By Allan Odden, Lawrence Picus and Carl Cohn Little Rock, Arkansas August 31, 2009

1. Improving Student Performance In Little Rock: Initial Findings as Background for a Strategic Plan By Allan Odden, Lawrence Picus and Carl Cohn Little Rock, Arkansas August 31, 2009

2. What Lawrence O. Picus & Associates Proposed to Do Help the Commission create a strategic plan focused on improving student performance and reducing the achievement gap that addresses Goals Curriculum and instruction Supportive central office Human capital needs Data and accountability Effective use of resources District governance

3. Improving Performance Large, measurable, indisputable increases Not just beating the odds Not just AYP Much more improvement than either Sometimes we call this doubling performance Percent at or above proficient from 40-80% Percent at or above advanced from 20-40%, or 30-60% “Doubling” performance for any subgroups Increase from 65% to 90 or 95%, not a literal doubling but a large hike in performance

4. Ten Strategies to “Double” Performance Initial data analysis- state testing results Setting High – eye popping – goals Adopt an effective curriculum program that is used system wide and includes a vision of effective instructional practice Engage in data-based decision making to improve instruction using diagnostic, formative, end of unit, benchmark and state assessments

5. Ten Strategies to “Double” Performance Invest in ongoing professional development, with instructional coaches Use time effectively – maximize time for core instruction including whole class instruction Provide multiple extra help strategies for struggling students including 1-1 and small group tutoring, extended day and summer school Create professional learning communities focused on using data to improve instruction

6. Ten Strategies to “Double” Performance Provide widespread instructional leadership – PLC team leaders, school coaches, principals, central office staff, superintendent Use expert professional knowledge – research, experts, best practices A human capital strategy to ensure that each classroom has an effective teacher and each school an effective principal, backed by a supportive central office

7. Perceptions of Achievement Trends • Flat performance • Difficult to determine • Arkansas scores have been rising 7 points a year and Little Rock reflects that trend • Small uptick for Little Rock is for all students but not low income and minority students • Hard to compare Little Rock to Other districts • Student performance in Little Rock has risen substantially over past ten years • No differentiation between literacy or mathematics VERY DIFFERENT PERCEPTIONS

10. Trends in Literacy and MathematicsAchievement: All Students Literacy: • Modest increases from about 45 to 50 % Proficient and Advanced • Varies by grade • Increases from 1 to 16 percentile points per grade over five years, with average of 6+ • Averages 1.5+ percentile point rise per year across grades Mathematics: • Significant and large increases, from about 30 to ~55 % Prof & Adv. • Varies by grade – more than doubled in grade 6 • Increases from 14 to 37 percentile points per grade over five years, with an average of 26 • Averages 6.5 percentile point rise per year across grades 10

13. Trends in Literacy and MathematicsAchievement: African American Students Literacy: • Modest increases, from ~35 to 45% Proficient and Advanced • Varies by grade • Increases from 0 to 16 percentile points per grade over five years or an average of 11 points • Averages 2.75 percentile point rise per year across grades Mathematics: • Significant and large increases, from 20-45 % Prof & Adv. • Varies by grade –doubled in most grades, tripled in grade 6, quadrupled in grade 8, though from a very low level • Ranges from 24 to 40 percentile points per grade over five years or an average of 29 points • Averages 7.2 percentile point rise per year across grades 13

16. Trends in Literacy and MathematicsAchievement: Low Income Students Literacy: • Modest increases, from ~35 to 45+% Prof and Adv. • Varies by grade • Ranges from 2 to 20 percentile points per grade over five years or an average of 13.3 points • Averages 3.33 percentile point rise per year across grades Mathematics: • Significant and large increases, from 20 to 45+ % Prof and Adv. • Varies by grade –doubled in many grades, tripled in grade 6 and 8 • Ranges from 20 to 38 percentile points per grade over five years or an average of 27 points • Averages 6.7 percentile point rise per year across grades 16

19. Trends in Literacy and MathematicsAchievement: Caucasian Students Literacy: • Relatively high performance but modest increases from 75-85% Proficient and Advanced, and varies by grade • Ranges from 0 to 18 percentile points per grade over five years or an average of 10 points • Averages 2.5 percentile point rise per year across grades Mathematics: • Relatively high performance and significant increases, from about 62 to 75+% proficient and advanced, and varies by grade • Ranges from 6 to 30 percentile points per grade over five years or an average of 22 points • Averages 5.5 percentile point rise per year across grades 19

20. Perceptions of Achievement Gap • No change in achievement gap which runs from 20-50 percentile points • Achievement gap has remained at about 20-30 percentile points • Not quite sure • Achievement gaps are caused by opportunity to learn gaps – low performing schools have low expectations, ineffective principals, concentrations of the least effective teachers, many substitute teachers every day, inconsistent curriculum implementation WIDELY DIFFERENT PERCEPTIONS OF ACHIEVEMENT GAPS

23. Trends in Literacy and MathematicsAchievement Gap: Caucasian Students v. African American Students Literacy: • Almost no change, with a drop only in grade 8 • Is about 38 percentile points across all years Mathematics: • Modest drop and varies by grade • Began at around ~45 points and dropped to about 38 points so still quite large Achievement gap of 38 percentile points in both literacy and math means Caucasian students perform about twice as high as African American students 23

24. Conclusions on Achievement Trends • Persistent achievement gaps • Modest improvements in literacy • Impressive improvements in mathematics for all groups • Something different happened in mathematics over the past five years • Can current math program produce continued gains? • Analyze level and growth in students performing at advanced levels • Do top students continue to learn?

25. Conclusion on Achievement Trends and Gaps Hard to have a common sense of urgency around student performance and closing the achievement gap when there is widespread misunderstanding, as well as different understanding, of the current performance conditions of students

26. Comment on What Works If a low income/minority student exits grade 3 reading proficiently, they do well in subsequent years—do data show this? If they perform below basic, they never catch up—do data show this? So one goal could be to get every student, particularly students from low income/minority backgrounds to reading proficiency by grade 3

27. Perceptions of Little Rock’s Goals No goals for 2008-09 because district is in strategic planning mode Increase the percent proficient and above by 3-5 percentile points a year, but never disaggregated to schools To improve achievement for all students and all subgroups – with no numeric targets To ensure all student receive a quality education

28. Perceptions of Little Rock’s Goals • To have Little Rock make AYP which means increasing the percent proficient and advanced by 7-8 percentile points a year • To have an aligned curriculum implemented with fidelity in all schools • To ensure that all students have the opportunity to learn CONCLUSION: No common perception of goals and district goals not disaggregated to schools

29. Goals Little Rock needs a clear set of ambitious goals for student achievement and closing the achievement gap Set goals for five years with annual targets Disaggregate district goals down to school goals and within schools to classes Differentiate some goals by grade and have goals for proficient as well as advanced Have new “shared” standards in reading and math set new agenda for performance

30. Curriculum and Instructional Program • District says it has: • Developed curriculum maps • Interim assessments and “anchor” assessments which are end-of-curriculum-unit assessments for all core subjects at all grades • SOAR benchmark assessments, given every 6 weeks, and other diagnostic assessments • Not sure how all of this is used at the school level

31. Curriculum and Instructional Program • Elementary literacy: • “Balanced” literacy program • 2.5 hour literacy block every day • Begin with a “mini” lesson for 10-15 minutes and then move to small group work for reading, and then the same for writing, and then interventions • “Workshop” based approach to teaching – mini lessons then small groups and then interventions • Students pick own books to read from a “grade leveled” set of books in each classroom • District did adopt a reading text – Houghton Mifflin – but few schools actually use it

32. Curriculum and Instructional Program • Elementary math: • Did adopt a math text – Heath, or Everyday Math, or Harcourt? • 60 minute math block every day • Classroom structure similar to literacy: 10-15 minute mini lesson followed by group work followed by interventions • Secondary math: • Similar structure but provided in a 90 minute block schedule: begin with a 5-10 minute bell ringer attention getter, then a mini lesson of 5-7 minutes of instruction, and then students working on their own or in groups, with teacher summing up at end • Or in worse case, the bell ringer goes for 20 minutes, and the students do homework after the mini lesson

33. Curriculum and Instructional Program • Basic instructional approach and definition of good instruction is the “workshop”: • 10-15 minute mini lesson • Group work for 45 minutes • Multiple interventions • Very little whole class, teacher directed instruction for long periods of time

34. Curriculum and Instructional Program • Multiple interventions: • Preschool for some students • Reading First in some schools • Reading Recovery which is 1-1 tutoring in Grade 1 • Small groups, often grouped by learning issues • Quick Reading, Susan Hall’s 95% program, etc. • After school and summer programs, Boost, SMART,DRIVE, Math Journey • COMPASS computer lab program • Considering having an additional 30 minutes in elementary schools for more interventions • Read 180 in secondary schools and other math interventions • America’s Choice in Middle Schools

35. Curriculum and Instructional Program • Balanced literacy and no systemic reading program • And for most classrooms: • Mini lessons • Long periods of small group work • Multiple Interventions Does this work? Does this represent best practice? It is different from the schools and districts that doubled performance.

36. Curriculum and Instructional Program • Recommendation: • Have an outside team conduct a focused curriculum and instruction audit: • Confirm our preliminary findings on literacy program • Confirm our preliminary findings on math program • Identify best practices in both literacy and math at the elementary, middle school and high school levels • Compare and contrast with current Little Rock practices • Possible organizations: • Success for All Foundation • Council of Great City Schools

37. Curriculum and Instructional Program • Data use: • Multiple types and forms of student performance data • Diagnostic tests (DIEBLS, DRA, Read 180, etc.), interim and anchor assessments, SOAR tests every six weeks, and the state summative tests • Used mainly to see how well students learned and to put students into intervention groups and programs • Not much comment about using student data to modify instruction up front

38. Curriculum and Instructional Program • Professional development: • Reading and math coaches in all elementary schools; two literacy coaches in Reading First schools • Of the ten PD days in state funding formula, 2 can be used for individual PD, 2 can be used for attending the state AEA fall meeting, so the district controls only 4-5 of the ten days • Insufficient common planning times for teacher collaboration during the school day • PLCs use data mainly to place students into interventions • Coaches mainly work 1 on 1 with teachers modeling effective instruction

39. Curriculum and Instructional Program • Accountability: • Very unclear lines for accountability • Principals not evaluated on the performance of the school or their ability to help teachers become better at instruction • Teachers not evaluated based on impacts on student learning or a clear notion of effective instructional practice, and not evaluated very often (once every 3 years for those on continuing contracts) • Curriculum department knows curriculum program is very differentially implemented in schools and classrooms but has little if any direct control over implementation • Unclear role of PRE office which does both quantitative and qualitative evaluations of various programs and interventions

40. District Management • Initial impressions, more interviews on Tuesday • Our initial focus was curriculum and instruction • Recommendations for district will focus on support of strong learning program

41. District Management • Accountability seems to be split into multiple locations • No clear planning function • No budget office • Not clear that organizational structure is designed to support student performance

42. Accountability • New Associate Superintendent Position • No detail for this position in organization chart • Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation (PRE) role is unclear

43. Planning and Budget • It is not clear where day-to-day planning functions reside • There is no budget office • No budget calendar • Budget functions appear to be split • Finance office • Personnel office • Associate Superintendents • But no clear location to bring all the information together in a systematic way

44. Organizational Structure • Recommendations on organization will follow discussions and recommendations focused on student learning

45. School District Governance that Supports Reform A clear statement of the board’s core beliefs and commitments to guide all board actions A comprehensive theory of action for change to provide direction for district redesign and the development of major reform polices

46. School District Governance that Supports Reform (con’t) Policies and practices for effective and less time-consuming board meetings focused on student achievement and an effective structure for board committees and workshops An effective constituent services system that eliminates board micromanagement

47. School District Governance that Supports Reform (con’t) An effective management oversight system to assure effective and efficient operations and at the same time maintain a clear line between the board’s governance responsibility and the superintendent’s authority as CEO

48. School District Governance that Supports Reform (con’t) A data dashboard for board and community oversight of key district performance data An effective plan and process for sustaining the reform momentum in the district Effective board communications with internal and external constituents on all of the above

49. A Central Office that Supports Reform In those urban districts that are dramatically improving student performance, a transformed central office is emerging with the following functions clearly aligned:

50. A Central Office that Supports Reform (con’t) Data, assessment, and accountability Curriculum and instruction Professional development Human resources