1 / 16

Organizing Schools for Improvement: Lessons from Chicago

Organizing Schools for Improvement: Lessons from Chicago Presented by: Anthony S. Bryk, Penny Bender Sebring, Elaine Allensworth and Stuart Luppescu Gleacher Center, Chicago, January 14, 2010. A Framework of Essential Supports.

anana
Download Presentation

Organizing Schools for Improvement: Lessons from Chicago

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Organizing Schools for Improvement: Lessons from Chicago Presented by: Anthony S. Bryk, Penny Bender Sebring, Elaine Allensworth and Stuart Luppescu Gleacher Center, Chicago, January 14, 2010

  2. A Framework of Essential Supports

  3. Likelihood of Substantial Improvement, Given Weak or Strong Supports Reading 50% 47% 45% 43% 45% 40% 40% 36% 35% 30% Weak Percentage of Schools that Substantially Improved in Reading 25% Strong 20% 16% 15% 11% 10% 10% 9% 10% 5% 0% School Parent Work Safety & Curriculum Leadership Involvement Orientation Order Alignment

  4. Schools with strong teacher cooperative relationships focused on curricular alignment were very likely to show substantial academic improvements Reading Math

  5. Schools did not improve attendance if their learning climate was unsafe/disorderly and instruction was weak

  6. Relationships of Essential Supports with Improvements in Value-Added, 1997-2005

  7. Recent CCSR Research Attendance, grades and pass rates are higher in schools with stronger: • Instruction • Student-centered climates • Teacher-student relationships • Safety • Teacher collaboration • Collective responsibility • Instructional program coherence

  8. Recent CCSR Research Teachers remain in schools with stronger: • Student-centered climates • Safety • Teacher collaboration • Collective responsibility • Innovation • Parent involvement • Teacher-parent trust • Leadership • Program coherence • Teacher influence • Instructional leadership

  9. A Framework of Essential Supports

  10. Classification of School Communities by Students’ Racial/Ethnic and SES Composition

  11. Stagnation or Substantial Improvement in Reading by Race/Ethnicity and Socioeconomic Status of Students and Their Communities 50 46 45 42 40 35 35 31 31 31 30 24 23 Expected: 25% 25 Percentage of Schools that Stagnated or Improved 20 18 18 20 15 15 15 9 10 5 0 Truly Disadvantaged African-American, African-American, Predominantly Predominantly Racially Diverse Racially Integrated n=46 Low SES n=95 Average to Minority n=45 Latino n=39 n=34 n=57 Moderate SES n=74 Stagnant Substantially Improved

  12. Data on Community Characteristics • Bonding Social Capital • Collective Efficacy • Religious Participation • Crime statistics for school neighborhood and students’ neighborhoods • Bridging Social Capital • Contacts with people in other neighborhoods • Percent of Students Who Were Abused or Neglected

  13. Odds of Substantial Improvement in Reading Compared to Integrated Schools, Unadjusted and Adjusted Even Odds Truly Disadvantaged African-American Low SES Unadjusted African-American Moderate SES Adjusted for bonding social capital Adjusted for bonding and bridging social capital Predominantly Minority Adjusted for social capital and density of abuse and neglect Predominantly Latino Racially Diverse 1.0 2.0

  14. Influence of Bonding and Bridging Social Capital on Essential Supports 45% 39% 40% 38% 35% 33% 30% Expected: 20% 25% 20% Percentage of Schools with Strong Essential Supports in 1994 15% 10% 8% 6% 5% 5% 0% Religious Participation Collective Efficacy Outside Connections Low High

  15. 45% 1994 40% 40% 36% 35% 30% Expected: 20% 25% 20% Percentage of Schools with Strong Essential Supports in 15% 10% 4% 5% 2% 0% Crime Density of Abused or Neglected Students High Rate Low Rate Influence of Crime and Abuse and Neglect on Essential Supports

  16. About the book: Email:organizingschools@ccsr.uchicago.edu Website: ccsr.uchicago.edu/osfi About CCSR: Website: ccsr.uchicago.edu For more information….

More Related