Poverty and Underachievement - Center for School Improvement

Poverty and Underachievement: How High-Performing
High Poverty Schools Lead Their Students to Success
A Synthesis of Research on What Works In
High-Performing/High-Poverty Schools
Menasha School District
February 28, 2011
William H. Parrett
Director
Center for School Improvement & Policy Studies
Boise State University
E-mail: [email protected]
Poverty and
Underachievement: How
Schools/Districts Lead
Students to Success
How
Are
W
We
Doing?
Collaborate / Network!
Community
Teachers
Instructional Coaches /School-Based Certified
Para Professionals / School Based Classified
District Office/Superintendents/School Board
Challenge
to Improve
High Performing/High Poverty Schools: Common Characteristics
SPHERES OF INFLUENCE
Principals
Validate
Caring
Relationships / Advocacy
Family
District
School
Classroom
High Expectations and Support
Poverty and Underachievement: How High‐Poverty, High‐Performing S h l LEAD Th i
Schools LEAD Their District to Success
Commitment to Equity Professional Accountability for Learning
(Parrett, Budge ASCD 2011, in press)
Courage and Will to take Action
State Dept./Regional Offices/
Universities/Consultants
NORMS, VALUES & BELIEFS
ACTIONS
LEADING CULTURAL CHANGE
1
Poverty vs. Achievement
in Illinois Elementary Schools
Percent 5th Graders Meeting Standard in Math
100
Source: Education
Trust analysis of
data from
National SchoolLevel State
Assessment Score
Database
(www.schooldata.
org).
Data are from
2002.
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Percent Low-Income Students
80
90
100
Dayton’s Bluff Achievement Plus
Elementary School
Saint Paul, MN
www.edtrust.org/edtrust
School Demographics

Student Population:
 Total Student Population (PK‐6th): 315 Students Grades K‐6




43% African American
19% Latino
19% Asian
2% American Indian 40% Mobility Index*
(Students who enrolled or left Dayton’s Bluff after October 1st)
92% Free and Reduced Lunch Status*
(Income eligibility based upon Federal Poverty guidelines) 30% English Language Learner Students
13% Special Education Students
* Note = Statistics taken from 2009‐10 School Year
2005 Dispelling the Myth Award Winner
Dayton’s Bluff Elementary
Dayton’s Bluff Elementary
2
Lapwai Elementary
Dayton’s Bluff Elementary
Improvement Over Time
Grade 5 Math
Lapwai, ID
Percent at Level 3 or Abo
ove
100
80
71%
74%
75%
60
40
21%
20
0
2002
2004
2008
2009
2005 Dispelling the Myth Award Winner
Source: Minnesota Department of Education School Report Card, http://education.state.mn.us/ReportCard2009
Making Gains at Lapwai
Grade 4
Lapwai Elementary
 78% Native American
 9% White
 13% Other Ethnicity
 79% Low Income
 Native American students outperformed the state
in 4th grade reading and math 2003-2009
Idaho Department of Education: http://www.sde.state.id.us/Dept/, 2009
Proficieent and Above
 130 Students Grades 3-5
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
79%
73%
32%
27%
1999
2009
Reading
Math
Source: Idaho Department of Education: http://www.sde.state.id.us/Dept/, 2009.
“If it can happen at
Lapwai…it can happen
anywhere ”
anywhere.
Brenna Terry
Lapwai School Board Member
2006
3
Taft Elementary School
Boise, ID
William H. Taft Elementary
• 362 Students Grades k-6
• 78% Low Income
• 16% ELL/Refugee
• 9% Hispanic
2003 Blue Ribbon Award Recipient
Idaho State Department of Education, 2008
William H. Taft Elementary
Reading Scores, 3rd Grade
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
88%
84%
87% 88%
82%
83%
88% 88%
83%
90% 90% 89%
Taft
District
State
Making Refugee
Students Welcome
Kathleen Budge and William
Parrett
When 58 refugee
students speaking
little English were
transferred to this
urban elementary
school, the
principal set up a
team-building summer
camp.
April 2009
Idaho State Department of Education, 2009
Port Chester Middle School
Port Chester, NY
Port Chester Middle School
 823 Students in grades 5-8
 73% Latino
 8% African-American
Af i
A
i
 60% Low Income
2006 Dispelling the Myth Award Winner
New York Department of Education, 2009
4
Port Chester Middle School
Elmont Memorial Junior-Senior High
Elmont, New York
Language Arts Scores 2009
Grades 5-8
 1,945 Students in grades 7-12
 77% African American
100%
85%
80%
84%
81%
80%
75%
 27% Low-Income
69%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Grade 6
Grade 7
Port Chester
Grade 8
New York

New York Department of Education
New York Department of Education, 2008
Elmont: Out-Performing the State
Improvement and High Performance
at Elmont Memorial Junior-Senior High
Secondary-Level English (2006)
African‐American Students – Secondary‐Level Math
100%
Percentage Meeting SStandards
90%
96%
93%
85%
80%
70%
60%
46%
50%
55%
51%
Elmont
40%
New York
30%
20%
10%
0%
2005

2006
2007
New York Department of Education
Source: New York Department of Education, https://www.nystart.gov/publicweb/
More Students Graduate at Elmont
Memorial Junior-Senior High
Class of 2007
100%
97%
94%
93%
90%
Graduation Ratte
80%
70%
60%
55%
60%
53%
50%
Elmont
40%
New York
30%
20%
10%
0%
African American

New York Department of Education
Latino
Low‐Income
“How many effective schools
would you have to see…
…to be persuaded of the educability of poor
children? If your answer is more than one, then I
submit that you have reasons of your own for
preferring to believe that basic pupil performance
d i
derives
ffrom ffamily
il b
background
k
d iinstead
d off school
h l
response to family background…
We can, whenever and wherever we choose,
successfully teach all children whose schooling is
of interest to us.”
Ron Edmonds...
1979
5
CALDWELL SCHOOL DISTRICT
From Sanctions to Success
12
10
And…At District Level?
Making
AYP
8
6
Not
Making
AYP
4
2
0
2007
2008
2009
2010
Moving from the most severe level of state and
federal sanctions to making AYP in most of its
schools in four years.
Caldwell School District
Sacajawea Elementary
Reading
Grades 3-5
Closing The Achievement Gap
Between White & Hispanic Students
20%
18%
18%
18%
16%
14%
12%
10%
9%
8%
8%
6%
4%
2%
0%
2007
2010
Reading
Math
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
77%
2007
2008
61%
2006
Source: Caldwell School District, 2010
Sacajawea Elementary
Math
Grades 3-5
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
88%
84%
76%
68%
90%
85%
75%
2009
2010
Source: Idaho State Department of Education, 2010
Caldwell’s Theory of Action
Capacity in leadership,
instruction and relationships
71%
Ambitious
A
biti
goals
l ffor student
t d t
achievement and retention of
high-quality staff
Partnerships
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Source: Idaho State Department of Education, 2010
6
A Framework for Action in High Poverty Schools
SPHERES OF INFLUENCE
Prioritize Retention of High-quality Teachers and
Administrators
2007 - 80
2008 - 45
2009 - 13
2010 - 1
Reduced Loss of
High Quality
Educators
Poverty and Underachievement: How High‐Poverty
How High
Poverty, High‐Performing Schools LEAD Their District to Success
(Parrett, Budge ASCD 2011, in press)
Improvement of
Achievement
NORMS, VALUES & BELIEFS
Strategy:
Make it a priority
to improve teacher
and administrator
retention by
building an
environment that
fosters trusting and
caring
relationships.
ACTIONS
Build Leadership Capacity
A Framework for Action in High Poverty Schools
Caldwell Academy of Leadership
SPHERES OF INFLUENCE
Strategy:
The Caldwell
Academy of
Leadership builds
relationships and
trust, as well as a
deep-rooted technical
understanding of
teaching and
learning, TO
INCREASE STUDENT
ACHIEVEMENT, AND
IMPROVE TEACHER
AND
ADMINISTRATOR
RETENTION.
Poverty and Underachievement: How High‐Poverty, Hi h P f
High‐Performing i
Schools LEAD Their District to Success
(Parrett, Budge ASCD 2011, in press)
NORMS, VALUES & BELIEFS
ACTIONS
Focus on STUDENT, Professional, and System Learning
Improve Instruction
Strategy:
 Teachers and school
leaders develop a
teaching and
learning standard
with tools such as
Reading First, DMT,
RTI and PEP grant.
Focus on STUDENT, Professional, & System Learning
Don’t Be Afraid of Innovation
Strategy:
 Idaho’s only school for
freshmen, the Caldwell
Freshman Academy,
y
focuses attention on
students who are on a path
toward failure. These
at-risk students are in a
school of only 90 students
and class sizes are limited
to 15 students per teacher.
7
Focus on Student, PROFESSIONAL, & SYSTEM Learning
A Framework for Action in High Poverty Schools
SPHERES OF INFLUENCE
Coaching and Monitoring Progress
Strategy:
• Provided
meaningful (based
on data)
professional
p
development to
everyone.
Poverty and Underachievement: Underachievement:
How High‐Poverty, High‐Performing Schools LEAD Their District to Success
(Parrett, Budge ASCD 2011, in press)
NORMS, VALUES & BELIEFS
ACTIONS
Foster a Safe, Healthy, & Supportive Learning
Environment
Take Professional Accountability/Responsibility for Learning
Believe in success for everyone
Level the Playing Field: School Uniforms
Strategy:
• Have you asked
yourself:
“Do you really
believe 100 p
percent
of the students can
make it?”
 Caldwell requires a strict dress code to put the focus on
student learning. The dress code ensures a unified and
premier student body.
Communicate and Celebrate the Good News
High Performing/High Poverty Schools: Common Characteristics
Community
SPHERES OF INFLUENCE
Strategy:
 A full-time communication
officer updates the web site
nearly every day, creates a
weekly newsletter and writes
stories for the local
newspaper. The CSD web site
gets more than 4,000
VISITORS AND 10,000
PAGE VIEWS A DAY during
school time. Parents, staff and
students are regular users of
the web.
Caring
Relationships / Advocacy
Family
District
School
Classroom
High Expectations and Support
Poverty and Underachievement: How High‐Poverty, High‐Performing S h l LEAD Th i
Schools LEAD Their District to Success
Commitment to Equity Professional Accountability for Learning
(Parrett, Budge ASCD 2011, in press)
Courage and Will to take Action
NORMS, VALUES & BELIEFS
ACTIONS
LEADING CULTURAL CHANGE
8
Today…in 2011…
“ WE KNOW WHAT WORKS IN
EDUCATION. THE RESEARCH IS
PROLIFIC ”
“Amazingly, then, the question
today is not about what works,
but about why we do not
implement what we know works
in all schools for all kids?”
Karin Chenoweth. It’s Being Done: Academic Success in Unexpected Schools. 2007. Pg. 227.
A Framework for Action in High Poverty Schools
Building Leadership Capacity
SPHERES OF INFLUENCE
 Are we managing material and human resources
effectively?
 Are we optimizing time-extending it for
Poverty and Underachievement: How High‐Poverty
How High
Poverty, High‐Performing Schools LEAD Their District to Success
(Parrett, Budge ASCD 2011, in press)
NORMS, VALUES & BELIEFS
understanding
g students and reorganizing
g
g it to better
support professional learning?
 Do we have a data system that works for classroom
and school leaders?
 Are we working to eliminate mindsets, policies,
structures, and practices that perpetuate
underachievement?
ACTIONS
It Takes
Skill and Will
Swift, dramatic improvement
requires an encounter with the
“brutal facts”– those awkward,
unpleasant truths that
organizations prefer not to
address—or even talk about.
Building Leadership Capacity
 Low Expectations
 Inequitable Funding
 Ineffective Instruction
 Tracking / Retention
Pullouts
 Miss-assignment to
Special Education
 Blaming Students /
Families
-M. Schmoker,
A Chance for Change, American School
Board Journal, April 2007
 Mis-assigned Teachers
 Teacher Isolation
J. Collins, Good to Great, 2001.
9
Building Leadership Capacity
• Do we have a data system that
works for classroom and school
leaders?
• Teachers Understand Data
• Teachers Agree on Benchmarks
and Common Assessments
• Teachers Use Assessment FOR
Learning
• Teach—Assess—Meet Regularly
to Discuss and Monitor (PLCs)
• Students Understand Goals /
Targets
50%
Poor and Minority Students Get More
Inexperienced* Teachers
25%
34%
29%
21%
19%
0%
Percent of T
Teachers Who Are
Inex
xperienced
Percent of Classes Taught by Out
of Fielld Teachers
More Classes in High-Poverty, High-Minority
Schools Taught By Out-of-Field Teachers
21%
20%
11%
0%
High poverty Low poverty
High poverty Low poverty
High minority Low minority
Note: High Poverty school-50% or more of the students are eligible for free/reduced price lunch. Low-poverty school 15% or fewer of the students are eligible for free/reduced price lunch.
High-minority school - 50% or more of the students are nonwhite. Low-minority school- 15% or fewer of the students
are nonwhite.
*Teachers lacking a college major or minor in the field. Data for secondary-level core academic classes.
Source: Richard M. Ingersoll, University of Pennsylvania. Original analysis for the Ed Trust of 1999-2000 Schools and Staffing Survey.
10%
High minority Low minority
*Teachers with 3 or fewer years of experience.
Note: High poverty refers to the top quartile of schools with students eligible for free/reduced price lunch. Low
poverty-bottom quartile of schools with students eligible for free/reduced price lunch. High minority-top quartile;
those schools with the highest concentrations of minority students. Low minority-bottom quartile of schools with
the lowest concentrations of minority students
Source: National Center for Education Statistics, “Monitoring Quality: An Indicators Report,” December 2000.
A Framework for Action in High Poverty Schools
SPHERES OF INFLUENCE
Results are devastating.
KIDS WHO COME IN A LITTLE BEHIND,
LEAVE A LOT BEHIND.
Poverty and Underachievement: How High‐Poverty, Hi h P f
High‐Performing i
Schools LEAD Their District to Success
(Parrett, Budge ASCD 2011, in press)
NORMS, VALUES & BELIEFS
ACTIONS
10
Focus on Learning
Elementary Students At Risk
 Do we have a common instructional framework to
guide curriculum, teaching, assessment, and the
learning climate?
 Do
D we h
have common assessments
t and
d embrace
b
assessment literacy?
Reading One Year
Below Grade Level
Have Been Retained
 Have we ensured that all students are proficient in
Chance of
graduating
f
from
high
hi h
school near
zero
Low SocioEconomic
Background
Attends School With
Many Other Poor
Students
reading?
 Do we provide targeted interventions?
Reading And Poverty
• 61% of low-income families have no books in their homes
• 43% of adults with the lowest level of literacy proficiency
live in poverty
• 55% of children have an increased interest in reading when
given books at an early age.
• Children with a greater variety of reading material in the
home are more creative, imaginative and proficient in
reading. They are also on a better path toward educational
growth and development.
Increasing Achievement of At-Risk Students at Each Grade Level
US Dept. of Ed.
Effective Reading Programs for
Middle and High Schools:
A Best-Evidence Synthesis
Best Evidence Encyclopedia
www.bestevidence.org
www.bestevidence.org/words/mha_read_sep_16_2008_sum.pdf
• There is only one age-appropriate book for every 300
children in low-income neighborhoods, compared to 13
book per child in middle-income neighborhoods.
Reading Research Quarterly – 43(3) – pp. 290-322 – dx.doi.org/10.1598/RPQ.43.3.4 – 2008 International
Reading Association
Compiled by Matthew Emerzian and Kelly Bozz, McClatchy Newspaper, 2009
All kids…
Reading is when you know
what sounds the letters
make and then you say
them fast.
fast They come out
words, and then you are
reading.
R. J., age 5
…want to learn how to read!
11
You can read when you
look at car and then you
look at can and know you
drive one and open the
other
h one and
d there
h
is
i
only one eensy line
different.
Shelby, age 6
It’s when you read and
nobody tells you the
words. But you shouldn’t
do it in the bathroom. My
daddy does and my mom
yells at him.
Paulette, age 5
We MUST
MUST…
… Focus On Reading
Words go in your eyes
and come out your
mouth…but it’s not like
puking
ki
or anything.
thi
Y
You
say the words and that
means you’re reading.
We will never teach all our students to
read if we do not teach our students
who have the greatest difficulties to
read.
d Another
h way to say this
h is:
Getting to 100% requires going through
the bottom 20%.”
Loren, age 4
Torgesen, Joseph K. A Principal’s Guide to Intensive Reading Interventions for Struggling Readers
in Reading First Schools. A Reading First Quality Brief (2005)
128
Focus on Learning
Focus on Learning: Assessment
 Do we have a common instructional framework to
guide curriculum, teaching, assessment, and the
learning climate?
A CheckCheck-Up…
 Do
D we h
have common assessments
t and
d embrace
b
assessment literacy?
 Have we ensured that all students are proficient in
or An Autopsy?
reading?
 Do we provide targeted interventions?
Jerald, 2003
12
A Framework for Action in High Poverty Schools
SPHERES OF INFLUENCE
Foster a Safe, Supportive and Healthy
Learning Environment
 Have we ensured safety?
 Have we developed an accurate
understanding of the influence of poverty on
student
d
llearning?
i
Poverty and Underachievement: Underachievement:
How High‐Poverty, High‐Performing Schools LEAD Their District to Success
 Have we fostered caring relationships and
strengthened the bond between students and
schools?
(Parrett, Budge ASCD 2011, in press)
NORMS, VALUES & BELIEFS
 Have we made an authentic effort to engage
parents, families, and our community?
ACTIONS
Foster a Safe, Supportive and Healthy
Learning Environment
What every student wants more
than anything
y
g else…
Where’s the time
for all of this?
…a caring relationship
with an adult.
The Full Year Calendar
Less Summer Vacation
Ed Trust, 2003
Ed Trust, 2003
13
Less Professional Development Days & Early
Dismissal/Parent Conferences
Less Weekends, Holidays, & Summer Vacation
Ed Trust, 2003
Less Class Picnic, Class Trip, Thanksgiving Feast,
Christmas, Kwanzaa, Hannukkah, Awards, Assembles,
Athletics & Concerts
Ed Trust, 2003
Less State and District Testing
Ed Trust, 2003
Ed Trust, 2003
Go Back…Find The Time
Bottom Line:
 Get creative…support professional learning that
does not distract from instructional time
Roughly 13-15 8-hr
Days of Instruction
Per Subject
Per Year
 Reduce scheduled / unscheduled interruptions
 Schedule
S h d l ttesting
ti wisely
i l
 Extend learning…day / week / summer
 Stop releasing students early
 Conduct parent / student led conferences outside
school day
Ed Trust, 2003
14
High Performing/High Poverty Schools: Common Characteristics
Community
SPHERES OF INFLUENCE
Caring Relationships / Advocacy
Family
District
School
Classroom
High Expectations and Support
Poverty and Underachievement: How High‐Poverty, High‐Performing Schools LEAD Their District to Success
Commitment to Equity (Parrett, Budge ASCD 2011, in press)
Courage and Will to take Action
Professional Accountability for Learning
NORMS, VALUES & BELIEFS
ACTIONS
HighHigh-Poverty
HighHigh-Performing Schools
Build Leadership Capacity
Focus on Learning: Student,
Professional, System
Foster a Safe, Healthy, and Support
Environment
LEADING CULTURAL CHANGE
It’s All About Relationships
 Engage Parents as Authentic Partners
 Hold Frequent Meetings with Food/Childcare
 Offer Parent Education
 Support Learning at Home
 Conduct Home Visits / Caring Outreach
 Initiate Student Led Conferences
Compelling
Conclusions
 Initiate Student Advisories
 Join the National Network of Partnership Schools
www.csos.jhu.edu
We must combat
hopelessness…
and instill in every child
the selfself-confidence that
they can achieve and
succeed in school.
Any school can
overcome the
debilitating effects of
poverty
poverty…
…demographics do
not equal destiny!
15
We know how to
improve any school …
Teachers Make
The Difference!
Every school can become
a high performing school
…They think …
we can learn this **** !!
What do we choose to do?
For the Menasha School District
PDF version of
“Poverty and Underachievement:
How Schools/Districts Lead
Students to Success”
h d
handout,
please
l
visit
i i
http://csi.boisestate.edu/
and click on the “Resources” link.
…our students are waiting
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
REPRODUCABLE
Eliminate Practices that Manufacture Low Achievement
BEGINNING
What is my school’s
or
district’s progress?
No
Action
Has
Been
Taken
1
Efforts
Are
Limited
2
Results
Are
Being
Gained
3
EMBEDDING
SUSTAINING
Efforts and
Results Are
Being Gained
4
5
6
Practices Are
Widespread, Policies
Are in Place, and
Results Are Increasing
7
8
9
Unequal funding
Low expectations
Ineffective teachers
Retention, tracking, and
overuse of pullouts
Misassignment to special
education
Blaming students and
families
“Bell Curve” mentality
Fees for extra-curricular
activities
Settling for anything less
than teaching every child
to read
Barr and Parrett, The Kids Left Behind, 2007.
24
Wi ll ia m H . Pa r re t t
William H. Parrett is the Director of the Center for School Improvement & Policy Studies
and Professor of Education at Boise State University. He has received international
recognition for his work in school improvement, small schools, alternative education, and
for his efforts to help youth at-risk. His professional experiences include public school and
university teaching, curriculum design, principalships and college leadership, media
production, research and publication.
Parrett holds a Ph.D. in Secondary Education from Indiana University. Parrett has served
on the faculties of Indiana University, the University of Alaska and Boise State University.
As Director of the Boise State University Center for School Improvement & Policy Studies
(1996 to present), Parrett coordinates funded projects and school improvement initiatives which currently exceed $8.8
million. His research on reducing achievement gaps and effective schooling practices for youth at risk and low
performing schools has gained widespread national recognition.
Parrett is the co-author of the upcoming ASCD book, Poverty and Underachievement: How High-Performing, High-Poverty
Schools LEAD Their Students to Success, (in press, 2011). He is also the co-author of Saving Our Students, Saving Our Schools,
2nd edition, (Corwin Press, 2008, Honorable Mention, National Education Book of the Year 2009), The Kids Left Behind:
Catching Up the Underachieving Children of Poverty (Solution Tree, 2007), Saving Our Students, Saving Our Schools (2003),
Hope Fulfilled for At-Risk & Violent Youth (2001), How to Create Alternative, Magnet, and Charter Schools that Work (1997),
Hope at Last for At-Risk Youth (1995), Inventive Teaching: Heart of the Small School (1993), The Inventive Mind: Portraits of
Effective Teaching (1991), and numerous contributions to national journals and international and national conferences.
Parrett’s media production, Heart of the Country (1998), is a documentary of an extraordinary principal of a village
elementary school in Hokkaido, Japan, and the collective passion of the community to educate the heart as well as the
mind. Since its release, the production was nominated for the Pare Lorentz Award at the 1999 International
Documentary Awards (Los Angeles, CA); has won the Award of Commendation from the American Anthropological
Association, a Gold Apple Award for best of category at the National Education Media Network Festival (Oakland, CA),
a National CINE Golden Eagle Award (Washington, D.C.), and a Judges’ Award at the 24th Northwest Film Festival
(Portland, OR). In addition, Heart of the Country was an invited feature and screened at the Cinema du Reel festival in
Paris (1998) and the Margaret Mead Film Festival (1998) in New York City. This work has received critical acclaim for
its cinematography and insight into the universal correlates of effective teaching and learning and the power of
community participation in public schools.
Parrett has also served as visiting faculty at Indiana University, the University of Manitoba, Oregon State University,
Hokkaido University of Education (Japan), Nagoya Gakiun (Japan), Gifu University (Japan) and Heilongjiang University
(People’s Republic of China). His consultancies include state departments, boards of education, state and regional
service providers and school districts in 41 states and 10 nations.
Throughout his career, Parrett has worked to improve the educational achievement of all children and youth, particularly
those less advantaged. Toward this goal, as director of the CSI&PS, he has overseen the acquisition of over twenty
million dollars in external funding to create programs and interventions designed to help educators, schools,
communities, and universities benefit from research and best practice. These efforts have positively impacted the lives of
thousands of young people.
24