Writing Portfolio Stylish - Jeffrey Whitejeffreywhite.org/PDF/jeff-white-full-portfolio-web.pdf · Jeffrey White: Writing Portfolio Fall 2010 Enclosed is a broad sample of professional

5 4 0 1 V i a D e l V a l l e T o r r a n c e , C A 9 0 5 0 5 J e f f . W h i t e @ L A U S D . n e t | J W h i t e R e s e a r c h @ g m a i l . c o m

3 1 0 - 5 0 3 - 7 4 3 5

Jeffrey White: Writing Portfolio Fall

2010

Enclosed is a broad sample of professional writing from my 15-year research career. I have authored / co-authored over 40 internal research and evaluation publications and delivered numerous professional presentations to diverse audiences.

My goal is to inform and guide decision making by using the most appropriate and efficient methods, analysis and reporting.

Section / Description Page

Infographics ........................................................................................ 1

Information graphics, or Infographics, are “all the rage” in information sharing today. They can be extremely valuable tools to communicate complicated information or data to lay audiences, increasing their understanding while fostering a brand image. The SEO Roadmap, which I use as a communication tool with prospective small business clients, is a perfect example.

1

Data Reports........................................................................................ 2

For the past two years I have been the lead researcher for LAUSD’s School Report Card project. The two primary products of this project are the School Report Cards themselves and the School Experience Survey.

The School Report Card is a 4-page data report designed for parents, community groups and school staff. I am responsible for managing the development and distribution of the School Report Cards to parents and schools, as well as conducting the majority of the data analyses.

2

The School Experience Survey is LAUSD’s annual district-wide consumer satisfaction survey. I am involved in all aspects of the survey process from development to distribution, scoring and analysis. On the School Experience Survey Reports, my primary role is conducting factor and scale reliability analyses and data reporting for student surveys. An English copy of the survey and the student section of the survey report are included.

6

8

Research and Policy Analysis Reports .................................................. 14

As the director of LAUSD’s Policy Analysis Unit, I led and/or conducted rapid turnaround research studies to inform executives and provide evidence to support decision-making. The reports often used existing secondary data, academic literature or required short-term primary data collection.

The Research on Smaller Schools and Communities Informative memo is an example of a report using administrative data and academic literature.

14

The Schools Changing from a Three-Track (Concept-6) to a Four-Track (90/30) Calendar report is an example of a more complete research report utilizing qualitative and quantitative analysis with primary data collection.

18

Professional Presentations .................................................................. 36

In my career with LAUSD I have been invited to make numerous presentations at academic research and evaluation conferences. Each year, I also deliver presentations and trainings at televised board meetings as well as formal presentations to clients and stakeholders. I delivered this presentation, the Application of Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM) in K-12 Program Evaluation, at the Annual Conference of the American Evaluation Association

36

JWhiteResearch.com

Jeffrey A. White POBox7000‐715RedondoBeach,[email protected] 310.503.7435

SSSEEEOOO RRRoooaaadddmmmaaappp

Content is King Ensure website content is

engaging & accurate, reflecting your brand, business & services

Get Listed Register homepage on high

value web & local directories, submit URL & XML site map

to search engines

The Phrase that Pays Find keywords/phrases

searchers use to find your services, analyzing for traffic

and competition

Behind the Scenes Update meta title and

description tags to include keywords/phrases for search

engines & clients

Punchup the Copy Use the keyword/phase and related phrases in copy text

(toward the beginning, end, in section headings & in bold)

Smooth Operation Ensure website navigation is intuitive, has no broken or deep links & pages upload

quickly

Hit the Links Build and refine links within your site & to your site from others, making sure that link

text contains keywords/phrases

Get Vertical Optimize for vertical results, including images, video, news

& blog searches

Get Social Determine a social media

strategy, implementing word-of-mouth marketing to spread and build upon your message

Measure Success Analyze traffic by search

engine, keyword & referring site, paying attention to clicks

as well as conversions

Page 1 of 51

Pag

e 3

of 5

1

Pag

e 4

of 5

1

Pag

e 5

of 5

1

LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICTSchool Experience Survey: Elementary Students

Please check the box for each item based on your experience at this school this year.There are no right or wrong answers. We will not share your answers with anyone.

How much do you agree or disagree with eachitem about your OVERALL EXPERIENCE at school

1. The cafeteria and lunch areas at my school are clean.

2. The bathrooms at my school are clean.

3. The other areas of my school (field, halls) are clean.

5. My school provides the materials I need forschool (for example, books, supplies, computers).

4. Graffiti/tagging is a problem at my school.

How much do you agree or disagree with eachitem about your EXPERIENCE WITH ADULTS atschool this year (teachers, counselors, theprincipal and others)?

1. Adults at this school know my name.

3. I can go to an adult at this school if I need help withschoolwork.

2. Adults at this school care if I'm absent.

5. Adults at this school are fair to people of allbackgrounds (race, religion, rich/poor, etc.).

4. I can go to an adult at this school if I need help with apersonal problem.

6. Adults at this school do not allow teasing orname-calling.

[SCHOOL NAME]

Agreea lot

Agreea little

Disagreea little

Disagreea lot

Agreea lot

Agreea little

Disagreea little

Disagreea lot

[Bar Code]

[ID NO. ]

[Student Name ]

[7 or 11 digit ID code] [4 digit code]

Go to the next page

Draft

Page 6 of 51

2. I feel safe in my classroom.

3. I feel safe on school grounds.

5. Bullying is a problem at my school.

4. Gangs are a problem at my school.

How much do you agree or disagree with eachitem about your SAFETY at school this year?

1. I feel safe in the neighborhood outside my school.

6. I know what to do in an emergency (for example, afire, an earthquake, lockdown).

2. I come to class with my homework completed.

3. I am proud of my schoolwork.

4. I am proud to be a student at this school.

1. I study hard for tests and quizzes.

How much do you agree or disagree with eachitem about you?

2. My teacher believes I can do well in this class.

3. My teacher cares about me.

4. Students have chances to talk about what we'relearning.

1. What we are learning takes a lot of thinking.

How much do you agree or disagree with eachitem about YOUR CLASS this year?

5. My teacher wants me to ask questions in class.

Thank you! Please put your survey in the collection envelope when you are done.

Agreea lot

Agreea little

Disagreea little

Disagreea lot

Agreea lot

Agreea little

Disagreea little

Disagreea lot

Agreea lot

Agreea little

Disagreea little

Disagreea lot

Draft

Page 7 of 51

2010 School Experience Surveys - Results for High Schools

WESTCHESTER SH | High | 1

WESTCHESTER SH - 8943iDesign / Loyola Marymount University (LMU)

What is the purpose of the school report?

The purpose of this report is to provide detailedinformation on the responses that LAUSD students,parents and employees gave to the School ExperienceSurvey last spring. The report gives schools feedbackfrom the entire school community to inform theirplanning efforts.

Who is given an opportunity to participate inthe School Experience Survey?

All school employees and students in grades 3-12 fromall LAUSD schools were asked to complete the survey.The majority of parents of elementary students, aswell a sample of parents in middle and high schools,were also asked to participate, either by completing asurvey sent home with their student or in the mail.

Students, parents, and school employees will be givena another opportunity to participate in the SchoolExperience Survey in Spring 2011.

In 2010, who completed the survey at

WESTCHESTER SH?

%

46%

19%

38%

Employees

Parents

Students

0% 100%Note: Parent response rate is based on the total number ofparents who were sent surveys.

Number of surveys completed:

Students 608Parents 105Employees 69

In 2009-10, what were the key findings ofthe survey at WESTCHESTER SH?

Students

In total, 608 students completed the survey:

68% -said adults at their school know their name.35% -said their school is clean.72% -said they are safe on school grounds.

Turn to page 2 for the results of the student survey.

Parents

In total, 105 parents completed the survey:

87% -said they feel welcome at their school.35% -said they talk with the teacher about their child's

schoolwork.77% -felt their child is safe on school grounds.

Turn to page 7 for results of the parent survey.

Employees

In total, 56 teachers completed the survey:

24% -said that the school's professional developmentaddresses their students' needs.

65% -said that they work with other teachers toimprove their instruction.

In total, 69 employees completed the survey:

32% -said that their school is clean.73% -said that they feel safe on school grounds.

Turn to page 10 for results of the employee survey.

For more information on how to read this report, visit ourwebsite at http://reportcard.lausd.net

Page 8 of 51


Notes: Data are not reported for fewer than 10 respondents. The most frequent answer for each question is underlined. The averages for each contentarea are in bold. *Question re-worded to provide consistent results in this report. **Question excluded from the overall score for the content area.

2010 School Experience Surveys for STUDENTS

WESTCHESTER SH (8943)iDesign / Loyola Marymount University (LMU)

1. What was the level of SCHOOL SUPPORT reported by STUDENTS?

% of students who responded:_______________________________________________

% who agreeor strongly agree_____________________

SURVEY QUESTIONStronglydisagree Disagree Agree

Stronglyagree

Number ofresponses School LAUSD

A. Adults at this school know my name. 8% 24% 55% 13% - 603 - 68% 70%

B. Adults at this school care if I'm absent. 12% 38% 41% 10% - 600 - 50% 64%

C. I can go to an adult at this school if I need help withschoolwork.

4% 16% 60% 19% - 607 - 80% 87%

D. I can go to an adult at this school if I need help witha personal problem.

15% 28% 44% 13% - 605 - 58% 66%

E. Adults at this school are fair to people of allbackgrounds (race, religion, rich/poor, etc.).

8% 23% 53% 15% - 599 - 68% 79%

F. Adults at this school do not allow teasing orname-calling.

13% 35% 41% 12% - 599 - 52% 73%

G. My school provides the materials I need for school. 6% 20% 60% 14% - 596 - 73% 83%

H. The courses at this school are helping me preparefor college.

6% 19% 63% 11% - 591 - 74% 85%

OVERALL SCHOOL SUPPORT 9% 25% 52% 13% - 607- 65% 76%

Page 9 of 51



2. What was the level of SCHOOL INVOLVEMENT reported by STUDENTS?




Stronglyagree


A. I study hard for tests and quizzes. 4% 24% 57% 14% - 608 - 71% 71%

B. I come to class with my homework completed. 1% 14% 66% 19% - 604 - 85% 81%

C. I am proud of my schoolwork. 2% 16% 63% 19% - 604 - 82% 83%

D. I am proud to be a student at this school. 12% 26% 47% 14% - 604 - 61% 82%

OVERALL SCHOOL INVOLVEMENT 5% 20% 58% 16% - 607- 75% 79%

3. What were the OPPORTUNITIES FOR LEARNING reported by STUDENTS in their ELA class?




Stronglyagree


A. What we are learning takes a lot of thinking. 4% 19% 52% 24% - 600 - 76% 80%

B. My teacher believes I can do well. 3% 6% 51% 40% - 597 - 91% 92%

C. My teacher cares about me. 4% 15% 54% 28% - 597 - 82% 82%

D. Students have chances to talk about what we'relearning.

3% 13% 52% 32% - 592 - 84% 87%

E. I am encouraged to ask questions. 4% 13% 51% 32% - 592 - 83% 82%

OVERALL OPPORTUNITIES FOR LEARNING-ELA 3% 13% 52% 31% - 596- 83% 85%

Page 10 of 51



4. What were the OPPORTUNITIES FOR LEARNING reported by STUDENTS in their MATH class?




Stronglyagree






8% 12% 48% 31% - 534 - 80% 82%

E. I am encouraged to ask questions. 8% 13% 37% - 533 - 79% 82%

OVERALL OPPORTUNITIES FOR LEARNING-MATH 6% 12% 45% 34% - 536- 79% 82%

5. What were the OPPORTUNITIES FOR LEARNING reported by STUDENTS in their SCIENCE class?




Stronglyagree






7% 20% 48% 25% - 497 - 73% 84%


OVERALL OPPORTUNITIES FORLEARNING-SCIENCE

7% 19% 45% 24% - 497- 69% 80%

Page 11 of 51



6. What were the OPPORTUNITIES FOR LEARNING reported by STUDENTS in their SOCIAL SCIENCE class?




Stronglyagree






3% 6% 44% 47% - 497 - 91% 89%


OVERALL OPPORTUNITIES FOR LEARNING-SOCIALSCIENCE

3% 8% 41% 42% - 499- 84% 82%

7. What were the PLANS FOR THE FUTURE reported by STUDENTS?

% of students______________________________________________________________________________

SURVEY QUESTION

Highschool

diploma

Tech/vocational

school2-year

college

4-yearcollegedegree

Graduatedegree

Unsure ofplans

Number ofresponses

What is the highest level of education that youPLAN to complete?

4% 1% 5% 45% 31% 10% 582

SURVEY QUESTION (SENIORS ONLY)

...attend a4-year

college

...attend a2-year

college...work

full-time...join the

military...do some-thing else

Unsure ofplans

Number ofresponses

Which statement best describes your planright after you graduate.

48% 34% 4% 3% 3% 5% 123

Page 12 of 51



8. What was the level of SCHOOL CLEANLINESS reported by STUDENTS?




Stronglyagree


A. The cafeteria and lunch areas at my school areclean.

17% 43% 38% 2% - 603 - 40% 66%

C. The other areas of my school (field, halls) are clean. 13% 38% 46% 2% - 596 - 48% 74%

OVERALL SCHOOL CLEANLINESS 22% 42% 33% 2% - 607- 35% 62%

9. What was the level of SCHOOL SAFETY reported by STUDENTS?




Stronglyagree


A. I feel safe in my classroom. 3% 8% 67% 22% - 604 - 89% 93%

B. I feel safe on school grounds. 7% 20% 58% 15% - 603 - 72% 84%

C. I feel safe in the neighborhood outside my school.** 3% 55% 32% - 603 - 87% 73%

D. I know what to do in an emergency (for example, afire, an earthquake, lockdown).

3% 8% 51% 38% - 599 - 88% 92%

OVERALL SCHOOL SAFETY 5% 12% 58% 25% - 605- 83% 90%

10. What was the level of SCHOOL ORDER reported by STUDENTS?




Stronglyagree


A. Graffiti/tagging is [not] a problem at my school.* 17% 42% 33% 8% - 591 - 41% 49%

B. Gangs are [not] a problem at my school.* 16% 31% 43% 10% - 598 - 53% 65%

C. Bullying is [not] a problem at my school.* 7% 22% 55% 16% - 599 - 70% 72%

OVERALL SCHOOL ORDER 16% 37% 38% 9% - 603- 47% 57%

Page 13 of 51

INTER-OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE Los Angeles Unified School District

INFORMATIVE

TO: Julie Slayton, Director DATE: June 16, 2008 Research and Planning Division FROM: Jeffrey White, Chief Research Scientist Research and Planning Division SUBJECT: RESEARCH ON SMALLER SCHOOLS AND COMMUNITIES This informative explores the issue of school size and student behavior and achievement outcomes in light of the recent Board of Education Resolution, Small Schools II: A Bold Vision for the Los Angeles Unified School District. Compared to all California schools, LAUSD schools are larger, on average Using the most recent data files from the California Department of Education, we merged the Academic Performance Index data with the California Basic Educational Data System files on school enrollment. Table 1 presents the average 2006-07 school enrollment for all California and LAUSD elementary, middle, and senior high schools.

Table 1 2006-07 Mean Enrollment for All California and LAUSD Schools by School Level

All California Schools LAUSD Schools School Level

N Schools

N Students

Mean Enrollment

N Schools

N Students

Mean Enrollment

Elementary 4,815 2,537,536 527 472 314,704 667 Middle 1,218 1,226,773 1,007 85 146,758 1,727

Senior High 1,162 1,751,700 1,507 96 185,170 1,929 Source: CDE 2006-07 CBEDS enrollment data combined with CDE 2007 Base API score data

These data indicate that compared to all California schools, LAUSD schools are larger, on average. While LAUSD elementary schools are only slightly larger than California elementary schools (667 compared to 527 students), secondary schools are considerably larger than the California average. LAUSD middle schools are almost 75% larger than the California average (1,727 compared to 1,007 students), with 60% of schools in the top 10 percent of all schools by size. LAUSD senior high schools are 28% larger than the California average (1,929 compared to 1,507 students), with 34% of schools in the top 10% of all schools by size. After excluding charter schools, which are typically smaller, the average LAUSD senior high size rose to over 2,600 students; 70% larger than the average California, non-charter senior high school.

Smaller schools and communities promote positive behavioral and attitudinal outcomes Research studies indicate that smaller schools and learning communities can promote positive outcomes for students attending urban schools. All other factors being equal, small high schools yield higher attendance and graduation rates, increased promotion from 9th to 10th grade, lower dropout rates, and a safer and more orderly environment than large schools. Increased college-going rates, extracurricular participation, teacher attitudes and satisfaction, and curriculum

Page 14 of 51

2

quality are all positively correlated with small schools (Fine & Somerville, 1998). When Smaller Learning Communities (SLCs) are well operated and implemented under the right conditions, they can yield the benefits of small schools (Cotton, 2001). One of the clearest benefits of SLCs and smaller schools is the personalization of instruction. Personalization allows teachers to act on behalf of their students and monitor their progress more closely (Wallach & Lear, 2005). When students and teachers have more positive relationships with each other (Lambert & Lowry, 2004), student engagement, academic self-concept, and satisfaction with academic progress increase (AIR, 2005). When students are well known by teachers, they are less inclined to fall between the cracks. Troubled students may be less likely to withdraw from school because teachers and others will notice their absence in a small environment (Cotton, 2001). Other immediate advantages of SLCs include higher attendance, lower dropout rates and a reduction in violent incidents (Wasley et al., 2000). The link between achievement and smaller schools and communities is inconclusive While SLCs can foster personalization and a more positive school climate, the link between SLCs, personalization, and improved academic achievement is less clear. Some studies found increased academic achievement and graduation rates in schools that converted from traditional high schools to SLCs (Darling-Hammond, Ancess & Ort, 2002) while others have found moderately lower scores for students in newly built small schools (AIR, 2005). Overall, findings regarding academic achievement are mixed and inconclusive, and while some studies show increased academic performance, the cause cannot be determined to be the SLC structure. California achievement data indicate that schools should not be too large or too small Figures 1 through 3 present the 2007 Base Academic Performance Index scores for all California elementary, middle, and senior high schools by decile of enrollment size.1 The data represent the range of API scores, with the median score and scores at the 25th and 75th percentile presented. Examination of these data indicates that school size could be a factor in school performance, but the relationship is not linear (i.e., API scores do not decrease consistently as school enrollment increases).

Figure 1 Comparison of School API Scores by Quartile and School Size:

All California Elementary Schools (N=4,773)

1 A decile is created by dividing schools into 10 relatively equal groups based on enrollment size. Thus, an elementary school in the 10th decile indicates it is among the largest 10 percent elementary schools in California.

Page 15 of 51

3

For elementary schools, the lowest median API scores were observed among the largest elementary schools (enrollment above 693 students). With the exception of schools at the fifth enrollment decile (465 to 510 students) where the median API score peaked, little difference was apparent between the first and eighth decile (less than 278 to 693 students) (see Figure 1).


All California Middle Schools (N=1,198)

For middle schools, an overall pattern between API performance and school size is not evident except in the very largest middle schools (1,685 to 3,549 students). In fact, middle schools in the fourth (736 to 859 students) and the seventh enrollment deciles (1,088 to 1,211 students) exhibited the highest median API scores of all California schools (see Figure 2).


All California Senior High Schools (N=1,100)

For senior high schools, one can see a trend that suggests that both very small and very large schools have lower API scores. Little difference was evident among schools sized between 558 and 2,947 students (see Figure 3). These data confirm that the very largest schools do exhibit lower performance than schools of lower sizes. On the other hand, the data do not support a decision to make schools dramatically smaller, especially at the secondary level.

Page 16 of 51

4

Strong leadership and effective planning are required to establish successful smaller schools and communities Strong visionary leadership and buy-in from teachers is essential to successful conversion of large schools to SLCs (Colorado Children’s Campaign, 2005). Rushed implementation brought on by a district mandate can cause resistance and stifle the reform process. Distributed leadership is critical to converting a large school to meaningful and effective SLCs (Steinberg, Allen, and Almeida, 2001). School principals must be strong leaders, yet willing to relinquish some control. SLCs need some level of autonomy to make curricular and programmatic changes and decisions for their students (Darling-Hammond, Ancess & Ort, 2002). When implemented under the right conditions and with necessary supports, smaller schools and SLCs are likely to immediately lead to more personalized learning environments, safer schools, and higher attendance. With strong and distributed leadership and awareness to equity and serving student needs, such environments can lead to increased instructional quality and improved academic achievement for more students.

REFERENCES

American Institutes for Research and SRI International. (2005). Creating cultures for learning: Supportive relationships in new and redesigned high schools. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International. Retrieved on 5/19/06 from http://www.air.org/publications/pubs_ehd_school_reform.aspx

Colorado Children’s Campaign (2005). Breaking up is hard to do: Lessons learned from the experiences of Manual High School. Retrieved on 01/05/07 from http://www.coloradokids.org/our_issues/k12_education/projects.html

Cotton, K. (2001). New small learning communities: Findings from recent literature. Portland, OR. Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.

Darling-Hammond, L., Ancess, J. & Ort, S. (2002). Reinventing high school: Outcomes of the Coalition Campus Schools Project. American Educational Research Journal, 39(3), 639-673.

Fine, M. & Somerville, J.I. (Eds.). (1998). Small schools, big imaginations: A creative look at urban public schools. Chicago, IL: Cross City Campaign for Urban School Reform.

Lambert, M.B., & Lowry, L., (2004). Knowing and being known: Personalization as a foundation for student learning. Seattle, WA: Small Schools Project.

Steinberg, A., Allen, L., & Almeida, C. (2001). Wall to wall: Implementing small learning communities in five Boston high schools. Providence, RI: Northeast and Islands Regional Educational Lab.

Wallach, C. A, & Lear, R. (2003). An early report on comprehensive high school conversions. Seattle, WA: Small Schools Project.

Wallach, C. A., & Lear, R. (2005). A foot in two worlds: The second report on comprehensive high school conversions. Seattle, WA: Small Schools Project.

Wasley, P. A., Fine, M., King, S. P., Powell, L. C., Holland, N. E., Gladden, R. M., & Mosak, E. (2000). Small schools: Great strides. A study of new small schools in Chicago. New York, NY: The Bank Street College of Education.

Page 17 of 51

Schools Changing from a Three-Track (Concept-6)

to a Four-Track (90/30) Calendar:

Student Achievement Comparisons and Teacher Survey Responses

Jeffrey A. White, M.A. Jordan H. Rickles, M.P.P.

Los Angeles Unified School District Program Evaluation and Research Branch

Planning, Assessment, and Research Division Publication No. 264

May 12, 2005

Page 18 of 51

In January 2003, the Board of Education approved a plan to convert a number of

elementary and middle schools from three-track (Concept-6) to the four-track (90/30) calendar.

The primary differences between three and four-track calendars are the number of student tracks,

the number of school days per year, the number of instructional minutes per day, the length of

the two mid-year breaks, and the increased school capacity compared to single track. Although

the total number of instructional minutes per year remains constant for either calendar, three-

track schools have 163 school days that are approximately 30 minutes longer than the 180

instructional days in the four-track calendar. Both three and four-track calendars have two mid-

year breaks, but three-track breaks are eight to nine days longer. Compared to the single-track

schools, three-track schools increase capacity by 50 percent, while four-track schools increase

capacity by only 33 percent. Figure 1 presents the three school calendars currently in operation in

LAUSD by on-track and off-track time.

Figure 1. On-track and Off-track Days of Each LAUSD School Calendar

60

39

30

38

180

90

81

3090

82

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240

1 Track

4 Track

3 Track

School Days

SchoolBreak

Notes: The exact on and off-track days may vary across track. In order to compensate for the 17 fewer days, each day of the three-calendar is approximately 30 minutes longer. Compared to the single-track calendar, three-track increases school capacity by 50% and four-track by 33%.

While each calendar has its supporters and detractors, prior research conducted by the

Program Evaluation and Research Branch has not identified student achievement differences that

would lead to the recommendation of one calendar over another1. Instead, achievement

1 White, J.A. & Cantrell, S.C. (2002). “Comparison of Student Achievement and Teacher and Student Characteristics in Multi-Track Year-Round and Single-Track Traditional School Calendars,” Program Evaluation and Research Branch, LAUSD (Publication No. 130).

-2- Page 19 of 51

differences were in line with student and teacher demographic differences. Furthermore, time

and learning literature suggests that how time is used, rather than how much time and how it is

partitioned, hold primary importance2. The policy change to convert schools from three-track to

four-track calendars provides a unique opportunity to compare student achievement in schools

that converted with those that remained on the three-track calendar and to query teachers about

their observations of student, parent, and their own behavior on the four-track calendar compared

to those when they were on the three-track calendar.

In the 2002-03 school year, LAUSD operated 259 single-track, 143 three-track, and 37

four-track elementary schools and primary centers, and 53 single-track, 19 three-track, and 1

four-track middle schools. In 2003-04, 27 three-track elementary schools, 3 three-track primary

centers, and 2 three-track middle schools were converted to the four-track calendar. The focus of

this study is on student achievement differences and teacher responses regarding changes in

student, parent, and teacher behavior on the four-track calendar. The following research

questions guide this paper:

2) Compared to the three-track calendar, how has the four-track calendar configuration

influenced…

a. …student behavior, academic engagement, and standardized test (STAR)

readiness?

b. …parent involvement in their children’s educational process?

c. …the ability to cover curriculum in sufficient breadth and depth and to participate

in off-track personal and professional opportunities?

3) If given a choice, on which calendar/track would teachers choose to teach?

4) In what ways could the transition to the four-track calendar configuration have been

improved?

2 Cantrell, Steven M. (2004). Separating the Solution from the Problem: The Concept 6 Calendar as a Response to Urban Density. Program Evaluation and Research Branch, LAUSD.

-3- Page 20 of 51

Do students in three to four-track calendar conversion schools exhibit higher gains than

those in similar schools that remained on three-track calendars?

This question expands upon earlier studies on student achievement in multi-track

calendar schools conducted by the Program Evaluation and Research Branch (PERB). These

earlier studies indicate that after controlling for student and school characteristics, student

achievement gains do not differ significantly across school calendar. To further test this

conclusion, we compared student achievement gains in schools that converted from a three-track

to a four-track calendar with those of similar schools that remained on the three-track calendar.

We first identified elementary and middle schools in LAUSD on a three-track calendar in

the 2002-03 school year and on a four-track calendar in the 2003-04 school year. There were 27

elementary and 2 middle schools that converted from a three-track to a four-track calendar.

Comparison schools that were on a three-track calendar in 2002-03 and 2003-04 were selected

using the School Characteristic Index (SCI). The SCI can be interpreted as representing that part

of performance attributed to school and student background characteristics. Thus, schools with a

SCI close in numerical value are described as facing similar overall educational challenges and

opportunities.3 For elementary schools, a stratified random sample of 27 comparison schools was

selected from within the SCI quartiles of schools that converted to the four-track calendar. For

middle schools, the two three-track schools nearest in SCI that also tested similar proportions of

eighth graders in general math and Algebra I CSTs were selected.

Whereas the earlier PERB studies on school calendars used SAT/9 testing data, we used

matched California Standards Test (CST) data to examine the change in scale scores from 2003

to 2004. We identified students in grades three through eight who attended schools that

transitioned from a three-track to a four-track calendar as well as those who attended the three-

track comparison schools in spring 2004. We combined this file with the matched 2003 to 2004

STAR testing file to measure changes in the English language arts (ELA) and math CST. Since

we examined student-level changes from one year to the next, only students with a CST scale

score in 2003 and 2004 were included in the analysis. To allow for a more meaningful measure

of gains in test scores, retained students were excluded.

3Technical Design Group of the Advisory Committee for the Public Schools Accountability Act of 1999. Construction of California’s 1999 School Characteristics Index and Similar Schools Ranks, April 2000.

-4- Page 21 of 51

Direct year-to-year comparisons of CST scale scores are difficult to make because the

tests given to different grade levels are not vertically equated. In other words, they are not

designed and scaled to make comparisons across grade levels. A linear regression analysis, in

which expected scores based on previous performance are compared to actual scores, provides a

more refined estimate of achievement gain because tests from different grade levels are not

required to be equated. Separate regressions were conducted at each grade level and for each test

(ELA and math). A residual score, or the difference between students’ actual and expected

scores, was calculated from each regression. If the actual score is greater than the predicted

score, the residual (or adjusted gain) is positive. If the actual score is lower than the predicted

score, the residual is negative.

On average, elementary school test score gains were not significantly different for

students in schools that converted to a four-track calendar compared to similar schools that

remained on a three-track calendar. The average CST scale scores and adjusted gains for third,

fourth, and fifth graders are presented in Table 1. In all three grades, adjusted ELA gains were

not significantly different across school calendar. On the math CST, adjusted gains for fourth and

fifth graders were not significantly different across school calendar. In third grade, students in

schools that converted to a four-track calendar had significantly lower adjusted gains, on

average, than students in schools still on a three-track calendar. However, the difference in

adjusted gains for third grade math had a negligible effect size of 0.07.

Table 1: CST Scale Scores for Elementary Grade Students, by School Calendar

Third Grade Fourth Grade Fifth Grade School Adj. Adj. Adj. Calendar N 2003 2004 Gain N 2003 2004 Gain N 2003 2004 Gain ELA CST 3-track Schools 4,489 315 299 -0.2 4,645 301 317 -0.4 4,307 317 318 0.6 3 to 4-track Schools 3,101 316 301 0.4 3,353 301 317 -0.3 3,155 320 319 -0.2 MATH CST 3-track Schools 4,499 335 336 -0.3 4,680 324 327 0.2 4,431 326 316 -0.7 3 to 4-track Schools 3,127 334 333 -3.6 3,359 321 325 0.0 3,252 329 318 -0.4

Notes: Based on matched 2003 and 2004 CST scale scores. Adjusted gains based on the residual from a linear regression model where the 2004 test score is dependent on the 2003 score.

-5- Page 22 of 51

Since only two middle schools converted from a three to a four-track configuration, it

would be difficult to attribute differential adjusted gains to the four-track calendar. Additionally,

because wide variations may be observed across schools, the gains of one school could mask

those of another. These concerns are complicated by the fact that the two middle schools that

changed calendars are on opposite ends of the middle school distribution of School

Characteristics Index scores. This indicates that other than their school calendars, these schools

are vastly different from one another. For these reasons, comparisons of the two middle calendar

change and similar schools are not analyzed as a group, but as two separate pairs of schools.

Adjusted gains in Byrd middle school were significantly higher than those of its

comparison school in both ELA and math. Effect sizes for the ELA differences ranged from.15

to .32 in ELA, indicating small to medium effects. Effect sizes for math ranged from .22 to .36 in

grade 6, 7, and general math indicating small to medium effects, and 1.21 for Algebra I

indicating a very large effect. Adjusted gains in Muir middle school were mixed across grade

levels. In English language arts, students exhibited higher losses in sixth grade, higher gains in

seventh grade, and comparable losses in eighth grade. Effect sizes for the ELA differences

ranged from -.15 to .05 indicating a very small negative and negligible positive effects. In math,

results were similar, with higher losses in sixth grade, lower losses in seventh grade, and higher

gains in general math and Algebra I. Effect sizes for math ranged from -.18 to .26 in grade 6, 7,

and general math, indicating small negative to small positive effects, and .72 for Algebra I,

indicating a large effect.

Overall, these results indicate that elementary schools that change from three-track to

four-track calendars do not exhibit significantly higher adjusted gains than similar three-track

calendar schools, and that middle school adjusted gains are mixed between the two schools that

changed calendars compared to similar three-track calendar schools. These results are similar to

previous PERB studies which have found that differences across school calendars are largely

explained by student and school characteristics.

-6- Page 23 of 51

Table 2: CST Scale Scores for Middle School Students, by School Calendar

Sixth Grade Seventh Grade Eighth Grade School Adj. Adj. Adj. Calendar N 2003 2004 Gain N 2003 2004 Gain N 2003 2004 Gain ELA CST South Gate MS (3-Trk) 1,271 316 308 -3.9 1,267 302 304 -2.0 1,183 306 308 -0.8

Byrd MS (3 to 4-Trk) 532 323 322 3.8 638 308 313 1.6 649 305 313 5.0 Carver MS (3-Trk) 813 298 295 -0.7 891 286 292 0.2 829 282 287 -2.2

Muir MS (3 to 4-Trk) 655 304 297 -4.1 739 290 297 1.5 648 291 294 -2.0

GRADE 6, GRADE 7, AND GENERAL MATH CST

South Gate MS (3-Trk) 1,267 304 302 -3.3 1,310 294 291 -4.2 948 280 282 -2.8

Byrd MS (3 to 4-Trk) 535 326 322 3.5 638 307 313 6.5 484 289 300 6.6 Carver MS (3-Trk) 810 300 301 -1.2 887 289 280 -10.9 655 272 273 -5.2

Muir MS (3 to 4-Trk) 656 296 293 -7.0 739 283 282 -3.3 595 280 285 0.4 ALGEBRA MATH CST South Gate MS (3-Trk) - - - - - - - - 293 326 290 -15.3

Byrd MS (3 to 4-Trk) - - - - - - - - 138 348 346 24.2 Carver MS (3-Trk) - - - - - - - - 92 346 315 -5.9

Muir MS (3 to 4-Trk) - - - - - - - - 20 325 332 28.3 Notes: Based on matched 2003 and 2004 CST scale scores. Adjusted gains based on the residual from a linear regression model where the 2004 test score is dependent on the 2003 score.

Compared to the three-track calendar, how has the four-track calendar configuration

influenced student, parent, and teacher behavior?

A random sample was generated of 400 of 1064 elementary school teachers and all 155

middle school teachers who were in the same school in the 2003-04 and 2002-03 school years.

Surveys were mailed to sample teachers at their home addresses. Respondents were tracked via

consecutively numbered form IDs associated with the LAUSD employee database. One week

after the initial mailing, non-respondents were mailed a reminder postcard, followed one week

later by a reminder letter and second copy of the survey. By the end of the data collection period

157 elementary and 61 middle school teachers returned completed surveys yielding response

rates of 39.3%. Response rates were slightly higher for fully-credentialed and white teachers in

elementary and middle schools and slightly higher for more experienced teachers in elementary

schools (see Table 3).

-7- Page 24 of 51

Table 3: Comparison of Survey Respondents and Non-Respondents by Schooling Level

Elementary School Teachers Secondary School Teachers Total Survey No Survey Total Survey Sample Completed Completed Sample Completed Completed Number of Teachers 400 157 243 155 61 94 Response Rate (%) -- 39.3 -- -- 39.4 -- Grade Taught (%): PK to 2 60.0 61.8 58.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 3 to 6 40.0 38.2 41.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 6 or Higher 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Credential Status (%): Full Credential 85.5 90.5 82.3 76.1 86.9 69.2 Alt. Credential 14.5 9.6 17.7 23.9 13.1 30.9 Years of Experience (%): Less than Four 15.5 12.7 17.3 25.8 24.6 26.6 Four to nine 42.0 38.9 44.0 43.9 44.3 43.6 Ten or more 42.5 48.4 38.7 30.3 31.2 29.8 Highest Degree (%): Bachelor 78.5 78.2 78.8 71.9 68.9 73.9 Graduate 21.5 21.8 21.3 28.1 31.2 26.1 Gender (%): Female 79.3 82.8 77.0 51.0 49.2 52.1 Male 20.8 17.2 23.1 49.0 50.8 47.9 Race/Ethnicity (%): African American 15.5 10.8 18.5 21.3 9.8 28.7 Asian 6.3 5.7 6.6 5.2 4.9 5.3 Hispanic 31.3 23.6 36.2 18.1 16.4 19.2 White 42.3 57.3 32.5 50.3 65.6 40.4 Other 4.8 2.6 6.2 5.2 3.3 6.4

The purpose of the survey was to measure the extent to which the four-track calendar

influenced student, parent, and teacher behavior. The survey included four items about student

behavior, academic engagement, and STAR examination readiness, one item about parent

involvement, and three items about teacher curriculum coverage, and personal and professional

opportunities available during off-track times. Survey items were open-ended with the majority

sharing the same heading (i.e., Compared to the three-track calendar configuration in 2002-03,

how did the four-track calendar configuration in 2003-04 influence…). Additional items were

designed to gather information about which calendar and track teachers would prefer to teach,

and in what ways could the transition to the four-track calendar have been improved. Appendix

A includes a copy of the elementary teacher survey. Elementary and middle school surveys were

identical except in items 1a and 1b where elementary teachers were asked on which grade level

they were assigned and middle school teachers were asked in which subject area(s) they were

assigned.

-8- Page 25 of 51

Because the items in this survey were largely open-ended, the teacher responses to items

had to be summarized. First, responses were categorized as attributing a positive influence, a

negative influence, or no influence to the four-track calendar compared to their experience in the

prior year on the three-track calendar. These responses are presented for elementary, middle

school, and all teachers. Appendix B presents these responses disaggregated by grade level,

credential status, years of experience, and track. Secondly, common themes of positive and

negative influences were identified through thematic analysis and reported in the text.

Influence of the four-track calendar on student behavior, academic engagement, and

readiness for STAR examinations

On the first survey items, teachers were asked, compared to the three-track calendar

configuration, how did the four-track calendar configuration influence student behavior at the

end of the school day, behavior prior to going off track, academic engagement, and readiness for

STAR examinations. Teacher responses to these items are summarized in the sections below and

in Figure 2.

Student behavior at the end of the school day. The highest percentage of teachers (47%)

reported that the four-track calendar had no influence on student behavior at the end of the day.

Remaining teachers reported that four-track calendar had a slightly more positive (31%) than

negative influence (22%) on student behavior at the end of the day. Middle school teachers

reported a higher percentage of positive influences than elementary teachers. Common responses

of teachers who reported a positive influence were that behavior was generally better, students

were less tired, more alert, awake, or energetic, or that students liked leaving earlier. Common

responses of those who reported a negative influence were that behavior was generally worse,

students were hyperactive, more tired, less attentive, or less engaged, or that the day felt jammed,

rushed, or too short.

Student behavior prior to going off track. Elementary and middle school teachers had

mixed views regarding student behavior prior to going off track. The greatest percentage of

elementary teachers reported no influence (51%), while middle school teachers reported a

negative influence (54%) of the four-track calendar. Proportionally, very few elementary and

middle school teachers reported that the four-track calendar had a positive influence on student

behavior prior to going off track (10%). Common responses of teachers reporting a negative

influence were that behavior was generally worse, that students were antsy, anxious, unfocused,

-9- Page 26 of 51

off task, or eager for a break, while a smaller number of teachers reported that the break came

too early. Common responses of the few teachers who reported a positive influence of the four-

track calendar were that behavior was better overall, students were more engaged, happy, less

tired or less distracted.

Student academic engagement. The highest percentage of teachers reported that the four-

track calendar had no influence (48%) on student academic engagement, followed by a negative

influence (34%), and a positive influence (18%). Compared to elementary teachers, middle

school teachers reported lower proportions of no influence and slightly higher proportions of

negative and positive influences. Common responses of teachers who reported negative

influences were that students were less engaged, off-task, unfocused, or stressed, or that shorter

days left too little time to cover curriculum, required shortened or rushed lessons, and that certain

subjects, such as science or social science, suffered. Common responses of those who reported

that the four-track calendar had positive influences were that students were more engaged,

active, enthusiastic, or focused.

Student readiness for STAR examinations. Of teachers who taught in grade levels that

participate in the STAR, roughly equal proportions reported that the four-track calendar had no

influence (40%) or a negative influence (39%) on student readiness for STAR examinations,

with the smallest proportion of teachers reporting a positive influence (21%). Common responses

of teachers who reported negative influences due to the four-track calendar were that students

were less ready, testing was either too early in the year or too soon after returning from a break,

or that the schedule lacks continuity. Common responses for those reporting positive influences

were that students were more ready, that there was more time, or that more material could be

covered.

-10-

Figure 2: Teacher Responses Regarding the Influence of the Four-Track Calendar on Student Behavior by Schooling Level

Influence on Student...

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

BEHAVIOR AT THE END OF THE SCHOOL DAYElementary

MiddleAll

BEHAVIOR PRIOR TO GOING OFF TRACKElementary

MiddleAll

ACADEMIC ENGAGEMENTElementary

MiddleAll

READINESS FOR STAR EXAMINATIONSElementary

MiddleAll

% of Responses

No Influence Negative Influence Positive Influence

Influence of the four-track calendar on parent involvement

In the next item, teachers were asked, compared to the three-track calendar

configuration, how did the four-track calendar configuration influence parent involvement in

their students’ educational process. The majority of elementary and middle school teachers

reported that the four-track calendar had no influence on parent involvement in student’s

educational process (79% and 73%, respectively). The remaining elementary and middle school

teacher responses were mixed. Elementary teachers reported that the four-track calendar had a

negative influence (17%), whereas, middle school teachers reported a positive influence (22%)

on parent involvement in the student’s educational process (see Figure 3). Common negative

responses were that parents were generally less involved, the shorter day gave parents less access

to the school, the new schedule was confusing, parents had children on different configurations,

or that they disliked the change and did not feel that their voices were heard. Of the few positive

responses, teachers reported that parents were generally more involved.

-11- Page 28 of 51

Figure 3: Teacher Responses Regarding the Influence of the Four-Track Calendar on Parent Involvement by Schooling Level

Influence on Parent Involvement in Student's Educational Process

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Elementary

Middle

All

% of Responses

Negative Influence Positive Influence

Influence of the four-track calendar on teacher curriculum coverage and off-track

opportunities

In the next items, teachers were asked, compared to the three-track calendar

configuration, how did the four-track calendar configuration influence your ability to cover your

curriculum, your ability to explore the concepts and ideas central to your curriculum, and

personal and professional opportunities available to you during your off-track time. Teacher

responses to these items are summarized in the sections below and in Figure 4.

Teacher curriculum coverage. Elementary teachers reported that the four-track calendar

had a negative influence on their ability to cover their curriculum (61%) with remaining teachers

reporting a positive influence (23%) or no influence (16%). A roughly equal proportion of

middle school teachers reported that the four-track calendar had a positive influence (41%) or no

influence on curriculum coverage (39%), with remaining teachers reporting a negative influence

(20%). Common negative responses were that there was not enough instructional time, it was

necessary to rush at the end of the day, content coverage was reduced, lessons had to be split

across days, pacing was tight, or that students regressed while off track. Positive responses

-12- Page 29 of 51

included that the additional days were beneficial, curriculum was better structured, or that more

content was covered. In both positive and negative responses, some teachers reported that some

subjects, such as science or social studies, were more influenced than others.

Teacher exploration of curricular concepts and ideas. The largest proportion of

elementary teachers reported that the four-track calendar had a negative influence (54%) on their

ability to explore concepts and ideas central to their curriculum, with roughly equal proportions

reporting a positive influence (24%) or no influence (22%). The highest proportion of middle

school teachers reported that the four-track calendar had no influence (46%), followed by a

positive influence (33%) or a negative influence (21%). Common responses of teachers

reporting a negative influence were that there was less depth of coverage, days were rushed

because there was less time, the schedule was choppy or inconsistent, or it was harder to prepare.

Some teachers reported that some subjects, such as science or social science, were more

negatively influenced than others. Common responses of teachers reporting a positive influence

were that curricular exploration was generally better, there was more time, more days, or more

depth of coverage was possible.

Teacher off-track personal and professional opportunities. Regarding the available off-

track personal and professional opportunities, a majority of elementary teachers believed that the

four-track calendar had a negative influence (62%), followed by no influence (30%) or a positive

influence (8%). The highest proportion of middle school teachers reported that the four-track

calendar had no influence (47%), with remaining teachers reporting a positive (32%) or negative

influence (21%). Among the negative responses were that there were generally fewer

opportunities, less time, not enough days, less intersession employment opportunities, or that the

schedule was unmatched to college summer school courses. Among positive responses, teachers

reported that there was a general positive influence, more after school [end of the day]

opportunities, or more, but unspecified, personal or professional opportunities.

Page 30 of 51

Figure 4: Teacher Responses Regarding the Influence of the Four-Track Calendar on Teacher Behavior by Schooling Level

Influence on Teacher...

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

ABILITY TO COVER CURRICULUM

Elementary

Middle

All

ABILITY TO EXPLORE CURRICULAR CONCEPTS/IDEAS

Elementary

Middle

All

OFF-TRACK PERSONAL/PROFESSIONAL OPPORTUNITIES

Elementary

Middle

All

% of Responses

No Difference Negative Influence Positive Influence

Teachers’ preferred calendar and track

In this survey teachers were asked, given a choice, on which calendar and track would

you choose to teach? The greatest percentage of elementary (54%) and middle school (43%)

teachers who changed from a three-track to a four-track calendar would choose to return to the

three-track calendar. Remaining elementary teachers preferred single-track and four-track

calendars equally (23%), while middle school teachers preferred the four-track calendar (32%)

slightly more than the single-track calendar (20%). The three remaining middle school teachers

preferred anything but three-track (3.6%) or anything but single-track (1.8%). Teachers who

selected multi-track calendars overwhelmingly preferred A-track over others (48% for three-

track; 49% for four-track), followed by C-track (29% for three-track; 25% for four-track) and D-

track (16% for four-track), with B-track least preferred of either calendar (16% for three-track;

4% for four-track).

Teachers who preferred the three-track calendar reported that the three-track has longer

breaks for teacher enrichment, employment, or personal time, more teaching time, fewer split

lessons or better curriculum coverage, or that three-track requires less roving. Teachers who

preferred the single-track calendar reported that it allows for more continuous instruction, more

-14- Page 31 of 51

grade-levels on track which leads to more teacher collaboration, no roving, or that the single-

track was the same schedule as their children. Teachers who preferred the four-track calendar

reported that the shorter day is better, breaks between tracks are shorter and students have less

learning loss, or that it is more similar to the traditional calendar.

Improvements in the calendar transition process

On the final item, teachers were asked, in what ways could the transition to the four-track

calendar configuration in 2003-04 have been improved? Common responses from teachers were

more advanced notice, more opportunities for teacher input, better planning, a smoother

transition, or less roving. This last set of comments about roving warrants special attention and is

explored below.

Roving. The term roving is the term applied to the necessity of changing classrooms

when tracks end and begin. In all, 25 elementary and 8 middle school teachers made 54 negative

comments concerning the effects of roving throughout the survey. While roving is also necessary

on three-track calendars, teachers indicated that because the four-track calendar has one extra

track, roving happened more often (every six weeks compared to every nine weeks). One teacher

reported changing classrooms a total of nine times in one year. Other teachers complained about

the instructional time that was lost while packing up and setting up rooms every time one track

ended and another began. Some expressed discontent with having to move everything

themselves, or having other teachers in their room setting up in the days prior to going off track.

Teachers also discussed the lack of books, instructional materials, or storage space after

changing to the four-track calendar. Finally, Teachers reported that packing up classrooms had a

negative effect on student behavior and engagement, and led one teacher to discontinue hands on

activities and creation of a stimulating environment because s/he roved between classrooms.

Conclusions

The results of academic achievement comparisons support the findings of prior studies of

the achievement effects of school calendars. Elementary student achievement gains on English

language arts and math California Standards Tests for schools that changed from a three to a

four-track calendar did not differ from those of similar schools that remained on a three-track

calendar. Middle school student achievement gains for the two middle schools that transitioned

from the three-track to four-track calendar were mixed, with one school outperforming a similar

school in both ELA and math, while the other exhibited mixed gains for different grade levels

-15- Page 32 of 51

and subjects. One consistent finding among the two four-track middle schools was that the few

students who took the Algebra I CST significantly outperformed similar schools.

On surveys mailed to teachers in calendar change schools, teachers reported that the four-

track calendar had either no influence or a positive influence on student behavior at the end of

the day; and no influence or a negative influence on student behavior prior to going off track,

academic engagement, and readiness for STAR examinations. Middle school teachers reported

slightly more negative influences on student behavior than elementary teachers.

A sizable majority of teachers reported that the four-track calendar had no influence on

parent involvement in student’s educational process, with middle school teachers more likely to

report a positive influence on parent involvement.

Overall, elementary and middle school teachers differed on the amount of influence the

four-track calendar had on their ability to cover their curriculum and off-track opportunities.

Elementary teachers were more likely to report that the four-track calendar had a negative

influence, whereas middle school teachers reported that it had no influence, or a positive

influence.

If given a choice, elementary and middle school teachers whose schools changed to a

four-track calendar would rather teach on a three-track calendar. Remaining elementary teachers

are evenly split between single and four-track schools, while slightly more middle school

teachers prefer the 4-track calendar over the single-track calendar. Regardless of which multi-

track calendar teachers preferred, A-track was most popular and B-track least popular.

When asked in what ways the calendar configuration could have been improved, teachers

reported more advance notice, more teacher input, better planning, or a smoother transition. To

this item, a high number of teachers indicated that one of the biggest problems resulting from the

change to the four-track calendar was increased roving, or classroom changes. Teachers reported

that increased roving had a negative effect on student behavior, academic engagement,

availability of materials, curriculum coverage, and overall parent and teacher morale.

Page 33 of 51

Appendix A: Teacher Survey

As you know, 2003-04 marked the first year your school operated on the four-track (90/30) calendar. We are interested to know how the transition from the three-track (Concept 6) to the four-track (90/30) calendar affected your professional life.

1) During the following years, on which grade levels and tracks were you assigned?

a) 2002-03: Grade(s): ______________________ Track: ______

b) 2003-04: Grade(s): ______________________ Track: ______

2) Compared to the three-track calendar configuration in 2002-03, how did the four-track calendar configuration in 2003-04 influence…

___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________

b) …your students’ behavior in the days prior to going off track?

___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________

c) …your students’ academic engagement?

___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________

d) …your students’ readiness for STAR (CAT/6 and CST) examinations?

___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________

e) …the extent that parents are involved in your students’ educational process?

___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________

-17- Page 34 of 51

3) Compared to the three-track calendar configuration in 2002-03, how did the four-track calendar configuration in 2003-04 influence…

a) …your ability to cover your curriculum?

___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________

b) …your ability to explore the concepts and ideas central to your curriculum?

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

c) …personal and professional opportunities available to you, during your off-track time?

___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________

4) Given a choice, on which calendar and track would you choose to teach?

Calendar: ______________________ Track: ______

Why? ______________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________

5) In what ways could the transition to the four-track calendar configuration in 2003-04 have been improved?

____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________

Thank you very much for your participation in this very important study.

-18- Page 35 of 51

1

Application of HLM in K-12 Program Evaluation

Xiaoxia Ai Los Angeles Unified School District Program Evaluation & Research Branch

Lorena Llosa University of California, Los Angeles

Jeffrey A. White Los Angeles Unified School District Program Evaluation & Research Branch

Annual Meeting of the American Evaluation Association November 5, 2004

Pag

e 3

6 o

f 51

2

Presentation Roadmap

 What is Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM)?

 Rationale for using HLM  HLM in educational research   Example  Challenges  Conclusions

3

What is HLM?

 Statistical technique appropriate for analyzing data of hierarchical structure

  Education systems   Students within classrooms   Classrooms within schools   Schools within districts   Districts within …

4

Rationale for using HLM

 Substantive reasons   Contextual effects   Cross-level interactions

  Technical reasons   Unit of analysis problem   Standard error estimation

Pag

e 3

9 o

f 51

5

HLM in Educational Research

  ERIC   “HLM”: 62   “Program evaluation”: 3475   “Program evaluation” and “HLM”: 1

  Education Index   “HLM”: 115   “Program evaluation”: 2399   “Program evaluation and HLM”: 5

6

Example: LAUSD Calendar Study

 Does school calendar have an effect on student achievement?

7

3 School Calendars

Pag

e 4

2 o

f 51

8

Analytic Choices

 Compare mean performance across calendars

 Model relationship using OLS regression considering background characteristics

 Model relationship using HLM

Pag

e 4

3 o

f 51

9

Variables of Interest

 Student Level  2000 SAT/9 Reading NCE Scores  2001 SAT/9 Reading NCE Scores

 School Level  School Calendars

 Single, 3-Track, 4-Track

 Socio-Economic Status  School Characteristic Index

Pag

e 4

4 o

f 51

10

HLM Equations

Level 1 (student level) 2001 NCE = β0 j + β1 j (2000 NCE) + ε i j

Level 2 (school level) β0j = γ00 + γ01 (SCI 2001) + γ02 (CAL3T) + γ03 (CAL4T) + µ0 β1j = γ10 + γ11 (SCI 2001) + γ12 (CAL3T) + γ13 (CAL4T) + µ1

Pag

e 4

5 o

f 51

11

HLM Results

Pag

e 4

6 o

f 51

12

Effect of School Calendar on Student Pre-Post Relationship

Pag

e 4

7 o

f 51

13

Effect of School SCI on Student Pre-Post Relationship

Pag

e 4

8 o

f 51

14

Challenges

 Data   Sample size   Primary key (ID) that links variables

across levels

 Software   People

  Statistical background

 Dissemination of information Pag

e 4

9 o

f 51

15

Conclusions

  Powerful yet underutilized tool for evaluations

  Potential application of HLM in other settings

  Technical and substantive considerations

Pag

e 5

0 o

f 51

16

Contact Information Xiaoxia Ai [email protected]

Lorena Llosa [email protected]

http://PERB.LAUSD.net

Jeffrey White [email protected]

Pag

e 5

1 o

f 51

Documents

Writing Portfolio Stylish - Jeffrey Whitejeffreywhite.org/PDF/jeff-white-full-portfolio-web.pdf · Jeffrey White: Writing Portfolio Fall 2010 Enclosed is a broad sample of professional