260 likes | 380 Views
Simplifying and Focusing: Abbott’s Work in 2005-06. Presented by Gordon MacInnes Abbott CSAs and SBAs December 6, 2004. “How’re We Doin’?”. Better Not Better Enough Not Fast Enough for Too Many Students. Three Goals that Count.
E N D
Simplifying and Focusing:Abbott’s Work in 2005-06 Presented by Gordon MacInnes Abbott CSAs and SBAs December 6, 2004
“How’re We Doin’?” • Better • Not Better Enough • Not Fast Enough for Too Many Students
Three Goals that Count • All Abbott students are strong readers by the end of 3rd grade • All Abbott students master the Core Curriculum Content Standards in all subjects in all grades • Abbott districts operate efficiently
Answering Ed Koch’s Question • 4th Grade Language Arts for unclassified students is the most common measure • We know that 100% of these students should be reading by the end of 4th Grade • We need to match the non-Abbott pass rate of 94.7% • “Unweighted” ignores the 21% “bump” in 2000-01 • “Weighted” smoothes out 2000-01 • Highest growth rate for those districts that began 1999 at lowest base
Pass Rates on LAL – 1999-2004 • Abbotts have cut the gap in proficient or advanced proficient percentage from 34.6 in 1999 to 22.7 percentage points in 2004 • The 2003 test was probably more difficult than either 2002 or 2004
Mean Scale Scores Have Jumped • Abbotts have closed the gap in mean scale scores by 24.5 to 17.7 points for all students
Disabled and Limited English Trail • Note that SPED progress in non-Abbotts have stalled • Abbott LEP student progress is not as strong as SPED or general students
Math is Tough on Everyone • Non-Abbott SPED students are making noticeable progress as are Abbott LEP students • Note that non-Abbott SPED students are close to Abbott’s TOTAL students proficiency rates
Abbott is to Lift Economically Poor Students • Free and reduced lunch students in 5 Abbott districts do better than those in I/J districts • Differences between poor and non-poor students vary widely among Abbott districts (0.3 of 1% to 21.4%) • Poor students in very poor districts perform with wide variances
The 2005-06 Regulations have Four Principle Goals • Simplify • Build on the Face-to-Face Conversations • Integrate with NCLB • Agree on budgets at submission
“Simplify” Means a Relentless Focus on Learning • Reduce paperwork • Coordinate with NCLB whenever possible • Concentrate on what happens between teachers and students
For schools and districts, the focus should be on two-four instructional goals • Literacy is the first issue for all schools and all districts • Goals should be ambitious but achievable • Goals should be measurable, not just on state tests and not just at the end of the year • The goals should change what happens in classrooms
Districts should build on the conclusions from the face-to-face conversations • The ingredients for early literacy should be in every classroom this school year • Most districts need to give urgent and continuing attention to a better-aligned, clearer and more useful curriculum • ELL’s are doing well in some places and being left out in others • SPED is education’s Waterloo (as seen by Napolean)
NCLB makes simplification more difficult • NCLB defines instructional problems mechanically / arithematically • NCLB’s reporting calendar is different • NCLB assumes that all instructional problems are equal, can be solved quickly, and with a prescribed list of remedies • NCLB focuses on achievement
Schools that are not “INOI” file a simple narrative on 2 or 3 teaching goals • Schools INOI start with the narrative but must include NCLB-required forms (most of which can be helpful) • Schools in 4th year of INOI will go through a modified CAPA review
Budget agreements by mid-March • Budget discussions will start right away, not after they’re submitted • The “presumptive budget” facilitates early agreement • The goal is DOE/District agreement by March submission • Applicants for DEOA will receive award notice by May 31, 2005
This year’s regulations build on last year’s approach with three noticeable changes • The emphasis on literacy is extended with more precise standards into the middle grades • The academic expectations for secondary schools are sharpened and the goal of smaller learning communities set • The “presumptive budget” and more specific efficiency standards are introduced
More than 2 of 5 Abbott 8th graders can’t read and write well enough to pass GEPA • Middle Grades Literacy Task Force recommended that the IEL emphasis on small group, print-rich, and uninterrupted literacy instruction be “graduated” to middle grades • More coaching and support for teaching literacy across content areas • Begin next year to plan for 80-120 minutes of uninterrupted focus
The primary reason most Abbott students can’t pass GEPA/HSPA is that they’re not taught what they’re expected to learn • A district curriculum should work backwards from HSPA to ensure that the Core standards are being taught • Through traditional college prep math courses or “integrated” math, all students need to complete Algebra I by 9th grade • English I is the “gatekeeper” for high school language arts just as Algebra I is for math • Middle grade curricula must assume that all students will take college prep courses
Most secondary schools are too big, too impersonal, and academically “lite” • Secondary working group from Abbott X made two high consensus recommendations • Abbott students need to be taught at the rigorous academic levels required by CCCS • Major changes in structure required so that no student falls between the cracks
Smaller learning communities assume every student has an adult advocate/advisor who sticks with her/him • We seek a test of the principles of creating small communities out of large schools—much is already going on (HSTW, academies) • Four districts to work with experts and DOE for 18 months to put new ideas in place by September 2006 • The proposed standards/procedures would be adjusted based on the first phase results
The “presumptive budget” is designed to provide adequate funding and early agreement • It builds on district’s 2003-04 budget, including DEOA • Add parity aid or 3.01% (regional COLA): whichever is higher is the presumptive budget • Presumptive budget carries no conditions
DEOA is available for districts with special needs or if the presumptive budget is inadequate • DEOA assumes that customary and expected standards of financial, business, and instructional operation are in place • DEOA assumes that a district identifies how any inefficient spending categories will be reduced in 2005-06 • DEOA assumes that any instructional programs are based on a district curriculum that meets ordinary standards for precision, alignment and clarity
It’s the last slide, thank God • Next December, all we seek is that every unclassified, non-ELL student is a strong reader of English • And that every Abbott school is focused on two or three instructional priorities so that the work of teachers and students improves