Focal Point Winter 2008 by Chicago International Charter School

FocalPoint A Chicago International Charter School Publication

Respected. Refined. Realized.

VOL. 02 NUM. 1 WINTER 2008

Charting Progress

Teachers Amanda Stoffey and Natalie Williams Utilize NWEA MAPs to Plan Their Studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Paths

Why Defining and Closing the Achievement Gap Matters PRSRT STD U.S. POSTAGE PAID GURNEE, IL PERMIT NO. 51

CICS Serves Up New Enrichment Opportunity for Students Beth Purvis and Jerry Jenkins Weigh in on Accountability

OpeningThoughts

Colleagues, It is with pride and disquiet that we share with you the third edition of FocalPoint. Pride, because the information contained within this publication chronicles the success of our students and the hard work of teachers over the last 11 years; disquiet because despite the progress we have made, we have yet to near our goal. To me, the articles in FocalPoint III reflect accurately our daily struggle to improve the educational experiences of Chicago International students. I use the pronoun “our” with great purpose, because it is the belief of all Chicago International constituents—parents, staff, teachers, administrators, board members, funders, and educational partners—that we have much work to do before we have fully achieved our mission of providing a “high-quality, college-preparatory education” to today’s student.

Beth Purvis

Executive Director Chicago International Charter School

In 2004, Chicago International received a grant from the Walton Family Foundation to develop a strategic business plan. As a woman more comfortable with outcomes than process, it was with trepidation that I began the work on this plan with our Board and staff. The result, some 12 months later, was a working blueprint in which the Board reaffirmed its mission and stated, very clearly, the priorities of the organization: Priority One: Improved student outcomes Priority Two: Continued financial efficiency Priority Three: Growth only if priorities one and two were met Improving student outcomes required a better understanding of student performance across children, grades, campuses, curricula, and time. To better understand student learning required building a performance evaluation system and a staff that could manage and analyze data in “real time.” A three-year, $1.3 million loan from the Charter School Growth Fund in 2005 enabled us to hire staff and implement the new student information, compliance tracking, and student assessment systems. Three years later, we are able to track the individual growth of each child within our school from entry to exit. More importantly, this system allows schoolbased staff with the student-by-student and classroom-by-classroom information that they need to shape professional development and administrative duties. We ended the 2007-2008 school year with many great student successes: 20% of our 8th grade graduates were accepted into selective enrollment high schools; we closed the achievement gap in reading and math on the Chicago International Bucktown, Longwood, and West Belden campuses; our 4-year high school graduation rate was 89%; and 91% of our high school graduates were accepted into college. We hope that, as our skill in understanding and acting upon data improves, so will the achievement of each child within our network. In closing, I would like to thank those of you who have written or called to share with us your thoughts about FocalPoint. As you read this issue, please focus on the reprinted article entitled “Which Achievement Gap?” I encourage you to share with us your opinions on the articles as well as your own successes and struggles in using data to drive achievement. You may send your comments via email to focalpoint@chicagointl.org. We hope to include stories from colleagues in future issues. Best wishes in the school year,

Dr. Elizabeth D. Purvis Executive Director 02 00

FocalPoint

contents

VOL. 02 NUM. 1 | WINTER 2008

features 08 Which Achievement Gap? Explaining the deeper workings of school improvement.

14 Strength In Numbers

The positive influence of accountability in the classroom environment.

18 Talking Points Photos and Cover Photo by Joshua Dunn

Q&A with Beth Purvis and Jerry Jenkins: Reflections on the road to accountability.

23 CICS 2008 Annual Report

18 06

We invite our readers to create a dialogue with CICS. Please share your comments and stories with us. We may feature your comments in our next edition of FocalPoint. Thank you. Chicago International Charter School 228 South Wabash Ave., Suite 500 Chicago, IL, 60604 p (312) 651-5000 f (312) 651-5001 focalpoint@chicagointl.org

FocalPoint MAGAZINE A Chicago International Charter School Publication 228 South Wabash Avenue, Suite 500 Chicago, IL 60604

CONTRIBUTORS Collin Hitt R.J. McMahon

Katie Nugent Christine Poindexter

departments 02

OpeningThoughts

ViewPoint

PolicyReport

Extensions

CampusProfile

Resources

DESIGN Morris! Communication w ww.thinkmorris.com

PRINT Haapanen Brothers w ww.hb-graphics.net

FocalPoint

Q: ViewPoint

How has the CICS accountability system impacted your campus?

“I strongly feel the Chicago International accountability system keeps us on our toes along with the fact it’s another measure for us to ensure that we’re giving the best services to our students.”

“The Chicago International accountability system is designed to assure conformity to specific norms and expectations in the area of student growth. At the CICS Prairie Campus, we use this information to guide instruction with our students and to assess our performance as a whole. It allows us to reflect on a range of self-evaluative questions related to one larger question: how well are we accomplishing our mission?” Aisha Strong Director, CICS Prairie Campus

“The accountability system has been instrumental in our quest to raise student achievement. It is an extremely comprehensive Robert Lang and detailed assessment tool that has allowed Director, CICS Longwood Academy us to analyze student data on an ongoing basis and individualize instruction “The Chicago International to meet the needs of all of assessment piece has our students.” provided a valuable tool Kristin Baldino for driving instruction at the Director, CICS West Belden Civitas campuses and holding “CICS Washington Park has embraced the accountability system instructional leaders as an excellent tool to keep our teachers and students informed of the academic progress and academic needs of our students. accountable for It provides critical feedback on how effectively our teachers are educational goals teaching and how well our students are learning. Sharing the and objectives.” data with teachers, students, and parents is a reminder to all Dr. Thresa Nelson CEO, Civitas Schools

stakeholders of our accountability for the academic achievement of our students.” Pamela Creed Director, CICS Washington Park

FocalPoint

PolicyReport

Checks & Balances Accountability creates better choices for education by Collin Hitt

Bad charter schools can be closed down— simply for not performing well. Many parents, and policymakers for that matter, are unaware of this fact. Most policymakers understand that charter schools are public schools. Many parents understand that charter schools offer them a broader choice of schools: every time a charter school opens, there is a new option for their children where there wasn’t one before. However, most people are unfamiliar with a very important fact about charter schools: they are more accountable to taxpayers than regular public schools. In Illinois, charter schools are formed after a non-profit community group or charitable organization reaches an agreement with school district officials. The community group is granted a “charter” to open its own independent public school. The charter agreement spells out performance goals for the school. In order to meet those goals, charter schools are granted freedom from burdensome red tape. However, if a charter school fails to meet the goals set forward in its charter agreement, state or local officials can revoke its charter and close the school down. Accountability, as it turns out, is in the very name of “charter” schools. Charter schools in Illinois by-and-large outperform comparable public schools. Parents, through choice, are often able to pressure the schools to meet the needs of their children. However, sometimes local authorities must intervene and, either pressure a slow-starting charter school to improve, or even shut it down before it becomes just another failing public school— something Illinois has far too many of already. Consider the example of Robertson Charter School in Decatur. Robertson enrolls

elementary and middle school students. The school serves a disproportionately high number of disadvantaged students: 92 percent of students enrolled at Robertson are classified as low income, compared to a district-wide average of 65 percent. During its first five years of operation, Robertson performed at or below the district average on combined measures of performance for low-income students. Both the district and the charter school were displeased with Robertson’s “average” performance. In 2006, both school and district officials agreed that if Robertson again failed to meet performance targets, the school could be closed at any time. In the two years since then, Robertson has made impressive yearly improvements in student learning, and enrollment has climbed by more than 53 percent. Today, Robertson is bursting at the seams. The Decatur Herald reports the school is aggressively seeking new real estate for a middle school campus. School leaders are considering the possibility of opening a Robertson charter high school. Moreover, in the wake of Robertson’s success, sources indicate local officials are entertaining the option of welcoming other established charter school operators to help tackle Decatur’s many schooling challenges. This news is welcome to parents and taxpayers in the Decatur community who, for too long, have had to cope with a failing public school system. They will have a wider array of choices from innovative, more accountable schools. Polling demonstrates that the more people know about Robertson’s story (the more they know about accountability through charter schools), the more support they show for the charter school movement.

Whereas charter schools in Illinois are clearly outperforming their public school peers, many people have yet to become familiar with them. Earlier this year the Illinois Network of Charter Schools conducted a robust public opinion poll in three downstate cities: Springfield, Peoria and Rockford. Currently, only Springfield has a charter school, the high-performing Ball Charter School. So perhaps it isn’t surprising that the public is unfamiliar with basic facts about charter schools. On average, only 14.7 percent of those polled admitted to knowing “quite a bit” or “a great deal” about charter schools. Without a common understanding of what charter schools are, 54.7 percent of those polled had no opinion of charter schools; on average, only 37.3 percent supported the idea having a charter school open in their area. However, when those same people were then provided a definition of charter schools and made aware that charter schools are more innovative and more accountable than traditional public schools, support for charter schools went through the roof. Once informed on the issue, 72.3 percent of those polled supported the idea of opening a charter school in their community. It has been reported that both Peoria and Rockford are considering opening new charter schools in their communities. In fact, Chicago International Charter School has been invited to apply to expand upon its success in Chicago and to open a charter high school in Rockford. If reformers in these Illinois communities hope to bring charter schools to town, they must aggressively spread the word that charter schools expand school choice and provide new, more innovative options within the public school system. Additionally, as experience shows, local reformers would do well to spread the word that charter schools —more so than regular public schools—are held accountable for their results.

FocalPoint

Extensions

Game. Set. Match. Teaming up with the USTA by R.J. McMahon

Chicago International is always on the lookout for new and exciting out-of-school opportunities for our 7,500 students. The programs offered after school and on weekends cover four main categories: health & wellness, arts & culture, academic-remediation & enrichment and parent programming. The activities range from karate & drama to tutoring & chess and everything in between. The tennis story begins with an informal conversation between representatives of CICS and the USTA/Midwest (United States Tennis Association - Midwest Section). Next comes a brainstorming session to develop a pilot program that will offer tennis through the physical education curriculum on the Chicago International campuses. For the 2006–2007 school year, CICS partnered with the USTA/Midwest to bring this pilot program to fruition. USTA School Tennis introduced tennis to CICS by training the physical education teachers and equipping them with the tools (literally and figuratively) to bring tennis to the students of Chicago International. If you are thinking, “where are these urban youngsters going to learn and play tennis,” you understand the inherent challenge with bringing tennis into the inner city. The USTA School Tennis Program provides all the training and support, including portable nets and equipment to turn the school’s gymnasium into a mini-tennis court. Once the physical education teachers incorporated tennis into their rotations, the tennis balls started flying around the campuses, many even stayed on the court! The USTA/Midwest partnership opened up a new world of opportunities for Chicago 06

FocalPoint

Former Pro Players Luke Jensen and Tom Gullickson pose with young players from Chicago International after a celebrity clinic at the Midtown Tennis Club.

International students. These rookie tennis players are not the usual suspects—they come for myriad reasons with varied abilities: something to keep them busy after school; a fledgling interest in sports; a “level playing field (court);” and a chance to be part of something new. With the help of the USTA/Midwest, CICS began additional tennis programs to build upon the joy and enthusiasm in the regular physical education classes. The out-of-school programs began in the second semester of the 2006–2007 school year on several campuses. This allowed the students to gain additional confidence while they developed more concentrated skills. As the number of students attending the on-campus after school programs increased, it was apparent that a move to a real tennis court was needed. Before the dust settled on the first semester of the after school tennis program, our students

were participating in a weekly Junior Tennis program on Saturday mornings at an indoor tennis facility on the South Side of Chicago. The excitement of finally getting on a tennis court was overwhelming for many of the players. They had honed their “skills” and strokes in their school’s gymnasiums, and never thought about getting on a court, let alone a court in a private health club! The vision for the CICS Tennis program is that the students of Chicago International will learn the game of tennis from professional instructors in elementary school, begin playing competitively, including team tennis matches versus other CICS campuses, in junior high and compete at the high school level, potentially earning college scholarships through tennis. This will create a tennis continuum that builds a foundation throughout a student’s academic career and into adulthood so they may incorporate tennis into a healthy life style.

Extensions

â&#x20AC;&#x153;They [CICS] have taken a body of students, with little or no tennis experience, and created a system that will allow these kids to be exposed to tennis at no cost who normally would not have the chance to play.â&#x20AC;? Matt Smucker Tennis Service Rep for Chicago from USTA/Midwest

why tennis? Because kids: Develop discipline and work ethic by improving skills through lessons and practice Manage stress and learn to recover by adapting to the stress of each point, increasing capacity to deal with and handle other stresses Plan and implement strategies as they learn the game and anticipate opponentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; moves Practice sportsmanship and healthy competition Improve aerobic and anaerobic fitness levels Generate new brain cells through unique motions performed in tennis Develop strength and flexibility by constantly changing direction and sprinting to return the ball Refine eye-hand coordination and overall body coordination as players judge timing of each shot and adjust their bodies accordingly Learn teamwork and social skills through doubles

FocalPoint

00 08

FocalPoint

which achievement gap?

by Sharon Anderson, Elliott Medrich, and Donna Fowler (MPR Associates, Inc.)

Conversations about school improvement toss about the term “achievement gap” as though we all know precisely what it means.

As commonly used, “achievement gap” refers to differences in test scores among various student demographic groups on state or national achievement tests.

that are ring this gap in ways su ea m d an g in fin de But ul can be a humbling ef us d an l, fu ng ni ea m accurate, st glance. ex than apparent at fir pl m co e or m e, nc rie expe

FocalPoint

00 09

WhichAchievementGap?

The Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) requirements of the federal No Child Left Behind act are designed to expose achievement gaps, so that schools will make greater efforts to close them over time. But making AYP is not the same as closing achievement gaps. The great hope— still far from being realized—is that the two ultimately will converge. It’s important to remember that tracking AYP is a means to the end of closing achievement gaps and improving the performance of all students. What is the Achievement Gap? Defining the “achievement gap” is problematic. But how we define and then measure the achievement gap has significant implications for what we can know and what we can do about what we know. Historically, most studies on the achievement gap have focused on differences in achievement scores between white and African-American students on national tests, such as the SAT or National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). However, NCLB focuses at the school level, asking how well racial/ethnic subgroups in a given school are performing relative to their white peers. At the school level, there are at least two kinds of gaps with particular relevance to policy: the internal gap (average differences between racial/ethnic groups within a school and their white peers) and the external gap (average differences between aggregate school scores for each student subgroup compared with aggregate scores for white students across the state). Both gaps are important to school improvement efforts. Calculating the internal gap allows us potentially to identify—and learn from— schools accelerating the learning of minority students relative to white students. This knowledge can be an important tool to focus school improvement efforts. Calculating the external gap can help identify schools that may not have made much progress closing their internal gap—because they are raising the achievement of all students to the same degree—but have made significant progress advancing the performance of their nonwhite 10

FocalPoint

students compared with their white peers statewide. Complexities multiply when we must decide which groups to compare. In addition to breakdowns by student racial/ethnic groups, NCLB requires states to break out test scores according to student poverty status, language, and disability. Surely we are concerned about achievement disparities across all of these groups, but for some schools or districts, some gaps may pose a more urgent problem than others.

Looking for Schools Closing the Gap Why try to identify schools closing the achievement gap? Obviously to learn from them about how they are doing so. Have they undertaken systematic reforms directed at closing the gap, and, if so, what are these reforms? Are there effective strategies common across such schools? Identifying true gap-closing schools will allow us to examine the following issues: Has the school undertaken whole-school, subject-matter, or specially targeted reforms intended to help close the gap? Has the curriculum changed to incorporate content or materials that may be contributing to improved achievement? Have there been changes in instructional practice or professional development? Does the school show particular coursetaking patterns that may be boosting minority students’ achievement?

Are students graduating in higher proportions than previously or in comparison with other, higher-achieving schools? Are larger proportions of graduates moving into postsecondary education? Understanding what successful schools are doing to close the achievement gap will tell us what works, so that lessons learned in one setting can provide guidance for policy and practice in other settings.

Finding the Right Data As a simplified example, let’s assume we want to find comprehensive U.S. high schools that are succeeding in closing achievement gaps between white students, on the one hand, and African-American and Hispanic students, on the other. What assessments should be used to analyze achievement gaps and over what period of time? Here are some of the problematic issues: Lack of comparability of state data. Academic standards vary from state to state, as do state assessments and their benchmarks for performance. States use different measurement scales, and even those using the same assessment (for example, the SAT 9) may use different versions of the assessment. Access to student data. Schools and districts keep records of individual student performance, but those records may not be in forms (i.e., paper records or school-specific record systems) that allow an easy analysis of the achievement gap. And data on individual students are strictly protected by privacy statutes and often not released outside the school system. Variable progress in school improvement. Test scores may advance for a year or two and then retreat. Some groups may do better in some years than in others. Changes in policy, curricula, and other factors can disrupt an upward trend. This typical uneven progression requires that we examine achievement data over an adequate time period. Two years are clearly not enough because

WhichAchievementGap?

they only reveal one change. Three years are better, but not enough to discern any consistent trend. Four years are perhaps a minimum, because with three changes to examine, it’s possible to see a trend showing the gap increasing, decreasing, or remaining stable. To continue with our example, we would measure internal and external achievement gaps for African-American and Hispanic students compared to whites with state data that: Result from standards-based or normreferenced high school level assessments in English/language arts/reading and mathematics.

improve in English but not in math, while Hispanic students’ scores improve in math but not English? If schools close the internal gap, but not the external gap, for one group but not another? NCLB requires schools, districts, and states to report scores in specific areas and for specific student groups, but educators may find that certain gaps count more than others in their own schools or districts. The right data could help them to see where intervention is urgently needed, where to direct limited resources, and how to base improvement efforts on evidence rather than conjecture.

Span at least four years and are disaggregated by race/ethnicity at the school level for each year. Derive from assessments that remained largely unchanged over the four years or scores adjusted to allow comparisons.

Proceed with Caution Testing these criteria against real data, we examined the 50 states and the District of Columbia to see how many had the right data for such an analysis. Depending on the four-year period chosen, the number of states varies, but in no case did the majority of states have usable data. If we choose states based on these criteria and the most current four years of data available as of 2004, only 10 states and the District of Columbia passed muster. States are rapidly improving their data systems in response to NCLB requirements, however, so more will likely make the cut over time.

Defining Success in Closing the Gap For a school to be truly closing the achievement gap, in ways that are statistically sound and meaningful for students, which gaps matter? Is a school closing the gap if Hispanic students’ scores improve, but not those of African-Americans? If scores improve only in mathematics, but not in English/language arts? If African-American students’ scores

Defining achievement gaps and then using those definitions to identify schools closing them is an exercise best approached with caution and a clear understanding of what the resulting data can and cannot tell us. The following issues should be kept in mind: Schools closing the gap are not necessarily the highest-performing schools. Schools closing the gap may be improving the performance of African-American and Hispanic students relative to their white students. But these schools may still lag well behind others. It cannot be assumed that these gap-closing schools are the highest performers in the state. “Gap-closing” and “high-performing” can be two different things.

Schools must show progress for each statistically reliable student subgroup, as well as overall. For example, a school could be closing gaps for African-American and Hispanic students, but not for others, such as special education students, and therefore not be considered to be making AYP. Schools making AYP are not necessarily closing the achievement gap. State definitions of AYP are based on baseline test score results and expectations for yearly improvement, rather than on a continuous decrease in the gap between subgroup scores and overall achievement. Some gap-closing schools may be making AYP, but the definitional differences here suggest that no assumptions should be made about the relationship of AYP to closing the achievement gap. Comparisons across states are inappropriate. As noted above, the variation in state standards, assessments, and available data makes legitimate comparisons across states impossible. Until we have more sophisticated ways to track progress nationally, perhaps we should focus on getting the state data right rather than on seeing which state is on first. These measurement issues can be daunting, but we must keep in mind the ultimate goal: raising the achievement of students who have traditionally been underperformers. The stakes are high, and good data are crucial. The achievement gap between white and minority students is one of the most intractable problems facing our public schools. Schools making real headway on this issue are worth a close look. This article is excerpted from “Which Achievement Gap?”, which appeared in Phi Delta Kappan, March 2007, vol. 88, no. 7. Sharon Anderson is senior research associate;

Schools closing the gap are not necessarily making Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). To make AYP, schools must demonstrate continuous growth in student achievement in reading and mathematics, and eventually other subjects, across student subgroups and for a specified proportion of test-takers.

Elliott Medrich is director of external affairs and development; and Donna Fowler is director of communications at MPR Associates, Inc., an education research and consulting firm (www.mprinc.com) with offices in Berkeley, CA, Portland, OR and Washington, D.C.

FocalPoint

CampusProfile

FocalPoint

CampusProfile

Building Blocks Laying the foundation for better education by R.J. McMahon

Since the school year began across the Chicago International network, students and teachers have been coming together to create positive learning environments. This is especially true at the newest campus: Chicago International Loomis Primary, which is focused solely on kindergarten through second grade. Upon completion of second grade, the students will matriculate to the Chicago International Longwood Academy campus, located adjacent to the school building. The campus opened on September 2 with 568 students in a renovated convent. The student population is 100% African American and 78% qualify for the Federal Free/Reduced Lunch Program. The transformation of the former convent of the Sisters of Notre Dame into a state-of-the-art primary-focused academic facility cost approximately $6 million. This primary education campus is the only one of its kind in Chicago. A high-quality educational foundation for our youngest at-risk students is paramount to their future academic success. Sound research has shown that children from impoverished backgrounds (as measured by the Federal Free/Reduced Lunch Program guidelines) begin school at a deficit compared to students from higher income families. By the age of four, students from lower income households have been exposed to 20% of the words of their more affluent peers. Studies have pegged this number at a three million word deficit. Additionally, the children from impoverished backgrounds average 25 hours of reading experience versus 1,000 hours for their more affluent peers. To combat this deficit and create a positive learning environment, the CICS Loomis Primary campus has four hours of instruction in reading, math, science, and social

studies each day. Teacher “interventionists” are on the ready to tutor students individually if it appears a child is falling back in any one area. Also, the literacy focus includes small group sessions focused on reading, writing, and phonetic work. Additionally, a full-time literacy coach is available for work with the teachers and students. The instruction will be highlighted by adherence to the following: (a) regular small group instruction; (b) regular assessment of student performance using developmentally appropriate, authentic evaluation tools; (c) integrated use of technology in the classroom; (d) discovery learning and other aspects of a constructivist approach to education that has been proven effective with our youngest learners; and (e) an age-appropriate discipline code. According to Beth Purvis, executive director of Chicago International Charter School, “We believe we can make a difference in these children’s education by immersing them at this very early age in concentrated studies, which isn’t an option in their neighborhood public schools.” The academic program delivered at CICS Loomis Primary is based on the substantial body of research surrounding the importance of language development in early childhood and the accompanying research articulating developmentally appropriate practices for the primary years. Instructional materials, assessment, and technology integration will all be aligned with these concepts. New curricular materials were purchased so that Chicago International may create, through the CICS Loomis Primary campus, a place of best practice in urban early childhood education. FocalPoint

STRENGTH IN NUMBERS

Amanda Stoffey & Natalie Williams Help Students Achieve More Through Accountability

by Katie Nugent photos by Joshua Dunn

FocalPoint

Natalie Williams (left) & Amanda Stoffey

FocalPoint

StrengthInNumbers

When students in Natalie Williams’ fifth grade class at the CICS Prairie campus receive their NWEA MAPs scores—a tri-yearly test administered by CICS to track student performance—it’s usually a cause more for celebration than consternation. “Everyone graphs their own scores to see their progress, and we put it up on the bulletin board. Students get excited about it,” Williams says. What makes this test different, as far as the students are concerned, is the only ones they are competing against are themselves. “We are a community. We are one,” she continues. “We all learn differently, and we’re here to teach each other and help each other learn.” Chicago International’s decision to use the NWEA (Northwest Evaluation Association) MAPs (Measure of Academic Progress) assessment program began with the organization’s deeply held belief in the importance of data in monitoring individual student progress. “We use our assessment data to make necessary changes to improve the quality of education,” says Chief Data Analyst Christine Poindexter. “CICS takes a further look at exactly what is behind those numbers to ensure we are not teaching to a bubble of students (group of students on the ‘bubble’ of meeting the proficiency standards), we

are meeting the needs of all students.” For additional background on the assessment system, please see “Talking Points” on page 18. But not just any accountability system would work. MAPs features several crucial advantages over more traditional standardized testing methods. Administered three times a year (in September, January, and May) in grades 3 through 8, MAPs tracks student progress throughout the school year on a range of subjects, providing a detailed view of students’ progress over time. Since results are available within days of testing completion, it offers a real-time snapshot of student progress for teachers and administrators. And what’s more, MAPs’ computer-based tests are adaptive, meaning that they dynamically adjust to each student’s performance level. As a student answers a test question on a computer, the program chooses subsequent questions based on that student’s own ability level. This type of test is a better indicator of a student’s true achievement than a traditional assessment, which is often a single test given to all students and written for the average ability within a grade level.

The result is an assessment system that not only provides the best illustration of a student’s performance over time, it gives teachers and administrators the detailed information they need to make immediate decisions. “The data allows us to assess each student’s strengths and weaknesses and pinpoint what it is he or she needs to learn,” says Amanda Stoffey, a third grade teacher at CICS Prairie. “It’s also almost like an outline that shows us ‘here’s where they need to be,’ and ‘here’s what we need to do to get them there.’” Teachers and administrators also say that NWEA’s assessment offers some distinct advantages over the annually-administered ISAT (Illinois Standards Achievement Test). “Since students take the assessment three times per year, they become more familiar with the test taking process and thus it doesn’t cause as much anxiety and fear as the high-stakes ISAT, which is only one time per year,” says Chief Academic Officer Andrea Brown-Thirston. In addition, the real-time aspect of the NWEA assessment data means the information is immediately actionable for teachers. “I feel that NWEA offers more beneficial information

We are a community. We are one. We all learn differently, and we’re here to teach each other and help each other learn. 16

FocalPoint

StrengthInNumbers

than the ISAT, due to the fact that teachers are able to get immediate results of the students’ progress,” says Stoffey. “The ISAT results aren’t completed and published until the following school year—making it too late for teachers to adjust their lessons to meet the students’ needs. The NWEA gives detailed information about what skills and concepts to enhance, develop, and introduce in order to meet students’ individual skill levels.” “For instance, I currently have some students whose strength is Reading Strategies and Comprehension and whose weakness is Word Analysis and Vocabulary Skills, based on their initial NWEA results they took in September,” continues Stoffey. “In order to develop their Word Analysis and Vocabulary Skills, I’ve developed lessons based around using prefixes and suffixes and how they change word meanings, identifying root words, using context clues within a text to define unknown words when they read, identifying synonyms and antonyms—using them with weekly vocabulary words.” The test results are conducive to a differentiated teaching strategy, says Poindexter—a shift from the “teaching down the middle” mindset of earlier days, in which focus was placed on moving students over a proficiency line rather than meeting the unique needs of individual learners. Stoffey echoes this thought: “It helps me in grouping students, because it then allows me to think of them heterogeneously or homogeneously.” Williams agrees that the data is a tool for differentiated teaching. “The NWEA score information is very specific and it points out the individual needs of each student,” she says. “I can use this information to teach students the specific strategies and skills needed to boost their learning. I can use it during groups and on a one-on-one basis. This gives me the opportunity to enhance what the student already knows and what the student needs to know.” The scale NWEA uses to measure a student’s progress is called the RIT scale, an equalinterval scale used to chart a student’s

academic growth from year to year. “NWEA does not provide grade level status,” says Brown-Thirston. “By using a common RIT system, there is no sense of who is below or above grade level. The RIT score gives the student, teacher, and parent a sense of what kinds of skills the student is capable of completing.” The MAPs feedback is tailored to each student, so “even students who are really low in terms of academic performance can still see positive results,” says Brown-Thirston. “Our special education students are held to the same standards in terms of making growth. And this makes the teachers more accountable for making sure that all students are making progress.” In many ways, CICS’ carefully chosen accountability system goes beyond traditional notions of standardized tests and their place in the classroom environment. For one thing, it promotes an atmosphere of community and cooperation rather than competition or anxiety.

Amaya Campbell, a CICS Prairie fifth grader (a current student of Williams’ and former student of Stoffey’s), has earned consistently excellent marks on standardized tests, underscoring a strong involvement from home, according to Stoffey, who welcomes such parental involvement. “I do try to explain the testing process to parents and offer strategies and tips for the test, so they really can coach their student to do his or her best,” she says. Campbell, whose favorite subject is science and who enjoys working in groups, says “I get a little nervous before the test because I want to do my best, but I’m happy I did well.” In the end, “The students are not competing with each other as much because they are trying to achieve their personal best,” says Brown-Thirston. “The assessment system that we use helps the student to understand exactly where they are and what their target is. The teacher makes this clear to the students so they become partners in their own learning and academic achievement.”

FocalPoint

photos by Joshua Dunn

FocalPoint

Talking Points CICS Executive Director Beth Purvis and board member Jerry Jenkins reflect on CICSâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; decision to implement the Northwest Evaluation Assessment Measures of Academic Progress accountability systemâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;the rationale behind the move, mistakes made along the way, and, ultimately, lessons learned. interview by Katie Nugent

FocalPoint

TalkingPoints

Why did you undertake the accountability system at CICS? Beth Purvis: Our mission is collegepreparatory education. In order to adequately determine whether or not we are meeting our mission, we needed a more accurate and timely analysis of student performance, and the state exams don’t tell us about individual student growth. And, they are not timely in their responsiveness.

At the time, were there other educational organizations doing this? Did you have contact with them during the development of CICS’ system? BP: Yes. During the strategic planning process the Board undertook during the 2004-2005 school year, one of the things we did was an analysis of the high-performing urban school districts. What we found were two things. There are some examples of high-performing urban school districts that have accountability programs. CharlotteMecklenburg is an example of one. And then there are groups of charter schools and some of the smaller individual single-site charter schools around the country that are in urban settings that are doing value-added analysis. The two systems for elementary school that we looked at most closely, which were Scantron’s Performance Series and NWEA MAPs, are both being used in districts across the country, so we were able to look at their implementation and their outcomes and how they worked. Jerry Jenkins: I would say that for the most part, especially the larger examples, people use accountability systems to manage their internal workforce. As far as I know, we are unique in using an accountability system to manage subcontractors. And so we use a contractual approach along with our accountability system to manage who we hire, who we fire, and who we extend our relationship with.

What were the few major changes to designing and implementing an accountability system? JJ: First, one didn’t exist when we started. 20

FocalPoint

So we had to determine what is was. Add to that the fact that most people start with not a growth-based system but an input-based system, or worse, a status-based system.

Once we found the system, we had to determine how much professional development was enough and affordable to make sure we were getting reliable and valid data.

BP: Status-based is how people are doing in relationship to a curriculum or other people rather than how they are doing in relationship to themselves over time.

How did the Board and staff work together to bring the project to fruition?

JJ: Ours is a growth-based system where we figure out if people are achieving appropriate individual growth levels from year to year. And we knew we wanted to do that from the beginning, and that that was not the common way of doing it. BP: For me, the biggest challenges were designing an affordable system that did all the things we wanted them to do. So, we wanted a system that gave teachers the formative data they need to make immediate decisions about curriculum and instruction. We wanted a system that could give a building principal or director the information that he or she needs on everything from personnel to personal development to long-term curricular decisions. We wanted something I could use to manage the relationship with the educational management organizations, so we could create a rubric that said, if you do well, we renew our contract, if you do medium, you’re on probation, and if you don’t do well, we won’t renew. And we wanted something the Board could use to determine how they were doing toward their strategic plan. The number one priority of their strategic plan is to improve student outcomes. We needed to do it in a way that was affordable and sustainable long-term. And, we needed something that teachers would love, because if teachers don’t like it, they won’t implement it. And if they don’t implement it, the data is neither reliable nor valid. The first system we used failed because the teachers didn’t like it and we didn’t put enough money into professional development.

BP: I think the Board hired me partially to do this. So the Board had the vision when they hired me. We needed to build staff capacity at the same time we built this accountability system. We could build a world-class accountability system, but if we didn’t have the capacity for the training, implementation and analysis of the data, it was a waste of time. As the capacity of the staff has grown, as the accountability system has grown, the focus of the Board has changed dramatically from growth and finances to education first. And that is a very different place than we were in five or six years ago. Not because the Board didn’t care, but back then we didn’t have the data to talk about it. JJ: Beth came at exactly the right time. She not only knew how to do it, but her views of how children should be educated matched our vision precisely. We all knew we needed an accountability system, we all knew what we needed in sound bytes, but we needed to put a lot of flesh on the bones before we could implement it.

How has the implementation of the system affected the classroom environment? BP: It has created a transparency for teachers in what is expected. Your performance will be measured in part by the percentage of students who exceed their growth targets. It’s clear. The teachers know what is expected of them. And they have the tools to understand why students aren’t meeting their targets. So they have very clear and transparent goals for each child, but they also have a road map for each child that says why a child met their targets and why they didn’t. So it gives transparency to the goals but it also gives a

TalkingPoints

tool to help a teacher understand how to reach those goals. Because of that, professional development is far more focused. Curriculum and instruction is far better aligned with where students currently perform and what the goal of performance is.

BP: One of the other things we look at—it’s not just did you or did you not meet your target—it’s the percentage of the kids who met their target and what quartile did they fall in. You cannot meet your target as a teacher in terms of the percentage of kids who meet their targets unless you differentiate instruction. It basically means that I am going to teach kids where they are currently functioning. This is the big buzzword in education. It has its origins in a one-room schoolhouse where you had to differentiate your instruction because you had eighth graders and third graders in the same room. We’ve lost that because of some national tests, tests that just look at status score, reward teachers if they move kids from just

We all knew we needed an accountability system, we all knew what we needed in sound bytes, but we needed to put a lot of flesh on the bones before we could implement it.

JJ: For example, we can give a computer adaptive test to someone who’s not doing well in algebra. This test may well tell us that that child can’t do fractions. So you could spend three days of intensive remedial work with the child, and that person will never get algebra unless you back up and make sure the child knows fractions. The accountability system gives teachers the tools to figure that out.

below the proficiency line to just above the proficiency line. You could teach to the middle and actually look as if you’re a phenomenal teacher. This won’t let you do that because we can look and say “Your kids in the second and third quartile met their targets, but the kids in the bottom quartile and the top quartile did not.” Which means you did not differentiate your instruction enough to meet the needs of those varied learners. JJ: The accountability system is not something we expected to be mature when it was born. One of the key features of our program now is looking at all four quartiles and making sure people are progressing in all four quartiles. That was not a feature in the year we first implemented it. And what we found was, schools were thinking of ways they could meet their targets by focusing all attention on a narrow band of kids. We had created a system that was exploitable. What we did was change the system, and we will continue to tweak the system so we can use the accountability system to manage how they commit resources to individual problems.

FocalPoint

TalkingPoints

What are the lessons learned for other educational organizations that may be thinking about creating a similar system? BP: You want to be both mission-driven and mission-constrained. We’ve always been a college-prep organization and we have focused our curriculum on creating a college-prep environment—we have the climate, the culture, the curriculum to do that. But we needed an accountability system to determine whether our student learning, our product, was actually met by our mission. The other thing the accountability system allows us to do is to be more constrained by our mission; to say, “These things are interesting and important but they aren’t mission relevant.” We can’t be all things to all people. To me, the accountability system allows me to do both. The thing I love more about our accountability system than anything else is the first people who get the data are the most important people in the group, and that’s the teachers. The second thing is, your number one expense should be professional development in relationship to the implementation of the accountability system. That’s where we blew

The thing I love more about our accountability system than anything else is the first people who get the data are the most important people in the group, and that’s the teachers.

it the first time. We chose something we liked, not that the teachers liked, and we did not spend the money to train them to use the system. JJ: The second part of that, which is part of our strategic plan, is that a teacher who perceives a system is usable only to evaluate him or her, is not going to move heaven and earth to implement it. They have to want to listen as much as we want to teach them. BP: The last lesson learned is that the accountability system is only a tool, and it’s only as good as the decisions you make from the data that is out there. Having the data is only part of the solution. You have to make smart decisions based on what the data tells you. JJ: You have to be totally agnostic, in the sense that you can never believe your view of what works is what we have to do. You have to try it, and if the system shows positive results, then use it, but you have to believe the numbers.

Once gathered, how is the data shared with all the constituents of CICS? BP: Teachers all get the data immediately. They have been trained in how to login and pull up the data and they can actually ask for different reports on their own classroom of kids. Then, the EMOs do their own analyses that they share with the teachers and use as part of their professional development. We share our analyses with the EMOs twice a year, based on their midyear and end of year performance. The end of the year is a much more extensive report that shows how they did on each campus relative to their 22

FocalPoint

contractual obligations. Then, there is a much longer report that breaks down those data. JJ: In the end, we’re pass-fail. The only gravity we have is to take the campus away from somebody or to award them more campuses. In the end, we have to boil down data from quartiles within classrooms, spread across grade levels, spread across campuses, down to one number. BP: That number is how we make our decision.

How important is this accountability system to CICS? JJ: It goes to the very essence of the organization. If we were not able to have an accountability system, I don’t think we would keep the passion of the board members and the team going. BP: People in urban ed spend a lot of time talking about culture and climate. And we agree about the importance of a structured and disciplined climate and a culture of high expectations. However, that should be the just minimum setting of the bar. JJ: If we haven’t instilled those attitudes and cultures in the first few grades, it’s almost too late. It’s not wasting time to instill that early on, because it makes it easier to achieve those goals because we have a partner as opposed to someone who’s fighting us. We are teaching people how to do well in this educational system. Kids who do well, once they’ve flown out of our nest, are the kids who’ve built character before they’ve left. It’s our job to set them up with that character.

FocalPoint

Amid the myriad changes affecting our world, we find ourselves teetering on the brink. Confidence levels fluctuate on a daily, if not hourly basis. We, as adults, are unsure about where to turn and how to fix “it”—whatever the “it” is in our lives that needs the fixing. If the adults struggle with these prevalent feelings, what are our students feeling—the youngest members of our families, neighborhoods, and cities? The need for control, consistency and structure is at an all-time high, especially for these young people. At Chicago International we continue to work within these environs to bring structure to our students and along the way create learning communities that are challenging and open for discussion. We want to hear from our students because we learn with and from our students on a daily basis. One goal of Chicago International is to remove the traditional attitude toward education and achievement testing. A teacher must know how a student performs to differentiate the instruction to support and challenge each student as needed. As you will see in this annual report, we track achievement and place high expectations on our students and teachers to excel. The accountability system highlighted in this edition of FocalPoint has enabled Chicago International to better inform all parties in the education process: students, teachers, parents, campus, EMO & CICS administrators, as well as the Chicago International Board of Directors. Armed with the data, each level is equipped with the information needed to make the best decision in a timely fashion. The overarching impact manifests in the overall success measures shared in this section. In addition to student achievement, Chicago International is a sound fiscal organization. Economies of scale have allowed CICS to offer high-quality educational options to traditionally underserved communities from day one of a school start-up. Chicago International manages twelve neighborhood campuses, each with a sense of community and connectedness. Additionally, the size and scope of the organization is leveraged on behalf of the students and the school community. A component of this is the management of the school’s facilities. Chicago International owns five of the twelve campuses and has long-term leases for the remaining seven sites. The portfolio allows CICS to better utilize the facility funds for capital improvements to ensure safe, secure, and education-focused buildings. As we embark on the 2008–2009 school year, Chicago International has grown to a $63 million organization. Noted in this report is a breakdown of the expected revenues and anticipated expenses for FY09. At the time of publication, the FY08 Audited Financials were not completed. If you are interested in reviewing that report, please send an email to rjmcmahon@chicagointl.org to request either a pdf version of the audit or a hard copy. If interested in a hard copy, please include your mailing address.

FocalPoint

salaries & benefits direct student

administration facilities & occupancy

debt service operating surplus depreciation (projected)

total $63,690,769

Expenses (% of total) Projected Surplus=$252,995

SGSA

private grants

other pass through funds

interest income

per capita

no child left behind (title 1)

community schools

special education funds

total $63,943,764

Revenue (% of total)

FocalPoint

Chicago International Charter School has set the goal of closing the achievement gap in five years. This goal is defined and fits within the mission by increasing our student performance, so that the average CICS student is performing at or above the level of their peers nationally. Throughout CICS, assessment tools have been chosen to allow educators to best meet the needs of our students and ensure their growth in the educational process. Chicago International Grades K-2 The 2007–2008 school year was the first in which Chicago International used the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS). The assessments are used to individually monitor students’ progress in measures of early literacy development in grades K-2. Depending upon the student’s age/performance level, he or she may be tested, or “progress monitored”, as often as each week or every two to three months. The highest level of achievement is the “benchmark” category. Approximately 67% of students are scoring in the “benchmark” category in May 2008, a six percentage point increase from January 2008 and an indication that CICS is preparing our students for success in literacy.

Chicago International Grades 3-8 CICS has adopted the Northwestern Evaluation AssociationMeasures of Academic Progress (NWEA-MAPs) to aid in increasing student performance on the elementary campus level. At the close of the second year in this process, CICS is closing the gap faster than initially anticipated. At the close of year two, seventh grade has closed the achievement gap in both reading and math, and grade eight has closed the gap in reading. All grade levels in math and reading have exceeded the growth targets set by NWEA and thereby have positive growth indices. In math, three of six grade levels have achieved growth greater than 90% of schools nationally. In reading, four of six grade levels have achieved growth greater than 89% of schools nationally.

FocalPoint

Chicago International Charter School campuses have also increased the percentage of students who meet and/or exceed state standards on the Illinois State Achievement Test (ISAT) from 2007 to 2008 in reading on all campuses and in math on five of eight campuses. Campuses with the percentage of students meeting and/or exceeding benchmark greater than both Chicago Public School and Chicago Charter School averages in both reading and math are CICS Bucktown, Longwood, and West Belden campuses. (Bar chart below.)

Chicago International Grades 9-12 CICS has used the ACTâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Educational Planning and Assessment System (EPAS) to monitor student growth throughout high school as well as ensure our students are college-ready. Chicago International has seen exceptional growth from 9th to 12th grades using the EPAS. This contributed to a successful four-year graduation rate of 97% of seniors in the class of 2008, with an 82% college acceptance rate. Chicago International class of 2009 has an ACT composite score average of 19.0. CICS Northtown ACT composite scores ranged from 13-30, with an average composite score of 19.7. CICS Longwood ACT composite scores ranged from 13â&#x20AC;&#x201C;25, with an average composite score of 17.9.

Illinois State Achievement Test 2008 Percentages of Students Who Meet/ Exceed State Standards FocalPoint

One of the many challenges Chicago International faces as an organization is facilities. Each of the CICS campuses are housed in independent parochial school sites either owned or leased by Chicago International. There is good news and bad news as it pertains to the facilities that currently house the twelve Chicago International campuses: the good news is that the facilities are built like fortresses; the bad news is that the facilities are built like fortresses! In order to keep these solid, old fortresses functioning and productive, CICS strategically plans for capital repairs and improvements across the network. Some of the work requires immediate attention, while the majority is planned for and accomplished over the summer. This past summer was especially productive, if not glamorous. The capital improvements are rarely exciting, but it is extremely important to keep the buildings functioning at a high level for our students and teachers. The major summer projects included the following: • roof repairs and tuck pointing on eight campuses • asbestos abatement on three campuses • exterior window repairs and replacements on three campuses • new floors installed on four campuses • electrical upgrades on six campuses • painting and wall patching on five campuses • exterior lighting upgraded on four campuses • emergency exit lights upgraded/replaced on six campuses

FocalPoint

Additionally, one time projects on individual campuses included: • sidewalk replacement • wireless access added throughout the building • sinks replaced in bathrooms • exterior doors replaced • windows on classroom doors replaced with fire-rated glass • new water fountain installed • cafeteria egress completed • boiler repair/replacement • window roller shades added Chicago International is grateful to the Circle of Service Foundation for supporting the facility work outlined above.

Funder Profile: Charter School Growth Fund As this issue of FocalPoint covers accountability, we felt it was necessary to highlight the Charter School Growth Fund (CSGF) as our funding partner. The CSGF is a social venture investment fund founded in 2005 to significantly increase the capacity of proven education entrepreneurs to serve more children. By providing financial resources and strategic expertise, CSGF enables some of the nationâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s most innovative entrepreneurs to build scalable, self-sufficient schooling organizations that provide quality educational options to thousands of underserved families in diverse communities. The mission of the Charter School Growth Fund is to make value-added grants and loans for the development and expansion of high-quality charter management and support organizations. Chicago International sought out the support of CSGF to build administrative capacity and create our accountability system. Throughout the process, the two organizations have worked closely together in creating a fruitful relationship that is mutually beneficial, but more important has positively affected the 7,500 current CICS students as well as the future CICS students. The funding is a multi-year loan to grant arrangement. The loan becomes a grant over time as Chicago International hits annual milestones developed in tandem with CSGF in 2006. These milestones cover the following seven areas: student achievement, assessment & accountability, EMO & campus operations, compliance & human resources, finance and program resources. The reports are reviewed annually and if the predetermined targets are made, then the debt is forgiven incrementally over several years. This unique funding relationship has helped Chicago International remain focused on the tasks at hand while keeping an eye on our strategic plan and long-term viability.

Fiscal Year 2008 Funding Partners: On behalf of the 7,500 students, their families and the 600 educators who constitute Chicago International, the Board of Directors wish to extend their deepest gratitude to these individuals and organizations for their continued support of our mission. These gifts truly make a difference in the lives of thousands of Chicagoâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s youth and adults on a daily basis. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Charter School Growth Fund Circle of Service Foundation Arie and Ida Crown Memorial Judd Enterprises Renaissance Schools Fund Walton Family Foundation David Chizewer Violet Clark Paul & Mary Finnegan John Gates, Jr. Gorter Family Foundation Catherine Gottfred Tom Hayden Craig Henderson Gerald Jenkins Vivian Lee Jordan Moranus Tom Nieman Gerald & Marsha Osher Michael Robbins Laura Thonn

FocalPoint

ANNUAL REPORT CONTRIBUTORS R.J. McMahon Christine Poindexter

FocalPoint

Resources

Resources Reading is a key component in building the foundation of a successful education. The mission of Chicago International is to provide, through innovation and choice, an attractive and rigorous college-preparatory education that meets the needs of today’s student. Influences such as parents, teachers and peers can make a difference in students’ lives and instill a passion for reading. Use these resources and help to enrich a child’s reading experience. READING PROGRAMS & EVENTS National Education Association Programs

TEACHER RESOURCES U.S. Department of Education

Read Across America Day – March 2, 2009 www.nea.org/readacross/year/index.html

Select the “Improve Student Performance – Reading” link www.ed.gov/teachers

The Children’s Book Council

Chicago Public Library

National Children’s Book Week – May 11–17, 2009 www.bookweekonline.com/index1.html

www.chipublib.org/forkids/kidspages/teacher_resources.php

Chicago Public Library Programs

PARENT RESOURCES U.S. Department of Education

Chicago Book Festival – Fall 2009 One Book, One Chicago – Spring & Fall 2009 Annual Summer Reading Program – Summer 2009 Bookamania – November 2009 www.chipublib.org

Helping Your Child Become a Reader www.ed.gov/parents/academic/help/reader/index.html

Cómo ayudar a su hijo a ser un buen lector (Spanish version of Helping Your Child Become a Reader) www.ed.gov/espanol/parents/academic/lector/index.html

Chicago Public Library www.chipublib.org/forkids/kidspages/parent_resources.php

National Education Association www.nea.org/parents/index.html

FocalPoint

We are committed... to ensuring a safe, respectful and supportive environment that allows for individuals to work independently and collaboratively to overcome challenges and accelerate learning.

RISE TO A HIGHER STANDARD OF EDUCATION ChicagoRISE will manage the transformation of chronically underperforming schools identified for “turnaround” intervention by the Chicago Public Schools. We are dedicated to building dynamic and rigorous educational

• Our Teachers are dedicated to the mission of transforming school communities and truly believe that all students are capable of excelling.

• Our Students are held to high expectations for academic

communities which ensure that all students master the 21st

achievement and conduct which are clearly communicated and

century learning skills required to earn a college degree.

demonstrated by all members of the school community.

www.chicagorise.org

• Our Communities and Families are valued school partners, actively collaborating with staff members to foster student academic, emotional and social development.

For more information or to become involved with ChicagoRISE, please contact: Simon Hess 228 S. Wabash Chicago, IL 60604 312.651.5000 shess@chicagorise.org