Transcript No Slide Title

“Closing The Achievement
Gap for All Students”
Pat Davenport & Dr.
Gerald E. Anderson
NO EXCUSES
Who’s To Blame?
The college professor
said:
“Such rawness in a
student is a shame,
lack of preparation
in high school is to
blame.”
Who’s To Blame?
Said the high school teacher:
“Good heavens! That boy’s a fool. The
fault of course is with the middle
school.”
Who’s To Blame?
The middle school
teacher said:
“From stupidity may I
be spared. They
sent him in so
unprepared.”
Who’s To Blame?
The primary teacher huffed:
“Kindergarten blockheads all. They call
that preparation – why, it’s worse than
none at all.”
Who’s To Blame?
The kindergarten
teacher said:
“Such lack of training
never did I see.
What kind of woman
must that mother
be.”
Who’s To Blame?
The mother said:
“Poor helpless child.
He’s not to blame.
His father’s people
were all the same.”
Who’s To Blame?
Said the father at the end of the line:
“I doubt the rascal’s even mine.”
Anonymous
Building Blocks
The Improvement Process is grounded
in an integrated system of:
 Effective Schools
 Total Quality Management
 PDCA Instructional Process
A Quality and Effective School
District has...
 A belief that they can teach all students
 High expectations
 A Vision
 Leadership must focus the
organization on the Vision
 An aligned strategic planning process
 An Plan-Do-Check-Act Instructional
Process
Random Acts Of Improvement
= Programs
Improvement
Plan
GOALS
Aligned Acts Of Improvement
In an aligned
system ...
Student
Achievement
System
Performance
GOALS
… improvement
efforts are integrated
and results-oriented
The Power of Vision
Vision without action is
merely a dream;
Action without vision
just passes the time;
Vision with action can
change the world.
- Joel Barker
If students are not literate,
that is, they can not read,
write, and do basic
arithmetic:
• 3 out of 4 will go on welfare.
• 68% will commit a criminal
offense.
Source: National Adult Literacy Survey - 1993
Beliefs & Values
Leadership must focus all members of
the organization on our vision
Common Principles of
Effective Schools & TQM
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Proven Management Principles
Advances Organizational Aims & Goals
Data Driven
Continuous Improvement
Simple, not easy
Commitment, time & resources
Thinking “outside the Box”
Plan/Do/Check/Act Cycle
PDCA Inst ruct ional Cycle
PLAN
• Data Disaggregation
• Calendar Development
ACT
DO
• Direct Instructional
Focus
CHECK
• Tutorials
• Assessment
• Enrichment
• Maintenance
• Monitoring
The PDCA Eight-Step
Process
2. Timeline Development
3. Instructional Focus
4. Assessment
8. Monitoring
7. Maintenance
1.
Data Disaggregation
TAAS
Velasco Elementary
READING
92-93 93-94
94-95
95-96
96-97
97-98 98-99 00-01
All Students
53.7%
79.3%
84.9%
80.2%
87.1%
97.7%
92.5%
94.6%
African American
50.0%
69.2%
70.8%
76.5%
86.4%
91.7%
100%
91.7%
Hispanic
50.0%
79.2%
87.1%
78.7%
83.8%
98.6%
89.8%
93.6%
White
58.8%
85.4%
87.1%
83.3%
92.7%
100%
95.9%
100%
Eco. Disadvantaged
53.1%
81.3%
87.1%
76.5%
87.1%
97.0%
91.0%
93.2%
DEMOGRAPHICS:
Economically Disadvantaged 86.9%
LEP
33.3%
Mobility
17.8%
African American
Hispanic
White
18.5%
65.4%
15.8%
TAAS
Velasco Elementary
MATH
92-93 93-94
94-95
95-96
96-97
97-98 98-99 00-01
All Students
37.0%
69.5%
83.8%
92.4%
96.2%
95.6%
94.6%
96.7%
African American
8.3%
50.0%
76.0%
82.4%
100%
87.5%
92.0%
91.7%
Hispanic
33.3%
76.4%
87.1%
91.5%
94.1%
98.7%
97.7%
97.3%
White
64.7%
69.0%
83.1%
97.6%
97.5%
94.6%
87.8%
100%
Eco. Disadvantaged
35.5%
72.2%
84.6%
90.1%
97.0%
95.1%
93.5%
96.6%
DEMOGRAPHICS:
Economically Disadvantaged 86.9%
LEP
33.3%
Mobility
17.8%
African American
Hispanic
White
18.5%
65.4%
15.8%
TAAS
Velasco Elementary
WRITING
92-93 93-94
94-95
95-96
96-97
97-98 98-99 00-01
All Students
68.5%
97.8%
90.0%
98.3%
98.5%
97.1%
97.2%
92.8%
African American
50.0%
100%
85.7%
90.9%
100%
91.7%
100%
92.9%
Hispanic
65.2%
96.2%
93.3%
100%
97.3%
97.4%
94.9%
92.3%
White
83.3%
100%
87.0%
100%
100%
100%
100%
94.1%
Eco. Disadvantaged
71.0%
96.0%
85.3%
97.4%
98.0%
96.6%
98.1%
91.4%
DEMOGRAPHICS:
Economically Disadvantaged 86.9%
LEP
33.3%
Mobility
17.8%
African American
Hispanic
White
18.5%
65.4%
15.8%
TAAS
Freeport Intermediate
READING
92-93 93-94
94-95
95-96
96-97
97-98 98-99 00-01
All Students
62.7%
72.6%
69.9%
82.7%
90.8%
94.9%
94.4%
98.1%
African American
53.8%
65.6%
59.1%
80.8%
80.3%
94.3%
88.2%
95.6%
Hispanic
52.1%
64.6%
63.3%
75.6%
90.3%
93.5%
92.9%
97.7%
White
80.2%
82.1%
82.6%
92.4%
94.9%
96.7%
98.4%
99.4%
Eco. Disadvantaged
47.6%
64.0%
61.6%
75.8%
88.1%
92.1%
92.3%
97.4%
DEMOGRAPHICS:
Economically Disadvantaged 65.1%
LEP
4.4%
Mobility
20.1%
African American
Hispanic
White
12.6%
48.5%
38.4%
TAAS
Freeport Intermediate
MATH
92-93 93-94
94-95
95-96
96-97
97-98 98-99 00-01
All Students
36.6%
55.9%
55.0%
76.9%
92.0%
97.3%
96.2%
99.1%
African American
19.9%
40.6%
36.6%
67.9%
83.8%
96.2%
95.3%
95.7%
Hispanic
33.3%
44.9%
48.7%
69.3%
91.3%
96.3%
95.8%
99.5%
White
45.8%
70.8%
69.7%
90.1%
95.5%
98.9%
96.9%
99.4%
Eco. Disadvantaged
22.0%
49.0%
46.5%
66.1%
88.9%
96.2%
95.5%
98.9%
DEMOGRAPHICS:
Economically Disadvantaged 65.1%
LEP
4.4%
Mobility
20.1%
African American
Hispanic
White
12.6%
48.5%
38.4%
TAAS
Freeport Intermediate
WRITING
92-93 93-94
94-95
95-96
96-97
97-98 98-99 00-01
All Students
74.0%
71.6%
72.0%
79.1%
89.0%
91.9%
98.0%
96.9%
African American
62.1%
59.4%
75.0%
85.0%
76.7%
84.6%
96.0%
95.5%
Hispanic
67.5%
68.3%
69.1%
71.1%
85.4%
92.4%
97.5%
96.0%
White
80.2%
78.5%
74.3%
90.2%
96.7%
93.3%
99.0%
98.6%
Eco. Disadvantaged
67.3%
60.7%
68.1%
73.2%
83.3%
88.9%
96.7%
95.7%
DEMOGRAPHICS:
Economically Disadvantaged 65.1%
LEP
4.4%
Mobility
20.1%
African American
Hispanic
White
12.6%
48.5%
38.4%
TAAS
Brazosport High School
READING
92-93 93-94
94-95
95-96
96-97
97-98 98-99 00-01
All Students
76.8%
76.3%
74.4%
85.0%
89.0%
91.7%
88.5%
97.0%
African American
58.3%
41.2%
44.0%
75.0%
86.7%
82.4%
84.0%
88.0%
Hispanic
68.5%
71.4%
70.8%
83.1%
85.9%
91.4%
84.3%
98.1%
White
86.7%
82.3%
88.4%
89.9%
95.2%
94.0%
95.5%
98.9%
Eco. Disadvantaged
63.9%
61.8%
64.3%
80.0%
84.0%
89.5%
84.7%
94.8%
DEMOGRAPHICS:
Economically Disadvantaged 70.0%
LEP
2.7%
Mobility
23.4%
African American
Hispanic
White
14.0%
47.0%
38.4%
TAAS
Brazosport High School
MATH
92-93 93-94
94-95
95-96
96-97
97-98 98-99 00-01
All Students
65.5%
57.5%
53.5%
82.0%
85.8%
90.9%
94.0%
99.0%
African American
14.3%
29.4%
28.0%
75.0%
75.0%
82.4%
96.2%
96.0%
Hispanic
57.5%
50.0%
50.7%
74.7%
83.5%
91.6%
93.1%
99.0%
White
81.0%
71.8%
63.9%
91.3%
95.2%
91.7%
94.3%
100%
Eco. Disadvantaged
53.2%
45.5%
44.8%
81.7%
81.2%
87.4%
91.7%
99.1%
DEMOGRAPHICS:
Economically Disadvantaged 70.0%
LEP
2.7%
Mobility
23.4%
African American
Hispanic
White
14.0%
47.0%
38.4%
TAAS
Brazosport High School
WRITING
92-93 93-94
94-95
95-96
96-97
97-98 98-99 00-01
All Students
83.6%
79.9%
85.4%
86.6%
89.2%
93.2%
88.7%
93.6%
African American
64.7%
47.1%
62.5%
75.0%
87.1%
88.2%
84.6%
84.6%
Hispanic
78.4%
79.3%
86.5%
80.3%
87.1%
92.4%
87.7%
96.2%
White
91.9%
87.5%
91.5%
96.2%
93.5%
95.3%
92.0%
92.9%
Eco. Disadvantaged
73.4%
76.6%
78.9%
81.4%
86.0%
91.5%
84.4%
90.0%
DEMOGRAPHICS:
Economically Disadvantaged 70.0%
LEP
2.7%
Mobility
23.4%
African American
Hispanic
White
14.0%
47.0%
38.4%
Economically Disadvantaged
Least to Greatest - Elementary
READING
% E.D.
E.D. %
PASSING
All Students %
PASSING
BEUTEL
14.0
100
100
BRANNEN
23.2
100
100
ROBERTS
27.1
96.6
98.0
NEY
31.0
95.6
97.4
POLK
47.0
97.7
97.8
AUSTIN
53.6
97.3
96.2
GRIFFITH
66.5
91.8
93.5
OGG
71.2
98.7
98.1
JANE LONG
75.8
94.3
94.3
FLEMING
84.2
90.1
90.5
VELASCO
86.9
93.2
94.6
Economically Disadvantaged
Least to Greatest Elementary
MATH
% E.D.
E.D. %
PASSING
All Students %
PASSING
BEUTEL
14.0
100
100
BRANNEN
23.2
93.5
98.1
ROBERTS
27.1
98.7
98.7
NEY
31.0
100
97.5
POLK
47.0
96.7
98.7
AUSTIN
53.6
98.7
99.4
GRIFFITH
66.5
93.7
94.1
OGG
71.2
98.6
99.1
JANE LONG
75.8
97.3
97.5
FLEMING
84.2
94.5
94.3
VELASCO
86.9
96.6
96.7
Economically Disadvantaged
Least to Greatest - Elementary
WRITING
% E.D.
E.D. %
PASSING
All Students %
PASSING
BEUTEL
14.0
85.7
97.7
BRANNEN
23.2
100
100
ROBERTS
27.1
100
98.7
NEY
31.0
87.0
92.7
POLK
47.0
100
100
AUSTIN
53.6
95.7
95.6
GRIFFITH
66.5
90.5
91.3
OGG
71.2
100
100
JANE LONG
75.8
91.5
91.4
FLEMING
84.2
97.1
97.4
VELASCO
86.9
91.4
92.8
Economically Disadvantaged
Least to Greatest Intermediate
READING
% E.D.
E.D. %
PASSING
All Students %
PASSING
LAKE JACKSON
16.3
91.4
97.8
CLUTE
43.4
92.6
93.6
FREEPORT
65.1
97.4
98.1
LAKE JACKSON
16.3
98.3
98.6
CLUTE
43.4
99.6
99.0
FREEPORT
65.1
98.9
99.1
LAKE JACKSON
16.3
94.4
96.9
CLUTE
43.4
87.8
92.9
FREEPORT
65.1
95.7
96.9
MATH
WRITING
Economically Disadvantaged
Least to Greatest - High School
READING
% E.D.
E.D. %
PASSING
All Students %
PASSING
BRAZOSWOOD
14.4
94.7
98.3
BRAZOSPORT
70.1
94.6
97.1
BRAZOSWOOD
14.4
93.8
98.3
BRAZOSPORT
70.1
99.1
99.1
BRAZOSWOOD
14.4
91.0
96.9
BRAZOSPORT
70.1
90.0
93.7
MATH
WRITING
District 10-Year
Comparisons
Percentage of BISD Students
Passing Academic Excellence
Indicator System Assessment
Summed Across Grades 3-8 & 10
AEIS READING COMPARISON
98
97
94
94
92
100
90
80
70
60
82
70
64
60
57
50
199192
199293
199394
All Students
199495
199596
A. American
199697
199798
Hispanic
199899
White
199900
200001
Eco. Dis.
AEIS MATH COMPARISON
100
98
97
97
96
92
90
80
70
79
70
60
50
58
55
54
199192
199293
199394
All Students
199495
199596
A. American
199697
199798
Hispanic
199899
White
199900
200001
Eco. Dis.
AEIS WRITING COMPARISON
100
98
97
95
94
93
90
80
80
70
70
60
50
60
59
57
199192
199293
199394
All Students
199495
199596
A. American
199697
199798
Hispanic
199899
White
199900
200001
Eco. Dis.
Comparison of Special
Education % Tested
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
71
48
State
BISD
1998-99
TAAS Special Education
Students % Passing
100.0
90.0
80.0
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
93.2
95.9
92.0
77.8 78.1
75.8 77.4
67.2 69.7
State
Region IV
BISD
Reading
Writing
Grades 3-8 & 10
Math
Percent of Average
Daily Attendance
100.0
96.2
95.3
95.0
95.1
State
Region IV
BISD
90.0
1999-20
Annual Drop-Out Rate
2.5
2.0
1.8
1.6
State
1.5
Region IV
1.0
BISD
0.5
0.1
0.0
1999-2000
Algebra I End-of-Course
Comparison
100.0
90.0
80.0
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
91.0
State
BISD
39.0
Biology I End-of-Course
Comparison
100.0
90.0
80.0
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
93.0
80.0
State
BISD
College Admissions Test
Average SAT Score
1100
1000
992
1003
1018
900
State
800
Region IV
700
BISD
600
500
Class of 1999
College Admissions Test
Average ACT Score
25.0
20.3
20.8
21.7
20.0
15.0
State
Region IV
10.0
BISD
5.0
0.0
Class of 1999
Marion County
State Grade Rating
50
40
30
20
10
0
A
B
C
D
'00-'01 '01-'02 '02-'03
A
8
9
20
B
9
13
17
C
20
17
6
D
3
2
0
Marion County
State Grade Rating
50
40
30
20
10
0
A
B
C
D
'00-'01 '01-'02 '02-'03
A
8
9
20
B
9
13
17
C
20
17
6
D
3
2
0
Martin County, FL
State Rating Breakdown
20
15
10
5
0
2002
2003
A's
10
12
B's
4
5
C's
2
0
D's
1
0
Focus on Achievement
Three Focus on Achievement Schools
Academic Performance Index Growth
120
100
106
80
API Target Growth
API Actual Growth
60
40
20
42
19
16
0
Randall Pepper
Alder
44
16
Fontana H
Lindsay Unified School District
2001-2002
Academic Performance Index Growth
70
60
50
40
Growth Target
Actual Growth
30
20
10
0
Jefferson
Elementary
Lincoln
Elementary
Washington
Elementary
Lindsay Unified School District
2001-2002
Socioeconomically Disadvantaged
60
50
40
Growth Target
Actual Growth
30
20
10
0
Lincoln Elementary
Washington Elementary
Center Unified School District
(Sacramento, CA)
70
60
50
40
API Target Growth
API Actual Growth
30
20
10
0
Spinelli
Elem.
Center High
Puesta del Sol Elementary
CTBS Scores 2000-01 4th Grade
Rio Rancho Public Schools, NM
100
90
Median Percentile Scores
80
70
60
1998-99
50
1999-00
2000-01
40
30
20
10
0
Reading Total
Language Total
Math Total
Science
Social Studies
Glenn Elementary School
Nashville, TN
Terra Nova 2000-2001 Growth in Math
70
60
50
40
2000
2001
30
20
10
0
Grade 1
Grade 2
Grade 3
Grade 4
College Park Elementary School
Fulton County, GA
CRCT 2000-2001 Fourth Grade Growth
100 % Economically Disadvantaged
70
60
50
40
2000
2001
30
20
10
0
Reading
Writing
Math
Camp Creek Middle School
Fulton County, GA
CRCT 2000-2001 Eighth Grade Growth
66 % Economically Disadvantaged
70
60
50
40
2000
2001
30
20
10
0
Reading
Writing
Math
Wood Elementary School, AZ
Mean Percentile Ranks for Total Math on
the Stanford Achievement Test
70%
60%
1997
1998
1999
2000
50%
40%
30%
20%
Grade 2
Grade 3
Grade 4
Grade 5
Wood Elementary School, AZ
Mean Percentile Ranks for Total Reading on the
Stanford Achievement Test
70%
60%
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
50%
40%
30%
20%
Grade 1
Grade 2
Grade 3
Grade 4
Grade 5
“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 derives from family
background instead of school response
to family background. Whether or not we
will ever effectively teach the children of
the poor is probably far more a matter of
politics than of social science and that is
as it should be.
We can, whenever and
wherever we choose,
successfully teach all children
whose schooling is of interest
to us. We already know more
than we need to do that.
Whether or not we do it must
finally depend on how we feel
about the fact that we haven’t
so far.”
- Dr. Ron Edmonds
THE CHALLENGE:
Our challenge is to provide an education
for the kind of kids we have. Not the
kind of kids we used to have or want to
have or the kind that exists in our
dreams.
Every
Child
Counts!