Upload
jordyn-newsum
View
220
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Organizing Schools for Improvement:
Lessons from ChicagoPresented by: Anthony S. Bryk, Penny Bender Sebring, Elaine Allensworth and Stuart Luppescu
Gleacher Center, Chicago, January 14, 2010
A Framework of Essential Supports
Likelihood of Substantial Improvement, Given Weak or Strong Supports
Reading
11% 10% 9%
16%
10%
43%40%
47%
36%
45%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
SchoolLeadership
ParentInvolvement
WorkOrientation
Safety &Order
CurriculumAlignment
Per
cen
tag
e o
f S
cho
ols
th
at
Su
bst
anti
all
y Im
pro
ved
in
R
ead
ing
Weak
Strong
Schools with strong teacher cooperative relationships focused on curricular alignment were very likely to show
substantial academic improvements
Reading Math
Strong Work Orien-tation and Curricular
Alignment
Strong Professional Community and Curricular Align-
ment
Strong Work Orien-tation and Curricular
Alignment
Strong Professional Community and Curricular Align-
ment
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
67%
56%
43%
48%
5%9%
5% 4%
Percent that Substantially Improved Percent that Were Stagnant
Strong Work Orientation and Strong Curricular
Alignment
Strong Professional Com-munity and Strong Curric-
ular Alignment
Strong Work Orientation and Strong Curricular
Alignment
Strong Professional Com-munity and Strong Curric-
ular Alignment
Schools did not improve attendance if their learning climate was unsafe/disorderly and instruction was weak
Schools with Poor Curricu-lar Alignment and Little
Safety/Order
Schools with Little Interac-tive Instruction and Little
Safety/Order
Schools with a Strong Emphasis on Didactic In-
struction and Little Safety/Order
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
0% 0%
6%
53% 53%
67%
Percent that Substantially Improved Percent that Were Stagnant
Relationships of Essential Supports with Improvements in Value-Added,
1997-2005Essential Support Effect of strength
in base yearEffect of
improvement
School leadership
Instructional leadership .18*** .10**
Program coherence .15*** .10**
Parent community ties
Parent involvement in the school .34*** .14***
Professional capacity
Reflective dialogue .03 .02
Collective responsibility .22*** .11**
Orientation toward innovation .21*** .08*
School commitment .29*** .15***
Student-centered learning climate
Safety .43*** .17***
Recent CCSR Research
Attendance, grades and pass rates are higher in schools with stronger:
• Instruction
• Student-centered climates– Teacher-student
relationships– Safety
• Teacher collaboration– Collective responsibility– Instructional program
coherence
Recent CCSR Research
Teachers remain in schools with stronger:
• Student-centered climates– Safety
• Teacher collaboration– Collective responsibility– Innovation
• Parent involvement– Teacher-parent trust
• Leadership– Program coherence– Teacher influence– Instructional leadership
A Framework of Essential Supports
Classification of School Communities by Students’ Racial/Ethnic and SES
CompositionPercent African
American
Percent Latino
Percent White
Median Family Income
Truly Disadvantaged 100 0 0 $9,480
African-American Low SES 99 1 0 $19,385
African-American Moderate SES 99 1 0 $33,313
Predominantly Minority 34 61 4 $23,293
Predominantly Latino 3 93 4 $23,381
Racially Diverse 21 56 17 $33,156
Racially Integrated 14 35 40 $37,350
Stagnation or Substantial Improvement in Reading by Race/Ethnicity and Socioeconomic Status of Students
and Their Communities46
31 31
1815
9
15
24
2018
31
35
42
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Truly Disadvantaged
n=46African-American,
Low SES n=95African-American,
Average toModerate SES n=74
PredominantlyMinority n=45
PredominantlyLatino n=39
Racially Diversen=34
Racially Integratedn=57
Per
cen
tag
e o
f S
cho
ols
th
at S
tag
nat
ed o
r Im
pro
ved
Stagnant Substantially Improved
23 Expected: 25%
Data on Community CharacteristicsBonding Social Capital
• Collective Efficacy • Religious Participation• Crime statistics for school neighborhood
and students’ neighborhoods
Bridging Social Capital
• Contacts with people in other neighborhoods
Percent of Students Who Were Abused or Neglected
Odds of Substantial Improvement in Reading Compared to Integrated Schools, Unadjusted and
Adjusted
Racially Diverse
Predominantly Latino
Predominantly Minority
African-American Moderate SES
African-American Low SES
Truly Disadvantaged
Unadjusted
Adjusted for bonding socialcapital
Adjusted for bonding andbridging social capital
Adjusted for social capital anddensity of abuse and neglect
Even Odds
1.0 2.0
5% 6%8%
39% 38%
33%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
Religious Participation Collective Efficacy Outside Connections
Per
cen
tag
e o
f S
cho
ols
wit
h S
tro
ng
Ess
enti
al S
up
po
rts
in
19
94
Low High
Expected: 20%
Influence of Bonding and Bridging Social Capital on Essential Supports
4%2%
36%
40%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
Crime Density of Abused or NeglectedStudents
Per
cen
tag
e o
f S
cho
ols
wit
h S
tro
ng
Ess
enti
al S
up
po
rts
in
199
4
High Rate Low Rate
Expected: 20%
Influence of Crime and Abuse and Neglect on Essential Supports
For more information….
About the book:Email: [email protected]: ccsr.uchicago.edu/osfi
About CCSR:Website: ccsr.uchicago.edu