Equity and Access to Rigor

Equity and Access to Rigor

Success for ALL students

THANK YOU for Being Here!

1. Overview of the issues that affect student achievement gaps in Pennsbury

2. What we have done to begin to address them

3. Brainstorm where we need to go from here

The Plan for Today

The Pennsbury School District, a student-centered learning community,

will prepare all students to achieve their highest potential and to

demonstrate mastery of skills and talents necessary for life in a global

society by providing a diverse educational program with the

involvement and support of families and community.

Mission Statement

the significant difference in educational success among different groups of students. 

The achievement gap can be observed on a variety of measures, including standardized test scores, grade point average, access or enrollment in rigorous courses, college-enrollment and completion rates, etc.

Sorting VS. Learning

Achievement Gap

NAEP – White / Black gap in Math

NAEP – White / Black gap in Math

NAEP Rdg

NAEP Rdg

NCLBDisaggregated Groups and the

Achievement Gaps

2008 - 2010 2011 2012 2013 20140%

10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

56%67%

78%89%

63%72%

81%91%

100%MathReading

Adequate Yearly ProgressPennsylvania Proficiency Targets

Group Number Scored Math

% Adv Math

% Prof Math

%Bas Math

% BB Math

Number Scored Reading

% Adv Reading

% Prof Reading

% Bas Reading

% BB Reading

All Students 5896 54.9 28.4 10.7 6.0 5922 48.6 35.9 10.2 5.3

Male 3018 57.3 27.1 9.6 5.9 3024 44.7 37.4 11.1 6.8

Female 2870 52.5 29.7 11.8 6.0 2890 52.8 34.2 9.4 3.6

White 4920 56.0 28.5 10.2 5.3 4943 49.8 35.9 9.6 4.7

Black 321 29.0 33.0 20.6 17.4 323 27.6 38.4 20.4 13.6

Hispanic 191 38.7 35.1 16.8 9.4 193 32.1 38.3 19.2 10.4

Asian 374 75.4 18.2 5.1 1.3 373 63.5 29.8 4.8 1.9

Native American 7 7

Multi-Ethnic 75 40.0 28.0 16.0 16.0 75 36.0 40.0 14.7 9.3

IEP 930 31.2 29.8 19.0 20.0 955 20.7 35.3 23.4 20.6

ELL 51 15.7 41.2 29.4 13.7 50 4.0 46.0 28.0 22.0

Economically Disadvantaged 922 33.7 33.1 20.1 13.1 930 28.3 40.1 19.0 12.6

2011 Pennsbury School District

Economically Disadvantaged IEP students Black students Hispanic students Single Parent Families*

Pennsbury

Grade 11 Math PSSA% Prof. & Adv. 2008 - 2011

2008 2009 2010 2011

0102030405060708090

100

AAED

All Students

AAEDAll Students

Grade 11 Reading PSSA% Prof. & Adv. 2008 - 2011

2008 2009 2010 2011

0102030405060708090

AAED

All Students

AAEDAll Students

Grade 8 Math PSSA% Prof. & Adv. 2008 - 2011

2008 2009 2010 2011

0102030405060708090

AAED

All Students

AAEDAll Students

Grade 8 Reading PSSA% Prof. & Adv. 2008 - 2011

2008 2009 2010 2011

0102030405060708090

100

AAED

All Students

AAEDAll Students

Grade 5 Math PSSA% Prof. & Adv. 2008 - 2011

2008 2009 2010 2011

0102030405060708090

AAED

All Students

AAEDAll Students

Grade 5 Reading PSSA% Prof. & Adv. 2008 - 2011

2008 2009 2010 2011

0102030405060708090

AAED

All Students

AAEDAll Students

Economic Disadvantage School Structures Sorting vs Learning orientation Expectations – kids’, parents’ and teachers’ Access to Rigorous courses Engagement Formative Assessment & Grading for

Learning Inspire all kids to ASPIRE to be great!

Key Issues for Consideration

Unmarried Births as a % of All U.S. Births

Language Development pre-school

By age 4 in a Professional family, a child : has heard ~ 20 million more words than if in a working class family

And

has heard ~35 million more words than if in a welfare family

The Normal Curve vs. Success Orientation(school structures)

Standards based environment??

Sorting students or ensuring that they learn?

Norm Referenced = sorting, categorizing, lining up in order

Criterion Referenced = focus on actual learning that has occurred, specific to the learning

Expectations – self perceptions of where you fit

Our Beliefs – All kids can Learn (do we believe it?)

Sorting vs Learning

Teaching is NOT Adversarial !

MEDIOCRITY

Tracking (sorting) promotes lower expectations and lower rigor

Tracking contributes to widening of the achievement gap

Slower – less rigorous Teacher Expectations Student Expectations The best of intentions to provide for students

in need have resulted in widening of the achievement gap.

Expectations

The Thinking Mind Clearly defined learning targets for every

course Formative Assessment EVERYONE to proficiency on those targets Motivation to go beyond proficient Access to higher level

content

RIGOR

Kids will only engage and put forth effort if there is a likelihood of success.

They need to know that they can be successful and that

you will help them get there.

ENGAGEMENT

How do we sort students in Pennsbury?

What limits do we place on students and what can we do about it?

Blue Birds, Robins and Sparrows Dolphins, Trout, Rocks MG – AMP Talent Pool Honors, Parallel, Selected Materials LS, DWLS, Self-contained Honors / AP Algebra Topics, Algebra I, IA, IB,

Tracks (sorting)

What do they have in common? What is different than in low performing

high poverty schools? What lessons can translate to Pennsbury? What limitations are there to trying to

implement those lessons in Pennsbury?

New Research on High Performing, High Poverty Schools – http://www.education.com/reference/article/Ref_New_Research_High

Lessons from High Performing High Poverty Schools

High expectations for faculty, staff and students

Emphasis on academics and instruction Systems for regularly assessing individual

students – and using assessment information for instruction

Caring, respectful relationships

Key Findings

Tentative Goal #1 – Student Learning: Improve Academic Achievement of ALL Students

Shift to Standards Based Curriculum/Grading Use Data for Instruction Teacher as Learner

Tentative Goal #2 – Student Life: Improve Affective Development of ALL Students

Belongingness and Character Education Aspiration to Greatness Community Engagement

2012 Strategic Plan – now called Comprehensive Plan

Eliminate Reading Tracking at the elementary division

Eliminate tracking of math in grade 3 Lessen tracking in Math Gr 6 Eliminate SM at 9 and 10 Provide remedial “in addition to”

instruction / intervention (Fundations, Rdg Gr 6, Gr 7, Gr 8, HS Rdg,

LRE

What have we done?

Continue elimination of early tracking in math Provide appropriate supports for “in addition

to” instructional time Develop a Standards-based curriculum and

grading system USE formative assessment Raise expectations for students – assessment

– support – encouragement - advocacy Develop the Thinking Mind concepts for all

students, all instruction, etc.

What needs to be done?

Comprehensive planning Get involved? Start the conversations Embed and promote ideas Advocacy for kids ???? ?????

Next Steps???