the bill & melinda gates foundation’s model school initiativethe evaluation process revealed...

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation’s Model School Initiative Cohort 1: Year 3 Summary Report Prepared for the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation December 2003

• • • • • • • • •

Fouts & Associates, L.L.C.

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation’s Model School Initiative

Cohort 1: Year 3 Summary Report

• • • • • • • • •

Shirley C. Riley, Ed.D. Jeffrey T. Fouts, Ed.D.

Fouts & Associates, L.L.C.

Executive Summary

In 2000, 13 schools received three-year Model School Initiative grants, the first of five cohorts of schools to receive such grants. The funding cycle for Cohort 1 schools was completed with the conclusion of the 2002-2003 school year. This report summarizes the progress of the Cohort 1 grantees, the common challenges encountered, and key learnings about the reinvention process gained either by Cohort 1 school personnel or by the external evaluators.

GRANT HISTORY

During the application process for the Model School Initiative Grant, each school

identified perceived areas of strengths and weaknesses and developed a plan for using grant funds. Therefore, each school had its own set of goals. At the same time, there was a common set of expectations from the foundation that at each grantee school, practices would reflect the seven Attributes of High Achievement Schools and that each would create and implement a reinvention plan to affect student learning. A variety of factors, including the professional culture at each school, contributed to the varied pace toward reinvention during each of the three years of grant support.

Year One

Much of the first year was spent clarifying the purpose and intent of the grant. Struggles with school leadership and adult issues provided challenges in nearly all of the schools. During Year 1, there were various adjustments to grant goals at some of the schools. At several, the revisions were simply part of the emerging process of collaborating, reflecting, and then readjusting priorities. However, not all were able to show that level of progress in Year 1 because some teachers lacked awareness about the grant. Many of the schools spent most of the first year of the grant working to build a more collaborative climate. In fact, the need to confront and resolve adult issues became the primary focus at some schools. Year Two

In Year 2 the foundation provided coaching support to the schools and more direction for the concept of reinvention. While reinvention resonated with some school personnel, it created a level of dissonance with others. Most of the schools began the second year of the grant with considerably more focus to their plans and, in some cases, growing enthusiasm. School personnel at various schools defined the year as one of “action,” a time to “refine existing efforts,” and “a year to implement” plans generated by working teams during the “planning year.” Reinvention efforts moved forward in the schools that began the process with strong leadership and adult cooperation. In the remaining schools, efforts essentially focused on school culture improvements that allowed the schools to begin, to varying degrees, to engage in more meaningful reinvention discussion and activities. In places, contextual factors such as district and

i

union issues hampered momentum until well into the school year, and the shared opinion of one leadership team was that reinvention was more complex than anticipated. While the concept of reinvention was slow to be accepted in places, there was promising movement toward alignment with the attributes and toward grant goals. Year Three

Several schools in Year 3 were in a position to focus on instruction and to make substantive change. However, in places, more progress was made during the second year of the grant than in the third year. Contributing factors were a lessening sense of urgency, adult issues, and ineffectual building leadership. By the end of the third year most teachers described improved collaboration and collegial relationships, and professional development played more of an intentional role at staff meetings in many of the schools. In a few schools there was qualitatively different instruction in place. However, the depth of attention to powerful teaching and learning varied among the 13 schools. In several schools, the teachers described “heightened awareness of the essential components” as the extent of progress at the classroom level.

CHANGES IN SCHOOL FUNCTIONING

The grantees began the reinvention process at very different places in relation to

the Attributes of High Achievement Schools. Consequently, at the end of the grant the attributes reflected the school culture to varying degrees. In 2000, the teachers in many of the schools were unable to describe a common focus that guided their work. In several of the schools, there was little evidence of a shared belief system or even realization that it would be important to formulate common beliefs, curriculum, or direction. In 2003, most grantee schools reported increased focus and cohesiveness. However, this attribute was a difficult concept for many of the schools, and a clear model was lacking to help them understand what a school with a common focus actually meant.

Throughout the life of the grant most teachers became convinced of the

importance of high expectations for all students, but putting these expectations into practice with populations with basic skill needs was and continues to be a challenge. In 2000, the teachers at most of the grantee schools were confident about the personalized nature of the environment at their school. Teachers learned throughout the process what exactly was meant by personalized, and by 2003 there were considerable improvements in the personalized attribute at many of the schools. In 2000, most of the schools did not face excessive challenges around the attribute of respect and responsibility, although there were some exceptions. In 2003, the adoption of Make Your Day represented the most visible and broad system change toward addressing student behavior and student responsibility. It was also evident in 2003 that there had been significant improvements around adult respect issues at most of the schools where teachers had previously described “volatility” and “divisiveness” in adult interactions.

In 2000, individual teachers at some schools valued the idea of collaboration, but their more independent colleagues did not share that view. In 2003, it was evident that

ii

there was a newfound value for collaborative practices at many of the schools. In fact, some teachers described improved collaboration as their “biggest accomplishment.” At some schools, the staff never completely understood that effective collaboration would need to involve all staff working toward meaningful goals and school-wide change. Similarly, in 2000 it was evident that many of the schools lacked a broad understanding of assessment practices and the performance-based attribute. In 2003, it was clear that several schools had made measurable progress; however, at others there was limited progress toward improved assessment practices. The technology as a tool attribute did receive considerable attention and showed marked improvement in a number of schools. Classroom Instruction

In 2000, there was a general lack of understanding about the ultimate goal of the grant to reinvent practices to support powerful teaching and learning. Baseline evaluation findings showed that at many schools there was limited professional dialogue about instruction, and professional development did not focus on improving instruction school-wide. In 2003, the depth to which the school personnel successfully addressed the essential components varied among the Cohort 1 schools. During the final evaluation visits there was evidence at some of the schools of new perspectives, approaches, and instructional strategies being used. However, at other schools a “heightened awareness” about instruction was the extent of the progress.

CONCLUSIONS

The evaluation process revealed that the degree to which the reinvention process

moved forward in a school was dependent on a number of factors, including an acceptance of the vision of a reinvented school, strong building leadership, district support, and the ability of adults in the school to work together successfully. Therefore, from the beginning some schools were better positioned to make meaningful change than were others. In a few of the schools the process of reinvention did move forward and the schools have the potential to be truly “model schools.”

What became evident throughout the process was that in a majority of the schools,

these enabling factors were present to only a limited degree, resulting in reinvention that has been successful only to a limited degree. Unfortunately, in a few schools there were factors at work that prevented substantial change from taking place over the life of the grant. For the most part, schools that failed to progress as expected were limited by adult issues and/or a lack of leadership. Individually, these factors appear to make a difference, but it is important to recognize that they are many times interrelated and work in tandem to produce meaningful change. Importance of Common Focus

Most schools reported increased focus and cohesiveness. At those schools that showed the most progress, the principal and teachers shared a focus centered on student learning and conveyed exactly how they worked together to achieve the intended

iii

outcomes. However, while teachers is most schools described an increased focus as a primary benefit of the grant, evaluation findings showed that in some schools there was a lack of understanding about the meaning of the attribute even among those teachers who believed it was present in the school. Importance of Collaboration

Many believed that improved collaboration, collaborative practices, and an improved school culture were their most significant accomplishments. At almost every school improved collaboration was the first thing that the teachers described when reflecting on change in the past several years.

Importance of Process

Many educators viewed the process of creating a vision and mission statement as more important than the outcome. Most school personnel explained that they valued the process because the grant had been the impetus to refocus the staff through developing a vision or improving collaboration toward meaningful goals. Importance of Focused Professional Development for Instruction

The most successful schools implemented focused professional development in Year 2 that centered on literacy and classroom practices. There was an expectation and requirement at those schools that the teachers would apply and practice new strategies learned. In fact, at several schools the principals encouraged the new practice of peer observations to support the application of new strategies. Book studies were the most common method for laying the foundation for a significant impact on classroom practice. The Importance of Leadership

Effective principal leadership and broad and effective teacher leadership appeared to be key components at the most successful schools. Lack of one or both clearly hampered efforts. In several schools, the school coach filled the void left by ineffective leadership. Several principals intentionally focused on building leadership capacity and developing in-house experts in various areas for sustained support.

Some schools selected for the grant already reflected many of the Attributes of

High Achievement Schools, and the grant has provided the opportunity to continue those efforts. Because of the grant, most of the schools are considerably better than they were in the year 2000. The degree to which these changes will be lasting or the degree to which these schools will continue in the process of reinvention will need to be determined in the coming years.

iv

Table of Contents Executive Summary ......................................................................................... i

INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1

GRANT HISTORY ......................................................................................... 2

Year One ................................................................................................... 2

Year Two .................................................................................................. 3

Year Three ................................................................................................ 5

Summary ................................................................................................... 6

CHANGES IN SCHOOL FUNCTIONING .......................................... 9

Common Focus....................................................................................... 9

High Expectations ................................................................................. 10

Personalized ............................................................................................. 11

Respect and Responsibility ................................................................. 12

Time to Collaborate ............................................................................... 13

Performance Based ................................................................................ 14

Technology as a Tool ............................................................................ 15

Classroom Attributes ............................................................................. 16

OTHER OUTCOMES ................................................................................... 18

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS .......................................................... 21

Importance of Common Focus .......................................................... 23

Importance of Collaboration............................................................... 23

Importance of Process .......................................................................... 24

Importance of Focused Professional Development..................... 24

Importance of Focus on Instruction................................................. 24

Importance of Leadership ................................................................... 25

ii

Introduction

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation’s Model School Initiative

Cohort 1: Year 3 Summary Report

INTRODUCTION

In 2000, 13 schools received three-year Model School Initiative grants, the first of five cohorts of schools to receive such grants. The funding cycle for Cohort 1 schools was completed with the conclusion of the 2002-2003 school year. Cohorts 2-5 will all be completed by 2006. This report summarizes the progress of the Cohort 1 grantees, the common challenges encountered, and key learnings gained either by Cohort 1 school personnel or by the external evaluators about the reinvention process.

In spring of 2000, 12 public schools and one private Catholic school were the

recipients of the grants, which ranged from $54,000 to $240,000 depending on the student enrollment. The 13 Cohort 1 elementary and middle schools were located throughout the state of Washington, varied in the demographics of the population served, and represented a range of grade level configurations. The grantee schools were Cataldo Catholic School (K-8), David H. Wofle Elementary (K-6), Environmental and Adventure School (6-8), Hidden River Middle School (5-7), Lucille Umbarger School (K-8), Mead Middle School (7-8), Meadowdale Elementary (K-6), Morris Schott Middle School (6-8), Oakview Elementary (4-6), The Partnership School (K-2 and 7-9), Prosser Heights Elementary (3-5), Royal Middle School (6-8), and Hulan L. Whitson Elementary (K-4).

The goal of the evaluation was to monitor the process toward reinvention over the

three-year grant with a variety of quantitative and qualitative data collection activities, including several site visits conducted each year. There were two evaluation reports produced for each school in the first year of the grant, and an annual report at the end of the second and third years. Each report analyzed the process and progress in the context of the attributes and specific goals at each grantee school. In the third year of the grant, two evaluation visits took place in fall 2002 and in spring 2003. While the purpose of the fall visit was to understand the plan of action to affect change at the classroom level, the purpose of the spring visit was to determine the extent to which reinvention efforts overall had affected school and classroom practices. In addition to interviews and focus groups, the expectation at each grantee school in the final year was that school personnel would design an agenda to show evidence and artifacts of progress. The final report for each individual school reported the progress achieved over the life of the reinvention grant and the effectiveness of the change process in the improvement of teaching and learning. This Cohort 1 end-of-project report is a summary of the collective experiences of these 13 schools and their individual final school reports.

December 2003 • 1

Grant History

GRANT HISTORY

During the application process for the Model School Initiative Grant, each school identified perceived areas of strengths and weaknesses and developed a plan for using grant funds. Therefore, each school had its own set of goals. At the same time, there was a common set of expectations from the foundation that at each grantee school, practices would reflect the seven Attributes of High Achievement Schools and that each would create and implement a reinvention plan to affect student learning. A variety of factors, including the professional culture at each school, contributed to the varied pace toward reinvention during each of the three years of grant support. The experience of these

schools over the three years varied greatly, and therefore generalizing about their experiences is difficult. However, there were common efforts across the schools, along with common struggles and challenges. Much of the first year was spent clarifying the purpose and intent of the grant. Similarly, struggles with school leadership and adult issues provided challenges in nearly all of the schools. Efforts to affect classroom teaching provided professional development challenges virtually everywhere. The degree to which the schools were able to deal with these and other factors varied considerably from school to school, but determined the degree to which a school was successful in their reinvention efforts.

A variety of factors, including the professional culture at each school, contributed to the varied pace toward reinvention during each of the three years of grant support.

Year One

In Year 1, a typical teacher comment about the grant was that “It’s a technology grant.” At some schools, laptop purchases for teachers confirmed the perception that the grant was about technology. In fact, because of stated technology goals at some of the schools and a lack of communication about the broader meaning of the grant, the teachers at some schools viewed the grant solely in the context of new computers and technology training. One principal described Year 1 as “the huge training year” for technology. At another school, technology was the solitary focus throughout most of the first year of the grant.

During the first year there were various adjustments to grant goals at some of the schools. At several schools, the revisions were simply part of the emerging process of collaborating, reflecting, and then readjusting priorities. However, not all were able to show that level of progress in Year 1 because some teachers lacked awareness about the grant, in part because only the principal or a small group of teachers had prepared the original proposal. For example, at one school the assistant superintendent had written the grant. Because of limited involvement, poor communication, or leadership issues, not all teachers understood the implications of the grant or how it would affect them or their

2 • Fouts & Associates

Grant History

students. At some schools, it became necessary for the foundation’s program officer to challenge the staff to recommit to the grant and reinvention. Reflecting on that challenge, one teacher stated, “We realized that we had the opportunity to make school-wide change.” At other schools, the focus of the grant shifted because of issues revealed by the evaluation that required their attention. However, one school was adamant about maintaining the intent of their proposal. At that school, there was little interest in meeting the broader expectations of the grant.

Reflecting on the first year of the grant, one teacher stated, “We spent Year 1 trying to figure out how to make changes.” While the need to form a shared vision was a pressing need at several schools, school personnel were uncertain about how to proceed. One principal stated, “We needed some guidance.” At some schools, much of the first year was spent simply trying to find the time to collaborate, and then committing to that time. Many of the schools spent most of the first year of the grant working to build a more collaborative climate. In fact, at those schools the need to confront and resolve adult issues became the primary focus. The shared focus of the principal and leadership team at several successful schools was to define and implement a joint process by which the staff would undertake the challenges of the grant. At one particular school, the staff defined the process as Reaching New Heights, and the principal hired a consultant to facilitate development of a school-wide vision and to guide the early stages of long-term planning. At other schools, the process involved dividing all of the staff into core research or action teams to explore possibilities in the context of the attributes, existing goals, or to identify areas of need.

Many of the schools approached the end of Year 1 with a more collaborative culture, clearer goals, and realigned efforts to support grant-related goals. One principal stated, “It’s all falling into place.” Several schools actually focused their efforts as the end of the year drew to a close. However, some still lacked a vision for improvement, had not effectively addressed alignment with the attributes, or had not moved beyond existing practices. At one school, a teacher stated, “Change is more difficult than we imagined.” Year Two

In Year 2 the foundation provided coaching support to the schools and more direction for the concept of reinvention. While the reinvention concept resonated with some school personnel, it created a level of dissonance with others. However, most were receptive to the idea of coaching support. One principal explained that the school coach provided the “guidance” that was needed. At some schools, the coach was a facilitator; in others, the coach filled a leadership gap. In some schools it took considerable time for a supportive relationship to develop.

“Change is more difficult than we imagined.”

Most of the schools began the second year of the grant with considerably more

focus to their plans and, in some cases, growing enthusiasm. School personnel at various schools defined the year as one of “action,” a time to “refine existing efforts,” and “a year to implement” plans generated by working teams during the “planning year.” At one

December 2003 • 3

Grant History

school, a teacher projected that Year 2 would be “a year of foundations.” Several schools opened the year with extensive grant-funded retreats that many described as “critical bonding” time. Some had adopted vision and/or mission statements that were developed in that retreat setting. One teacher described the collaborative process of creating a mission statement as “the most important piece.” At some schools, improved collaboration was becoming part of the culture in Year 2. Culture improvements allowed those schools to begin to engage in more meaningful reinvention activities.

At several schools there were system or program improvements that affected the students. Two schools began their first full year of implementation of the Make Your Day program. Several implemented advisory groups, although to varying degrees. In Year 2, professional development plans began to accelerate at some of the schools. Consequently, the staff at one school implemented flexible grouping practices in teaching reading. At other schools, book study groups began as a valued collaborative opportunity that continued throughout the life of the grant. Surprisingly, improvement efforts accelerated at one school because of unanticipated district leadership and support in the form of two new curriculum adoptions that used active inquiry and constructivist approaches. In fact, because of professional development, attention to instructional practices characterized Year 2 efforts at several schools, and teachers practiced new strategies in reading and mathematics. At one school in particular, there was considerably increased support for second language learners.

Challenges emerged at several of the schools in Year 2. Teachers at one school

were distracted because of district and union issues and did not recover momentum until well into the school year. In addition, while teachers at several schools had agreed to norms of behavior and collaborative processes, in some places the agreements were tenuous. One school struggled with governance and collaboration issues and continued to do so throughout the life of the grant. Lack of full staff engagement at some schools was also an issue. In fact, during the spring evaluation visit at one school, the teachers were unfamiliar with the term ‘reinvention.’ One teacher stated, “Some of the staff do not see the big picture.” Finally, while one school had developed comprehensive goals in Year 1, the goals were without associated training, support, or leadership. Consequently, that staff encountered difficulties.

By the end of Year 2, there had been steady progress toward reinvention at many of the 13 schools. However, the shared opinion of one leadership team was that reinvention was more complex than anticipated. While the concept of reinvention was slow to be accepted in places, there was promising movement toward alignment with the attributes and toward grant goals. One principal stated, “I do feel good about what we are doing, how we are moving forward—slowly, but at least forward.” Another principal remarked, “We are on the threshold of addressing teaching and learning.”


Grant History

Year Three

Several schools in Year 3 were in a position to focus on instruction and to make substantive change. One teacher stated, “We are looking at how to actualize the goals this year.” The goal at one school was to “deepen the focus, expand professional development, and begin to explore the essential components.” Some schools accelerated efforts while focusing on laying the groundwork for sustaining those efforts. However, in other places, more progress was made during the second year of the grant than in the third year. Contributing factors were a lessening sense of urgency, adult issues, ineffectual building leadership, and in some cases, adoption of the OSPI improvement process. At several schools, teachers described lack of time, new federal legislation, and WASL testing as making it difficult to focus on reinvention. One teacher stated, “There is so much to do.”

In Year 3, most teachers described improved collaboration, although many

continued to refine collaborative practices. Some schools again began the year with a retreat that teachers at one school agreed “focused the whole year.” However, while the retreat “cemented relationships,” at one school it was less successful in gaining commitment to work during the year. Professional development played more of an intentional role at staff meetings in many of the schools. One teacher stated, “The staff meetings are at a place where we do something important.” Book groups had become an integral part of professional development at several schools. One teacher stated, “There is more intensity to book groups this year. We are trying to apply the information in the books.” Finally, early efforts to build leadership capacity served some schools particularly well in Year 3 when teachers needed support and encouragement as they implemented new strategies.

At the end of Year 3, teachers at several schools described “heightened awareness of the essential components” as the extent of progress toward affecting instruction.

The students in several schools experienced qualitatively different instruction because of grouping students for more individualized instruction and using new strategies to support teaching in literacy, mathematics, and science. Students in some schools benefited from greatly enhanced technology integration; in others, dual language strategies made a considerable difference to the classroom experience. However, the depth of attention to powerful teaching and learning varied among the 13 schools. While teachers at one school deepened the focus on advisories, they were unable to make the shift to teaching and learning. At the end of Year 3, teachers at several schools described “heightened awareness of the essential components” as the extent of progress toward affecting instruction.

At some schools reinvention was affected by the adoption of the OSPI School Improvement Planning process. Several schools embraced the SIP framework and found the “data carousel” extremely helpful. One teacher explained, “After the Gates process, it

December 2003 • 5

Grant History

tied all the pieces together.” However, while the time-consuming SIP process resonated with some principals and teachers, there was extreme frustration at other schools. One teacher stated, “Now we are at the implementation stage, and the state wants us to start again!” Some described a duplication of efforts and stated that a new framework of “nine characteristics” overlaid with the attributes was somewhat confusing. In Year 3, school personnel at one school frankly stated, “The SIP process took all our time. We’d be further down the road if we had not had to do SIP.”

Finally, one school progress report in Year 3 had reported, “Our greatest

challenge is the challenge of change.” At the end of the year, one teacher stated, “We have done lots of program changes. Now we are going to do a deep change. Now we are ready for fine tuning.” It was evident that some schools would continue progress toward more powerful teaching and learning. While progress in Year 3 was slow at other schools, for the most part, efforts at those schools had begun to shift in the direction of improved instruction. In fact, some schools had a ‘Year 4’ plan in place that would begin that summer. One principal described the sustained momentum and enthusiasm as “synergistic.” Summary

The experiences and degree of success of the Cohort 1 schools varied greatly depending on a number of factors. At the beginning of the grant, educator understanding of the grant expectations and school reinvention was minimal in many of the schools. The all-encompassing “reinvention” idea only became understood in some schools late in the first year of the grant. In a few schools the reinvention concept was not understood, or at least not accepted by some teachers, even at the conclusion of the grant. Obviously, in these places, little long-lasting change can be expected.

However, during Year 2 the evaluation process revealed that the degree to which

the reinvention process moved forward in a school was dependent on a number of factors, including an acceptance of the vision of a reinvented school, strong building leadership, district support, and the ability of adults in the school to work together successfully. In a few of the schools the process of reinvention did move forward and the schools have the potential to be truly “model schools.” What became evident throughout the process was that in a majority of the schools, these enabling factors were present to only a limited degree, resulting in reinvention that has been successful only to a limited degree. Unfortunately, in a few schools there were factors at work that prevented substantial change from taking place over the life of the grant.

Three examples illustrate this point. One of the school grantees began the process

with a clear vision and focus for their school. The school had an effective leader and teacher acceptance of the grant. In fact, the school’s vision and philosophy fit very well with the foundation’s attributes. Their final school report stated that the school

made substantial progress over the life of the grant. The faculty moved directly into implementation in the first year because of the years of recent


Grant History

planning. . . . They clearly understood the purpose of the Gates grant and pursued their goals with great momentum and enthusiasm. Students worked in a multi-age, integrated learning environment that maintained a focus on highly academic, applied learning experiences. . . . In Year 3, the [school] staff continued to make exemplary progress. . . . The Attributes of High Achievement Schools and the Essential Components of Teaching and Learning were clearly a focus for the school.

A second school is illustrative of a plurality of the grantee schools. In these

schools one or more factors limited reinvention efforts, but at the same time the schools have made steps forward and are better educational institutions because of the grant. The final report for one of these schools is typical and concluded that, for the most part, the principal and teachers were positive about the grant and felt confident about their progress in the past three years.

One teacher reflected, “When I compare where we were, we’ve come a long way.” The principal stated, “We were totally pleased with how we were doing things four years ago. Then the grant forced us to be reflective about everything we were doing, even the things we thought we were doing well.” In 2003, the Make Your Day program produced the most consistent teacher response to a query about improvements over the life of the grant. There was also widespread agreement that an improved school culture and improved staff collaboration were positive outcomes from their efforts.

However, the evaluation report continued to say that, “in all probability classroom

instruction has not been changed or improved dramatically,” and “It has been evident throughout the three-year process that not all of the teachers have been deeply involved.” In fact, “during the final evaluation visit, several were unfamiliar with the context of the grant or of reinvention.” During the last evaluation visit the principal stated, “We are not there, but we are definitely on the right track. We’ve started a lot of philosophical discussions. I feel like it’s coming together now and is making more sense.” As is the case in a plurality of the Cohort 1 schools, improvements in the school culture have been made, but for a variety of reasons, the schools have not moved forward to the degree that they can be called model schools.

In stark contrast to the first example are the schools on the other end of the spectrum where adult issues, lack of leadership, or other factors have prevented the reinvention ideal from leading to meaningful change. The final evaluation report for one of these schools is typical and concluded:

Commitment to the idea of reinvention has been fundamentally lacking throughout the process, and attention to the framework of the grant has been somewhat superficial. The attributes did not resonate with the staff and were not a context for improvement efforts. . . . Most progress has been due less to a shared vision for reinvention than to the resolve of the

December 2003 • 7

Grant History

principal to create a more student-centered environment, the focused work of the school coach to build collaboration among teacher teams, and the willingness of some of the teachers to take risks and embrace change.

Our conclusion is not that these 13 schools have not improved during the three

years, because all of them have. However, in these schools the changes were only beginning changes in the school culture necessary for school reinvention, rather than the reinvention itself.

In a plurality of the Cohort 1 schools, improvements in the school culture have been made, but for a variety of reasons, the schools ve not moved forward to the degree that they can be called mode

schools. ha l


Changes in School Functioning

CHANGES IN SCHOOL FUNCTIONING Common Focus

In 2000, while several of the grantee schools had well defined grant proposals and either had or were intentionally working toward a shared vision for improvement, the teachers in many of the schools were unable to describe a common focus that guided their work. One typical teacher comment was that “The school has been going in different directions. The grant will focus us.” Nevertheless, personnel at many of the schools described literacy, specifically reading performance, as the “common focus.” For some, this was a natural outcome of WASL results or concerns about a growing population of second language learners. However, even at some of the schools where the teachers had declared that there was a focus on literacy, there was an evident lack of agreement about how to address the stated focus. One teacher explained, “The core problem is that we do not have shared beliefs about teaching and learning, or if there is, it is more surface.”

In 2003, most grantee schools reported increased teacher cohesiveness. One

representative comment was that “The grant has focused us.” At one school, a teacher explained, “The grant has helped us focus more clearly as a building and given substance to efforts and tied them together.” At those schools that showed the most progress toward attaining a common focus, the principal and teachers described an increased emphasis on student learning and conveyed exactly how they worked together to achieve the intended outcomes. One teacher explained that prior to the grant, their now guiding focus on literacy had been “in name only.” For example, while many schools have described literacy as their common focus, the staff at schools with an authentic shared focus understood what that meant in practice. One teacher explained, “It truly has to be a focus and tied to whatever we do.” Another teacher explained, “We all expect the same thing and have the same filter.” The term “intentional” emerged frequently as principals and teachers described targeted professional development and increasingly common instructional approaches to support their shared focus.

However, while many accurately described increased focus as a primary benefit of the grant, evaluation findings showed that in some schools there was a lack of understanding about the meaning of the attribute. At one school, the teachers consistently described WASL as the common focus; at several others, the teachers described the SIP process as their shared focus. During the life of the grant, some schools spent considerable time creating a mission statement to reflect “shared beliefs,” but were less successful applying the intent of the mission to school-wide practice. For example, at one school that described a focus on literacy, there was little evidence of the focus beyond the use of Accelerated Reader and STAR testing. At that school, one teacher acknowledged, “We need to go to the next level.” Nevertheless, most schools were moving toward increased commonalties, although teachers at various schools described efforts as “a

December 2003 • 9


work in progress.” One teacher explained, “We are working together more for common goals.” High Expectations

In 2000, the teachers at several grantee schools were proud of the high standard they had set for student learning. In fact, the foundation of several of the smaller schools, a school of choice and another with a focused arts and science curriculum, was that of high expectations with focused individualized instruction. However, many of the schools had populations with basic skill needs, including a growing number of second language learners whom school personnel had not yet found a satisfactory way to serve. One typical comment was that “our kids do not come with basic tools.” In one school, some of the teachers privately stated that they were uncertain how to hold high expectations for their changing student population. A teacher at one school queried, “How do we serve both ends of the spectrum?” While teachers in many schools stated that their colleagues held high expectations, few were able to describe what that looked like in other classrooms. In 2000, findings showed that while teachers at some schools lacked confidence that all students could achieve at high levels, at other schools with similar populations the teachers did not view those challenges as insurmountable.

In 2003, there was considerably improved support for second language learners in several of the schools. District-led efforts increased teacher training and support to help meet the needs of bilingual students at one school. One teacher stated, “We have gotten really focused on bilingual, and there is a big difference.” At another school, a principal explained that new instructional strategies, such as active-inquiry approaches, have helped to “raise the bar” for all students. One teacher reflected, “We have raised our level of expectations and the kids have risen. I have learned that I have to believe they can learn it.” Flexible grouping and knowledge about differentiated instruction has contributed to student learning success at several schools. Teachers at one school described the academic program as more cohesive because of a shared focus on mathematics and literacy. One teacher explained, “I feel our expectations are higher. I feel we are beginning to see what rigor is.” One revealing comment came from a student at that middle school. “If a teacher knows you can do it, they do not let you take the easy

way out.” The teachers at a school that adopted Make Your Day described a “more studious environment” with more time to focus on teaching and learning. “We’ve strengthened the academic program now that we have order. I think it has raised our expectations for the kids and the curriculum.” Finally, one school formed a focusHigh Expectations Team in Year 3 that seriously began to review student data using the SIP “data carousel” process. At the end of the year, one teacher on the team stated, “There is work done by the High Expectations Team, but the actual work and the staff are on the threshold.”

ed

One teacher reflected, “We have raised our level of expectations and the kids have risen. I have learned that I have to believe they can learn it.”



Personalized

In 2000, the teachers at most of the grantee schools were confident about the personalized nature of the environment at their school. In fact, the results of the Teacher Perspectives Questionnaire (TPQ) at most of the schools showed a relatively high self-assessment on this attribute. It was evident that most teachers cared about their students and that individual teachers formed close relationships with their students. At one school a group of teachers described their school environment as “very kid oriented;” at another, the principal recognized the need to encourage a more child-centered environment. At several schools that have a high percentage of students from poverty, the teachers were clearly nurturing, but despaired about the issues and felt powerless about what to do. Some schools had programs in place such as Meaningful Work or extensive volunteer support that provided opportunities for students to connect with other adults. However, for the most part there was a lack of intentional effort to maximize student-adult connections, although there was an interest in exploring various possibilities. While most schools had programs to recognize social and academic success, at some schools there was a lack of consistency because of the preference of some teachers to approach student recognition on a classroom basis. Finally, few schools had broached the idea of personal learning plans.

By 2003, there were considerable improvements in the personalized attribute at

many of the schools. A teacher at one school that had struggled with adult issues stated, “It is easy to decide on what is better for adults. Here we focus on kids.” The principal at another described an “automatic drift” to a more student-centered school. At one school, teachers focused on professional development to learn about the needs of children from a background of poverty and “looked at students as individuals” through approaches such as Child Study Team. One educator stated, “The whole staff has changed because we have been educated in this.” Advisories have been the focus at some schools; others have expanded the worldview of students through enhanced opportunities away from their isolated community. One school committed to multi-age advocacy groups that initially met on a quarterly basis, then monthly. That program continues to evolve, partly because the teachers value the program to varying degrees. Efforts at another school focused exclusively on creating advisories and competitive teams to improve the environment, to promote teamwork, and to increase connections between adults and students. One middle school student observed, “There’s a big change in teachers. They’re new and improved.”

The intent at several schools was to personalize connections through intensified

learning support. Teachers at various levels described instructional or systems approaches such as flexible grouping or Reader’s and Writer’s Workshop as valuable because it allowed them to focus on individual needs. A teacher at one school explained, “We are doing a better job of how we serve the kids and are moving in the direction of the individual.” The idea of personalized learning plans has not yet developed at most of the schools. A comment from one principal suggested the next challenge. “We need to learn how to take the data and make individual decisions for students.”

December 2003 • 11


Respect and Responsibility

In 2000, most of the schools did not face excessive challenges around this attribute, although there were some exceptions. At one school in particular, there were serious concerns about safety. Two of the schools in Cohort 1 had adopted the Make Your Day program the year prior to the grant, and the teachers commonly described the valued program as part of their culture. School personnel viewed the strength of the program as promoting student responsibility and providing a more “calm’ atmosphere that “allows us to teach.” While most schools had systems to address student behavior and foster student responsibility, teachers sometimes described them as applied inconsistently. Typical teacher comments described the need for “a common language.” Unfortunately, in 2000 it was clear that the environment for students was a secondary concern at some schools in which the teachers described pervasive adult issues. In fact, evaluation findings in several grantee schools revealed adult respect and relationship issues, and the inability of some adults to interact in a professional manner, as hampering emerging collaboration and improvement efforts.

In 2003, the adoption of Make Your Day represented the most visible and broad

system change toward addressing student behavior and student responsibility. Two schools had adopted the program the year prior to the grant, and two others used grant funding to implement Make Your Day in the second year of the grant. The teachers described “major consistency because of the common language and expectations.” At one school where there had been serious needs, the staff agreed that their collective effort had “turned things around.” One teacher stated, “Make Your Day has changed the expectations of the students in terms of being responsible for their own learning. That one issue alone is a significant change from this grant.” The few schools that struggled with this attribute lacked understanding of the need for intentionality and common language that teachers in other schools described as critical elements. A lack of philosophical agreement between the principal and the teachers about how to approach student social learning challenged progress at several schools. Most schools had begun to focus on bullying prevention in Year 3, partly because of support provided through recent anti-bullying legislation. Finally, school personnel in several schools described the need for a “citizenship” focus, and several had begun to explore the potential of community service projects.

It was evident in 2003 that there had been significant improvements around adult

respect issues at most of the schools where teachers had previously described “volatility” and “divisiveness” in adult interactions. Many teachers acknowledged the value of agreements such as the formal “norms” for staff behavior that, in some cases, the school coach helped to develop. One teacher explained, “We have norms. Thanks to the Gates Foundation for the tools. It really helped.” At one school, a teacher reflected that “The negative voices are quieter.” At another school, the teachers described the norms as “holding, but tenuous.” However, at schools where there had been significant issues, improvements were due less to norms than to improved collaborative practices and increased teacher efficacy. At those schools, the teachers had found a shared focus, found their voice, and simply forged resolutely ahead of colleagues whose negativity had



formerly held them back. Unfortunately, at one school, the adult issues among teachers and principal reached a crisis point in Year 3 and effectively halted reinvention progress. Time to Collaborate

In 2000, while collaborative practices were not routine at all grantee schools, it was evident that some teachers already valued working together. One new school opened the year prior to the grant, and the principal and teachers developed a habit of collaboration as they developed systems for their new school. In another school where there had been numerous leadership changes, the teachers formed a core of teacher leadership over time that contributed to a more collaborative environment. While individual teachers at some schools valued the idea of collaboration, their more independent colleagues did not share that view. Existing adult issues provided challenges at several grantee schools, and teachers used terms such as “polarized,” “divided,” and “fragmented and divisive” to describe typical adult interaction. In 2000, most schools had organized core teams, research cadres, or a similar grouping to explore needs and conduct a self-assessment of the attributes. However, a teacher at one school stated, “We were in a rut of confusion for awhile about the meaning of collaboration.” Professional development was not a component of staff meetings at most schools as teachers typically described them as “nuts and bolts.” Teachers at most schools perceived the lack of time for collaboration as an obstacle.

In 2003, it was evident that there was a newfound value for collaborative practices at many of the schools. In some teachers described improved collaborat“biggest

fact,

ion as their

accomplishment.”

In 2003, it was evident that there was a newfound value for collaborative practices

at many of the schools. In fact, some teachers described improved collaboration as their “biggest accomplishment.” While time emerged as an issue in Year 1, some found ways to “capture time,” such as using a retreat model or meeting for an extended period each month. Typical comments from many of the schools stated that there was “more willingness, sharing, and openness,” more “professional conversations,” and more “synergy.” Teachers at one school described “transformations” among grade level teams; others stated that their principal had encouraged peer observations. Teachers at several schools described Make Your Day as a “springboard” for collaboration. Voluntary book study groups proved to be a highly effective form of collaboration that had broad participation and led to newly applied practices at some schools. Diverse selections focused on various instructional strategies to support literacy and social issues such as poverty. Effective building leadership and strong teacher leadership working together toward common goals characterized the most successful schools. At those schools, teachers described systems for decision-making in which teachers perceived they had a voice.

By the end of the grant period, however, there were still some schools where

meaningful adult collaboration still had not become an accepted practice. At some



schools, the staff never completely understood that effective collaboration would need to involve all staff working toward meaningful goals for school-wide change. Some continued to describe time to meet as a challenge, and collaborative meetings did not always enjoy full staff participation. One principal explained, “They interfere with the personal lives of our staff.” While one school held a monthly grant-funded meeting one evening each month, one teacher reflected, “We haven’t had everyone at those meetings for a long time.” Some school personnel struggled with issues related to collaboration throughout the life of the grant. At several schools, technical assistance focused on helping to develop and maintain protocols and addressing needs in the school decision-making process. Performance Based

In 2000, it was evident that many of the schools lacked a broad base of assessment practices. With a few exceptions, the teachers at most schools routinely described standardized tests and other traditional assessments as common practice. There were limited descriptions of student portfolios, rubrics to assess student learning, or the widespread use of data to inform instructional decisions. Descriptions of performance-based instruction were limited to TLP teachers who applied project-based learning and thematic schools that focused on project learning. Except in small schools that offered a more individualized approach, student interventions typically involved volunteer support and an after school homework club. Because of the lack of focused collaboration time, teachers did not routinely engage in professional dialogue about such issues; however, the teachers at one school agreed that “The system needs to be reorganized to more efficiently meet the needs of kids.” That opinion, however, was not commonly stated.

In 2003, it was clear that several schools have made measurable progress;

however, at others there was limited progress toward improved assessment practices. At one school, the teachers agreed that the discussions in this area were “just beginning” or “on the verge.” While the intent at several schools had been to create electronic portfolios to accompany students throughout their school career, the pace toward achieving that goal was slow. One representative teacher comment was that “we do have performance assessment going on in our school, and many teachers are doing it quite well. However, it is not happening consistently within all classrooms—yet.” At one school, increased assessment practices have helped to monitor the progress of second language learners. The teachers at some schools described flexible grouping and assessments as helping to make flexible grouping decisions throughout the year. The outcome of an intentional emphasis on project-based learning at one school resulted in numerous performance-based approaches such as student “showcases.” Finally, the teachers at a school that has integrated technology into classroom practices reported increased project-based activities and “more intentional” use of essential questions. The teachers at one school described a grantee meeting in Year 3 as generating renewed interest in performance assessments. The principal explained that the teachers returned prepared to “aggressively and actively” develop a school-wide plan. At another school, a teacher-leader explained that they had begun to look at data “to see where we are and where we want to go.” In fact, school



personnel at several schools described an increased use of data, again, partly because of the ‘data carousel’ associated with the OSPI School Improvement Planning process. Technology as a Tool

In 2000, many of the teachers perceived the grant solely as a technology grant, and the general understanding was that the focus of the grant was to improve teaching and learning through technology. Many grantee plans focused exclusively on technology, such as the purchase of a technology-based literacy program or implementation of a teacher-mentor training program. Several schools immediately purchased laptops for teachers and implemented necessary training in preparation for the arrival of new classroom or lab equipment. In 2000, while several schools had technology-skilled teachers or a large number of TLP-trained teachers, for the most part teacher skills varied widely among the grantee schools. In fact, at one school a teacher stated, “We even had people who did not know how to click a mouse.” One typical teacher comment was that “Technology is not yet a building habit.” Nevertheless, in 2000 most teachers expressed a willingness to learn, particularly in those schools where it was clear there would be training and support.

In 2003, most schools showed positive change on the Technology factor on the

TPQ, and there was remarkable progress at several of the schools. One teacher stated, “Everyone has grown. We’re more and more tech savvy.” In some schools, the most notable progress beyond the acquisition of hardware was a growing “comfort level” as teachers gained confidence and began to use technology in the classroom, although to varying degrees. In several schools there has been extraordinary progress because of ongoing training, modeling, and support from technology-skilled teachers. At one of those schools, the principal described the use of technology as “invisible” because of successful integrative practices. Progress has been more gradual at other schools. “It’s happening through the back door.” At one school, a teacher-leader stated, “I think we are just on the tip of an iceberg.” Each school reported that they had attained the 4-to-1 student-computer ratio. Some focused on fulfilling basic technology needs. Obtaining laptop carts was the focus in some schools, while others made extensive purchases such as an in-focus projector for every classroom that teachers use and value.

Many of the schools had intensive training plans in place the first year of the

grant. “The huge training year was Year 1.” While there were voluntary opportunities to learn and practice new technologies in the second and third years, at some schools it was without the impetus or school-wide expectations about what they would then need to do differently in the classroom. Consequently, at the end of the grant, the range of individual progress and commitment was diverse at some of the schools. The teacher at one school remarked, “Everyone is using it as a tool; however, many are just using it as a tool for themselves.” A teacher at another school stated that “Some are more open to it.” However, one teacher comment represents the extent of progress toward this attribute at some of the most successful schools: “It has become an integral part of people’s teaching, but technology has become less and less of our focus. It’s just so engrained.”



Classroom Attributes

In 2000, there was a general lack of understanding about the ultimate goal of the grant to reinvent practices to support powerful teaching and learning. While one principal stated that teachers would “have to shift instructional strategies to address student needs,” not all educators shared that realization so early in the grant. While it was evident that there were many competent teachers at the grantee schools, it was also clear that philosophical views and instructional practices varied among classrooms, and that the quality of instruction depended on the skill level of individual teachers. The frustration expressed by teachers at several schools about how to meet a growing spectrum of needs suggested that some lacked knowledge about research-based instructional practices. Baseline evaluation findings showed that at many schools, there was limited professional dialogue about instruction, and professional development did not focus on improving instruction school-wide. However, by the end of Year 1, several schools had formed a focus on improving instruction in reading and/or mathematics, and had developed appropriate professional development to support those goals.

In 2003, the depth to which the school personnel successfully addressed the

essential components varied among the Cohort 1 schools. Prior to the grant, one school had already adopted a teaching philosophy that closely aligned with the classroom attributes, and their classrooms were exemplary models in action from the beginning. In contrast, at the end of the grant some schools were only in the early stages of addressing instruction. Some teachers described improved collaborative practices as helping to affect classroom instruction. “When you collaborate, you want to try more things.” At one school that had begun to focus on changes to affect the classroom level in the second year of the grant, the teachers explained that they were in a routine of collaborating about the meaning of the essential components through focused staff meetings, professional development, and book study groups. The teachers at many of the schools described new perspectives, approaches, and instructional strategies introduced through professional books such as Strategies That Work, Understanding by Design, and Mosaic of Thought.

Teachers at several Cohort 1 schools described an increasingly common use of

instructional strategies to support literacy-based instruction such as guided reading, interactive read alouds, and questioning strategies. One teacher reflected, “I feel we are beginning to experiment with new instructional practices.” A teacher at another school explained, “Some are being pulled along to try new things.” Successful district adoptions in mathematics and science have had a significant impact on instructional practices at one school. A teacher explained, “We have had to regroup how to do instruction.” At that school, most teachers agreed that “more kids are successful due to hands-on, more in-depth learning.” The adoptions resonated with teachers, and the district has provided support. One teacher reflected, “It changed the way I am teaching. It has transferred to all of my teaching.” At another school, the stated focus was to develop a “more inquiry-based curriculum.” Much of the training at that school focused on learning to integrate technology, and several teachers stated with confidence, “We are ready to move to informing instruction.”



Some schools that had intended to focus on the essential components delayed those plans in Year 3 because of the perceived need to refocus on the OSPI improvement process. Nevertheless, one principal described “heightened awareness” about instruction. Another described “ little risks and successes.” Finally, a teacher-leader at a school that had only begun to look at instruction stated, “The seeds are planted, but there is a long way to go in terms of improved instruction.” Another teacher confirmed, “We are on the threshold.”


Other Outcomes

OTHER OUTCOMES

Teacher and student questionnaires were used in the evaluation process, and those results have been used in creating the preceding narrative on school functioning. In addition, school test scores have been collected and used as base-line data for determining the long-term effect of the grant on student learning. All of these individual school data are available in the final report for each school. The data presented in this report for are the aggregate data for all Cohort 1 schools. The first chart shows the results of the Teacher Perspectives Questionnaire (TPQ) administered to the teachers in the Cohort 1 schools in 2000 and 2003. These scores were considered in the previous section when describing the status of the schools in relation to the attributes at the conclusion of the grant funding period. The second and third charts show the results of the TAGLIT (Taking A Good Look At Instructional Technology) administered to the schools in 2001 and 2003. The final last chart shows the WASL results for the schools over the lifetime of the grant. All TPQ scales show at least a slight increase from 2000 to 2003, with the technology factor showing the largest increase. The TAGLIT results are also positive, indicating that both teachers and students report that technology is a more important part of the teaching and learning environment. The WASL results for this group of schools show only minimal improvement, if any at all. However, this is not surprising because the reinvention process was incomplete at the conclusion of grant funding period in most schools with little impact on instruction.


Other Outcomes

Teacher Perspective Questionnaire in 2000 and 2003

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

ConstructivistTeaching

Technology Quality ofEducation

Environment DistributedLeadership

Standards-basedTeaching

Partnerships Teacher Input Personalization

School and Classroom Attributes

Teacher Perspectives QuestionnaireCohort 1 Grantees

All Cohort 1 Teachers (2000)

All Cohort 1 Teachers (2003)

TAGLIT online technology assessment

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

Impact Skills Access Support

Teachers' Responses

Taking A Good Look At Instructional Technology (TAGLIT)Cohort 1 Grantees

All Cohort 1 Respondents (2001)



Other Outcomes

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

Impact Skills Uses

Students' Responses

Taking A Good Look At Instructional Technology (TAGLIT)Cohort 1 Grantees



Washington Assessment of Student Learning (WASL) in reading and mathematics for fourth and/or seventh grades.

Washington Assessment of Student Learning (WASL)Cohort 1 Grantees

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2000 2001 2002 2003

Perc

ent P

assi

ng

All Cohort 1 4th Grade Students (Reading)

All Cohort 1 4th Grade Students (Math)

All Cohort 1 7th Grade Students (Reading)

All Cohort 1 7th Grade Students (Math)


Summary and Conclusions

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

In 2000, 13 schools in Washington State received the three-year Model School Initiative Grant, the first of five cohorts of schools to receive such grants. The funding cycle for Cohort 1 schools was completed with the conclusion of the 2002-2003 school year. During the application process for the Model School Initiative Grant, each school identified current areas of strengths and weaknesses and developed a plan for using grant funds. Therefore, each school had its own set of goals. At the same time, there was a common set of expectations from the foundation that at each grantee school, practices would reflect the seven Attributes of High Achievement Schools and that each would create and implement a reinvention plan to affect student learning. A variety of factors, including the professional culture at each school, contributed to the varied pace toward reinvention during each one of the three years of grant support.

The experiences of these schools over the three years varied greatly; however,

there were common efforts across the schools, along with common struggles and challenges. Much of the first year was spent clarifying the purpose and intent of the grant. Similarly, struggles with school leadership and adult issues provided challenges in nearly all of the schools. During Year 1, there were various adjustments to grant goals at some of the schools. At several, the revisions were simply part of the emerging process of collaborating, reflecting, and then readjusting priorities. However, not all were able to show that level of progress in Year 1 because some teachers lacked awareness about the grant. Many of the schools spent most of the first year of the grant working to build a more collaborative climate. In fact, the need to confront and resolve adult issues became the primary focus at some schools. Many of the schools approached the end of Year 1 with a more collaborative culture, clearer goals, and realigned efforts to support grant-related goals.

In Year 2 the foundation provided coaching support to the schools and more

direction for the concept of reinvention. While the concept resonated with some school personnel, it created a level of dissonance with others. Most of the schools began the second year of the grant with considerably more focus to their plans and, in some cases, growing enthusiasm. School personnel at various schools defined the year as one of “action,” a time to “refine existing efforts,” and “a year to implement” plans generated by working teams during the “planning year.” Reinvention efforts moved forward in the schools that began the process with strong leadership and adult cooperation. In the remaining schools, efforts essentially focused on school culture improvements that allowed the schools to begin, to varying degrees, to engage in more meaningful reinvention discussion and activities. In places, contextual factors such as district and union issues hampered momentum until well into the school year, and the shared opinion of one leadership team was that reinvention was more complex than anticipated. While the concept of reinvention was slow to be accepted in places, there was promising movement toward alignment with the attributes and toward grant goals.



Several schools in Year 3 were in a position to focus on instruction and to make substantive change. However, in places, more progress was made during the second year of the grant than in the third year. Contributing factors were a lessening sense of urgency, adult issues, and ineffectual building leadership. By the end of the third year most teachers described improved collaboration and collegial relationships, and professional development played more of an intentional role at staff meetings in many of the schools. In a few schools students experienced qualitatively different instruction because of grouping students for more individualized instruction; new strategies to support teaching in literacy, mathematics, and science; enhanced technology integration; and dual language strategies. However, the depth of attention to powerful teaching and learning varied among the 13 schools. In several schools, the teachers described “heightened awareness of the essential components” as the extent of progress toward affecting the classroom level.

Throughout the life of the grant, the development of the foundation’s Attributes of

High Achievement Schools was a common goal across the schools. The grantees started the process at very different places in relation to the attributes. Consequently, at the end of the grant the attributes reflected the school culture to varying degrees. In 2000, the teachers in many of the schools were unable to describe a common focus that guided their work. One teacher explained, “The core problem is that we do not have shared beliefs about teaching and learning, or if there is, it is more surface.” In several of the schools, there was little evidence of a shared belief system or even realization that it would be important to formulate common beliefs, curriculum, or direction. In 2003, most grantee schools reported increased focus and increased cohesiveness. However, this attribute was a difficult concept for many of the schools, and a clear model was lacking to help them understand what a school with a common focus actually meant.

Throughout the life of the grant most teachers became convinced of the

importance of high expectations for all students, but putting these expectations into practice with populations with basic skill needs was and continues to be a challenge. In 2000, the teachers at most of the grantee schools were confident about the personalized nature of the environment at their school. Teachers learned throughout the process what exactly was meant by personalized, and by 2003 there were considerable improvements in the personalized attribute at many of the schools. In 2000, most of the schools did not face excessive challenges around the attribute of respect and responsibility, although there were some exceptions. In 2003, the adoption of Make Your Day represented the most visible and broad system change toward addressing student behavior and student responsibility. It was also evident in 2003 that there had been significant improvements around adult respect issues at most of the schools where teachers had previously described “volatility” and “divisiveness” in adult interactions.

In 2000, time to collaborate began to be provided, but schools used the time in a variety of ways. While individual teachers at some schools valued the idea of collaboration, their more independent colleagues did not share that view. In 2003, it was evident that there was a newfound value for collaborative practices at many of the schools. In fact, some teachers described improved collaboration as their “biggest



accomplishment.” At some schools, the staff never completely understood that effective collaboration would need to involve all staff working toward meaningful goals toward school-wide change. Similarly, in 2000, it was evident that many of the schools lacked a broad understanding of assessment practices and the performance-based attribute. In 2003, it was clear that several schools had made measurable progress; however, at others there was limited progress toward improved assessment practices. The technology as a tool attribute did receive considerable attention and showed marked improvement in a number of schools. Finally, in 2000, few of the grantees realized the implication of the grant for classroom practices. In 2003, the depth to which the school personnel successfully addressed the essential components varied among the Cohort 1 schools.

The experiences and degree of success of

the Cohort 1 schools varied greatly depending on a number of factors. For the most part, schools that failed to progress as expected were limited by adult issues and/or a lack of leadership. Some school personnel neglected to focus on alignment with the attributes, in some cases, because they did not know how to address the needs that emerged from evaluation findings or failed to acknowledge or deal with the findings. Several of the schools never embraced the reinvention aspect of the grant. In one school, while there was some progress, the context of the grant did not guide improvement efforts because of a lack of vision for thcooperate with expectations of the grant beyond whaThroughout the evaluation process it became evidentpositioned to make meaningful change than were othimportant in those schools moving toward “model scfactors appear to make a difference, but it is importantimes inter-related and work in tandem to produce me

Importance of Common Focus

Most schools reported increased focus and coshowed the most progress toward attaining a commonsuccessfully described a shared focus centered on stuhow they worked together to achieve the intended ouaccurately described increased focus as a primary benshowed that in some schools there was a lack of undeattribute even among those teachers who believed it w Importance of Collaboration

Many believed that improved collaboration, cimproved school culture were their most significant a

Throughout the evaluation process it became evident that some schools were better positioned to make meaningful change than were others. A variety of factors were important in those schools moving toward “model school” status.

e grant, or obstinate refusal to t was stated in the original proposal. that some schools were better ers. A variety of factors were hool” status. Individually, these t to recognize that they are many aningful change.

hesiveness. At those schools that focus, the principal and teachers

dent learning and conveyed exactly tcomes. However, while many efit of the grant, evaluation findings rstanding about the meaning of the as present in the school.

ollaborative practices, and an ccomplishments. At almost every



school improved collaboration was the first thing that the teachers described when reflecting on change in the past several years. While time to collaborate was an early issue at some of the schools, the most successful schools found a way to “capture time” and gained commitment from all teachers. Time was rarely mentioned as an obstacle at those schools, but continually emerged as an issue where school personnel struggled with improvement efforts. At many of the schools teachers and principals described increased teacher efficacy as a positive outcome. Importance of Process

One principal explained, “You can’t move forward without the collaboration and common focus, but I did not know we would spend so much time talking together.” Some principals and teachers described the process of change, of reinvention, of improvement as a critical element. One teacher explained, “The context of school improvement at this site has as much to do with the process of addressing change or issues as it has to do with any efforts that have actually been developed or implemented.” Another viewed the process of creating a vision and mission statement as more important than the outcome. Most school personnel explained that they valued the process because the grant had been the impetus to refocus the staff through developing a vision or improving collaboration toward meaningful goals. Importance of Focused Professional Development

The most successful schools implemented focused professional development that dealt primarily with technology in Year 1, but in Year 2 had shifted to instructional strategies, focused primarily on the teaching of literacy. Most of the successful schools had targeted professional development that reflected goals focused on classroom practices, used staff meetings for professional development, and expected everyone to participate. There was an expectation at those schools, sometimes an underlying expectation, that the teachers would apply and practice new strategies learned. In fact, at several schools the principals encouraged the new practice of peer observations to support the application of new strategies. Some book studies had been implemented in Year 2; others schools instituted the practice in Year 3. In almost every school with book studies, although most represented a voluntary activity, the book studies had or were laying the foundation for a significant impact on classroom practice. Importance of a Focus on Instruction

For the most part, the schools with focused professional development experienced the most growth. In most schools, instructional strategies centered on literacy teaching and learning, and there were numerous examples at many of the schools of new approaches and strategies to support literacy. Mathematics and science instruction improved considerably at several schools; at one school because of district adoptions that focused on in-depth learning and active inquiry, at another because the teachers collectively decided to use flexible grouping, common strategies, and to have all staff involved in the teaching of mathematics. At a few schools, instruction changed because



of the successful integration of technology and project-based learning. At others, however, teachers were only on the threshold of addressing powerful teaching and learning; at some schools they had only just been introduced to the essential components. Importance of Leadership

Effective principal leadership and broad and effective teacher leadership appeared to be key components at the most successful schools. Lack of one or both clearly hampered efforts. In several schools, the school coach filled the void left by ineffective leadership. Several principals intentionally focused on building leadership capacity and developing in-house experts in various areas for sustained support.

Some schools selected for the grant already reflected many of the Attributes of

High Achievement Schools, and the grant has provided the opportunity to continue those efforts. Because of the grant, most of the schools are considerably better than they were in the year 2000. The degree to which these changes will be lasting changes or the degree to which these school will continue in the process of reinvention will need to be determined in the coming years.

Several reflective teacher comments from Cohort 1 schools about the grant

provide a picture of progress and possibilities.

• If we had another year with grant funding, I’d like to see it buy us more time for intense collaboration to really let us sit at the table and roll up our sleeves.

• We got this grant and we wanted to ‘get it done’ at the end of the three years. But it’s the road, not the top of the hill.

• It has transformed the building. It has cemented things. • It has been a difficult journey. All of the discussion has made us a better

school. • If we hadn’t been a Gates school, we would have gone absolutely nowhere.

We’d be doing our own thing. • It has changed people’s understanding about education. I hope you do not

think it was a waste of time. • It is not profound yet, but this has been the catalyst. • We have come a long way. • We have learned a lot about the change process; that second order change

grows from within. • I am at a spot that I didn’t know existed three years ago. • After the three years the best way to describe out commitment to sustaining

work is that we have been someplace new and we don’t want to go back. • About the phrase, ‘Think outside the box… Just by someone saying it

we have this great, ‘Look at what we can do!’ It’s a green light. We can turn it on. But why didn’t we have this green light before…?


Fouts & Associates, L.L.C. 16000 Bothell Everett Highway

Suite 170 Mill Creek, Washington 98012

the bill & melinda gates foundation’s model school initiativethe evaluation process revealed...

Documents