First Things First A Framework for Systemic High School Reform

First Things First First Things First A Framework for Systemic A Framework for Systemic

High School ReformHigh School Reform

James P. Connell, Ph. D.James P. Connell, Ph. D.Institute for Research and Reform in EducationInstitute for Research and Reform in Education

US Department of Education High School SummitUS Department of Education High School SummitOctober 8, 2003October 8, 2003

ArchivedArchived InformationInformation

Who Are We?Who Are We?

Institute for Research and Reform in EducationInstitute for Research and Reform in Education

IRRE is a not-for-profit organizationIRRE is a not-for-profit organization

We developed First Things First, a We developed First Things First, a comprehensive K-12 research-based reform comprehensive K-12 research-based reform frameworkframework

Who Do We Work With?Who Do We Work With? Urban DistrictsUrban Districts

– Kansas City, KS (all 28 elementary, eight middle Kansas City, KS (all 28 elementary, eight middle and five high schools)and five high schools)

– Kansas City, MO (all four comprehensive high Kansas City, MO (all four comprehensive high schools and one magnet high school)schools and one magnet high school)

– Riverview Gardens, MO (one urban high school Riverview Gardens, MO (one urban high school and two middle schoolsand two middle schools

– Houston, TX (three large high schools and four Houston, TX (three large high schools and four middle schools)middle schools)

– New Orleans, LA (10 high schools)New Orleans, LA (10 high schools) Rural DistrictsRural Districts

– High schools in Greenville and Shaw, MS High schools in Greenville and Shaw, MS

Who Are Our “Sponsors”?Who Are Our “Sponsors”?

Public and private investors in Public and private investors in educational reformeducational reform– Private foundationsPrivate foundations

Carnegie FoundationCarnegie FoundationEwing Marion Kauffman FoundationEwing Marion Kauffman FoundationGates FoundationGates Foundation

– State and U.S. Departments of State and U.S. Departments of EducationEducation

– Public school districtsPublic school districts

FTF StrategiesFTF Strategies

Small Learning CommunitiesSmall Learning Communities

Family Advocate SystemFamily Advocate System

Instructional ImprovementInstructional Improvement

Over 150 SLCs now being implemented in Over 150 SLCs now being implemented in comprehensive high schoolscomprehensive high schools

Implementation standards for SLCsImplementation standards for SLCs– Small and tallSmall and tall– Thematic with student and teacher choiceThematic with student and teacher choice– PurePure– Common planning timeCommon planning time– Flexible allocation of resourcesFlexible allocation of resources– Collective responsibilityCollective responsibility

For student outcomesFor student outcomes For instructional improvementFor instructional improvement

Small Learning Communities (SLCs)

Evidence of EffectivenessEvidence of Effectiveness

From Kansas City, KansasFrom Kansas City, Kansas– Approximately 20,000 studentsApproximately 20,000 students

50% African American50% African American25% Hispanic25% Hispanic20% Caucasian20% Caucasian5% Other ethnic groups5% Other ethnic groupsOver 70% free and reduced lunchOver 70% free and reduced lunch

– Completed third year of district-wide Completed third year of district-wide implementation of FTF in 2003implementation of FTF in 2003

Student CommitmentStudent Commitment

Five Year Trend In KCK -Five Year Trend In KCK -High School Attendance RateHigh School Attendance Rate

70%

80%

90%

100%

1997-98 1998-99 1999-2000 2000-01 2001-02ALL COMPREHENSIVE HIGH SCHOOLS (N=4)

Source data: Kansas State Department of Education

All high schools implementing FTF

KCK Dropout Rate – KCK Dropout Rate – Five Year TrendFive Year Trend

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

1997-98 1998-99 1999-2000 2000-01 2001-02ALL COMPREHENSIVE HIGH SCHOOLS (N=4)


All high schools implementing FTF

KCK Graduation Rate – KCK Graduation Rate – Five Year TrendFive Year Trend

40%

50%

60%

70%

1997-98 1998-99 1999-2000 2000-01 2001-02

COMPREHENSIVE HIGH SCHOOLS (N=4)


All high schools implementing SLCs

StrategiesStrategies




Family Advocate System (FAS)Family Advocate System (FAS)

What is it?What is it?– A commitment by all professional and A commitment by all professional and

other qualified staffother qualified staffTo work with approximately 15 students and To work with approximately 15 students and

their familiestheir familiesFor as long as they are in the schoolFor as long as they are in the schoolTo ensure academic success for those To ensure academic success for those

studentsstudents

Family Advocate System (FAS)Family Advocate System (FAS)

What is it?What is it?– Structured training and ongoing support Structured training and ongoing support

for all professional staff to: for all professional staff to: Find and use one-on-one time with students Find and use one-on-one time with students

effectivelyeffectivelyMonitor student progress with an academic Monitor student progress with an academic

and behavioral profileand behavioral profileEstablish regular and productive Establish regular and productive

communication with parentscommunication with parentsConduct effective family conferencesConduct effective family conferencesWork with colleagues to ensure each Work with colleagues to ensure each

student’s successstudent’s success

Parent Conference Attendance In Four Parent Conference Attendance In Four SLCs At One Comprehensive High SchoolSLCs At One Comprehensive High School

25%

75%

30%

65%

25%

50%

25%

50%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

SLC A SLC B SLC C SLC D

Pre FAS Post FAS2001-02 school year

StrategiesStrategies





Provide students who need it mostProvide students who need it most– more instructional time in literacy and more instructional time in literacy and

math, math, – lower student/adult ratioslower student/adult ratios– attention to specific learning needsattention to specific learning needs

Work with all teachers to actively Work with all teachers to actively engage all students with rigorous, engage all students with rigorous, standards-based instruction aligned standards-based instruction aligned with high stakes assessmentswith high stakes assessments

Student PerformanceStudent Performance

Trends In 11Trends In 11thth Grade Reading Assessment Scores: Grade Reading Assessment Scores:

Kansas City, Kansas High SchoolsKansas City, Kansas High Schools

34%29%

25%

36%

44%45%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

2001 (N=977) 2002 (N=988) 2003 (N=1050)

Proficient/Advanced Unsatisfactory



Kansas City, Kansas Middle SchoolsKansas City, Kansas Middle Schools

56%

37%36%

14%

29%33%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

2001 (N=1431) 2002 (N=1453) 2003 (N=1512)




Kansas City, Kansas Elementary SchoolsKansas City, Kansas Elementary Schools

29%32%

47%41% 37%

21%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

2001 (N=1617) 2002 (N=1608) 2003 (N=1647)



Closing The Racial Achievement Gap Closing The Racial Achievement Gap In Kansas City, KansasIn Kansas City, Kansas

(Grade 5, 8 and 11) (Grade 5, 8 and 11)

48%

29%

55%

45%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

% of Readers

Proficient or Above

2002 2003

Non Minority Minority


N=905 N=3140 N=896 N=3313

Closing The Economic Achievement GapClosing The Economic Achievement Gap in Kansas City, Kansas in Kansas City, Kansas

(Grades 5, 8 and 11)(Grades 5, 8 and 11)

43%

28%

53%

44%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

% of Readers

Proficient or Above

2002 2003

Paid Lunch Free/Reduced


N=1338 N=2721 N=1291 N=2918

Contact InformationContact Information

IRREIRRE

215.545.1335215.545.1335

www.irre.orgwww.irre.org

[email protected]@aol.com

http://www.irre.org/

Documents

First Things First A Framework for Systemic High School Reform