Let’s Collaborate to Close the Academic Achievement Gap
2007 CSBA Annual Education Conference and Trade Show
Student Issues Conference Groups
2
Today’s Presentation
Jo Ann Yee – CSBA Senior Director, Strategy Development, Achievement, Diversity, and Urban Affairs
Overview - Student Issues Conference Groups
3
Today’s Presentation
Leslie Jordan – Research Consultant
Survey Results – Closing the Achievement Gap
4
Today’s PresentationYear 3 of Student Issues Conference Groups
Closing Academic Achievement Gap:
Schools must be – but can only be – a partof the solution.
We cannot close the achievement gap without schools.
But schools cannot close it by themselves.
Focus today: “Collaboration”
5
Today’s Presentation
Diane Siri – ARCHES
Lilia Tanakeyowma – Santa Ana Partnership
Robyn Fisher and Bobbie Brooks –Southern Alameda County Regional Educational Alliance
6
Closing the Achievement Gap
CSBA’s Vision Statement
The California School Boards Association envisions a state where the public schools are widely recognized as the foundation of a free and democratic society, where local citizen governing boards are fully vested with the means to advance the best interests of students and the public, and
where the futures of all children are driven by their aspirations, not bounded by their circumstances.
7
Closing the Achievement Gap
How will we know when the gap has been eliminated?
The achievement gap will be eliminated when the academic performance levels of student subgroups do not measurably correlate with race, socioeconomic status or cultural circumstances.
8
Closing the Achievement Gap
In order to eliminate the gap, we must improve the achievement of all students . . .
9
. . . and accelerate the achievement of our lower achieving students.
Stu
de
nt
Ac
hie
vem
en
t
Now Future
All Students
Lower Achieving Students
Closing the Achievement Gap
10
CSBA Goal: All districts are focused on improving student achievement and closing achievement gaps.
CSBA’s Role: To encourage local and state efforts to close the achievement gap.
Closing the Achievement Gap
11
Communications
Learn More California:Adequate Funding
Campaign
State and federalLegislation
CurriculumInstitute
AnnualConferenceGovernance
Services
Policy Services Policy Analysis
Conference GroupOn
Student Issues
Conditionsof Children
CSBA’s commitment to support and encourage state and local efforts to close the achievement gap is integrated
throughout our work
CSBA’s Ongoing Work to Support Closing the Gap
12
Student Issues Conference Groups
What are they?
13
How are they different from other CSBA
activities and services?
Student Issues Conference Groups
14
Student Issues Conference Groups
Not:
A CommitteeA Task ForceA ConferenceAn Event
15
Student Issues Conference Groups
ARE:
A networkAn allianceA forumA place and way to learn and work together
16
Student Issues Conference Groups
“Student Achievement Network and Forum”
Alliances of people and districts that share an interest in working together to address the needs of targeted groups of students:
American IndiansAsian Pacific IslandersBlacks/African AmericansHispanicsStudents in county-based community day or juvenile court schools.
17
This approach recognizes that raising student achievement and closing achievement gaps requires long term, sustained efforts at the local level - in classrooms, schools, and districts.
The focus of the conference groups is on the work of local school boards and districts.
Student Issues Conference Groups
18
Role of CSBA
Encourage, convene, and support networks
Raise public awareness
Provide information
Student Issues Conference Groups
19
•Demographics•Achievement Data•School Conditions
•What Questions Should the board ask?
•Where Do We Go FromHere?
•We Don’t Need Another Task Force or Committee
• Need a networkof Districts
•Introduced Initiative•Established a Common Understanding ofAchievement Gap
Conference GroupsYear 1 - 2005
Assess the Field
AEC Workshops Theory of Action
What does the Research Tell us?
20
•Where are the targeted students?
•Identify targeted districts
•Not “best practices”• Systemic reform.•CSBA Effective Governance
•CSBA Effective Governance•What are districts
currently doing? •Group dialogues
Conference GroupsYear 2 - 2006
Assess the Field What does the Research Tell us?
AEC Workshops
•Effective district-wide practices?
•Effective Boards?
Theory of Action
2121
Research: Systemic Reform 1. Centralized Systemic Reform2. District-wide Focus on Student Achievement and
Closing the Achievement Gap3. Data Driven Decision Making4. Budget Aligned with Strategic Goals5. Curriculum and Instruction Aligned to Standards6. Professional Development Aligned with Strategic
Goals7. Strong Instructional Leadership at School Sites8. Accountability Strengthened Through Teamwork9. Continuous Commitment to Improve
Conference GroupsYear 2 - 2006
22
Target Select Districts
Collected racial and ethnic enrollment data for all districts.
Identified critical mass using “cut point” criteria.
Created “Targeted Districts”
Conference GroupsYear 2 - 2006
23
Juvenile Hall/Court School Students
24
Asian Pacific Islander Students
25
African American/Black Students
26
American Indian Students
27
Hispanic students
28
•Is Closing the Achievement gap THE priority?
•Are districts already working together?
•First Year •Collect Annual Data•Partnerships work
•Survey Results•Examples of Partnerships•Baseline Data•First Annual Report
Conference GroupsYear 3 - 2007
Assess the Field What does the Research Tell us?
Theory of ActionAEC Workshops
•Establish Baseline Data•Survey Says Districts are
working on closing achievement gap
29
Survey – July 2007
In July – Sent survey to superintendent of every member district
Received 132 responses, roughly 10% response rate
Surveyed districts have similar demographics compared to the rest of the state
30
Survey Respondents vs. CA Districts
7 4 . 3 %
1 2 . 3 %
9 . 7 %3 . 0 %0 . 7 %
6 5 . 2 %
1 8 . 9 %
1 2 . 9 %
3 . 0 %0 . 0 %
0 %
1 0 %
2 0 %
3 0 %
4 0 %
5 0 %
6 0 %
7 0 %
8 0 %
9 0 %
1 0 0 %
A l l D i s t r i c t s S u r v e y e d P o p u l a t i o n
0 - 5 , 0 0 0 5 , 0 0 1 - 1 0 , 0 0 0 1 0 , 0 0 1 - 2 5 , 0 0 02 5 , 0 0 1 - 5 0 , 0 0 0 5 0 , 0 0 1 a n d O v e r
District Size -- ADA
31
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0%
ESD USD COE HSD
44.5%
28.7%
5.3% 7.5%
36.4%
31.1%
12.9% 12.9%
All Districts Surveyed Population
District Type
Survey Respondents vs. CA Districts
32
Total Percentage of Minority Students
20.3%
23.4%
17.3%
14.5%
17.2%
15.2%
26.5%
23.5%
15.9%
18.2%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
All Districts Surveyed Population
0-20% 21-40% 41-60% 61-80% 80-100%
Survey Respondents vs. CA Districts
33
Targeted Districts – “Significant” Populations
0.0%10.0%20.0%30.0%40.0%50.0%60.0%70.0%80.0%90.0%
100.0%
Hispanic American Indian
Black API
33.2%
19.6% 13.3% 13.5%
36.4%
29.5% 18.2%14.4%
All Districts Surveyed Population
Survey Respondents vs. CA Districts
34
Percentage of Students Who Receive Free and Reduced Price Lunch
21.0%
19.6%
23.5%
18.9%
9.6%
22.7%
21.2%
25.4%
20.4%
10.3%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
All Districts Surveyed Population
0-20% 21-40% 41-60% 61-80% 80-100%
Survey Respondents vs. CA Districts
35
Closing the achievement gap among subgroups of students is an officially stated goal or priority for our district/county office of education.
Yes
No
Don’t Know
Survey – Question 1
36
Survey Results Question 1
D o n ' t K n o w
0 %
N o1 5 %
N o A n s w e r2 %
Y e s8 3 %
Closing the Achievement Gap is a Stated Priority in the District
37
The goal or priority to close the achievement gap is stated in the following official documents of our district/county office of education (check all that apply).
Survey – Question 2
38
Our vision Our mission Our strategic plan Strategic Goals Local school plansThe superintendent's evaluation The board's evaluation Don't Know None Other (please explain in "Comment" box below)
Survey – Question 2
39
Closing the Achievement Gap is a Priority Stated in the…
66.7% 62.1%
37.1% 35.6%
25.0%
10.6%3.8%
0.0% 0.0% 0.0%0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
Local
School
P l ans
St r ategi c
Goal s
St r ategi c
P l an
M i ssi on V i si on None Other Boar d's
Eval
Supts Eval Don't
Know
Survey ResultsQuestion 2
40
Closing the achievement gap has been an official district/county office of education goal or priority for the last:
1-4 years5-8 Years9-12 years13 or more yearsDon’t KnowNone
Survey – Question 3
41
Survey ResultsQuestion 3
Number of Years the District has been working on “Closing the Achievement Gap”
43.2%
31.1%
6.1% 2.3%
10.6% 6.8%
0.0%
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
35.0%
40.0%
45.0%
1-4 years 5-8 years 9-12years
13 ormoreyears
None NoAnswer
Don'tknow
42
We have strategies, programs, or interventions that are specifically developed and targeted to improve the academic achievement of these groups of students (check all that apply):
Survey – Question 4
43
American IndianAsian Pacific IslanderBlack/African AmericanHispanic/LatinoEnglish LearnerImmigrantLow Socio Economic StatusSpecial EducationCommunity Day/Court SchoolsNoneDon't KnowOther
Survey – Question 4
44
Survey ResultsQuestion 4
Programs Focusing on Specific Students
80.3%75.8% 73.5%
60.6%
25.8%
22.7% 22.0% 14.4%
9.8% 5.3%
2.3% 0.0%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
EL SE Low SES His Black/ AA Cour t I mm AI API Ot her Non e Don 't Kn ow
45
Our schools/districts/county offices of education are working in partnership or collaborating with the following organizations to improve student achievement (check all that apply):
Survey – Question 5
46
Alliance for Regional Collaboration to Heighten Educational Success (ARCHES) California Academic Partnership Program (CAPP)Cal-PassCalifornia Collaborative on District ReformCalifornia Department of Education
Survey – Question 5
47
Other school districts or COEsColleges and universitiesLocal governments (city, county, etc)Community, civic, and/or business based organizationsNon-profit organizations (United Way, YMCA, etc) Philanthropic organizations/foundations
Survey – Question 5
48
Consulting or technical assistance organizations (SpringBoard Schools, WestEd, Leap Frog, etc) NoneDon't Know Other (Please explain in "Comment" box below)
Survey – Question 5
49
Survey ResultsQuestion 5
Collaboration with …71.2%
51.5%
44.7% 43.2%
30.3%24.2%
22.0%
15.9%6.8%
8.3%
1.5% 0.0%
4.5%
0.0%
73.5%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
Dis/ COEHigher Ed CDE Con sult in g
Fir ms
Non
Pr of it
Foun dat ion s Local
Gov
CAL
Pass
ARCHES CAPP CA
Collabor at ive
Busin ess Non e Don 't Kn ow Ot her
50
Our local board of education is involved in the district or county partnerships by (check all that apply):
Survey – Question 6
51
Approving the engagement or formation of the partnerships
Serving on a related committee of the partnerships
Attending the meetings of the partnerships
Survey – Question 6
52
Receiving regular reports of the partnerships
They are not involved
Don't know
Other (Please explain in "Comment" box below)
Survey – Question 6
53
Survey ResultsQuestion 6
Board Involvement in Collaboration
5 2 .3 % 5 0 .0 %
2 3 .5 % 2 5 .8 % 2 1.2 %
2 .3 %0 .0 %
0 .0 %
10 .0 %
2 0 .0 %
3 0 .0 %
4 0 .0 %
5 0 .0 %
6 0 .0 %
A p p r o v a l R e c e i v i n gR e p o r t s
C o m m i t t e e A t t e n dM e e t i n g s
N o tI n v o l v e d
O t h e r D o n ' t k n o w
54
We have a district or countywide data system that can disaggregate student data by (Check all that apply):
Survey – Question 7
55
English language fluencyLearning disability (per special education criteria)Race and ethnicitySocioeconomic levelsGenderEnrollment history (to track transience
Survey – Question 7
56
Enrollment history (to track transienceSchoolGrade levelTeacher NoneDon't knowOther (Please explain in "Comment" box below)
Survey – Question 7
57
Survey ResultsQuestion 7
Data Disaggregation8 7 . 9 % 8 7 . 1% 8 6 . 4 % 8 3 . 3 % 8 2 . 6 % 7 8 . 0 %
7 1 . 2 %
5 9 . 1%
8 . 3 %5 . 3 % 3 . 8 %
0 . 0 %0 . 0 %
1 0 . 0 %
2 0 . 0 %
3 0 . 0 %
4 0 . 0 %
5 0 . 0 %
6 0 . 0 %
7 0 . 0 %
8 0 . 0 %
9 0 . 0 %
E L F lu e n c y G r a d e le v e l S c h o o l S E S R a c e / E t h T e a c h e r L e a r n in g
D is a b ilit y
E n r o l
H is t
G e n d e r N o n e O t h e r D o n 't k n o w
58
Survey – Question 8
We have a district or countywide data system that can collect individual student academic achievement data.
Yes
No
Don’t Know
59
Survey ResultsQuestion 8
N o , 6 . 8 %
N o A n s w e r ,
4 . 5 %D o n ' t
K n o w , 0 . 0 %
Y e s , 8 8 . 6 %
Student Achievement Data
60
Survey – Question 9
We have a district or countywide longitudinal data system that can track individual student academic achievement data from year to year.
Yes
No
Don’t Know
61
Survey ResultsQuestion 9
Y e s , 7 4 . 2 %
N o , 1 7 . 4 %
D o n ' t K n o w , 0 . 0 %
N o A n s w e r , 8 . 3 %
Longitudinal Student Achievement Data
62
Survey Results
8 3 . 3 %
1 5 . 2 %
1 . 5 %
8 8 . 6 %
6 . 8 %
4 . 5 %
7 4 . 2 %
1 7 . 4 %
8 . 3 %
0 %
1 0 %
2 0 %
3 0 %
4 0 %
5 0 %
6 0 %
7 0 %
8 0 %
9 0 %
1 0 0 %
C l o s i n g t h eA c h i e v e m e n t G a pi s a S t a t e d P r i o r i t y
D i s a g r e g a t e dS t u d e n t D a t a
L o n g i t u d i n a l D a t aS y s t e m
Y e s N o N o A n s w e r
Priorities vs. Data Collected
63
•Identify partnerships.•Create and connect
with statewide networks
•How Should School Boards Be Involved?
•How do Collaboratives Connect with Each Other?
•Connect districts to districts;
•Share what works; •maintain momentum
at the local level.
•Second Annual Report•Specific workshops focused
on AI, API, Black, Hispanic, and Comm/Court Schools
Conference GroupsYear 4 - 2008
Assess the Field What does the Research Tell us?
AEC Workshops Theory of Action