autonomy Models- Data- Defining Educational Excellence- History of Reform in Westchester Cluster

III. LMU Needs Assessment -- Themes from WHS

IV. Assessing Progress, Celebrating Success

V. Next Steps- Sharing with our stakeholder groups- Gathering Additional Data- Symposium at LMU- Innovation Division


Purpose: The working group will function as a fact-finding body to help inform the broader community, and to begin the research to package information for broader distribution.

This group will meet three times as a group throughout the summer and has as its central purpose: Doing the research and preparation necessary to engage the community in well-informed and fruitful dialogues beginning in late August.

The group’s research will help to answer two key questions:

- Do any or all of the schools within LMU FoS want to submit a proposal to the Innovation Division of the LAUSD seeking greater school or cluster autonomy?

- What are the ways in which to articulate the role of the many stakeholders within the structure of a Family of Schools?


The working group represented a broad array of stakeholders:

- 15 parents, grandparents and community members

- 5 PTA members

- 16 teachers and administrators

- 6 LAUSD local district, district and board member staff

- 4 LMU faculty and staff

- 3 students

More than 50 people gave their time and energy to the working group this summer!


We organized ourselves into six research teams…

- Academic Interventions

- Accountability Models

- Charter Schools/Autonomy Models

- Data

- Defining Educational Excellence

- History of Reform in Westchester Cluster

…and got to work, asking questions, talking, and collecting thoughts, history, and data.

Agenda


II. Sharing our Results

- Academic Interventions- Accountability Models- Charter Schools/Autonomy Models- Data- Defining Educational Excellence- History of Reform in Westchester Cluster




Academic Intervention Group

1. We need to look at the Response to Intervention (RTI) model. (RTI calls for the frequent collection of assessment data and is based on finding what works for an individual student.)

2. Should be real intervention and not remedial education

3. We need to be data driven in our choices for intervention

4. A strong and consistent character/behavior/discipline program in place

No specific program for intervention but developed specific points and questions about intervention and what it should look like in a school setting

LMU FoS Working Group

5. Interventions, if at all possible, should be put into place in the classroom setting, no pull-outs

6. An intervention program needs to be used in the appropriate andrecommended way

7. A school needs to stay with a program that shows results in achievement

8. There needs to be a rapid turn around in looking at assessment scores

9. Our students need to be engaged in their own education

Academic Intervention, cont’dLMU FoS Working Group

Additional Questions on Academic Intervention

What criteria do we use to identify students who need help?

Should each school decide that criteria or do we want something overall?

How do we deal with mandated pacing?


Accountability ModelsWe began by identifying some key questions:

• How do subs impact the CST, CAHSEE and API scores? If students have a number of different subs (day-to-day) or a long term sub, this interrupts the flow of the curriculum

• How valid are the test scores?

• How do students qualify for the Magnet School?

• Does Westchester have a gang problem?

• Is there a difference in the Community and Magnet Schools with respect to discipline policies?


Accountability Models, cont’d

• What does the discrepancy with performance tell us? – 37% of high school students succeed in Math/English– Yet 66% of high school students pass the exit exam

• Declining enrollment at Westchester – does this mean students are fleeing?

• Seems to be little or no accountability between parents & teachers• Interventions needed!• We need models based on student outcome for each grade level and a

better understanding of existing tools

What does accountability mean?

• Accountability for local, district, LAUSD, and state levels. • As parents, we want our school to be accountable, but what do we

mean?• Accountability implies consequences/incentives or reward• Would affect teachers, administration, staff, students & parents

– For example: there is a student-school contract tool available through NCLB (No Child Left Behind) (Bill to provide draft)


Next Steps on Accountability

• Reform school model must have accountability sections

• Reexamining the meaning of accountability• Examine accountability & differences between

elementary & secondary• Examine local, district, state models & practices• Governance—shared accountability between

parents/administration• Making sure the stakeholders, if we’re really

partners, have conversations: – If given authority for something, must be held

responsible


Data Research TeamAdditional data being gathered and questions being researched…

1. Demographics of school-age children within the Westchester HighSchool Attendance area a. School Data (children within the attendance area who attend public schools) b. Census Data (children within the attendance area regardless of whether they attend LAUSD)

2. Census map of all the students attending Westchester high school

3. Discipline Referrals

4. Deeper analysis on graduation/drop out rates (who is leaving and where are they going)

5. Where are the graduates going? (higher education, workforce, etc.)

6. Feeder pattern to WHS from OWMS over longer period of time

7. More examination of OWMS feeder school patterns


We asked about enrollment:Enrollment by Ethnicity, 2006-2007

86.4

58.7

40.6

50.2

63

40

47.5

11.9 7

.7

24.8

18.6

21.8

24.1

33.8

24.8

28.8 2

4.5

13.1

10.97

.3 4.6

4.1

9.3

4.6

25.6

0

20

40

60

80

100

School

Perc

en

tag

e

Black Hispanic White Asian Filipino

Enrollment of 10 or less is not included


Source: LAUSD Office of Planning Assessment & Research

Enrollment cont’d:Enrollment by Ethnicity, 2006-2007

70.3

54

63.4 5

7.8

75

52.9

28.8

44.7

21.8

20.5

18.3

11.49

.1

15.7

3.5

31.9

3.4 4 1.7

0.7

0

20

40

60

80

100

School

Pe

rce

nta

ge

Black Hispanic White Asian Filipino

Enrollment of 10 or less is not included



Feeder Schools to Wright MS

36

3

102

35

55

32 3227

511

7

86

4511

28

4

0

20

40

60

80

100

2004-2005 Grade 5 - Elementary School

Nu

mb

er

of

Stu

de

nts

- G

rad

e 6

Wright MS

Wright MSMath/Sci Magnet



*131 Students attended Wright MS (Magnet

included) for all three years.

Wright MS to Westchester HSWright MS to WHS Feeder Pattern

404

157

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

1

Number of WHS Grads,2005-06

2005-06 WHS Grads -Attended Wright, MagnetIncluded



We looked at data on permits:Permit Information: 2006-2007

128

177

126

12

77

14.9

28.1

5146.8

2.3

15.5

70

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

54th St El Cowan El Kentwood El Loyola VillageEl

Loyola Per ArtsMag

Paseo del ReyEl

WestportHeights El

School

Nu

mb

er

Total Permits

Percent of Permitted Students



Permits cont’d:Permit Information: 2006-2007

203

1

143

9

412

315.5

0.47

19.52.3

23.8

0.83

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

Audubon MS Audubon G/HAMag

Wright MS Wright M/S AeroMag

Westchester SH Westchester M/SAeroMag

School

Nu

mb

er

Total Permits

Percent of Permitted Students



Before we plan ourjourney…..

….We need to agree on ourdestination

Definitions of Excellence Research Team


Research Question:

How do we define educational excellence?

What measures do we use to operationalize

these definitions?


What can we learn from others?

• Chicago Public Schools• New York City Department of

Education• Gilroy, California• Achievement First Charter Schools• Green Dot Charter Schools


Survey to LMU Group

• 45 initial definitions culled from national models sent to working group

• Working group voted and narrowed list down to 29 definitions

• All LMU/Westchester group members given opportunity to vote (13 responses)

• Total responses: 18 • 15 definitions received overwhelming number of

votes


Definitions of Excellence

• High graduation rates• Safe and secure schools• High student attendance rates• Large numbers of students showing yearly and

sustained growth towards proficiency• High absolute numbers of students who are proficient

and advanced in math, reading, science, social science, foreign language


Definitions of Excellence

• Large % of budget spent on classroom• Teacher quality/satisfaction measures (low teacher

attrition rates/high % of teachers fully credentialed)• Sustained progress in closing achievement gap• School facilities clean, well-maintained• Availability of resources (textbooks, technology, etc)


Definitions of Excellence 11-15• Small class size• High rates of parent participation/parents feel

welcome• Evidence that coursework is rigorous, and emphasizes

the development of critical thinking skills• Post-secondary acceptance and/or enrollment• Evidence of ability to both create and appreciate

drama, arts, music, dance, etc.


Next Steps:

• Publish 15 definitions as document/letter of intent

• Get more votes from important stakeholders (parents, teachers, students, etc.)


Agenda







Needs Assessment Methodology

• Primary intent was:– To cast a “wide” net to gain a sense of the

terrain.– To gain input from stakeholders, especially

students who are typically not asked.• Sampling

– Expected close to 100% from students and school staff.

– Expected some challenges with parent sample.


Needs Assessment Methodology

• Written surveys were designed with 3 simple, open-ended questions:– What do you like best about your school?– What needs attention at your school?– Third question slightly different between

adults and students• Students: Tell us anything about your

school• Adults: Tell us about this partnership


Needs Assessment Methodology, cont’d

• LMU SOE faculty “lead” was assigned to work with the principals for best approach with each stakeholder.

• Forouzan Faridian, from the Westchester/Playa Education Foundation, helped with parent contacts.

• LMU research assistants were assigned to help collect and begin analysis of completed surveys.


Needs Assessment preliminary results

• Nearly a 98% return rate for students and school staff.

• Low return rate for parents across most schools. We decided to postpone analyzing parent surveys and focus on the other surveys for now.

• Analysis for the HS is nearly complete, as with the elementary schools, and MS is still ongoing.


LMU Needs Assessment: Major themes from WHS Student

Surveys

• School Climate: Location, Atmosphere/campus, Social environment/students, Diversity

• School Activities: Sports, Activities/clubs• Academic Programs: College counseling

center, Electives/classes offered, Scheduling, Magnet, Class size

• Personnel: Faculty

What do you like best about your school?


Please note that these are preliminary findings from an ongoing data collection project.

LMU Needs Assessment: Major themes from WHS Student

Surveys

• Facilities/Operations: Bathrooms, Cleanliness, Classrooms

• School Safety: Violence/gangs, Student behavior, Discipline, Security

• Personnel: Student/teacher relationships; classroom management; communication

• Academic Programs: Resources, science program, Schedules

• Supplemental Programs: More social activities, Field trips, Extra curricular activities, Tutoring, Arts

What needs attention at your school?



LMU Needs Assessment: Major themes from WHS Teacher

Surveys

• Personnel: Teachers, Administrators, Staff, Collaboration

• School Climate: Strong school spirit/morale, Sense of community, Diversity/low racial tension, Students here by choice

• Facilities/Operations: Physical plant, Location

• Surrounding Community: Parents• Strong academic programs• Supplemental/Extra Curricular: Sports,

Wide variety of student opportunities

What do you like best about your school?



LMU Needs Assessment: Major themes from WHS Teacher

Surveys

• Personnel: bilingual staff• School Climate: Communication and Respect,

classroom interruptions, school culture, accountability, security

• Facilities/Operations: Cleanliness, Updated facilities• Academic Programs: Challenging curriculum,

collaboration & planning time, Differentiated curriculum & instruction

• Supplemental Programs/Extra Curricular: More student counseling, arts programs, Mechanical drafting classes, Mentors/Tutors

• Surrounding Community: More local kids coming to WHS, Articulation and communication with cluster

What needs attention at your school?



Agenda







Agenda






V. Next Steps

- Sharing with our stakeholder groups- Gathering Additional Data- Symposium at LMU- Innovation Division

lmu family of schools working group data, results, outcomes august 11, 2007 discussion draft

Documents

working group

intervention program

lmu needs assessment

group overviewii

lmu faculty

school needs

real intervention

specific program