Vanguard Data Report 2009
This document was uploaded by user and they confirmed that they have the permission to share it. If you are author or own the copyright of this book, please report to us by using this DMCA report form. Report DMCA
Overview
Download & View Vanguard Data Report 2009 as PDF for free.
More details
- Words: 5,009
- Pages: 40
Vanguard Schools Initiative Accomplishments, Lessons Learned, and Data Report Spring 2009
SERC
State Education Resource Center 25 Industrial Park Road, Middletown, CT 06457 Phone: 860-632-1485 • Fax: 860-632-8870
www.ctserc.org
BEST PRACTICES
2009
Initiative
BEST PRACTICES
2009
Initiative
Spring 2009 VANGUARD
V Schools
DATA REPORT & SUMMARY:
CT Vanguard Schools Initiative Accomplishments, Lessons Learned, and Data Report
Presented by: State Education Resource Center Marianne Kirner, Ph.D. Director Vanguard Schools Initiative Alice Henley Assistant Director for Program Development Pei Pei Ma Consultant Kim Bennett Consultant Lisa Scaife Education Services Specialist Publications Unit Jeremy Bond Communication & Publications Coordinator Debbie Williams Education Services Specialist Technolog y Unit Jodylynn Talevi Media/Technolog y Associate
CT VANGUARD SCHOOLS INITIATIVE: Accomplishments, Lessons Learned, and Data Report
Prepared by:
State Education Resource Center (SERC) 25 Industrial Park Road Middletown, CT 06457
Spring 2009
CT VANGUARD SCHOOLS INITIATIVE: Accomplishments, Lessons Learned, and Data Report Table of Contents A.
Overview of the CT Vanguard Schools Initiative I. II. III.
1
Background and History—Connecticut Vanguard Schools Background and History—Differentiated Instruction (DI) Pilot Connections to Existing State Initiatives and CSDE Priority Areas
B.
Accomplishments of the CT Vanguard Schools Initiative
5
C.
Lessons Learned from the CT Vanguard Schools Initiative
6
D.
Accomplishments of the Differentiated Instruction Pilot
7
Appendix A Performance Data from Selected Vanguard and Partner Schools
9
Appendix B Performance Data from Selected Pilot and Partner Schools
21
-AOVERVIEW OF THE CT VANGUARD SCHOOLS INITIATIVE Since 2004, the CT Vanguard Schools Initiative has focused on identifying, acknowledging, and celebrating the best practices of schools that have demonstrated success. The CT State Department of Education (CSDE) and the State Education Resource Center (SERC) have collaborated to emphasize sharing these best practices with schools in need of improvement. This is accomplished in three ways: an annual best-practices conference, school partnerships, and a best-practices Web site (www.ctserc.org). Facilitating ten school-to-school partnerships allowed the initiative to identify a number of factors that contributed to the partnerships’ success. The CT Vanguard Schools Initiative accomplishments, lessons learned, and school data from Vanguard and Partner schools are provided in detail on the following pages. The Differentiated Instruction (DI) Pilot, a component of the CT Vanguard Schools Initiative, provided extensive professional development, technical assistance, and coaching to three cohorts of DI Facilitators from four districts, with three additional districts to initiate training in January 2009. Accomplishments and school data from the DI Pilot also are presented in greater detail on the following pages. I. Background and History-CT Vanguard Schools The CT Vanguard Schools Initiative was originally outlined in the CSDE’s plan for complying with the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. In 2004-2005, an Advisory Group and Steering Committee were established. The Advisory Group was originally charged with defining the criteria for Connecticut Vanguard Schools and formalizing the process for identifying these schools. This group also created the CT Vanguard Self-assessment Rubric based on the effective schools research and designed the application process. The Advisory Group had representation from the CSDE, Local Education Agencies (LEAs), higher education, and community and business organizations. In 2005, SERC assumed coordination for the CT Vanguard Schools Initiative at the request of the CSDE. As part of this coordination, SERC facilitated the Vanguard Steering and Advisory Groups and worked to build coherence between the Vanguard program and other school improvement initiatives. To this end, the Steering Committee was reconstituted to ensure representation across divisions of the CSDE, and pragmatic connections were explored. The CT Vanguard Schools Initiative is built around a set of nine standards and indicators based on more than 30 years of effective schools research. Research has shown that effective schools have initiatives, processes, or programs in place to address ALL nine standards. In the spring of 2005, the first cohort application process began, and four schools were recognized in December 2005. Currently, Connecticut has identified four cohorts of schools for a total of 11 Connecticut Vanguard Schools. Vanguard schools are partnered with other Connecticut schools in an effort to share best practices. The school improvement teams from CT Vanguard Schools Initiative © 2009 Page 1 of 32
both the Vanguard and Partner schools meet with a technical advisor/coach to strengthen the school improvement journey of both schools. A unique feature of the initiative has been the partnership with the business community to support school improvement efforts. Since the inception of the initiative, the CT Business and Industry Association (CBIA) has partnered with the CSDE and SERC and served in an advisory capacity on accessing the financial and leadership strengths of the business community to support schools. In November 2006, the first annual conference and school celebration drew 250 education and business leaders and representatives. The continued goal of the conference has been to celebrate successes of the schools while exploring how leadership can sustain best practices. The 3rd Annual Statewide Conference and Celebration on High Performing and Significantly Improving Schools was scheduled for April 2009 for the most recently designated Vanguard Schools to be publicly recognized. Representatives from each school were invited to co-host concurrent sessions, highlighting a specific aspect of their school improvement efforts that has resulted in improved student outcomes. II. Background and History-DI Pilot In addition to the Vanguard Schools component, some of the resources provided to the CSDE and the best-practices Web site were allocated to the development of a targeted professional development program on Differentiated Instruction (DI), an evidence-based best practice that assists educators to meet the needs of all students. Although the DI program is significantly smaller than the CT Vanguard Schools component, the Attrition Plan addresses ongoing support to this component as it is designed to improve teaching and learning for all students, including students who are gifted and talented, English Language Learners, average achievers, and/or students with disabilities. DI is a proactive, comprehensive, and systemic process teachers use to enhance student learning. Teachers use DI to plan and provide instruction that maximizes academic achievement for all students while addressing the specific needs of some. DI is not a model or curriculum, but rather a process for matching various curriculum components to characteristics shared by groups of learners in the classroom (e.g., learning style preferences, learning rate). DI begins with the design of units of instruction that identify “power” standards, “big ideas,” and essential questions to guide instruction and assessment with high expectations for all students. These units need to be meaningful, developmentally built on prior and related knowledge, and aligned with The Connecticut Framework: K-12 Curricular Goals and Standards (1999). Since 2006, SERC has trained teams from 20 schools in eight districts in DI through an extensive plan of training and customized in-district technical assistance, facilitators’ training, and networking sessions. To date, 35 DI facilitators have been trained through this project. III. Connections to Existing State Initiatives and CSDE Priority Areas The CT Vanguard Schools Steering Committee, having representation from the Bureaus of Curriculum and Instruction; Accountability, Compliance, & Monitoring; School and District Improvement; Early Childhood Education; Data Collection, Research, & Evaluation; and the CT Vanguard Schools Initiative © 2009 Page 2 of 32
Bureau of Special Education, has worked to make explicit connections between the mission of the CT Vanguard Schools Initiative and other CT initiatives. Strategic efforts were made to examine connections between the Connecticut Accountability for Learning Initiative (CALI) and the nine standards associated with Vanguard. Alignment documents were created to demonstrate connections between CALI training, Cambridge Assessments, New England Association of Schools and Colleges (NEASC) accreditation, and Vanguard self-assessment tools. In addition to these documents to support school and district improvement, schools not making Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) were solicited as potential partner schools to support specific school improvement efforts. Technical assistance was designed to support CALI and other school improvement processes to minimize school and district personnel. A portion of the state-allocated funds was appropriated to support the statewide gifted and talented initiative centered around strengthening DI practices, known as the Best Practices Initiative: Differentiated Instruction (BPI:DI). With BPI funds from the CSDE, SERC has addressed goals in the Comprehensive System of Personnel Development plan designed to assist LEAs in meeting the needs of all students through targeted efforts to scale-up effective practices in DI across Connecticut. The DI Pilot is designed to improve teaching and learning through DI for all students, including students who are gifted and talented, English Language Learners, average achievers, and/or students with disabilities. The application and selection process for participating districts was modeled after the processes of the CT Vanguard Schools Initiative. Districts that applied and were selected to participate engaged in rigorous professional development training and received technical assistance support to infuse effective DI practices across schools. Selected districts attended four professional development seminars and received four on-site technical assistance visits. Representatives from each district leadership team also attended a two-day facilitators’ training during the summer following their first year of training. Through SERC, the CSDE’s State Performance and Development Grant (SPDG) embedded design elements of the CT Vanguard Schools Initiative to solicit districts to participate in any of three priority areas. These included School-Based Literacy, Positive Behavior Support (PBS), and the Early Intervention Project/Response to Intervention (EIP/RTI), which refers to early intervening services within the context of Connecticut’s framework for RTI, known as Scientific Research-Based Interventions (SRBI). The CT Vanguard Schools Initiative, the Connecticut Accountability for Learning Initiative (CALI), and Connecticut’s Reading First Initiative are complemented by efforts to scale up SPDG initiatives. In an effort to build coherence among initiatives and sustain ongoing efforts to scale up best practices, PBS and EIP/RTI model district/school sites agreed to apply to be Vanguard schools as part of the request for proposal (RFP) application. Districts and school sites in the area of EIP/RTI/early intervening services were selected in May 2007, and RFPs for partner districts were sent out in January/February 2008. A major development in this priority area has been infusing the CALI/RTI/SRBI training with best practices and guidelines for early intervening services.
CT Vanguard Schools Initiative © 2009 Page 3 of 32
PBS school sites worked toward implementing core program elements in order to serve as models. Best-practice sites continue to attend training and receive technical assistance to support district-wide efforts to scale up PBS best practices. Planning, development, and distribution of School-Based Literacy Team RFPs occurred in April 2007. Five school sites were identified to receive training and technical assistance. Members of the SERC team have met with researchers from the University of Connecticut Neag School of Education to discuss a nationwide research-based literacy coaching model to serve as the basis for scaling up best practices. The UConn/SERC partnership has yielded the development of a logic model to support initiation and sustainability of a shared vision for improved literacy instruction. Connecting the practices of the CT Vanguard Schools Initiative and SERC’s SPDG initiatives has proven beneficial, as they are both centered on sharing best practices. SERC staff representatives from all three SPDG priority topical areas have met periodically to discuss continuity of processes related to identifying and supporting districts and schools. In addition, efforts have been made to make connections with other agency work being done in these school/district partnerships. Where possible, continuity with respect to staffing and resource allocation has occurred. In December 2008, the CSDE made the determination to cease accepting applications for school recognition as a Connecticut Vanguard School and to begin phasing out the CT Vanguard Schools Initiative. This decision was made as a result of statewide budget cuts with the intent that the mission of the initiative (identification and acknowledgement of high-performing and significantly improving schools, dissemination of best-practices information) could be maintained through initiatives and programs sponsored by the CSDE and SERC. Given the dedication and efforts of supporters of the CT Vanguard Schools Initiative, most notably the Steering and Advisory Committees, the Connecticut Business and Industry Association (CBIA), the law firm McCarter & English, and United Illuminating (UI), the CT Vanguard Schools Initiative can cite the facilitation of ten school-to-school partnerships, two statewide conferences, and a best-practices Web site among its accomplishments.
CT Vanguard Schools Initiative © 2009 Page 4 of 32
-BACCOMPLISHMENTS OF THE CT VANGUARD SCHOOLS INITIATIVE Operations: • • • • •
Supported the development of the Vanguard Standards and Indicators related to the Effective Schools research; Developed the Vanguard Self-Assessment Rubric for school and district personnel to use to support their school improvement journeys; Designed an application, scoring, and site visitation process for identifying CT Vanguard Schools; Developed a set of technical assistance tools tailored to supporting school improvement across partnership sites; Recognized CT-based best practices from high performing and significantly improving schools.
Partnerships: • •
Established and supported ten school-to-school partnerships across the state. Selected school data attached (Appendix A). Facilitated the development of relationships between and among business community organizations and schools.
Dissemination of Best Practices: • •
Coordinated and sponsored two successful statewide conferences. Coordinated, designed, and facilitated the development of a best-practices Web site containing searchable resource information for schools and families.
CT Vanguard Schools Initiative © 2009 Page 5 of 32
-CLESSONS LEARNED FROM THE CT VANGUARD SCHOOLS INITIATIVE Through the coordination and oversight of the CT Vanguard Schools Initiative, a number of factors that contribute to the success of school-to-school partnerships were identified: Administrative Consistency/ Teacher-level Leadership During the course of the CT Vanguard School Initiative, turnover of school administration occurred in five of the schools. In each instance, the partnership and the students’ CMT and CAPT scores suffered from the administrative turnover. Therefore, when considering long-term school-to-school partnerships, the ability and means to develop teacher-level leadership and engagement with the coordination of the school partnerships and collaborative opportunities should be taken into account. Prior Relationships A substantial contributing factor to the most successful school-to-school partnerships was the existence of a prior relationship, either between the school administrators or between an administrator and the technical support provider. These prior relationships made the school administration and leadership team more willing to put forth the effort to create a meaningful partnership and collaboration. Therefore, to increase the likelihood of successful school-to-school partnerships, identifying school administrators or schools with prior relationships should be taken into consideration. Geographic Proximity Successful school-to-school partnerships tended to be in close geographic proximity. Partnerships that were located a significant distance from one another (>20 miles) found scheduling and coming together for collaboration to be significantly more challenging than did partnerships in closer proximity to one another. Therefore, to increase the likelihood of a successful school-to-school partnership, geographic proximity should be considered for convenience of scheduling collaboration. Coherence Strategically connecting participation in the Vanguard partnership to other school improvement practices, including the development and monitoring of school improvement plans, positively impacted the level of growth of school partnerships. When necessary, technical advisors facilitated conversations or staff activities with building faculty and leadership teams to highlight the critical connections between current and past initiatives and programs. Partnerships that continually addressed issues of coherence increased the likelihood of successful partnership experiences.
CT Vanguard Schools Initiative © 2009 Page 6 of 32
-DAccomplishments of the DI Pilot The DI Pilot has accomplished the following: •
Provided extensive professional development, technical assistance, and coaching to two cohorts of DI Facilitators from four districts (Portland, Seymour, Waterbury, and Regional School District #13); a third cohort of four new districts (East Hartford, Ellington, Salem, and Watertown) initiated training in January 2009;
•
Provided Year 2 training focused on connections between DI and CALI;
•
District teams identified examples of DI lessons and/or units of study and posted them on the SERC Best Practices Web site;
•
Three of the four current district teams presented within their own district or in neighboring districts as an aspect of scaling up;
•
An Innovation Configuration (IC Map) was developed by representatives from the cohort to be used as an assessment tool regarding implementation of DI;
•
Noted upward trends in CMT/CAPT scores in participating districts (see Appendix B).
CT Vanguard Schools Initiative © 2009 Page 7 of 32
CT Vanguard Schools Initiative © 2009 Page 8 of 32
APPENDIX A Performance Data from Selected Vanguard and Partner Schools Bloomfield and Granby Memorial High School Partnership CAPT Performance Level Report—Percent At or Above Proficiency 2007‐2008 Grade 10
Reading 120 100 80 Bloomfield HS
60
Granby Memorial HS
40
State
20 0 2007
2008
Math 120 100 80
Bloomfield HS
60
Granby Memorial HS
40
State
20 0 2007
2008
CT Vanguard Schools Initiative © 2009 Page 9 of 32
Bloomfield and Granby Memorial High School Partnership CAPT Performance Level Report—Percent At or Above Proficiency 2007‐2008 Grade 10
Writing 100 80 60
Bloomfield HS
40
Granby Memorial HS
20
State
0 2007
2008
Science 120 100 80 Bloomfield HS
60
Granby Memorial HS
40
State
20 0 2007
2008
CT Vanguard Schools Initiative © 2009 Page 10 of 32
Farm Hill and Smalley Academy School Partnership CMT Performance Level Report—Percent At or Above Proficiency 2006‐2008 Grade 3
Reading 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
Farm Hill School Smalley Academy State
2006
2007
2008
Math 100 80 60
Farm Hill School
40
Smalley Academy
20
State
0 1 2 3 2006 2007 2008
Writing 100 80 60
Farm Hill School
40
Smalley Academy
20
State
0
2006 2007 2008 1 2 3
CT Vanguard Schools Initiative © 2009 Page 11 of 32
Farm Hill and Smalley Academy School Partnership CMT Performance Level Report—Percent At or Above Proficiency 2006‐2008 Grade 4
Reading 100 80 60
Farm Hill School
40
Smalley Academy
20
State
0 1 2 3 2006 2007 2008
Math 100 80 60
Farm Hill School Smalley Academy
40
State
20 0 1 2 2006 2007
3 2008
Writing 100 80 60
Farm Hill School
40
Smalley Academy State
20 0 2006
2007
2008
CT Vanguard Schools Initiative © 2009 Page 12 of 32
Farm Hill and Smalley Academy School Partnership CMT Performance Level Report—Percent At or Above Proficiency 2006‐2008 Grade 4
Reading 100 80 60
Farm Hill School
40
Smalley Academy
20
State
0 2006
2007
2008
Math 100 80 60
Farm Hill School
40
Smalley Academy State
20 0 1 2 3 2006 2007 2008
Writing 120 100 80 Farm Hill School
60
Smalley Academy
40
State
20 0
2006 2007 2008 1 2 3
CT Vanguard Schools Initiative © 2009 Page 13 of 32
Bristol Eastern & Naugatuck High School Partnership CAPT Performance Level Report—Percent At or Above Proficiency 2007‐2008 Grade 10
Reading 100 80 60
Bristol Eastern HS
40
Naugatuck HS State
20 0 2007
2008
Math 100 80 60
Bristol Eastern HS
40
Naugatuck HS State
20 0 2007
2008
Writing 95 90 85
Bristol Eastern HS Naugatuck HS
80
State 75 70 2007
2008
CT Vanguard Schools Initiative © 2009 Page 14 of 32
Bristol Eastern & Naugatuck High School Partnership CAPT Performance Level Report—Percent At or Above Proficiency 2007‐2008 Grade 10
Science 92 90 88 86 84 82 80 78 76 74
Bristol Eastern HS Naugatuck HS State
2007
2008
CT Vanguard Schools Initiative © 2009 Page 15 of 32
Hamilton Ave and K.T. Murphy School Partnership CMT Performance Level Report—Percent At or Above Proficiency 2006‐2008 Grade 3
Reading 80 70 60 50
Hamilton Avenue School
40
K T Murphy School
30
State
20 10 0 2006
2007
2008
Math 100 80 60
Hamilton Avenue School
40
K T Murphy School State
20 0 2006
2007
2008
Writing 100 80 60
Hamilton Avenue School
40
K T Murphy School
20
State
0 2006
2007
2008
CT Vanguard Schools Initiative © 2009 Page 16 of 32
Hamilton Ave and K.T. Murphy School Partnership CMT Performance Level Report—Percent At or Above Proficiency 20062008 Grade 4
Reading 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
Hamilton Avenue School K T Murphy School State
2006
2007
2008
Math 100 80 60
Hamilton Avenue School
40
K T Murphy School
20
State
0 1 2 3 2006 2007 2008
Writing 120 100 80 Hamilton Avenue School
60
K T Murphy School 40
State
20 0
2006 2007 2008 1 2 3
CT Vanguard Schools Initiative © 2009 Page 17 of 32
Hamilton Ave and K.T. Murphy School Partnership CMT Performance Level Report—Percent At or Above Proficiency 2006‐2008 Grade 5
Reading 100 80 60
Hamilton Avenue School
40
K T Murphy School State
20 0 2006
2007
2008
Math 100 80 60
Hamilton Avenue School
40
K T Murphy School
20
State
0 2006
2007
2008
Writing 120 100 80
Hamilton Avenue School
60
K T Murphy School
40
State
20 0 2006
2007
2008
CT Vanguard Schools Initiative © 2009 Page 18 of 32
Platt Technical and Eli Whitney High School Partnership CAPT Performance Level Report—Percent At or Above Proficiency 2007‐2008 Grade 10
Reading 120 100 80
Eli Whitney HS
60
Platt Technical HS
40
State
20 0 2007
2008
Math 100 80 60
Eli Whitney HS
40
Platt Technical HS
20
State
0 2007
2008
Writing 120 100 80 Eli Whitney HS
60
Platt Technical HS
40
State
20 0 2007
2008
CT Vanguard Schools Initiative © 2009 Page 19 of 32
Platt Technical and Eli Whitney High School Partnership CAPT Performance Level Report—Percent At or Above Proficiency 2007‐2008 Grade 10
Science 100 80 60
Eli Whitney HS
40
Platt Technical HS State
20 0 2007
2008
CT Vanguard Schools Initiative © 2009 Page 20 of 32
APPENDIX B CMT/CAPT Performance Data for DI Pilot and Partner Schools NOTE: Data from the years 2001-2004 or 2005 represent baseline data, before these schools began participation in the Best Practices Initiative: Differentiated Instruction (BPI:DI) program. Years 2006-2008 represent implementation years for the BPI:DI. Some 2005 data are not available.
CMT Math Scores, Grade 4, 20002008 Average Scaled Score 300 250 200
State
150
F. J. Kingsbury School (Wtby)
100 Woodrow Wilson School (Wtby)
50 0 2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2006
2007
2008
Percent Reaching Goal 70 60 50 40
State
30
F. J. Kingsbury School (Wtby)
20
Woodrow Wilson School (Wtby)
10 0 2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2006
2007
2008
Percent At or Above Proficiency 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
State F. J. Kingsbury School (Wtby) Woodrow Wilson School (Wtby)
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2006
2007
2008
BPI:DI Participation Began CT Vanguard Schools Initiative © 2009 Page 21 of 32
DI Scalingup and Partner Schools: CMT Reading Scores, Grade 4, 20002008 Average Scaled Score 300 250 200 State
150
F. J. Kingsbury School (Wtby)
100
Woodrow Wilson School (Wtby)
50 0 2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2006
2007
2008
Percent Reaching Goal 70 60 50 40
State
30
F. J. Kingsbury School (Wtby)
20
Woodrow Wilson School (Wtby)
10 0 2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2006
2007
2008
Percent At or Above Proficiency 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
State F. J. Kingsbury School (Wtby) Woodrow Wilson School (Wtby) 2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2006
2007
2008
BPI:DI Participation Began CT Vanguard Schools Initiative © 2009 Page 22 of 32
DI Scalingup and Partner Schools: CMT Writing Scores, Grade 4, 20002008 Average Scaled Score 300 250 200 150
State F. J. Kingsbury School (Wtby)
100
Woodrow Wilson School (Wtby)
50 0 2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2006
2007
2008
Percent Reaching Goal 70 60 50 State
40
F. J. Kingsbury School (Wtby)
30
Woodrow Wilson School (Wtby)
20 10 0 2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2006
2007
2008
Percent At or Above Proficiency 90 80 70 60 50
State
40
F. J. Kingsbury School (Wtby)
30
Woodrow Wilson School (Wtby)
20 10 0 2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2006
2007
2008
BPI:DI Participation Began CT Vanguard Schools Initiative © 2009 Page 23 of 32
DI Scalingup and Partner Schools: CAPT Math Scores, Grade 10, 20002008 Average Scaled Score 275 270 265 260 255
State
250
Portland High School
245
Seymour High School
240 235 230 2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Percent Reaching Goal 60 50 40 State
30
Portland High School 20
Seymour High School
10 0 2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Percent At or Above Proficiency 120 100 80 State
60
Portland High School 40
Seymour High School
20 0 2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
BPI:DI Participation Began
CT Vanguard Schools Initiative © 2009 Page 24 of 32
DI Scalingup and Partner Schools: CAPT Reading Scores, Grade 10, 20002008 Average Scaled Score 280 270 260 250
State
240
Portland High School
230
Seymour High School
220 210 2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Percent Reaching Goal 80 70 60 50 State
40
Portland High School
30
Seymour High School
20 10 0 2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Percent At or Above Proficiency 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
State Portland High School Seymour High School
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
BPI:DI Participation Began
CT Vanguard Schools Initiative © 2009 Page 25 of 32
DI Scalingup and Partner Schools: CAPT Writing Scores, Grade 10, 20002008 Average Scaled Score 280 270 260 State
250
Portland High School 240
Seymour High School
230 220 2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Percent Reaching Goal 90 80 70 60 50
State
40
Portland High School
30
Seymour High School
20 10 0 2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Percent At or Above Proficiency 100 95 90 State
85
Portland High School 80
Seymour High School
75 70 2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
BPI:DI Participation Began
CT Vanguard Schools Initiative © 2009 Page 26 of 32
DI Scalingup and Partner Schools: CMT Math Scores, Grade 6, 20002008 Average Scaled Score 290 280 270
State
260
Portland Middle School
250
Seymour Middle School Strong/Memorial Middle
240 230 2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2006
2007
2008
Percent Reaching Goal 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
State Portland Middle School Seymour Middle School Strong/Memorial Middle
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2006
2007
2008
Percent At or Above Proficiency 120 100 80
State
60
Portland Middle School
40
Seymour Middle School Strong/Memorial Middle
20 0 2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2006
2007
2008
BPI:DI Participation Began
CT Vanguard Schools Initiative © 2009 Page 27 of 32
DI Scalingup and Partner Schools: CMT Reading Scores, Grade 6, 20002008 Average Scaled Score 280 275 270 265 260 255 250 245 240 235 230
State Portland Middle School Seymour Middle School Strong/Memorial Middle
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2006
2007
2008
Percent Reaching Goal 90 80 70 60
State
50
Portland Middle School
40
Seymour Middle School
30
Strong/Memorial Middle
20 10 0 2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2006
2007
2008
Percent At or Above Proficiency 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
State Portland Middle School Seymour Middle School Strong/Memorial Middle
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2006
2007
2008
BPI:DI Participation Began CT Vanguard Schools Initiative © 2009 Page 28 of 32
DI Scalingup and Partner Schools: CMT Writing Scores, Grade 6, 20002008 Average Scaled Score 290 280 270 State
260
Portland Middle School
250
Seymour Middle School
240
Strong/Memorial Middle
230 220 2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2006
2007
2008
Percent Reaching Goal 90 80 70 60
State
50
Portland Middle School
40 30
Seymour Middle School
20
Strong/Memorial Middle
10 0 2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2006
2007
2008
Percent At or Above Proficiency 120 100 80
State
60
Portland Middle School
40
Seymour Middle School Strong/Memorial Middle
20 0 2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2006
2007
2008
BPI:DI Participation Began CT Vanguard Schools Initiative © 2009 Page 29 of 32
DI Scalingup and Partner Schools: CMT Math Scores, Grade 8, 20002008 Average Scaled Score 290 280 270
State
260
Portland Middle School
250
Seymour Middle School Strong/Memorial Middle
240 230 2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2006
2007
2008
Percent Reaching Goal 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
State Portland Middle School Seymour Middle School Strong/Memorial Middle
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2006
2007
2008
Percent At or Above Proficiency 120 100 80
State
60
Portland Middle School
40
Seymour Middle School Strong/Memorial Middle
20 0 2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2006
2007
2008
BPI:DI Participation Began CT Vanguard Schools Initiative © 2009 Page 30 of 32
DI Scalingup and Partner Schools: CMT Reading Scores, Grade 8, 20002008 Average Scaled Score 290 280 270 260 250 240 230 220 210
State Portland Middle School Seymour Middle School Strong/Memorial Middle
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2006
2007
2008
Percent Reaching Goal 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
State Portland Middle School Seymour Middle School Strong/Memorial Middle
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2006
2007
2008
Percent At or Above Proficiency 95 90 85
State
80
Portland Middle School
75
Seymour Middle School Strong/Memorial Middle
70 65 2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2006
2007
2008
BPI:DI Participation Began
CT Vanguard Schools Initiative © 2009 Page 31 of 32
DI Scalingup and Partner Schools: CMT Writing Scores, Grade 8, 20002008 Average Scaled Score 290 280 270 260
State
250
Portland Middle School
240
Seymour Middle School
230
Strong/Memorial Middle
220 210 2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2006
2007
2008
Percent Reaching Goal 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
State Portland Middle School Seymour Middle School Strong/Memorial Middle
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2006
2007
2008
Percent At or Above Proficiency 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
State Portland Middle School Seymour Middle School Strong/Memorial Middle
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2006
2007
2008
BPI:DI Participation Began CT Vanguard Schools Initiative © 2009 Page 32 of 32
SERC
In collaboration with:
Connecticut State Department of Education George A. Coleman, Deputy Commissioner Charlene Russell-Tucker, Associate Commissioner Division of Families and Student Support Services Marion Martinez, Associate Commissioner Division of Teaching, Learning and Instructional Leadership Barbara M. Westwater, Chief Bureau of Curriculum and Instruction Susan Kennedy, Chief Bureau of School and District Improvement Alan Kramer, Consultant Bureau of School and District Improvement Meghan Martins, Consultant Bureau of School and District Improvement
SERC
State Education Resource Center 25 Industrial Park Road, Middletown, CT 06457 Phone: 860-632-1485 • Fax: 860-632-8870
www.ctserc.org
BEST PRACTICES
2009
Initiative
BEST PRACTICES
2009
Initiative
Spring 2009 VANGUARD
V Schools
DATA REPORT & SUMMARY:
CT Vanguard Schools Initiative Accomplishments, Lessons Learned, and Data Report
Presented by: State Education Resource Center Marianne Kirner, Ph.D. Director Vanguard Schools Initiative Alice Henley Assistant Director for Program Development Pei Pei Ma Consultant Kim Bennett Consultant Lisa Scaife Education Services Specialist Publications Unit Jeremy Bond Communication & Publications Coordinator Debbie Williams Education Services Specialist Technolog y Unit Jodylynn Talevi Media/Technolog y Associate
CT VANGUARD SCHOOLS INITIATIVE: Accomplishments, Lessons Learned, and Data Report
Prepared by:
State Education Resource Center (SERC) 25 Industrial Park Road Middletown, CT 06457
Spring 2009
CT VANGUARD SCHOOLS INITIATIVE: Accomplishments, Lessons Learned, and Data Report Table of Contents A.
Overview of the CT Vanguard Schools Initiative I. II. III.
1
Background and History—Connecticut Vanguard Schools Background and History—Differentiated Instruction (DI) Pilot Connections to Existing State Initiatives and CSDE Priority Areas
B.
Accomplishments of the CT Vanguard Schools Initiative
5
C.
Lessons Learned from the CT Vanguard Schools Initiative
6
D.
Accomplishments of the Differentiated Instruction Pilot
7
Appendix A Performance Data from Selected Vanguard and Partner Schools
9
Appendix B Performance Data from Selected Pilot and Partner Schools
21
-AOVERVIEW OF THE CT VANGUARD SCHOOLS INITIATIVE Since 2004, the CT Vanguard Schools Initiative has focused on identifying, acknowledging, and celebrating the best practices of schools that have demonstrated success. The CT State Department of Education (CSDE) and the State Education Resource Center (SERC) have collaborated to emphasize sharing these best practices with schools in need of improvement. This is accomplished in three ways: an annual best-practices conference, school partnerships, and a best-practices Web site (www.ctserc.org). Facilitating ten school-to-school partnerships allowed the initiative to identify a number of factors that contributed to the partnerships’ success. The CT Vanguard Schools Initiative accomplishments, lessons learned, and school data from Vanguard and Partner schools are provided in detail on the following pages. The Differentiated Instruction (DI) Pilot, a component of the CT Vanguard Schools Initiative, provided extensive professional development, technical assistance, and coaching to three cohorts of DI Facilitators from four districts, with three additional districts to initiate training in January 2009. Accomplishments and school data from the DI Pilot also are presented in greater detail on the following pages. I. Background and History-CT Vanguard Schools The CT Vanguard Schools Initiative was originally outlined in the CSDE’s plan for complying with the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. In 2004-2005, an Advisory Group and Steering Committee were established. The Advisory Group was originally charged with defining the criteria for Connecticut Vanguard Schools and formalizing the process for identifying these schools. This group also created the CT Vanguard Self-assessment Rubric based on the effective schools research and designed the application process. The Advisory Group had representation from the CSDE, Local Education Agencies (LEAs), higher education, and community and business organizations. In 2005, SERC assumed coordination for the CT Vanguard Schools Initiative at the request of the CSDE. As part of this coordination, SERC facilitated the Vanguard Steering and Advisory Groups and worked to build coherence between the Vanguard program and other school improvement initiatives. To this end, the Steering Committee was reconstituted to ensure representation across divisions of the CSDE, and pragmatic connections were explored. The CT Vanguard Schools Initiative is built around a set of nine standards and indicators based on more than 30 years of effective schools research. Research has shown that effective schools have initiatives, processes, or programs in place to address ALL nine standards. In the spring of 2005, the first cohort application process began, and four schools were recognized in December 2005. Currently, Connecticut has identified four cohorts of schools for a total of 11 Connecticut Vanguard Schools. Vanguard schools are partnered with other Connecticut schools in an effort to share best practices. The school improvement teams from CT Vanguard Schools Initiative © 2009 Page 1 of 32
both the Vanguard and Partner schools meet with a technical advisor/coach to strengthen the school improvement journey of both schools. A unique feature of the initiative has been the partnership with the business community to support school improvement efforts. Since the inception of the initiative, the CT Business and Industry Association (CBIA) has partnered with the CSDE and SERC and served in an advisory capacity on accessing the financial and leadership strengths of the business community to support schools. In November 2006, the first annual conference and school celebration drew 250 education and business leaders and representatives. The continued goal of the conference has been to celebrate successes of the schools while exploring how leadership can sustain best practices. The 3rd Annual Statewide Conference and Celebration on High Performing and Significantly Improving Schools was scheduled for April 2009 for the most recently designated Vanguard Schools to be publicly recognized. Representatives from each school were invited to co-host concurrent sessions, highlighting a specific aspect of their school improvement efforts that has resulted in improved student outcomes. II. Background and History-DI Pilot In addition to the Vanguard Schools component, some of the resources provided to the CSDE and the best-practices Web site were allocated to the development of a targeted professional development program on Differentiated Instruction (DI), an evidence-based best practice that assists educators to meet the needs of all students. Although the DI program is significantly smaller than the CT Vanguard Schools component, the Attrition Plan addresses ongoing support to this component as it is designed to improve teaching and learning for all students, including students who are gifted and talented, English Language Learners, average achievers, and/or students with disabilities. DI is a proactive, comprehensive, and systemic process teachers use to enhance student learning. Teachers use DI to plan and provide instruction that maximizes academic achievement for all students while addressing the specific needs of some. DI is not a model or curriculum, but rather a process for matching various curriculum components to characteristics shared by groups of learners in the classroom (e.g., learning style preferences, learning rate). DI begins with the design of units of instruction that identify “power” standards, “big ideas,” and essential questions to guide instruction and assessment with high expectations for all students. These units need to be meaningful, developmentally built on prior and related knowledge, and aligned with The Connecticut Framework: K-12 Curricular Goals and Standards (1999). Since 2006, SERC has trained teams from 20 schools in eight districts in DI through an extensive plan of training and customized in-district technical assistance, facilitators’ training, and networking sessions. To date, 35 DI facilitators have been trained through this project. III. Connections to Existing State Initiatives and CSDE Priority Areas The CT Vanguard Schools Steering Committee, having representation from the Bureaus of Curriculum and Instruction; Accountability, Compliance, & Monitoring; School and District Improvement; Early Childhood Education; Data Collection, Research, & Evaluation; and the CT Vanguard Schools Initiative © 2009 Page 2 of 32
Bureau of Special Education, has worked to make explicit connections between the mission of the CT Vanguard Schools Initiative and other CT initiatives. Strategic efforts were made to examine connections between the Connecticut Accountability for Learning Initiative (CALI) and the nine standards associated with Vanguard. Alignment documents were created to demonstrate connections between CALI training, Cambridge Assessments, New England Association of Schools and Colleges (NEASC) accreditation, and Vanguard self-assessment tools. In addition to these documents to support school and district improvement, schools not making Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) were solicited as potential partner schools to support specific school improvement efforts. Technical assistance was designed to support CALI and other school improvement processes to minimize school and district personnel. A portion of the state-allocated funds was appropriated to support the statewide gifted and talented initiative centered around strengthening DI practices, known as the Best Practices Initiative: Differentiated Instruction (BPI:DI). With BPI funds from the CSDE, SERC has addressed goals in the Comprehensive System of Personnel Development plan designed to assist LEAs in meeting the needs of all students through targeted efforts to scale-up effective practices in DI across Connecticut. The DI Pilot is designed to improve teaching and learning through DI for all students, including students who are gifted and talented, English Language Learners, average achievers, and/or students with disabilities. The application and selection process for participating districts was modeled after the processes of the CT Vanguard Schools Initiative. Districts that applied and were selected to participate engaged in rigorous professional development training and received technical assistance support to infuse effective DI practices across schools. Selected districts attended four professional development seminars and received four on-site technical assistance visits. Representatives from each district leadership team also attended a two-day facilitators’ training during the summer following their first year of training. Through SERC, the CSDE’s State Performance and Development Grant (SPDG) embedded design elements of the CT Vanguard Schools Initiative to solicit districts to participate in any of three priority areas. These included School-Based Literacy, Positive Behavior Support (PBS), and the Early Intervention Project/Response to Intervention (EIP/RTI), which refers to early intervening services within the context of Connecticut’s framework for RTI, known as Scientific Research-Based Interventions (SRBI). The CT Vanguard Schools Initiative, the Connecticut Accountability for Learning Initiative (CALI), and Connecticut’s Reading First Initiative are complemented by efforts to scale up SPDG initiatives. In an effort to build coherence among initiatives and sustain ongoing efforts to scale up best practices, PBS and EIP/RTI model district/school sites agreed to apply to be Vanguard schools as part of the request for proposal (RFP) application. Districts and school sites in the area of EIP/RTI/early intervening services were selected in May 2007, and RFPs for partner districts were sent out in January/February 2008. A major development in this priority area has been infusing the CALI/RTI/SRBI training with best practices and guidelines for early intervening services.
CT Vanguard Schools Initiative © 2009 Page 3 of 32
PBS school sites worked toward implementing core program elements in order to serve as models. Best-practice sites continue to attend training and receive technical assistance to support district-wide efforts to scale up PBS best practices. Planning, development, and distribution of School-Based Literacy Team RFPs occurred in April 2007. Five school sites were identified to receive training and technical assistance. Members of the SERC team have met with researchers from the University of Connecticut Neag School of Education to discuss a nationwide research-based literacy coaching model to serve as the basis for scaling up best practices. The UConn/SERC partnership has yielded the development of a logic model to support initiation and sustainability of a shared vision for improved literacy instruction. Connecting the practices of the CT Vanguard Schools Initiative and SERC’s SPDG initiatives has proven beneficial, as they are both centered on sharing best practices. SERC staff representatives from all three SPDG priority topical areas have met periodically to discuss continuity of processes related to identifying and supporting districts and schools. In addition, efforts have been made to make connections with other agency work being done in these school/district partnerships. Where possible, continuity with respect to staffing and resource allocation has occurred. In December 2008, the CSDE made the determination to cease accepting applications for school recognition as a Connecticut Vanguard School and to begin phasing out the CT Vanguard Schools Initiative. This decision was made as a result of statewide budget cuts with the intent that the mission of the initiative (identification and acknowledgement of high-performing and significantly improving schools, dissemination of best-practices information) could be maintained through initiatives and programs sponsored by the CSDE and SERC. Given the dedication and efforts of supporters of the CT Vanguard Schools Initiative, most notably the Steering and Advisory Committees, the Connecticut Business and Industry Association (CBIA), the law firm McCarter & English, and United Illuminating (UI), the CT Vanguard Schools Initiative can cite the facilitation of ten school-to-school partnerships, two statewide conferences, and a best-practices Web site among its accomplishments.
CT Vanguard Schools Initiative © 2009 Page 4 of 32
-BACCOMPLISHMENTS OF THE CT VANGUARD SCHOOLS INITIATIVE Operations: • • • • •
Supported the development of the Vanguard Standards and Indicators related to the Effective Schools research; Developed the Vanguard Self-Assessment Rubric for school and district personnel to use to support their school improvement journeys; Designed an application, scoring, and site visitation process for identifying CT Vanguard Schools; Developed a set of technical assistance tools tailored to supporting school improvement across partnership sites; Recognized CT-based best practices from high performing and significantly improving schools.
Partnerships: • •
Established and supported ten school-to-school partnerships across the state. Selected school data attached (Appendix A). Facilitated the development of relationships between and among business community organizations and schools.
Dissemination of Best Practices: • •
Coordinated and sponsored two successful statewide conferences. Coordinated, designed, and facilitated the development of a best-practices Web site containing searchable resource information for schools and families.
CT Vanguard Schools Initiative © 2009 Page 5 of 32
-CLESSONS LEARNED FROM THE CT VANGUARD SCHOOLS INITIATIVE Through the coordination and oversight of the CT Vanguard Schools Initiative, a number of factors that contribute to the success of school-to-school partnerships were identified: Administrative Consistency/ Teacher-level Leadership During the course of the CT Vanguard School Initiative, turnover of school administration occurred in five of the schools. In each instance, the partnership and the students’ CMT and CAPT scores suffered from the administrative turnover. Therefore, when considering long-term school-to-school partnerships, the ability and means to develop teacher-level leadership and engagement with the coordination of the school partnerships and collaborative opportunities should be taken into account. Prior Relationships A substantial contributing factor to the most successful school-to-school partnerships was the existence of a prior relationship, either between the school administrators or between an administrator and the technical support provider. These prior relationships made the school administration and leadership team more willing to put forth the effort to create a meaningful partnership and collaboration. Therefore, to increase the likelihood of successful school-to-school partnerships, identifying school administrators or schools with prior relationships should be taken into consideration. Geographic Proximity Successful school-to-school partnerships tended to be in close geographic proximity. Partnerships that were located a significant distance from one another (>20 miles) found scheduling and coming together for collaboration to be significantly more challenging than did partnerships in closer proximity to one another. Therefore, to increase the likelihood of a successful school-to-school partnership, geographic proximity should be considered for convenience of scheduling collaboration. Coherence Strategically connecting participation in the Vanguard partnership to other school improvement practices, including the development and monitoring of school improvement plans, positively impacted the level of growth of school partnerships. When necessary, technical advisors facilitated conversations or staff activities with building faculty and leadership teams to highlight the critical connections between current and past initiatives and programs. Partnerships that continually addressed issues of coherence increased the likelihood of successful partnership experiences.
CT Vanguard Schools Initiative © 2009 Page 6 of 32
-DAccomplishments of the DI Pilot The DI Pilot has accomplished the following: •
Provided extensive professional development, technical assistance, and coaching to two cohorts of DI Facilitators from four districts (Portland, Seymour, Waterbury, and Regional School District #13); a third cohort of four new districts (East Hartford, Ellington, Salem, and Watertown) initiated training in January 2009;
•
Provided Year 2 training focused on connections between DI and CALI;
•
District teams identified examples of DI lessons and/or units of study and posted them on the SERC Best Practices Web site;
•
Three of the four current district teams presented within their own district or in neighboring districts as an aspect of scaling up;
•
An Innovation Configuration (IC Map) was developed by representatives from the cohort to be used as an assessment tool regarding implementation of DI;
•
Noted upward trends in CMT/CAPT scores in participating districts (see Appendix B).
CT Vanguard Schools Initiative © 2009 Page 7 of 32
CT Vanguard Schools Initiative © 2009 Page 8 of 32
APPENDIX A Performance Data from Selected Vanguard and Partner Schools Bloomfield and Granby Memorial High School Partnership CAPT Performance Level Report—Percent At or Above Proficiency 2007‐2008 Grade 10
Reading 120 100 80 Bloomfield HS
60
Granby Memorial HS
40
State
20 0 2007
2008
Math 120 100 80
Bloomfield HS
60
Granby Memorial HS
40
State
20 0 2007
2008
CT Vanguard Schools Initiative © 2009 Page 9 of 32
Bloomfield and Granby Memorial High School Partnership CAPT Performance Level Report—Percent At or Above Proficiency 2007‐2008 Grade 10
Writing 100 80 60
Bloomfield HS
40
Granby Memorial HS
20
State
0 2007
2008
Science 120 100 80 Bloomfield HS
60
Granby Memorial HS
40
State
20 0 2007
2008
CT Vanguard Schools Initiative © 2009 Page 10 of 32
Farm Hill and Smalley Academy School Partnership CMT Performance Level Report—Percent At or Above Proficiency 2006‐2008 Grade 3
Reading 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
Farm Hill School Smalley Academy State
2006
2007
2008
Math 100 80 60
Farm Hill School
40
Smalley Academy
20
State
0 1 2 3 2006 2007 2008
Writing 100 80 60
Farm Hill School
40
Smalley Academy
20
State
0
2006 2007 2008 1 2 3
CT Vanguard Schools Initiative © 2009 Page 11 of 32
Farm Hill and Smalley Academy School Partnership CMT Performance Level Report—Percent At or Above Proficiency 2006‐2008 Grade 4
Reading 100 80 60
Farm Hill School
40
Smalley Academy
20
State
0 1 2 3 2006 2007 2008
Math 100 80 60
Farm Hill School Smalley Academy
40
State
20 0 1 2 2006 2007
3 2008
Writing 100 80 60
Farm Hill School
40
Smalley Academy State
20 0 2006
2007
2008
CT Vanguard Schools Initiative © 2009 Page 12 of 32
Farm Hill and Smalley Academy School Partnership CMT Performance Level Report—Percent At or Above Proficiency 2006‐2008 Grade 4
Reading 100 80 60
Farm Hill School
40
Smalley Academy
20
State
0 2006
2007
2008
Math 100 80 60
Farm Hill School
40
Smalley Academy State
20 0 1 2 3 2006 2007 2008
Writing 120 100 80 Farm Hill School
60
Smalley Academy
40
State
20 0
2006 2007 2008 1 2 3
CT Vanguard Schools Initiative © 2009 Page 13 of 32
Bristol Eastern & Naugatuck High School Partnership CAPT Performance Level Report—Percent At or Above Proficiency 2007‐2008 Grade 10
Reading 100 80 60
Bristol Eastern HS
40
Naugatuck HS State
20 0 2007
2008
Math 100 80 60
Bristol Eastern HS
40
Naugatuck HS State
20 0 2007
2008
Writing 95 90 85
Bristol Eastern HS Naugatuck HS
80
State 75 70 2007
2008
CT Vanguard Schools Initiative © 2009 Page 14 of 32
Bristol Eastern & Naugatuck High School Partnership CAPT Performance Level Report—Percent At or Above Proficiency 2007‐2008 Grade 10
Science 92 90 88 86 84 82 80 78 76 74
Bristol Eastern HS Naugatuck HS State
2007
2008
CT Vanguard Schools Initiative © 2009 Page 15 of 32
Hamilton Ave and K.T. Murphy School Partnership CMT Performance Level Report—Percent At or Above Proficiency 2006‐2008 Grade 3
Reading 80 70 60 50
Hamilton Avenue School
40
K T Murphy School
30
State
20 10 0 2006
2007
2008
Math 100 80 60
Hamilton Avenue School
40
K T Murphy School State
20 0 2006
2007
2008
Writing 100 80 60
Hamilton Avenue School
40
K T Murphy School
20
State
0 2006
2007
2008
CT Vanguard Schools Initiative © 2009 Page 16 of 32
Hamilton Ave and K.T. Murphy School Partnership CMT Performance Level Report—Percent At or Above Proficiency 20062008 Grade 4
Reading 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
Hamilton Avenue School K T Murphy School State
2006
2007
2008
Math 100 80 60
Hamilton Avenue School
40
K T Murphy School
20
State
0 1 2 3 2006 2007 2008
Writing 120 100 80 Hamilton Avenue School
60
K T Murphy School 40
State
20 0
2006 2007 2008 1 2 3
CT Vanguard Schools Initiative © 2009 Page 17 of 32
Hamilton Ave and K.T. Murphy School Partnership CMT Performance Level Report—Percent At or Above Proficiency 2006‐2008 Grade 5
Reading 100 80 60
Hamilton Avenue School
40
K T Murphy School State
20 0 2006
2007
2008
Math 100 80 60
Hamilton Avenue School
40
K T Murphy School
20
State
0 2006
2007
2008
Writing 120 100 80
Hamilton Avenue School
60
K T Murphy School
40
State
20 0 2006
2007
2008
CT Vanguard Schools Initiative © 2009 Page 18 of 32
Platt Technical and Eli Whitney High School Partnership CAPT Performance Level Report—Percent At or Above Proficiency 2007‐2008 Grade 10
Reading 120 100 80
Eli Whitney HS
60
Platt Technical HS
40
State
20 0 2007
2008
Math 100 80 60
Eli Whitney HS
40
Platt Technical HS
20
State
0 2007
2008
Writing 120 100 80 Eli Whitney HS
60
Platt Technical HS
40
State
20 0 2007
2008
CT Vanguard Schools Initiative © 2009 Page 19 of 32
Platt Technical and Eli Whitney High School Partnership CAPT Performance Level Report—Percent At or Above Proficiency 2007‐2008 Grade 10
Science 100 80 60
Eli Whitney HS
40
Platt Technical HS State
20 0 2007
2008
CT Vanguard Schools Initiative © 2009 Page 20 of 32
APPENDIX B CMT/CAPT Performance Data for DI Pilot and Partner Schools NOTE: Data from the years 2001-2004 or 2005 represent baseline data, before these schools began participation in the Best Practices Initiative: Differentiated Instruction (BPI:DI) program. Years 2006-2008 represent implementation years for the BPI:DI. Some 2005 data are not available.
CMT Math Scores, Grade 4, 20002008 Average Scaled Score 300 250 200
State
150
F. J. Kingsbury School (Wtby)
100 Woodrow Wilson School (Wtby)
50 0 2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2006
2007
2008
Percent Reaching Goal 70 60 50 40
State
30
F. J. Kingsbury School (Wtby)
20
Woodrow Wilson School (Wtby)
10 0 2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2006
2007
2008
Percent At or Above Proficiency 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
State F. J. Kingsbury School (Wtby) Woodrow Wilson School (Wtby)
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2006
2007
2008
BPI:DI Participation Began CT Vanguard Schools Initiative © 2009 Page 21 of 32
DI Scalingup and Partner Schools: CMT Reading Scores, Grade 4, 20002008 Average Scaled Score 300 250 200 State
150
F. J. Kingsbury School (Wtby)
100
Woodrow Wilson School (Wtby)
50 0 2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2006
2007
2008
Percent Reaching Goal 70 60 50 40
State
30
F. J. Kingsbury School (Wtby)
20
Woodrow Wilson School (Wtby)
10 0 2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2006
2007
2008
Percent At or Above Proficiency 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
State F. J. Kingsbury School (Wtby) Woodrow Wilson School (Wtby) 2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2006
2007
2008
BPI:DI Participation Began CT Vanguard Schools Initiative © 2009 Page 22 of 32
DI Scalingup and Partner Schools: CMT Writing Scores, Grade 4, 20002008 Average Scaled Score 300 250 200 150
State F. J. Kingsbury School (Wtby)
100
Woodrow Wilson School (Wtby)
50 0 2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2006
2007
2008
Percent Reaching Goal 70 60 50 State
40
F. J. Kingsbury School (Wtby)
30
Woodrow Wilson School (Wtby)
20 10 0 2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2006
2007
2008
Percent At or Above Proficiency 90 80 70 60 50
State
40
F. J. Kingsbury School (Wtby)
30
Woodrow Wilson School (Wtby)
20 10 0 2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2006
2007
2008
BPI:DI Participation Began CT Vanguard Schools Initiative © 2009 Page 23 of 32
DI Scalingup and Partner Schools: CAPT Math Scores, Grade 10, 20002008 Average Scaled Score 275 270 265 260 255
State
250
Portland High School
245
Seymour High School
240 235 230 2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Percent Reaching Goal 60 50 40 State
30
Portland High School 20
Seymour High School
10 0 2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Percent At or Above Proficiency 120 100 80 State
60
Portland High School 40
Seymour High School
20 0 2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
BPI:DI Participation Began
CT Vanguard Schools Initiative © 2009 Page 24 of 32
DI Scalingup and Partner Schools: CAPT Reading Scores, Grade 10, 20002008 Average Scaled Score 280 270 260 250
State
240
Portland High School
230
Seymour High School
220 210 2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Percent Reaching Goal 80 70 60 50 State
40
Portland High School
30
Seymour High School
20 10 0 2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Percent At or Above Proficiency 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
State Portland High School Seymour High School
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
BPI:DI Participation Began
CT Vanguard Schools Initiative © 2009 Page 25 of 32
DI Scalingup and Partner Schools: CAPT Writing Scores, Grade 10, 20002008 Average Scaled Score 280 270 260 State
250
Portland High School 240
Seymour High School
230 220 2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Percent Reaching Goal 90 80 70 60 50
State
40
Portland High School
30
Seymour High School
20 10 0 2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Percent At or Above Proficiency 100 95 90 State
85
Portland High School 80
Seymour High School
75 70 2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
BPI:DI Participation Began
CT Vanguard Schools Initiative © 2009 Page 26 of 32
DI Scalingup and Partner Schools: CMT Math Scores, Grade 6, 20002008 Average Scaled Score 290 280 270
State
260
Portland Middle School
250
Seymour Middle School Strong/Memorial Middle
240 230 2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2006
2007
2008
Percent Reaching Goal 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
State Portland Middle School Seymour Middle School Strong/Memorial Middle
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2006
2007
2008
Percent At or Above Proficiency 120 100 80
State
60
Portland Middle School
40
Seymour Middle School Strong/Memorial Middle
20 0 2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2006
2007
2008
BPI:DI Participation Began
CT Vanguard Schools Initiative © 2009 Page 27 of 32
DI Scalingup and Partner Schools: CMT Reading Scores, Grade 6, 20002008 Average Scaled Score 280 275 270 265 260 255 250 245 240 235 230
State Portland Middle School Seymour Middle School Strong/Memorial Middle
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2006
2007
2008
Percent Reaching Goal 90 80 70 60
State
50
Portland Middle School
40
Seymour Middle School
30
Strong/Memorial Middle
20 10 0 2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2006
2007
2008
Percent At or Above Proficiency 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
State Portland Middle School Seymour Middle School Strong/Memorial Middle
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2006
2007
2008
BPI:DI Participation Began CT Vanguard Schools Initiative © 2009 Page 28 of 32
DI Scalingup and Partner Schools: CMT Writing Scores, Grade 6, 20002008 Average Scaled Score 290 280 270 State
260
Portland Middle School
250
Seymour Middle School
240
Strong/Memorial Middle
230 220 2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2006
2007
2008
Percent Reaching Goal 90 80 70 60
State
50
Portland Middle School
40 30
Seymour Middle School
20
Strong/Memorial Middle
10 0 2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2006
2007
2008
Percent At or Above Proficiency 120 100 80
State
60
Portland Middle School
40
Seymour Middle School Strong/Memorial Middle
20 0 2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2006
2007
2008
BPI:DI Participation Began CT Vanguard Schools Initiative © 2009 Page 29 of 32
DI Scalingup and Partner Schools: CMT Math Scores, Grade 8, 20002008 Average Scaled Score 290 280 270
State
260
Portland Middle School
250
Seymour Middle School Strong/Memorial Middle
240 230 2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2006
2007
2008
Percent Reaching Goal 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
State Portland Middle School Seymour Middle School Strong/Memorial Middle
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2006
2007
2008
Percent At or Above Proficiency 120 100 80
State
60
Portland Middle School
40
Seymour Middle School Strong/Memorial Middle
20 0 2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2006
2007
2008
BPI:DI Participation Began CT Vanguard Schools Initiative © 2009 Page 30 of 32
DI Scalingup and Partner Schools: CMT Reading Scores, Grade 8, 20002008 Average Scaled Score 290 280 270 260 250 240 230 220 210
State Portland Middle School Seymour Middle School Strong/Memorial Middle
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2006
2007
2008
Percent Reaching Goal 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
State Portland Middle School Seymour Middle School Strong/Memorial Middle
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2006
2007
2008
Percent At or Above Proficiency 95 90 85
State
80
Portland Middle School
75
Seymour Middle School Strong/Memorial Middle
70 65 2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2006
2007
2008
BPI:DI Participation Began
CT Vanguard Schools Initiative © 2009 Page 31 of 32
DI Scalingup and Partner Schools: CMT Writing Scores, Grade 8, 20002008 Average Scaled Score 290 280 270 260
State
250
Portland Middle School
240
Seymour Middle School
230
Strong/Memorial Middle
220 210 2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2006
2007
2008
Percent Reaching Goal 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
State Portland Middle School Seymour Middle School Strong/Memorial Middle
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2006
2007
2008
Percent At or Above Proficiency 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
State Portland Middle School Seymour Middle School Strong/Memorial Middle
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2006
2007
2008
BPI:DI Participation Began CT Vanguard Schools Initiative © 2009 Page 32 of 32
SERC
In collaboration with:
Connecticut State Department of Education George A. Coleman, Deputy Commissioner Charlene Russell-Tucker, Associate Commissioner Division of Families and Student Support Services Marion Martinez, Associate Commissioner Division of Teaching, Learning and Instructional Leadership Barbara M. Westwater, Chief Bureau of Curriculum and Instruction Susan Kennedy, Chief Bureau of School and District Improvement Alan Kramer, Consultant Bureau of School and District Improvement Meghan Martins, Consultant Bureau of School and District Improvement
Related Documents
Vanguard Data Report 2009
June 2020 9
2009 Serc Pbs Data Report
June 2020 7
Vanguard Application
June 2020 6
Vanguard A
June 2020 14
Vanguard Of The Ips
May 2020 7
Lampiran [ Wrm40 - Vanguard Instrument ]
December 2019 22More Documents from "Eko Parjono"
Serc&crecteammeetingpm Final
June 2020 10
A Guide For Parent Lea Ders And Advo C Ates
June 2020 9
Nclbwhatsinitforparentsspanishversion
June 2020 8
2009 Serc Pbs Data Report
June 2020 7