Organizing Schools for Improvement:

Lessons from ChicagoPresented by: Anthony S. Bryk, Penny Bender Sebring, Elaine Allensworth and Stuart Luppescu

Gleacher Center, Chicago, January 14, 2010

A Framework of Essential Supports

Likelihood of Substantial Improvement, Given Weak or Strong Supports

Reading

11% 10% 9%

16%

10%

43%40%

47%

36%

45%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

SchoolLeadership

ParentInvolvement

WorkOrientation

Safety &Order

CurriculumAlignment

Per

cen

tag

e o

f S

cho

ols

th

at

Su

bst

anti

all

y Im

pro

ved

in

R

ead

ing

Weak

Strong

Schools with strong teacher cooperative relationships focused on curricular alignment were very likely to show

substantial academic improvements

Reading Math

Strong Work Orien-tation and Curricular

Alignment

Strong Professional Community and Curricular Align-

ment

Strong Work Orien-tation and Curricular

Alignment

Strong Professional Community and Curricular Align-

ment

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

67%

56%

43%

48%

5%9%

5% 4%

Percent that Substantially Improved Percent that Were Stagnant

Strong Work Orientation and Strong Curricular

Alignment

Strong Professional Com-munity and Strong Curric-

ular Alignment

Strong Work Orientation and Strong Curricular

Alignment

Strong Professional Com-munity and Strong Curric-

ular Alignment

Schools did not improve attendance if their learning climate was unsafe/disorderly and instruction was weak

Schools with Poor Curricu-lar Alignment and Little

Safety/Order

Schools with Little Interac-tive Instruction and Little

Safety/Order

Schools with a Strong Emphasis on Didactic In-

struction and Little Safety/Order

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

0% 0%

6%

53% 53%

67%

Percent that Substantially Improved Percent that Were Stagnant

Relationships of Essential Supports with Improvements in Value-Added,

1997-2005Essential Support Effect of strength

in base yearEffect of

improvement

School leadership

Instructional leadership .18*** .10**

Program coherence .15*** .10**

Parent community ties

Parent involvement in the school .34*** .14***

Professional capacity

Reflective dialogue .03 .02

Collective responsibility .22*** .11**

Orientation toward innovation .21*** .08*

School commitment .29*** .15***

Student-centered learning climate

Safety .43*** .17***

Recent CCSR Research

Attendance, grades and pass rates are higher in schools with stronger:

• Instruction

• Student-centered climates– Teacher-student

relationships– Safety

• Teacher collaboration– Collective responsibility– Instructional program

coherence

Recent CCSR Research

Teachers remain in schools with stronger:

• Student-centered climates– Safety

• Teacher collaboration– Collective responsibility– Innovation

• Parent involvement– Teacher-parent trust

• Leadership– Program coherence– Teacher influence– Instructional leadership

A Framework of Essential Supports

Classification of School Communities by Students’ Racial/Ethnic and SES

CompositionPercent African

American

Percent Latino

Percent White

Median Family Income

Truly Disadvantaged 100 0 0 $9,480

African-American Low SES 99 1 0 $19,385

African-American Moderate SES 99 1 0 $33,313

Predominantly Minority 34 61 4 $23,293

Predominantly Latino 3 93 4 $23,381

Racially Diverse 21 56 17 $33,156

Racially Integrated 14 35 40 $37,350

Stagnation or Substantial Improvement in Reading by Race/Ethnicity and Socioeconomic Status of Students

and Their Communities46

31 31

1815

9

15

24

2018

31

35

42

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Truly Disadvantaged

n=46African-American,

Low SES n=95African-American,

Average toModerate SES n=74

PredominantlyMinority n=45

PredominantlyLatino n=39

Racially Diversen=34

Racially Integratedn=57

Per

cen

tag

e o

f S

cho

ols

th

at S

tag

nat

ed o

r Im

pro

ved

Stagnant Substantially Improved

23 Expected: 25%

Data on Community CharacteristicsBonding Social Capital

• Collective Efficacy • Religious Participation• Crime statistics for school neighborhood

and students’ neighborhoods

Bridging Social Capital

• Contacts with people in other neighborhoods

Percent of Students Who Were Abused or Neglected

Odds of Substantial Improvement in Reading Compared to Integrated Schools, Unadjusted and

Adjusted

Racially Diverse

Predominantly Latino

Predominantly Minority

African-American Moderate SES

African-American Low SES

Truly Disadvantaged

Unadjusted

Adjusted for bonding socialcapital

Adjusted for bonding andbridging social capital

Adjusted for social capital anddensity of abuse and neglect

Even Odds

1.0 2.0

5% 6%8%

39% 38%

33%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

Religious Participation Collective Efficacy Outside Connections

Per

cen

tag

e o

f S

cho

ols

wit

h S

tro

ng

Ess

enti

al S

up

po

rts

in

19

94

Low High

Expected: 20%

Influence of Bonding and Bridging Social Capital on Essential Supports

4%2%

36%

40%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

Crime Density of Abused or NeglectedStudents

Per

cen

tag

e o

f S

cho

ols

wit

h S

tro

ng

Ess

enti

al S

up

po

rts

in

199

4

High Rate Low Rate

Expected: 20%

Influence of Crime and Abuse and Neglect on Essential Supports

For more information….

About the book:Email: organizingschools@ccsr.uchicago.eduWebsite: ccsr.uchicago.edu/osfi

About CCSR:Website: ccsr.uchicago.edu