Download - GUILFORD COUNTY SCHOOLS MISSION POSSIBLE PROGRAM · GUILFORD COUNTY SCHOOLS MISSION POSSIBLE PROGRAM YEAR 3 (2008-09) EXTERNAL EVALUATION REPORT Executive Summary Introduction In

GUILFORD COUNTY SCHOOLS MISSION POSSIBLE PROGRAM

Year 3 (2008-09) External Evaluation Report

Prepared by: Holli Gottschall Bayonas, Ph.D.

SERVE Center at UNCG Gateway University Research Park - Dixon Building

5900 Summit Avenue Browns Summit, NC 27214

(800) 755-3277

Contact: Holli Gottschall Bayonas, Ph.D.

Project Manager [email protected]

Submitted to: Guilford County Schools

Greensboro, NC May 19, 2010

Copyright © 2010. The material within this report may not be reproduced or replicated without written permission from Guilford County Schools. For permission, contact: Amy Holcombe, Ph.D. Executive Director of Talent Development Guilford County Schools Department of Human Resources 712 North Eugene Street Greensboro, NC 27401 (336) 335-3294 x5016 office (336) 370-8398 fax http://www.gcsnc.com [email protected] Suggested citation: Bayonas, H. (2010). Guilford County Schools Mission Possible program: Year 3 (2008-09)

external evaluation report. Greensboro, NC: The SERVE Center, University of North Carolina at Greensboro.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this report are reflective of the author and do not represent the views or opinions of other individuals within the SERVE Center, the University of North Carolina at Greensboro, the US Department of Education, or Guilford County Schools.

TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................... i Conclusions .................................................................................................................................... iv

To what extent are the most highly qualified teachers and administrators being recruited and retained at MP Schools? ............................................................................................................. iv To what extent did the MP training and incentives impact teacher and student outcomes? ..... iv To what extent were the MP teachers and administrators trained as proposed? ........................ v

Recommendations ......................................................................................................................... vii Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1 Background Information About the Mission Possible Program ..................................................... 2 Background Information About the SERVE Center ....................................................................... 3 Evaluation Plan ............................................................................................................................... 3 Key Personnel ................................................................................................................................. 4 Results ............................................................................................................................................. 5

Principal Turnover ...................................................................................................................... 5 Teacher Turnover ........................................................................................................................ 7 Incentive-Paid Personnel Turnover ............................................................................................. 8 Teacher Recruitment ................................................................................................................. 14 School Climate Surveys ............................................................................................................ 14 Percentage of Teachers With Initial or Continuing Licenses ................................................... 17 Percentage of Classes Taught by Highly Qualified Teachers ................................................... 18 Performance Incentives Paid..................................................................................................... 20 Course Performance Incentives Earned .................................................................................... 21 Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) Goals Obtained ...................................................................... 22 Percentage of Students Who Passed the ABCs ......................................................................... 23 ABC Growth Met ...................................................................................................................... 24 Performance Composite ............................................................................................................ 25 Student Short-Term Suspensions .............................................................................................. 26 Cohort Graduation Rate ............................................................................................................ 28 Professional Development Workshops ..................................................................................... 28 Comparison of Mission Possible Schools with Non-Mission Possible Schools....................... 29

Conclusions ................................................................................................................................... 29 To what extent are the most highly qualified teachers and administrators being recruited and retained at MP Schools? ............................................................................................................ 29 To what extent did the MP training and incentives impact teacher and student outcomes? .... 30 To what extent were the MP teachers and administrators trained as proposed? ...................... 30

Recommendations ......................................................................................................................... 32 References ..................................................................................................................................... 33 Appendix A - Mission Possible Evaluation Plan .......................................................................... 34 Appendix B - Letter to Parents Regarding Climate Survey .......................................................... 37 Appendix C - Letter to Parents Regarding Climate Survey (Spanish version) ............................. 38 Appendix D - Parent/Student Consent Form ................................................................................ 39 Appendix E - Parent/Student Consent Form (Spanish version).................................................... 41 Appendix F - Parent Climate Survey ............................................................................................ 43 Appendix G - Parent Climate Survey (Spanish Version) ............................................................. 45

Appendix H - Student Climate Survey ......................................................................................... 47 Appendix I - Student Assent Form ............................................................................................... 49 Appendix J - Directions for Distributing Parent Surveys and Suggested Sampling Plan ............ 50 Appendix K - Number of Surveys by School ............................................................................... 52 Appendix L - Staff Climate Summary Results - Fall 2008 ........................................................... 53 Appendix M - Parent Climate Summary Results – Spring 2009 .................................................. 92 Appendix N - Student Climate Summary Results – Spring 2009 ............................................... 100 Appendix O - Student Achievement Analysis ............................................................................ 104 Appendix P-2007-08 Incentive-Paid Personnel Turnover Data ................................................. 127

i


YEAR 3 (2008-09) EXTERNAL EVALUATION REPORT

Executive Summary

Introduction

In February 2007, Guilford County Schools (GCS) contracted with the SERVE Center at the

University of North Carolina at Greensboro (the SERVE Center) to conduct an external evaluation of the Mission Possible (MP) program. The program was in the first year of implementation when a Federal Teacher Incentive Fund (TIF) grant was awarded. The new monies from the TIF grant were allocated to pay for an additional eight schools to participate in Mission Possible and to pay for the external evaluation. The original cohort that began in 2006-07 consisted of 22 schools. The 22-school original cohort contained 20 Mission Possible schools and 2 Cumulative Effects High Schools.1 The second cohort of eight schools began the program in the 2007-08 school year.

The cohorts include the following:

Cohort 1 (began 2006-07 with local funds) Cohort 2 (began 2007-08 with federal funds)Andrews High Academy at High Point Central (Opened Jan. 2008) Dudley High Allen Middle Eastern Guilford High Aycock Middle Fairview Elementary Bessemer Elementary Ferndale Middle Cone Elementary Foust Elementary Falkener Elementary Gillespie Elementary Penn Griffin Middle Hairston Middle Union Hill Elementary Hampton Elementary High Point Central High Jackson Middle Kirkman Park Elementary Middle College at Bennett Middle College at NC A&T Oak Hill Elementary Parkview Elementary Smith High Academy at Smith Southern Guilford High Washington Elementary Welborn Middle Wiley Elementary

1 Cumulative Effects Program is a program to recruit and retain highly qualified math teachers in Guilford County Schools. The program is a collaborative project involving Action Greensboro, the University of North Carolina system, the University of North Carolina at Greensboro, and North Carolina A&T State University.

ii

This Year 3 report documents activities that occurred during the 2008-09 academic year of the MP Program; it also reports on the staff climate survey that was administered in Fall 2009. In Year 1, the school data was reported in cohorts; however, in this report and in the Year 2 report, the schools are organized by grade level. This was done to facilitate interpretation of the school data by the various readers. In the past year, stakeholders have asked questions related to MP elementary, middle, or high schools rather than the different cohorts. Parallel to this Year 3 report, the SERVE Center is producing 30 school reports that contain data on the individual schools alongside data from three schools that were selected as comparison schools through propensity score matching.

Background Information About the Mission Possible Program

Mission Possible is a comprehensive teacher incentive program. The program provides

recruiting and performance incentives to help recruit and retain highly qualified teachers for schools with critical needs. Recruiting incentives range from $2,500 to $10,000 and performance incentives range from $2,500 to $5,000. Receiving the individual performance incentive hinges on the teacher completing 100% of the yearly prescribed professional development activities and earning value-added scores2 that are at least one standard error above the mean for the district. In the same vein, if MP teachers obtain value-added scores of at least two standard errors below the mean for two consecutive years, they are transferred out of the MP school. This system of accountability is just one tool that the MP program uses in order to try to ensure that MP schools are employing the most effective teachers for any given MP school. Teachers in their first year of participation complete workshops on Cooperative Learning and Undoing Racism. Teachers in their second year of participation complete workshops on Differentiated Instruction and Teacher Expectations and Student Achievement (TESA). The program theory is such that offering teachers recruitment and performance incentives will result in a larger applicant pool for any one open MP position, whereas before the MP program, there would be close to zero applicants for open positions. In addition, it is hoped that the performance incentive will encourage teachers to perform at their highest level in order to attain the highest possible academic growth within the classroom. Thus, the recruiting of highly qualified candidates who can show that they contribute to growth within student achievement would naturally result in higher student achievement overall in the school. It is important to point out that while students may have grown in academic knowledge from one year to the next, this growth is not reflected by current North Carolina End of Course (EOC) and End of Grade (EOG) exams results. The EOC and EOG tests are not designed to measure academic growth, but rather they are criterion/standards-referenced tests and measure whether a student has met a certain cutoff or passing score. Failing to meet a cutoff does not mean that a student could not have made a grade-level worth of growth in terms of knowledge, given the right learning environment, teacher, and motivation. Ideally, students make academic growth, and within a few years’ time, they catch up with their peers in terms of grade-level content and course content measured on the EOC and EOG exams.

Not every teacher in an MP school is part of the program. In addition, not every teacher in the

MP program who receives a recruitment incentive is eligible for a performance incentive. Each 2 Value-added is a statistical method used to calculate academic growth among students by comparing test scores from a previous year to test scores of a current year. This is an alternative to traditional achievement testing in North Carolina where the percentage of students who pass the North Carolina End of Course or End of Grade tests is reported. GCS contracts with SAS® EVAAS® to provide the value-added scores.

iii

position has a corresponding contract, which the employee signs, indicating their eligibility for a performance incentive. For example, though K-2 teachers receive a recruitment incentive, they are not eligible for a performance incentive because their students do not have test scores. Many math teachers in high school receive the $9,000 recruitment incentive, but if they are teaching a non EOC tested math course, they are not eligible for a performance incentive. Similar to K-2 teachers, these math teachers do not have students with state test data, which is how the achievement growth is calculated by SAS®. In addition, if a MP teacher is placed on an action plan for inappropriate conduct, the teacher does not earn a recruitment incentive during the time that they are on the action plan.

Background Information About the SERVE Center

The SERVE Center is a university-based research, development, dissemination, evaluation, and technical assistance center. Its mission is to support and promote teaching and learning excellence in the K-12 education community. The SERVE Center provides contracted evaluation services to state and local education agencies in and around the southeast region. The Program Evaluation Standards, Second Edition (The Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation, 1994), and the Guiding Principles for Evaluators (American Evaluation Association, 1995) guide the evaluation work performed at the SERVE Center.

Evaluation Plan

On November 27, 2007 Dr. Eric Becoats and Emily Scott from GCS met with Dr. Pamela Finney, Kathleen Mooney, and Melissa Williams from the SERVE Center to discuss the external evaluation of MP. Based on those discussions, the SERVE Center created an evaluation plan, timeline, and budget, which was sent to GCS on December 15, 2007. In April 2007, the technical service agreement for the evaluation was signed by GCS and the SERVE Center management. The evaluation agreement covers the length of the TIF grant (until September 30, 2011). The evaluation of MP is guided by the main question stated in the original RFP: Are the goals and objectives of the project being met as outlined by the proposal? The goals as outlined in the RFP were:

Goal one: Attracting and retaining the most qualified teachers and administrators at the most highly impacted schools. Goal two: Increasing student achievement on EOC and EOG tests. Goal three: Rewarding teachers and administrators who work in participating schools that meet their value-added goals or adequate yearly progress and state ABC3 goals.

Given these goals, SERVE developed an evaluation plan using the following evaluation questions as a guide:

To what extent are the most highly qualified teachers and administrators being recruited and retained at MP Schools?

To what extent were the MP teachers and administrators trained as proposed? To what extent did the MP training and incentives impact teacher and student outcomes?

3 The ABCs is the North Carolina Academic Accountability System. See http://www.ncpublicschools.org/accountability/reporting/abc/2008-09/

iv

Data used to answer these questions consist primarily of student discipline referrals, student promotion rates, comparison of teacher data between MP and non-MP schools, comparison of AYP and ABC data between MP and non-MP schools, documentation of teacher/administrator participation in professional development activities, survey of teacher/administrator satisfaction with professional development activities, compilation of Teacher Working Conditions (TWC) Surveys, interviews/focus groups with teachers and administrators regarding MP project activities, Parent/Student/Staff Climate Surveys, and documentation of incentives paid to teachers. In this Year 3 report, the specific data points included are the school-level data from the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction (NCDPI) on teachers and students, climate data with additional questions added for the teachers, professional development data, and the comparison of MP schools with matched non-MP schools. The complete evaluation plan is available in Appendix A. The evaluation methodology was approved by UNCG’s Institutional Review Board (October 22, 2007, protocol #067328), which ensures the protection of human subjects in evaluation and research activities. In Fall 2009, the MP evaluation was re-assessed by IRB and it was determined that as a program evaluation, it did not constitute human subjects research. As such, the evaluation activities are no longer reviewed by IRB as of Fall 2009.

Conclusions The formative outcomes of the program can be summarized in relation to the three evaluation questions. In Table 1, there are indicators of retention, recruitment of teachers, and student achievement. The indicators of retention and recruitment are positive. The number of faculty earning a performance incentive has also increased, which is an indicator of increased student growth. While there is improvement in some areas, climate at MP schools seems to be a challenge.


Improvement in principal and teacher turnover, as well as incentive-paid personnel turnover. Among incentive-paid school personnel, resignations still accounted for the highest amount of

turnover within the MP schools (8%, down from 13.3% in 2007-08). The most common reason given for resigning was to teach in a different NC district, mirroring the previous year’s data.

Overall, there was a decrease in school climate, as measured by the number of staff who gave their school an overall grade of A or B.

The number of teachers with an initial or continuing license has increased by 2.3 percentage points.

The number of classes taught by highly qualified teachers has changed negligibly. The number of personnel who earned an incentive has increased by 9 percentage points. The percentage of faculty earning an incentive in elementary schools has increased by 21

percentage points, while middle and high schools increased by 1 percentage point each. The number of applications to open MP positions in Guilford County schools went from 3,434

in 2007-08 to 2,563 in 2008-09.

To what extent did the MP training and incentives impact teacher and student outcomes?

The percentage of AYP goals achieved increased by 18.5 percentage points in MP schools and 11.8 percentage points across GCS.

v

The percentage of students who passed the ABCs increased by 7.2 percentage points in MP schools and 14.2 percentage points in GCS.

The ABC Growth rate decreased by 10 percentage points in MP schools and 5 percentage points in GCS overall.

The average performance composite increased by 7.3 percentage points in MP schools and 6.5 percentage points in GCS.

The high school cohort graduation rate has increased in MP high schools by 3.9 percentage points and by 0.2 percentage points across all GCS high schools.

The number of personnel who earned an incentive has increased by 9 percentage points. The percentage of faculty earning an incentive in elementary schools has increased by 21

percentage points, while middle and high schools increased by 1 percentage point each. In examining data from MP and matched comparison schools, there appears to be a statistically

significant treatment effect in grade 6 math.

To what extent were the MP teachers and administrators trained as proposed?

Participant satisfaction of the required professional development is high. Many teachers have requested professional development related to student behavior

management. Table 1 below is a summary of key outcomes. The color coding indicates positive or negative

change. The figure within the table is an indicator of amount of change from previous year, unless otherwise noted. Table 1. Summary of Results for Aggregate Grade Levels-Percentage Point Changes from 2007-08 to 2008-09

Type of change Color

Positive Change

Negative Change

No Change

Change Unknown–First Year(Y1) of Data or Not Available (N/A)

Category Elementary Middle High Overall MP Overall GCS

(inclusive of MP) Retention Indicators

Principal Turnover

-15.4 -14.3 0 (22.2% to 22.2%)

-10.7 -10

Teacher Turnover -0.6 -4.2 +0.1% -1.1 +9 Incentive-Paid Teacher Turnover in Schools

-14 -23 -10 -16.1 N/A

Staff School -8 -11 -10 -6.8 N/A

vi


(inclusive of MP) Climatea Teacher Working Conditions

Available Again in Year 4 Report

Recruitment of Quality Teacher IndicatorsTeachers With Initial or Continuing License

+0.4% +0.8% -3.1% +2.3% +3%

Classes Taught by Highly Qualified Teachers

0% (100% to 100%)

-0.1% -0.4% -0.2% 0% (100% to 100%)

*Number of Incentives Earnedb

N/A N/A N/A +6% N/A

* Number of Personnel Earning Performance Incentives

Increase from 10 personnel to 39




N/A

Student Achievement IndicatorsPercentage of AYP Goals

+21.8 +22.2 +11.4 +18.5 +11.8

Percentage of Students Who Passed ABCs

+12.9 +7.2% +4.6 +7.2 +14.2

ABC Growth -5 schools No change in # of schools

+2 schools -3 schools -5 schools

Performance Composite

+6.5 +9.2 +4.7 +7.3 +6.5

Short-Term Suspension Average

+2.5 -6.3 +1.3 -0.3 N/A

Cohort Graduation Rate

N/A N/A +3.9 +3.9 +0.2

*Number of Incentives Earned

N/A N/A N/A +6% N/A

*Number of Personnel Earning Performance Incentives





N/A

Note. *Duplicated in another category. aIncrease or decrease in Climate is measured by comparing the percentage of personnel who graded their school as an A, A-, B, or B- in 2008 compared to 2009. The comparison for high schools excludes the Academy at High Point Central in the 2008 aggregate because the school was not included in 2007. bThe increase is due to more classroom faculty earning incentives as well as more principals and curriculum facilitators earning an incentive when their respective school made AYP.

vii

Recommendations

The Mission Possible program is currently finishing its fourth year under the USED TIF

program. As such, the focus within GCS has been sustainability. The additional climate questions reveal that although monthly newsletters are sent and principals are continuously informed about the program, a third of the staff within the schools have misconceptions about the purpose of the program. Paralleling that, the climate surveys show low morale persisting at some schools while Value-Added data show that more growth has occurred in student achievement in the third year of the program and teacher retention has dramatically increased. The misconceptions of the program purpose could explain the relationship between low morale and open-ended comments from teachers suggesting that all teachers should get an incentive. The recommendation would be to try alternative forms of communication, such as utilizing lead MP teachers within schools or being deliberate about saying what the MP program purpose is not; in other words, the purpose of the program is NOT about rewarding teachers for working in certain schools. This communication would help remind teachers of the program’s original impetus: the number of open positions at each school in 2005-06. The reminder would come at a critical time as this is the fourth year of the program, and the passage of time may have made it difficult for more tenured teachers to remember just how many positions were open back then and to let newer teachers know some of the history of the program.

Follow-up surveys should be conducted to continue to probe teachers for their reasons for

resigning and for gathering information about what makes a school a preferred place to work. The human resources standard exit form does not ask for extensive detail about reasons for resigning. With the majority of attrition being related to resignations, it’s important to sort out the various meanings of the term.

1


YEAR 3 (2008-09) EXTERNAL EVALUATION REPORT

Introduction

In February 2007, Guilford County Schools (GCS) contracted with the SERVE Center at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro to conduct an external evaluation of the Mission Possible (MP) program. The program was in the first year of implementation when a Federal Teacher Incentive Fund (TIF) grant was awarded. The new monies from the TIF grant were allocated to pay for an additional eight schools to participate in Mission Possible and to pay for the external evaluation. The original cohort that began in 2006-07 consisted of 22 schools (20 Mission Possible schools and two Cumulative Effects High Schools).4 The second cohort of eight schools began the program in the 2007-08 school year.

The cohorts include the following:

Cohort 1 (began 2006-07 with local funds) Cohort 2 (began in 2007-08 with federal funds)Andrews High Academy at High Point Central (Opened Jan. 2008) Dudley High Allen Middle Eastern Guilford High Aycock Middle Fairview Elementary Bessemer Elementary Ferndale Middle Cone Elementary Foust Elementary Falkener Elementary Gillespie Elementary Penn Griffin Middle Hairston Middle Union Hill Elementary Hampton Elementary High Point Central High Jackson Middle Kirkman Park Elementary Middle College at Bennett Middle College at NC A&T Oak Hill Elementary Parkview Elementary Smith High Academy at Smith Southern Guilford High Washington Elementary Welborn Middle Wiley Elementary

This Year 3 report documents activities that occurred during the 2008-09 academic year of the

MP Program. In Year 1, the school data was reported in cohorts, however, in this report as with Year 2,

4 Cumulative Effects Program is a program to recruit and retain highly qualified math teachers in Guilford County Schools. The program is a collaborative project involving Action Greensboro, the University of North Carolina system, the University of North Carolina at Greensboro, and North Carolina A&T State University.

2

the schools are organized by grade level. This was done to facilitate interpretation of the school data by the various readers. In the past year, stakeholders have asked questions related to MP elementary, middle, or high schools rather than the different cohorts. Parallel to this Year 3 report, the SERVE Center is producing 30 school reports that contain data on the individual schools alongside data from three schools that were selected as comparison schools through propensity score matching. The individual reports are typically available in mid-August following the district report.

Background Information About the Mission Possible Program

Mission Possible is a comprehensive teacher incentive program. The program provides

recruiting and performance incentives to help recruit and retain highly qualified teachers for schools with critical needs. Recruiting incentives range from $2,500 to $10,000, and performance incentives range from $2,500 to $5,000. Receiving the individual performance incentive hinges on the teacher completing 100% of the yearly prescribed professional development activities and earning value-added scores5 that are at least one standard error above the mean for the district. In the same vein, if MP teachers obtain value-added scores of at least two standard errors below the mean for two consecutive years, they are transferred out of the MP school. This system of accountability is just one tool that the MP program uses in order to try to ensure that MP schools are employing the most effective teachers for any given MP school. Teachers in their first year of participation complete workshops on Cooperative Learning and Undoing Racism. Teachers in their second year of participation complete workshops on Differentiated Instruction and Teacher Expectations and Student Achievement (TESA). The program theory is such that offering teachers recruitment and performance incentives will result in a larger applicant pool for any one open MP position, whereas before the MP program, there would be close to zero applicants for open positions. In addition, it is hoped that the performance incentive will encourage teachers to perform at their highest level in order to attain the highest possible academic growth within the classroom. Thus, the recruiting of highly qualified candidates who can show that they contribute to growth within student achievement would naturally result in higher student achievement overall in the school. It is important to point out to the reader that while students may have grown in academic knowledge from one year to the next, this growth is not reflected by current North Carolina End of Course (EOC) and End of Grade (EOG) exams results. The EOC and EOG tests are not designed to measure academic growth, but rather they are criterion/standards-referenced tests and measure whether or not a student has met a certain cutoff or passing score. Failing to meet a cutoff does not mean that a student could not have made a grade-level worth of growth in terms of knowledge, given the right learning environment, teacher, and motivation. Ideally, students make academic growth, and within a few years time, they catch up with their peers in terms of grade-level content and course content measured on the EOC and EOG exams.

Not every teacher in an MP school is part of the program. In addition, not every teacher in the

MP program who receives a recruitment incentive is eligible for a performance incentive. Each position has a corresponding contract which the employee signs, indicating their eligibility for a performance incentive. For example, though K-2 teachers receive a recruitment incentive, they are not eligible for a performance incentive because their students do not have test scores. Many math teachers in high school receive the $9,000 recruitment incentive, but if they are teaching a non-EOC tested math 5 Value-added is a statistical method used to calculate academic growth among students by comparing test scores from a previous year to test scores of a current year. This is an alternative to traditional achievement testing in North Carolina where the percentage of students who pass the North Carolina End of Course or End of Grade tests is reported. GCS contracts with SAS® EVAAS® to provide the value-added scores.

3

course, they are not eligible for a performance incentive. Similar to K-2 teachers, these math teachers do not have students with state test data, which is how the achievement growth is calculated by SAS®. In addition, if an MP teacher is placed on an action plan for inappropriate conduct, the teacher does not earn a recruitment incentive during the time that they are on the action plan. Figure 1 shows the logic model which outlines the theory of action for Mission Possible. Figure 1. Mission Possible Logic Model

INPUTS/ RESOURCES

ACTIVITIES SHORT-TERM OUTCOMES 1-2 YEARS

MEDIUM- TERM

OUTCOMES 3-4 YEARS

LONG-TERM

OUTCOMES 5-6 YEARS

Funds: - Local - Federal - Foundation

Support: - Superintendent - School Board - Principal - Advisory Board - Site-Based

Advocates - Foundations - Center for

Education and Compensation Reform (CECR)

Recruitment Incentives Recruitment Fairs Professional Development:

- Cooperative Learning

- Undoing Racism - Differentiated

Instruction - Teacher Expectations

Student Achievement (TESA)

- Individually Customized Programs

- Summer Math Institute

100% Staffed Quality Applicant Pool 100% Participation in Professional Development Increase in Performance Incentives Earned

Increase in Faculty Retention Improved School Climate

Increase in Student Achievement

As depicted in the logic model, the recruitment incentives and professional development are

intended to lead to a quality applicant pool, schools that are 100% staffed, and performance incentives. These, in turn, lead to increased faculty retention and improved school climate. The ultimate goal for the program is improved student achievement.

Background Information About the SERVE Center

The SERVE Center at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro (UNCG) is a university-based research, development, dissemination, evaluation, and technical assistance center. Its mission is to support and promote teaching and learning excellence in the K-12 education community. The SERVE Center provides contracted evaluation services to state and local education agencies in and around the southeast region. The Program Evaluation Standards, Second Edition (The Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation, 1994) and the Guiding Principles for Evaluators (American Evaluation Association, 1995) guide the evaluation work performed at the SERVE Center.

Evaluation Plan

On November 27, 2007 Dr. Eric Becoats and Emily Scott from GCS met with Dr. Pamela Finney, Kathleen Mooney, and Melissa Williams from the SERVE Center to discuss the external evaluation of MP. Based on those discussions, the SERVE Center created an evaluation plan, timeline, and budget, which was sent to GCS on December 15, 2007. In April 2007, the technical service

4

agreement for the evaluation was signed by GCS and the SERVE Center management. The evaluation agreement covers the length of the TIF grant (until September 30, 2011). The evaluation of MP is guided by the main question stated in the original RFP: Are the goals and objectives of the project being met as outlined by the proposal? The goals as outlined in the RFP were:

Goal one: Attracting and retaining the most qualified teachers and administrators at the most highly impacted schools. Goal two: Increasing student achievement on EOC and EOG tests. Goal three: Rewarding teachers and administrators who work in participating schools that meet their value-added goals or adequate yearly progress and state ABC goals.

Given these goals, the SERVE Center developed an evaluation plan using the following evaluation questions as a guide:


To what extent were the MP teachers and administrators trained as proposed? To what extent did the MP training and incentives impact teacher and student outcomes?

Data used to answer these questions consist primarily of student discipline referrals, student promotion rates, comparison of teacher data between MP and non-MP schools, comparison of AYP and ABC data between MP and non-MP schools, documentation of teacher/administrator participation in professional development activities, survey of teacher/administrator satisfaction with professional development activities, compilation of responses from the Teacher Working Conditions (TWC) Surveys, interviews/focus groups with teachers and administrators regarding MP project activities, Parent/Student/Staff Climate Surveys, and documentation of incentives paid to teachers. The majority of data come from the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction (NCDPI), through the website www.ncreportcard.org. The complete evaluation plan is available in Appendix A. The evaluation methodology was approved by UNCG’s Institutional Review Board (October 22, 2007, protocol #067328), which ensures the protection of human subjects in evaluation and research activities.

Key Personnel The MP program at GCS is currently directed by Dr. Amy Holcombe, Executive Director of Talent Development. In Year 3, SERVE Center staff continued to meet with Dr. Holcombe bi-monthly or on an as-needed basis to discuss the ongoing evaluation activities associated with MP. In addition, numerous correspondences were sent via email on a weekly basis. While there is an established evaluation plan, the SERVE Center engages in participatory evaluation, and thus seeks the input of GCS for all evaluation activities. The additional key personnel for Year 3 of the project are listed in Table 2.

5

Table 2. Key Personnel in 2008-09 Person Position Organization April Lee TIF Program Officer USED Dr. Amy Holcombe Director of Mission Possible Schools GCS Wynde Brady Database Manager GCS Carey Murthy TIF Grant Monitor replacing Jeff

Strohl Center for Educator Compensation Reform

Dr. Pamela Finney External Evaluator-Project Director SERVE Center Dr. Holli Bayonas External Evaluator-Project Manager SERVE Center Fain Barker External Evaluator SERVE Center

The project did not experience any turnover of Guilford County or SERVE Center personnel.

The TIF grant monitor, Jeff Strohl, took on a different position at Georgetown University and was replaced by Carey Murthy. The transition was smooth and the program was not affected in any way.

Results

The following results are organized by outcome type. In most data tables, the results are

grouped by elementary, middle, and high schools. The results document progress of the goals as they pertain to the MP schools. The results focus solely on teacher/principal recruitment and retention, teacher professional development, and student outcomes. Where results are reported for GCS overall, it is important to note that the GCS results are inclusive of MP schools.

There are certain cells within many of the result tables that are highlighted with color. Color is

used to indicate a positive or negative change. This is done because negative numbers do not always indicate negative change. Below is a legend for how to interpret the colors:


Positive Change

Negative Change

No Change

Change Unknown-First Year(Y1) of data or Not Available (N/A)

Principal Turnover

The percentage of principal turnover is calculated by examining the principal on record for each MP school during each data year (taken from www.ncreportcard.org). If the principal on record changes from one year to the next, it is counted as turnover. Principal turnover decreased in elementary schools by 15.4 percentage points (no principals left, compared to 2007-08 where two principals left), and by 14.3 percentage points in middle schools. Turnover remained the same in the high schools, with two principals leaving in 2008-09. As shown in Table 3, three MP schools had different principals at the start of 2008-09, compared to six leaving in 2007-08. While it is still counted as turnover, it is important to note that one of the principals who changed schools moved to a different MP school and

6

not out of the program. The other two principals moved for a promotion, one within Guilford County Schools.

Table 3. Principal Turnover

School 2004-05 to 2005-06 2005-06 to 2006-07 2006-07 to 2007-08 2007-08 to 2008-09 Elementary Schools N=13 Bessemer Yes No No No Cone No No No No Fairview No No No No Falkener No Yes No No Foust No Yes No No Gillespie Park No No No No Hampton Academy No Yes No No Kirkman Park No No Yes No Oak Hill No No No No Parkview No Yes No No Union Hill No No No No Washington No No Yes No Wiley No Yes No No Elementary School Totals 1 (7.6%) 5 (38.5%) 2 (15.4%) 0 (0%) Middle Schools N=7 Allen Yes No No No Aycock No Yes No No Ferndale Yes No Yes No Hairston Yes No No No Jackson No No No Yes Penn Griffin No No Yes No Welborn No No No No Middle School Totals 4 (57.1%) 1 (14.2%) 2 (28.6%) 1 (14.3%) High Schools N=10 Academy at High Point Centrala

N/A (not included in totals)



No

Academy at Smith N/A (not included in

totals) N/A (not included in

totals) No No

Andrews Yes No No Yes Dudley No No Yes No Eastern Guilford Yes No No Yes High Point Central No No No No Middle College at Bennett No No No No Middle College at NC A&T

Yes No Yes No

Smith No No No No Southern No No No No High School Totals 3 (37.5%) 0 (0%) 2 (22.2%) 2 (22.2%) Overall Totals 8 (28.6%) 6 (21.4%) 6 (20.7%) 3 (10%) GCS Principal turnover rate

14% 17% 14% 4%

Note. Data taken from www.ncreportcard.org. Yes= New principal from previous year to current year. No= The principal stayed the same from one year to the next. aAcademy at High Point Central did not open until January 2008.

7

Teacher Turnover

Teacher turnover is a measure of the number of teachers who did not return to the school in the

following year. One of the main outcomes sought by providing teachers with MP incentives is the reduction of teacher turnover. Table 4 reflects individual schools’ percentage of teacher turnover. This includes all teachers in a school, not just incentive-paid teachers. In interpreting the table, the overall teacher turnover in 2007-08 (Year 2) decreased approximately 17 percentage points and by an additional percentage point in 2008-09. This reduction mirrors the findings of Clotfelter, Glennie, Ladd, and Vigdor’s (2008) study conducted in North Carolina on how bonus pay reduced teacher turnover in “high poverty” schools. In their study, they found that bonus pay reduced turnover by 17%. Average turnover in 2008-09 decreased the most in Mission Possible middle schools, down 4.2 percentage points from the previous year. The biggest impact was seen in Jackson Middle School, where teacher turnover went from 31% in 2007-08 to 14% in 2008-09. The turnover average in GCS increased by 9 percentage points in 2008-09, following a decrease of 27 percentage points the previous year. Table 4. Percentage of Teacher Turnover School 2005-06 2006-07 *2007-08 2008-09 Change

05-06 to 06-07

Change 06-07 to

07-08

Change 07-08 to

08-09 Elementary Schools N=13 Bessemer 17% 25% 8% 15% 8 -17 7 Cone 24% 28% 18% 0% 4 -10 -18 Fairview 29% 14% 21% 15% -15 7 -6 Falkener 30% 39% 24% 20% 9 -15 -4 Foust 28% 39% 10% 21% 11 -29 11 Gillespie Park 28% 21% 16% 18% -7 -5 2 Hampton Academy 45% 47% 19% 23% 2 -28 4 Kirkman Park 55% 54% 28% 21% -1 -26 -7 Oak Hill 22% 29% 11% 12% 7 -18 1 Parkview 16% 16% 10% 13% 0 -6 3 Union Hill 15% 15% 24% 19% 0 9 -5 Washington 46% 25% 13% 13% -21 -12 0 Wiley 82% 46% 19% 23% -36 -27 4 Elementary School Totals 33.6% 30.6% 17.0% 16.4% -3 -13.6 -0.6 Middle Schools N=7 Allen 31% 27% 12% 13% -4 -15 1 Aycock 46% 37% 12% 14% -9 -25 2 Ferndale 40% 38% 17% 23% -2 -21 6 Hairston 35% 40% 33% 20% 5 -7 -13 Jackson 40% 49% 31% 14% 9 -18 -17 Penn Griffin 36% 28% 7% 12% -8 -21 5 Welborn 34% 46% 23% 10% 12 -23 -13 Middle School Totals 37.4% 37.9% 19.3% 15.1% 0.5 -18.6 -4.2 High Schools N=10 Academy at High Point Central*

N/A N/A 11% 17% N/A N/A 6

Academy at Smith N/A N/A 18% N/A N/A N/A N/A Andrews 40% 26% 13% 21% -14 -13 8 Dudley 33% 35% 19% 11% 2 -16 -8

8

School 2005-06 2006-07 *2007-08 2008-09 Change 05-06 to

06-07

Change 06-07 to

07-08

Change 07-08 to

08-09 Eastern Guilford 27% 16% 11% 17% -11 -5 6 High Point Central 32% 29% 16% 15% -3 -13 -1 Middle College at Bennett 50% 56% 13% 9% 6 -43 -4 Middle College at NC A&T

63% 70% 10% 17% 7 -60 7

Smith 24% 39% 17% 13% 15 -22 -4 Southern 26% 18% 17% 14% -8 -1 -3 High School Totals 36.9% 36.1% 14.5% 14.6% -0.8 -21.6 0.1 Overall Totals 35.5% 34.0% 16.7% 15.6% -1.5 -17.3 -1.1 Overall GCS 12% 31% 4% 13% 19 -27 9 Note. Data taken from www.ncreportcard.org. Academy at Smith opened in 2006-07 and Academy at High Point Central in January 2008, so no previous comparison data were available. *In 2007-08, “teacher turnover” was defined on ncreportcard.org as “The percentage of classroom teachers who left their school district from March of the prior year to March of the current year.” In previous years, it was defined as a “teachers who left their school staff from the start of the prior year to the start of the current year.” Incentive-Paid Personnel Turnover

In addition to examining overall teacher turnover for an individual school, records were kept by the GCS MP office that show turnover rates specific to the MP incentive-paid personnel.6 While turnover rates were reported in the Year 1 report, they are not included in this report for comparison due to a change in the way turnover was counted. Table 5 shows that the total number of incentive-paid personnel who left their schools (not necessarily the MP program) in 2008-09 was 13% (76/571). The most common reasons given for leaving the schools in 2008-09 were resignations, accounting for 8% of the turnover, and transferring to a non-MP school (1.8%). Nine people (1.6%) had interim contracts that were not renewed. The MP personnel turnover dropped from 29.4% in 2007-08 to 13.3% in 2008-09. The Year 2 turnover data is available in Appendix P.

The largest number of turnovers occurred at Allen Middle and Hairston Middle, with 6 and 5 participants leaving, respectively. The overall drop in turnover is clear evidence that the short and mid-term outcomes of the program are being met.

6 Within an MP school, there are personnel that are not considered to be MP personnel and thus do not receive any form of incentive.

9

Table 5. Mission Possible Incentive-Paid Personnel Turnover

Schools Documented Reason for Leaving School in 2008-09 School Year Voluntary Reasons Involuntary Reasons Transfer to

other MP school

*Resigned Transfer to non-MP

School

VIF Retired Higher Level Placement /Promotion

Failure to Main/Obtain

licensure

Interim Contract-

not Rehired

Total Turnover Rate by School

Total MP Personnel by School

Elementary Schools N=13 Bessemer 1 2 3 (12%) 25

Cone 1 1 1 3 (10%) 29 Fairview 1 1 (3%) 31 Falkener 4 1 5 (14%) 36

Foust 1 1 1 3 (9%) 32 Gillespie Park 3 1 4 (24%) 17

Hampton Academy

1 2 1 4 (20%) 20

Kirkman Park 1 1 (8%) 13 Oak Hill 3 3 (13%) 24 Parkview 1 1 2 (7%) 29

Union Hill 1 1 (6%) 18 Washington 1 1 (6%) 18

Wiley 1 1 (5%) 20 Elementary

School Totals 0 16 8 3 1 1 1 2 32 (10%) 312

Middle Schools N=7 Allen 4 2 6 (25%) 24

Aycock 3 3 (14%) 22 Ferndale 2 1 3 (15%) 20 Hairston 4 1 5 (29%) 17 Jackson 1 1 (8%) 13

Penn Griffin 3 1 4 (24%) 17 Welborn 2 1 3 (20%) 15

Middle School Totals

0 18 1 0 3 0 0 3 25 (20%) 128

High Schools N=10 Academy at High

Point Central* 1 1 (25%) 4

Academy at 0 (0%) 5

10


other MP school

*Resigned Transfer to non-MP

School


Failure to Main/Obtain

licensure

Interim Contract-

not Rehired

Total Turnover Rate by School

Total MP Personnel by School

Smith Andrews 2 1 3 (18%) 17 Dudley 3 1 4 (14%) 28

Eastern Guilford 1 1 (11%) 9 High Point

Central 1 1 (5%) 22

Middle College at Bennett

1 1 2 (50%) 4

Middle College at NC A&T

1 1 (17%) 6

Smith 3 1 4 (15%) 26 Southern 1 1 2 (20%) 10

High School Totals

0 12 1 0 1 1 0 4 19 (15%) 131

Overall Turnover within

MP Schools

0 of 571 (0%)

46 of 571 (8%)

10 of 571 (1.8%)

3 of 571 (0.5%)

5 of 571 (0.8%)

2 of 571 (0.4%)

1 of 571 (0.2%)

9 of 571 (1.6%)

76 of 571 (13.3%)

571

Note. *Reasons for resignation are broken down in the subsequent table. Data were provided by the MP office. VIF is an acronym for Visiting International Faculty. The VIF faculty have a 3-year limit for teaching in the United States.

When personnel resign from the MP program, they indicate a reason on their exit forms. The various reasons for resigning are listed in Table 6. Readers must keep in mind that self-report data are limited by the extent to which a person gives an accurate response. Though the number of resignations decreased in 2008-09, they account for a larger proportion of turnover than in 2007-08. In other words, comparing resignation in Table 6 with those in Appendix P, one can see that resignations accounted for 60.5% of the total turnover (46 of 76) in 2008-09, compared to 45.3% (81 of 179) in 2007-08. Similar to 2007-08, the number one reason for resigning in 2008-09 was to teach in another North Carolina district (11.8%). Second to that, 10.5% of the total resignations were accounted for by relocations and 10.5% by the category of “other.” Eight schools had zero resignations (compared to only four schools in 2007-08), and the Academy at High Point Central experienced no turnover for a second year in a row.

In May 2010, the evaluation team, in collaboration with Dr. Holcombe, will explore resignations more in-depth through surveys and possibly focus groups.

11

Table 6. Reasons for MP Incentive-Paid Personnel Resigning from GCS in 2008-09 Schools Documented Reason for Resigning in 2008-09 School Year Accept

non- teaching

position in Ed.

Go back to School

Other Relocation Career Change

Teach in Other NC

District

Teach in Other

State

Health, personal, or family related

Job Dissatisfaction

Teach in other type of school

Total % of

Turnover

Total Turnover

Elementary Schools N=13

Bessemer 1 1 of 3 (33%)

3 (12%)

Cone 1 1 of 3 (33%)

3 (10%)

Fairview 0 of 1 (0%)

1 (3%)

Falkener 1 1 1 1 4 of 5 (80%)

5 (14%)

Foust 1 1 of 3 (33%)

3 (9%)

Gillespie Park 1 2 3 of 4 (75%)

4 (24%)

Hampton Academy

1 1 of 4 (25%)

4 (20%)

Kirkman Park 0 of 1 (0%)

1 (8%)

Oak Hill 1 1 1 3 of 3 (100%)

3 (13%)

Parkview 1 1 of 2 (50%)

2 (7%)

Union Hill 1 1 of 1 (100%)

1 (6%)

Washington 0 of 1 (0%)

1 (6%)

Wiley 0 of 1 (0%)

1 (5%)

Elementary School Totals

1 0 3 4 1 4 0 3 0 0 16 of 32 (50%)

32 (10%)

12

Schools Documented Reason for Resigning in 2008-09 School Year Accept

non- teaching

position in Ed.

Go back to School


Teach in Other NC

District

Teach in Other

State


Job Dissatisfaction


Total % of

Turnover

Total Turnover

Middle Schools N=7

Allen 2 2 4 of 6 (67%)

6 (25%)

Aycock 1 1 1 3 of 3 (100%)

3 (14%)

Ferndale 1 1 2 of 3 (66%)

3 (15%)

Hairston 1 1 1 1 4 of 5 (80%)

5 (29%)

Jackson 0 of 1 (0%)

1 (8%)

Penn Griffin 2 1 3 of 4 (75%)

4 (24%)

Welborn 1 1 2 of 3 (66%)

3 (20%)


0 1 3 3 4 1 1 3 1 1 18 of 25 (72%)

25 (20%)

High Schools N=10

Academy at High Point Central*

1 1 of 1 (100%)

1 (25%)

Academy at Smith

0 of 0 (0%)

0 (0%)

Andrews 1 1 2 of 3 (66%)

3 (18%)

Dudley 1 1 1 3 of 4 (75%)

4 (14%)

Eastern Guilford

1 1 of 1 (100%)

1 (11%)

High Point Central

0 of 1 (0%)

1 (5%)

Middle 0 of 2 2 (50%)

13


non- teaching

position in Ed.

Go back to School


Teach in Other NC

District

Teach in Other

State


Job Dissatisfaction


Total % of

Turnover

Total Turnover

College at Bennett

(0%)


1 1 of 1 (100%)

1 (17%)

Smith 2 1 3 of 4 (75%)

4 (15%)

Southern 1 1 of 2 (50%)

2 (20%)

High School Totals

0 0 2 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 12 of 19 (63%)

19 (15%)

Overall Totals

1 of 76 (1.3%)

1 of 76 (1.3%)

8 of 76 (10.5%)

8 of 76 (10.5%)

6 of 76 (7.9%)

9 of 76 (11.8%)

2 of 76 (2.6%)

7 of 76 (9.2%)

2 of 76 (2.6%)

2 of 76 (2.6%)

46 of 76 (60.5%)

76 of 571 (13.3%)

Note. Data provided by MP Office.

14

Teacher Recruitment

In the 2008 hiring season, the applications for the MP positions went from 3,434 to 2,563. All MP vacancies were filled in 2008-09. This decrease in applications is likely due to the decrease in the number of vacant positions, which is related to the overall decrease in the attrition rate. Table 7. Applications Received

Area Number of MP applications in 2007

Number of MP applications in 2008a

Elementary school (not disaggregated) 2,034 1546 Middle School Math 258 188 High School Math 333 224 Total Math 591 412 Middle School Language Arts 250 180 High School English 559 425 Total English/Language Arts 809 605 Total MP applications 3,434 2,563

Note. Data provided by MP Office. aRepresents number of applications submitted between 8/20/2007 and 8/20/2008. School Climate Surveys

The SERVE Center staff developed a Climate Survey for staff, parents, and students at MP schools. Climate Surveys are intended to provide a snapshot of the school climate at one point in time, and are generally used as a catalyst for change within a school. The surveys consisted of demographic questions and 5-point Likert scale items and a few open-ended questions. Additional questions were added to the survey in 2009 that addressed sustainability of the program. The internal consistency of the items was measured using Cronbach’s alpha. This value is dependent upon how much the items intercorrelate. The alpha of the parent survey when first administered in Fall 2007 was .96; student was .91, and staff was .93. Instruments with alphas above .80 are considered to have good reliability. The full results of the Staff, Parent, and Student Climate Surveys, when broken down by school, are too extensive to include in this report. The aggregate results, however, are included in Appendices L-N. Individual school results will be included in the individual school reports, due to be completed in late summer 2010.

Staff Climate Surveys. Staff at the 30 MP schools were sent a web-based Climate Survey in fall 2009. An email invitation with a link to the web-based survey was sent to teachers through various school email lists and school principals via the MP director. A total of 741 staff surveys were submitted electronically. Calculating a response rate was not possible because it is not known how many staff and teachers the survey ultimately reached. However, it is known that the number of surveys submitted decreased from 824 received the previous year and from 1,086 received in Fall 2007.

The results from the fall 2007 Staff Climate Survey serve as the baseline for the program

period, and thus the mean item scores for fall 2007 and 2008 are included on the fall 2009 results for comparison purposes. The 2009 results show that across schools, mean score for morale went from 2.91 in 2007 to 2.59 in 2009. Other items related to leadership and working condition decreased also. The item (number 30) related to teacher evaluations being fair went from 3.82 in 2007 to 3.51 in 2009.

15

Item 4, which is related to administrators solving problems effectively, went from 3.51 to 3.19. Items that moved substantially in the positive direction were related to violence (2.12 to 1.80 on a reversed scale), district support (3.07 to 2.71 on a reversed scale), drugs (2.76 to 2.38 on a reversed scale), and racist comments from students decreased from 3.12 to 2.83 on the reversed scale. In 2009, many teachers still indicated on open-ended comments that they thought all teachers should receive an incentive. These comments mirror the 2007 and 2008 comments. In terms of the overall grade given to a school, the percentage of participants rating their school an A or a B decreased in 2009. In Elementary Schools, the percentage went from 69% to 61%; in Middle Schools, 68% to 57%; and in High Schools, 55% to 45%.

The additional questions added to the staff survey were related to the perceived purpose of the

program, teachers’ main source of information about the program, opinions about who should be used to pilot the new compensation model, and components to be included in the model. Across all schools, 78% of respondents identified at least one correct purpose of the program. However, 36% indicated that they thought the purpose was to reward teachers for working at low-performing schools, and9% were not sure of the purpose. Five percent specified a different purpose.

When asked about their main source of information, 56% indicated the Mission Possible

newsletter and 46% indicated emails from the Mission Possible office. Many indicated getting information from other sources such as local newspaper, colleagues, and principals. Nine percent indicated that they did not get information.

When asked about where a new model should be piloted, 43% indicated “select schools.”

Related to that, when asked about what components additional pay increases should be based on, 69% indicated “years of experience”; 60% indicated “teaching in hard to staff school,” and 59% indicated “Performance evaluations.” Only 27% indicated that pay increases should be based on value-added data. Complete results are available in Appendix L.

These results show a need for continuous information about the purpose of the program.

Perhaps with 36% or more of participants misunderstanding the purpose of the program, it could potentially explain the continued low morale. If teachers believe that the purpose is to reward teachers, as opposed to recruiting and retaining teachers for hard to staff positions, then they would be disappointed by not personally being rewarded for working in the same schools as colleagues who are receiving an incentive.

Responses related to how bonuses should be paid indicate a preference for the traditional pay

structure based on years of experience and degree. While teachers are not so much in favor of Value- Added, they do indicate favorability to performance evaluations. If teacher evaluations could incorporate multiple data points, it is likely that evaluations would have strong support for being the basis for additional pay increases.

In open-ended comments, the most requests related to professional development were for

differentiated instruction, classroom/behavior, technology, management, team building, and Marzano’s strategies.

16

Question H on the survey is always included as an indication of potential turnover for the 2010-11 school year. According to survey results, 37 (5%) survey participants said that they will not return to their school in 2010-11, and 157 (22%) are unsure if they will return.

Question I asked participants if they received an incentive. The results were used to ensure that

there was representation from both incentive-paid and non-incentive-paid teachers. Participants could also indicate if they were unsure that they received an incentive. Of the respondents, 135 (18%) were unsure if they received an incentive; 29% indicated that they were incentive-paid; 52% were non-incentive-paid. These demographics suggest that both incentive and non-incentive-paid teachers were represented in the results.

Parent and Student Climate Surveys. Survey packets containing an introductory letter, IRB

consent forms, parent survey (both English and Spanish versions of all documents), a student survey, and a pre-addressed postage-paid envelope were sent out to parents via students at each school in March 2009 (see Appendices B-I for a sample of the parent packet materials). Coordinators at each school were given a letter instructing them how to hand out the survey packets (Appendix J). Students in 4th through 12th grade were given survey packets. Schools that had less than 450 students were given 100 survey packets to distribute, and schools that had more than 450 students were given 200 packets to distribute. For the exact numbers of surveys sent to each school, see Appendix K. A total of 4,700 surveys were sent out to parents. Parents completed 283 usable surveys, a 6.0% response rate. A total of 150 usable student surveys were returned, yielding a 3.2% response rate (Table 8). There were 112 surveys deemed unusable due to a number of various factors, such as no parent signature on consent form, selecting multiple schools, or not selecting any school.

Parent Climate Results. Of the parents who responded to the Parent Climate Survey for

elementary schools, the majority had positive perceptions of all aspects of the schools. Among all middle and high schools, the parents perceived gangs and violence to be a problem. In high schools, parent results also showed concern for substance abuse and drugs. In other areas, they perceived the climate to be generally positive.

Student Climate Results. Survey results from students in middle and high schools suggest that

there are concerns about students following rules, as well as some issues with violence and gangs. In other areas, climate was perceived to be positive. In elementary schools, no issues stood out. Table 8. Number of Surveys Sent and Usable Surveys Received

School # of Surveys Sent to

Schools Usable Parent

Surveys Received Usable Student

Surveys Received Elementary Schools Bessemer 100 7 4 Cone 200 18 8 Fairview 200 9 7 Falkener 200 13 6 Foust 100 0 0 Gillespie 100 9 7 Hampton 100 2 1 Kirkman Park 100 5 3 Oak Hill 100 11 2

17

School # of Surveys Sent to

Schools Usable Parent

Surveys Received Usable Student

Surveys Received Parkview 100 11 3 Union Hill 100 11 5 Washington 100 4 2 Wiley 100 6 3 Elementary School Totals 1,600 106 51 Middle Schools Allen 200 24 10 Aycock 200 15 7 Ferndale 200 14 11 Hairston 200 3 3 Jackson 200 11 4 Penn Griffin 200 19 16 Welborn 200 19 9 Middle School Totals 1,400 105 60 High Schools Academy at High Point Central 100 1 0 Academy at Smith 200 1 1 Andrews 200 0 0 Dudley 200 28 20 Eastern 200 5 2 High Point Central 200 8 5 Middle College at Bennett 100 3 0 Middle College at NC A&T 100 3 0 Smith 200 18 8 Southern 200 5 3 High School Totals 1,700 72 39 Total 4,700 283 150

Note. Student surveys could only be completed if parents signed a consent form. Surveys received without an accompanying signed consent form were not included. Percentage of Teachers With Initial or Continuing Licenses

Table 9 shows the percentage of teachers in each MP school who have obtained their initial or a continuing license. In 2008-09, there was an average increase of teachers who held an initial or continuing license by 0.4 percentage points in elementary schools. Middle schools saw an increase by 0.8 percentage points and high schools, a decrease of 3.1 percentage points. The total number of schools that reported at least 80% of their teachers had licenses during the 2008-09 year was 83.32% (26 of 30), an increase of 2.3 percentage points from the previous year. In GCS as a whole, the percentage of teachers with an initial or continuing license increased from 90% to 93% in 2008-09. Table 9. Percentage of Teachers with Initial or Continuing Licenses

School 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 Change 05-06 to 06-07

Change 06-07 to

07-08

Change 07-08 to

08-09 Elementary Schools N=13 Bessemer 92% 97% 100% 97% 5 3 -3 Cone 93% 93% 98% 100% 0 5 2

18

School 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 Change 05-06 to 06-07

Change 06-07 to

07-08

Change 07-08 to

08-09 Fairview 91% 93% 96% 96% 2 3 0 Falkener 98% 100% 96% 96% 2 -4 0 Foust 100% 97% 97% 94% -3 0 -3 Gillespie Park 93% 100% 100% 96% 7 0 -4 Hampton Academy

91% 94% 90% 82% 3 -4 -8

Kirkman Park 100% 83% 88% 91% -17 5 3 Oak Hill 100% 97% 93% 98% -3 -4 5 Parkview 95% 98% 92% 97% 3 -6 5 Union Hill 91% 97% 100% 100% 6 3 0 Washington 79% 96% 91% 95% 17 -5 4 Wiley 81% 100% 90% 94% 19 -10 4 Elementary School Totals

92.6% 95.8% 94.7% 95.1% 3.2 -1.1 0.4

Middle Schools N=7 Allen 76% 83% 83% 91% 7 0 8 Aycock 76% 88% 94% 90% 12 6 -4 Ferndale 72% 76% 88% 82% 4 12 -6 Hairston 71% 86% 76% 66% 15 -10 -10 Jackson 69% 77% 79% 88% 8 2 9 Penn Griffin 83% 87% 89% 89% 4 2 0 Welborn 79% 89% 83% 92% 10 -6 9 Middle School Totals

75.1% 83.7% 84.6% 85.4% 8.6 0.9 0.8

High Schools N=10 Academy at High Point Central*

N/A N/A 42% 75% N/A N/A 33

Academy at Smith N/A 41% 39% 61% N/A -2 22 Andrews 62% 79% 78% 75% 17 -1 -3 Dudley 68% 73% 74% 83% 5 1 9 Eastern Guilford 75% 85% 88% 83% 10 3 -5 High Point Central 76% 84% 84% 89% 8 0 5 Middle College at Bennett

78% 92% 91% 85% 14 -1 -6


90% 90% 83% 79% 0 -7 -4

Smith 71% 76% 88% 89% 5 12 1 Southern 85% 93% 88% 93% 8 -5 5 High School Totals

75.6% 84.0% 84.3% 81.2% 8.4 0.3 -3.1

Overall MP Totals

83.4% 87.7% 85.9% 88.2% 4.3 -1.8 2.3

Overall GCS 89% 93% 90% 93% 4 -3 3 Note. Data taken from www.ncreportcard.org. Academy at Smith opened in 2006-07 and Academy at High Point Central in January 2008, so no previous comparison data were available. Percentage of Classes Taught by Highly Qualified Teachers

Table 10 shows the percentage of classes in each MP school that were taught by highly qualified teachers. In 2008-09, four schools had a decrease and five schools had an increase in the

19

percentage of classes taught by highly qualified teachers compared to the previous year. The total number of schools where 100% of classes were taught by highly qualified teachers was 26 (86.7%) in 2008-09, demonstrating a steady average increase since 2004-05. Table 10. Percentage of Classes Taught by Highly Qualified Teachers School 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 Change

05-06 to 06-07

Change 06-07 to

07-08

Change 07-08 to

08-09 Elementary Schools N=13 Bessemer 100% 100% 100% 100% 0 0 0 Cone 100% 100% 100% 100% 0 0 0 Fairview 97% 100% 100% 100% 3 0 0 Falkener 100% 100% 100% 100% 0 0 0 Foust 100% 95% 100% 100% -5 5 0 Gillespie Park 100% 100% 100% 100% 0 0 0 Hampton Academy 100% 91% 100% 100% -9 9 0 Kirkman Park 100% 100% 100% 100% 0 0 0 Oak Hill 100% 96% 100% 100% -4 4 0 Parkview 100% 100% 100% 100% 0 0 0 Union Hill 96% 100% 100% 100% 4 0 0 Washington 87% 100% 100% 100% 13 0 0 Wiley 88% 100% 100% 100% 12 0 0 Elementary School Totals

97.5% 98.6% 100% 100% 1.1 1.4 0

Middle Schools N=7 Allen 99% 100% 98% 97% 1 -2 -1 Aycock 89% 97% 100% 100% 8 3 0 Ferndale 90% 97% 100% 100% 7 3 0 Hairston 97% 97% 97% 95% 0 0 -2 Jackson 93% 100% 100% 96% 7 0 -4 Penn Griffin 91% 97% 97% 100% 6 0 3 Welborn 96% 96% 97% 100% 0 1 3 Middle School Totals

93.6% 97.7% 98.4% 98.3% 4.1 0.7 -0.1


N/A N/A N/A 100% N/A N/A N/A

Academy at Smith N/A 100% 100% 92% N/A 0 -8 Andrews 92% 99% 99% 100% 7 0 1 Dudley 91% 98% 99% 100% 7 1 1 Eastern Guilford 99% 100% 100% 100% 1 0 0 High Point Central 96% 97% 100% 100% 1 3 0 Middle College at Bennett

71% 92% 100% 100% 21 8 0


100% 100% 100% 100% 0 0 0

Smith 97% 99% 99% 100% 2 0 1 Southern 100% 98% 100% 100% -2 2 0 High School Totals

93.3% 97.9% 99.6% 99.2% 4.6 1.8 -0.4

Overall Totals 95.3% 98.2% 99.5% 99.3% 2.9 1.3 -0.2 Overall GCS 91% 100% 100% 100% 9 0 0

20

Note. Data taken from www.ncreportcard.org. Academy at Smith opened in 2006-07 and Academy at High Point Central in January 2008, so no previous comparison data were available. Performance Incentives Paid

The total amount of money paid for performance incentives is an indicator of teacher performance and growth in student achievement. When teacher value-added scores increase, the amount of performance incentives paid to teachers will also increase. In Year 3, the percentage of eligible personnel who received performance incentives was 32%, up from 23% the previous year, according to the data provided by the MP office (Table 11). Table 11. Total Performance Incentives Earned by Personnel by School

*2006-07

(22 Schools) 2007-08

(30 schools)2008-09

(30 Schools)

School Total $ Total

Personnel Total $ Total


Personnel Elementary Schools Bessemer N/A N/A 0 0 of 13 (0%) $19,450 7 of 12 (58%) Cone N/A N/A 0 0 of 12 (0%) 0 0 of 13 Fairview $10,500 3 of 15

(20%) $12,000 3 of 14 (21%) $6,500 2 of 15 (13%)

Falkener N/A N/A $2,500 1 of 16 (6%) $22,525 9 of 16 (56%) Foust $4,000 1 of 8 (13%) 0 0 of 10 (0%) $11,500 3 of 9 (33%) Gillespie $0 0 of 9 (0%) 0 0 of 9 (0%) $7,500 2 of 8 (25%) Hampton $7,500 3 of 9 (33%) $2,500 1 of 9 (11%) $11,500 3 of 10 (30%) Kirkman Park $0 0 of 5 (0%) 0 0 of 7 (0%) $14,350.00 4 of 6 (67%) Oak Hill $7,500 2 of 11

(18%) 0 0 of 11 (0%) 0 0 of 10

Parkview $2,500 1 of 13 (8%) 0 0 of 13 (0%) $2,500 1 of 13 (8%) Union Hill N/A N/A $4,000 1 of 9 (11%) $11,500 4 of 9 (44%) Washington $17,500 6 of 6

(100%) $6,500 2 of 6 (33%) $7,500 2 of 11 (18%)

Wiley $0 0 of 9 (0%) $6,500 2 of 7 (29%) $5,000 2 of 9 (22%) Elementary School Totals

$49,500 16 of 85 (19%)

$34,000 10 of 136 (7%)

$114,825 39 of 141 (28%)

Middle Schools Allen N/A N/A $27,500 8 of 19 (42%) $30,275 9 of 24 (38%) Aycock N/A N/A $25,000 7 of 20 (35%) $13,000 4 of 22 (18%) Ferndale $2,500 1 of 16 (6%) $4,000 1of 19 (5%) $9,000.00 2 of 20 (10%) Hairston $33,000 9 of 26

(35%) $6,500 2 of 23 (9%) $7,440.00 2 of 18 (11%)

Jackson $2,500 1 of 18 (6%) $14,500 4 of 16 (25%) $18,700.00 5 of 14 (36%) Penn Griffin N/A N/A $21,000 6 of 17 (35%) $35,500.00 9 of 17 (53%) Welborn $23,750 7 of 24

(29%) $8,000 2 of 17 (12%) $4,000.00 1 of 16 (6%)


$61,750 18 of 84 (21%)

$106,500 30 of 131 (23%)

$117,915 32 of 131 (24%)

High Schools Academy at High Point Central

N/A N/A $4,000 1 of 4 (25%) $13,000.00 3 of 4 (75%)

Academy at Smith $11,500 3 of 6 (50%) $7,500 2 of 6 (33%) $15,500.00 4 of 5 (80%)

21

*2006-07

(22 Schools) 2007-08

(30 schools)2008-09

(30 Schools)

School Total $ Total



Personnel Andrews $12,000 3 of 11

(27%) $4,000 1 of 15 (7%) $12,000.00 3 of 17 (18%)

Dudley $24,000 6 of 22 (27%)

$37,475 11 of 24 (46%) $18,500.00 5 of 24 (21%)

Eastern Guilford $13,000 4 of 7 (57%) $10,500 3 of 7 (43%) $6,500.00 2 of 9 (22%) High Point Central

$44,500 12 of 18 (67%)

$44,000 11of 20 (55%) $51,420.00 15 of 22 (68%)

Middle College at Bennett

$7,500 2 of 5 (40%) $13,000 3 of 5 (60%) $13,725.00 4 of 5 (80%)


$7,500 2 of 4 (50%) $4,000 1 of 6 (17%) $2,500.00 1 of 6 (17%)

Smith $16,000 4 of 21 (19%)

$34,000 10 of 25 (40%) $38,150.00 11 of 25 (44%)

Southern Guilford $21,000 6 of 6 (80%) $23,300 7 of 7 (100%) $24,650.00 7 of 10 (70%) High School Totals

$157,000 42 of 100 (42%)

$181,775 50 of 119 (42%)

$195,945 55 of 127 (43%)

MP Totals $268,250 76 of 269 (28%)

$322,275 90 of 386 (23%)

126 of 399 (32%)

Note. Total faculty is inclusive of those eligible to receive a performance incentive as well as curriculum facilitators and principals. Those only eligible for the recruitment incentive are excluded in totals. Course Performance Incentives Earned

In 2008-09, 26% of eligible incentives were earned, down 2 percentage points from the previous year (Table 12). The discrepancy between percentage of teachers who were paid an incentive and number of incentives earned is due to teachers earning multiple incentives in multiple subjects, yet they are only paid for the highest incentive that they earn. In addition, Table 12 includes Curriculum Facilitator and Principals, which account for 25 of the total personnel paid. Table 12. Number of Incentives-Eligible Courses That Showed 1.0 SE of Growth or Greater in Students as Measured by Value-Added Scores

Course Type 2006-07

Total Earned 2007-08

Total Earned 2008-09

Total Earned EOG Reading (4th-8th grade) 2 of 75 (3%) 11 of 121 (9%) 14 of 112 (13%)

EOG Math (4th-8th grade) 24 of 75 (32%) 35 of 121 (29%) 20 of 116 (17%)

Algebra I 15 of 40 (38%) 33 of 65 (51%) 30 of 63 (48%)

Algebra II 6 of 20 (30%) 9 of 21 (43%) 8 of 24 (33%)

Geometry 8 of 22 (36%) 11 of 29 (38%) 15 of 32 (47%)

AP Courses 3 of 11 (27%) 5 of 10 (50%) 5 of 10 (50%)

IB Studies 1 of 2 (50%) 1 of 3 (33%) 3 of 4 (75%)

English I 8 of 26 (31%) 10 of 35 (29%) 8 of 32 (25%)

Curriculum Facilitators 5 of 17 (29%) 2 of 28 (7%) 10 of 18 (36%)

Principals 7 of 20 (35%) 2 of 28 (7%) 15 of 28 (54%)

Grade 3 EOG Reading/Math 5 of 30 (17%) 0 of 45 (0%) 17 of 49 (35%)

Totals *84 of 338 (25%) *119 of 506 (24%) *145 of 488 (30%)

22

Note. *These numbers represent duplicate faculty who may have earned more than one incentive. These data were supplied by GCS. Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) Goals Obtained

Table 13 shows that the average percentage of Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) goals obtained by elementary schools increased in 2008-09 by 21.8 percentage points and increased in middle and high schools by 22.2 percentage points and 11.4 percentage points, respectively. Overall, MP schools increased in AYP goals obtained by 18.5 percentage points. GCS overall, which includes the MP schools, also saw an increase of 11.8 percentage points in AYP goals obtained. Table 13. Percentage of AYP Goals Obtained

School 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08a 2008-09 Change 05-06 to 06-07

Change 06-07 to

07-08

Change 07-08 to

08-09 Elementary Schools N=13 Bessemer 80% 52.9% 60% 100% -27.1 7.1 40 Cone 100% 64.7% 76.5% 94.1% -35.3 11.8 17.6 Fairview 80% 52.9% 80% 73.3% -27.1 27.1 -6.7 Falkener 100% 60% 80% 100% -40 20 20 Foust 100% 66.7% 64.7% 100% -33.3 -2 35.3 Gillespie Park 100% 61.5% 53.8% 100% -38.5 -7.7 46.2 Hampton Academy

76.9% 76.9% 53.8% 100% 0 -23.1 46.2

Kirkman Park 92.3% 53.8% 69.2% 100% -38.5 15.4 30.8 Oak Hill 76% 100% 61.9% 73.9% 24 -38.1 12 Parkview 100% 53.8% 61.5% 88.2% -46.2 7.7 26.7 Union Hill 76.9% 69.2% 92.3% 92.3% -7.7 23.1 0 Washington 76.9% 100% 76.9% 100% 23.1 -23.1 23.1 Wiley 69.2% 76.9% 84.6% 76.9% 7.7 7.7 -7.7 Elementary Totals

86.8% 68.4% 70.4% 92.2% -18.4 2.0 21.8

Middle Schools N=7 Allen 96.6% 72.4% 86.2% 100% -24.2 13.8 13.8 Aycock 85.7% 100% 75.9% 97% 14.3 -24.1 21.1 Ferndale 63.6% 90.9% 72.7% 100% 27.3 -18.2 27.3 Hairston 100% 65.2% 60% 96% -34.8 -5.2 36 Jackson 72% 60% 76% 100% -12 16.0 24 Penn Griffin 95.2% 90.5% 95.2% 100% -4.7 4.7 4.8 Welborn 90.5% 100% 66.7% 95.2% 9.5 -33.3 28.5 Middle School Totals

86.2% 82.7% 76.1% 98.3% -3.5 -6.6 22.2


N/A N/A 50% 100% N/A N/A 50

Academy at Smith

N/A 100% 100% 100% N/A 0 0

Andrews 50% 84.6% 69% 69.2% 34.6 -15.6 0.2 Dudley 70.6% 88.2% 69.2% 73.3% 17.6 -19 4.1 Eastern Guilford 100% 100% 82.3% 76.5% 0 -17.7 -5.8 High Point Central

71.4% 100% 88.2% 100% 28.6 -11.8 11.8

23

School 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08a 2008-09 Change 05-06 to 06-07

Change 06-07 to

07-08

Change 07-08 to

08-09 Middle College at Bennett

50% 100% 100% 100% 50 0 0


50% 100% 50% 100% 50 -50 50

Smith 79.3% 61.9% 83.3% 76.5% -17.4 21.4 -6.8 Southern 94.1% 100% 94.1% 100% 5.9 -5.9 5.9 High School Totals

70.7% 92.7% 78.6% 90% 22.1 -14.1 11.4

Overall MP Totals

82.0% 79.4% 74.5% 93% -2.6 -4.9 18.5

GCS Totals 90.8% 89.5% 81.6% 93.4% -1.3 -7.9 11.8 Note. Academy at Smith opened in 2006-07 and Academy at High Point Central in January 2008, so no previous comparison data were available. Data taken from www.ncreportcard.org aIn 2007-08, the state introduced a new reading test based on the revised Standard Course of Study. The decrease in student performance is normal after a new test is introduced. Percentage of Students Who Passed the ABCs

Table 14 shows the percentage of students in each MP school who passed the ABCs. In 2008-09, 24 schools saw an increase compared to the previous year. In MP schools, the overall increase in percentage points of students passing the ABCs was 9.7. In GCS as a whole, the increase was 14.2 percentage points. Many of the large gains in 2008-09 can be attributed to the preceding sharp decrease due to the renorming of the reading test in 2007-08. Table 14. Percentage of Students Passing ABCs

School 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 Change 05-06 to 06-07

Change 06-07 to

07-08

Change 07-08 to

08-09 Elementary Schools N=13 Bessemer 34.8% 35.7% 21.3% 36.2% 0.9 -14.4 14.9 Cone 30.5% 38.1% 22.4% 43.5% 7.6 -15.7 21.1 Fairview 44.8% 43.2% 27% 31.6% -1.6 -16.2 4.6 Falkener 55.8% 42.3% 23.5% 41.3% -13.5 -18.8 17.8 Foust 45.5% 45.5% 27.9% 37.6% 0 -17.6 9.7 Gillespie Park 40.8% 40.5% 27.6% 36.6% -0.3 -12.9 9 Hampton Academy 27.5% 32.5% 17.4% 30.9% 5 -15.1 13.5 Kirkman Park 30% 33.8% 20.7% 43.2% 3.8 -13.1 22.5 Oak Hill 42.7% 43.1% 13.1% 21.1% 0.4 -30.0 8 Parkview 40% 38.6% 24.3% 30.1% -1.4 -14.3 5.8 Union Hill 35.9% 37.9% 31.5% 49.7% 2 -6.4 18.2 Washington 26.7% 44.4% 30.9% 47.1% 17.7 -13.5 16.2 Wiley 29.7% 31.9% 18.8% 25% 2.2 -13.1 6.2 Elementary Totals

37.3% 39.0% 23.6% 36.5% 1.8 -15.5 12.9

Middle Schools N=7 Allen 44.2% 39.9% 32.4% 49.6% -4.3 -7.5 17.2 Aycock 49.7% 64.5% 45.4% 56.1% 14.8 -19.1 10.7 Ferndale 30.1% 38.4% 26.9% 47.6% 8.3 -11.5 20.7 Hairston 42.7% 42.1% 22.3% 31.7% -0.6 -19.8 9.4

24

School 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 Change 05-06 to 06-07

Change 06-07 to

07-08

Change 07-08 to

08-09 Jackson 33.5% 31.7% 26.5% 36.2% -1.8 -5.2 9.7 Penn Griffin 46.8% 56.4% 88.2% 59.2% 9.6 31.8 -59 Welborn 44.8% 56.8% 31% 43.3% 12 -25.8 12.3 Middle School Totals

41.7% 47.1% 39% 46.2% 5.4 -8.2 7.2


N/A N/A 31.8% 54.1% N/A N/A 22.3

Academy at Smith N/A 30.4% 44.4% 75.1% N/A 14.0 30.7 Andrews 40.9% 45.9% 41.4% 47.5% 5 -4.5 6.1 Dudley 52.5% 42.6% 49.3% 41.6% -9.9 6.7 -7.7 Eastern Guilford 62% 55.4% 53.8% 46.1% -6.6 -1.6 -7.7 High Point Central 61.5% 62.6% 67.7% 63.6% 1.1 5.1 -4.1 Middle College at Bennett

17.4% 38.2% 50.2% 54.1% 20.8 12.0 3.9


15.9% 32.5% 37.8% 58.4% 16.6 5.3 20.6

Smith 47.2% 35.4% 37.4% 41.2% -11.8 2.0 3.8 Southern 61.5% 56.5% 58.2% 61.9% -5 1.7 3.7 High School Totals

44.9% 44.4% 47.2% 54.4% -0.5 2.8 7.2

Overall MP Totals

40.6% 42.6% 35% 44.7% 2.1 -7.6 9.7

Overall GCS 59.3% 63.4% 50.2% 64.4% 4.1 -13.2 14.2 Note. Data taken from www.ncreportcard.org. Academy at Smith opened in 2006-07 and Academy at High Point Central in January 2008, so no previous comparison data were available. This number is the percentage of students, grouped by gender, ethnicity, and other factors, who passed both the reading and math tests. ABC Growth Met

Growth within the North Carolina ABC Accountability Model is determined by predicting EOG and EOC test scores for a particular school year based on test scores of the same students from the previous year, and comparing the actual scores to the predicted scores. Students meet growth when their actual score is at or above their predicted score. It is possible for students to pass the EOG or EOC yet not have growth. School growth is determined by averaging student scores together. Table 15 shows whether individual schools met the ABC Growth target. In 2008-09, 60% (18 of 30) of schools met growth. Overall, GCS had 75% of schools meet growth. Table 15. ABC Growth Met at Each School School 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 Elementary Schools N=13 Bessemer No No Yes Yes Cone No No Yes No Fairview Yes No Yes No Falkener No No Yes Yes Foust No No Yes Yes Gillespie Park No No No No Hampton Academy No Yes Yes No Kirkman Park No No Yes Yes

25

School 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 Oak Hill Yes No No No Parkview No No Yes No Union Hill No No Yes No Washington No Yes Yes Yes Wiley No No Yes Yes Elementary Totals 2 (15.4%) 2 (15.4%) 11 (84.6%) 6 (46.2%) Middle Schools N=7 Allen No No Yes Yes Aycock No Yes Yes Yes Ferndale No Yes No Yes Hairston Yes Yes Yes No Jackson No No Yes Yes Penn Griffin No Yes Yes Yes Welborn No Yes No No Middle School Totals 1 (14.3%) 5 (71.4%) 5 (71.4%) 5 (71.4%) High Schools N=10 Academy at High Point Central* N/A N/A No Yes Academy at Smith N/A Yes No Yes Andrews No Yes No No Dudley Yes No Yes No Eastern Guilford Yes Yes No No High Point Central Yes Yes Yes Yes Middle College at Bennett Yes Yes Yes Yes Middle College at NC A&T No Yes Yes Yes Smith Yes No Yes Yes Southern Yes Yes No Yes High School Totals 6 (75%) 7 (77.8%) 5 (50%) 7 (70%) Overall MP Totals 9 (33.3%) 14 (48.3%) 21 (70%) 18 (60%) GCS Totals 51 (45.5%) 83 (72.8%) 94 (79%) 89 (75%) Note. Data taken from NC ABCs website http://abcs.ncpublicschools.org/abcs/index.jsp?pYear=2008-2009. Academy at Smith opened in 2006-07 and Academy at High Point Central in January 2008, so no previous comparison data were available. Performance Composite

The Performance Composite is defined by NCDPI (2008) as “the percentage of the test scores

in the school at or above Achievement Level III (also referred to as at ‘grade level’ or ‘proficient’).” Table 16 shows the performance composite for each MP school. In 2005-06, 21.4% (6 of 28) of MP schools showed an increase in performance since the previous year. In 2008-09, 83% (25 of 30) of MP schools showed an increase in performance composite. The average performance composite for MP schools in 2008-09 was 52.7%, up 7.3 percentage points from 2007-08. In GCS overall, the increase was 6.5 percentage points in 2008-09. Table 16. Performance Composites for Mission Possible Schools School 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 Change

05-06 to 06-07

Change 06-07 to

07-08

Change 07-08 to

08-09 Elementary Schools N=13 Bessemer 50% 52% 35.8% 50.8% 2 -16.2 15 Cone 50.2% 50.5% 40.9% 53.7% 0.3 -9.6 12.8

26

School 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 Change 05-06 to 06-07

Change 06-07 to

07-08

Change 07-08 to

08-09 Fairview 56.2% 54.2% 45.1% 40.9% -2 -9.1 -4.2 Falkener 66.5% 53.6% 43.1% 51.8% -12.9 -10.5 8.7 Foust 59.7% 57.4% 42% 46.2% -2.3 -15.4 4.2 Gillespie Park 56.9% 53.6% 35.3% 45% -3.3 -18.3 9.7 Hampton Academy 45.2% 47.3% 31.5% 41.3% 2.1 -15.8 9.8 Kirkman Park 44.2% 50% 34.2% 50% 5.8 -15.8 15.8 Oak Hill 53.3% 58.4% 24.9% 29.7% 5.1 -33.5 4.8 Parkview 54.8% 51.2% 40.1% 37.9% -3.6 -11.1 -2.2 Union Hill 51.3% 53.4% 51.6% 55.7% 2.1 -1.8 4.1 Washington 43.6% 57.4% 49% 54.6% 13.8 -8.4 5.6 Wiley 43.1% 50% 38.5% 39.3% 6.9 -11.5 0.8 Elementary School Totals

51.9% 53% 39.4% 45.9% 1.1 -13.6 6.5

Middle Schools N=7 Allen 60.8% 60.3% 52.3% 62% -0.5 -8.0 9.7 Aycock 65.7% 73.5% 62.2% 69.2% 7.8 -11.3 7 Ferndale 46.5% 56.2% 46% 62% 9.7 -10.2 16 Hairston 58.1% 56.5% 37.7% 45.1% -1.6 -18.8 7.4 Jackson 50% 50% 41.1% 50.9% 0 -8.9 9.8 Penn Griffin 59.4% 70.8% 69.2% 74.3% 11.4 -1.6 5.1 Welborn 59.4% 67.9% 50% 59.3% 8.5 -17.9 9.3 Middle School Totals

57.1% 62.2% 51.2% 60.4% 5.0 -11.0 9.2


N/A N/A 32.7% 55.8% N/A N/A 23.1

Academy at Smith N/A 34.4% 45.7% 77.9% N/A 11.3 32.2 Andrews 42.1% 47.4% 44.3% 47.8% 5.3 -3.1 3.5 Dudley 51.7% 44.5% 51.3% 44.8% -7.2 6.8 -6.5 Eastern Guilford 62.3% 54.9% 54.7% 48.4% -7.4 -0.2 -6.3 High Point Central 61.1% 62.1% 67.3% 64.4% 1 5.2 -2.9 Middle College at Bennett

18.7% 40.7% 53.3% 56.3% 22 12.6 3


17.6% 34.5% 41.5% 60.7% 16.9 7.0 19.2

Smith 47.5% 35.5% 39.7% 42.1% -12 4.2 2.4 Southern 61.4% 56.8% 59.9% 63.6% -4.6 3.1 3.7 High School Totals

45.3% 47.1% 51.5% 56.2% 1.8 4.5 4.7

Overall MP Totals

51.3% 52.9% 45.4% 52.7% 1.6 -7.6 7.3

Overall GCS 66.4% 67.7% 60.0% 66.5% 1.3 -7.7 6.5 Note. Data taken from http://abcs.ncpublicschools.org/abcs/. Academy at Smith opened in 2006-07 and Academy at High Point Central in January of 2008, so no previous comparison data were available. Student Short-Term Suspensions

The average number of short-term suspensions (suspensions lasting 10 days or less) in MP schools in 2008-09 was 24.7, which was 0.3 points lower than in 2007-09 (Table 17). The largest decreases were in Aycock Middle and Jackson Middle Schools. These schools had decreases of 21 and

27

19 suspensions, respectively. The schools that saw the largest increases in short-term suspensions were Dudley High, Smith High, and Ferndale Middle Schools. These schools had increases of 17, 14, and 14 suspensions, respectively. The numbers represent the average per 100 students. Table 17. Average Number of Student Short-Term Suspensions per 100 Students

School

2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 #Change 05-06 to 06-07

#Change 06-07 to

07-08

#Change 07-08 to

08-09 Elementary Schools N=13 Bessemer 17 14 2 6 -3 -12 4 Cone 8 11 13 12 3 2 -1 Fairview 3 2 3 3 -1 1 0 Falkener 5 3 1 8 -2 -2.0 7

Foust 4 3 N/A 5 -1 N/A N/A Gillespie Park 9 3 5 5 -6 2.0 0 Hampton Academy 4 10 1 8 6 -9.0 7 Kirkman Park 2 14 10 17 12 -4.0 7 Oak Hill 4 1 12 12 -3 11.0 0

Parkview 16 9 14 16 -7 5.0 2 Union Hill 17 11 8 4 -6 -3.0 -4 Washington 9 12 5 11 3 -7.0 6 Wiley 16 9 5 11 -7 -4.0 6

Elementary School Average 9 8 6.6 9.1 -0.9 -1.3 2.5 Middle Schools N=7 Allen 47 41 54 37 -6 13.0 -17 Aycock 38 30 53 32 -8 23.0 -21 Ferndale 104 58 29 43 -46 -29.0 14 Hairston 62 41 59 68 -21 18.0 9 Jackson 107 72 43 24 -35 -29.0 -19 Penn Griffin 49 48 45 28 -1 -3.0 -17

Welborn 60 62 66 74 2 4.0 8

Middle School Average 67 50 50 43.7 -16.4 -0.4 -6.3 High Schools N=10 Academy at High Point Central* N/A N/A 4 3 N/A N/A -1 Academy at Smith N/A 3 30 15 N/A 27 -15 Andrews 50 53 62 45 3 9 -17

Dudley 30 24 16 33 -6 -8 17 Eastern Guilford 28 37 24 37 9 -13 13 High Point Central 54 38 32 39 -16 -6 7 Middle College at Bennett 2 6 1 1 4 -5 0 Middle College at NC A&T 21 8 26 N/A -13 18 N/A Smith 45 61 61 75 16 0 14 Southern 34 54 54 43 20 0 -11

High School Average 33 32 31 32.3 -1.4 -0.6 1.3 Overall MP Average 30 25 25 24.7 -4.7 0 -0.3

Note. Data taken from www.ncreportcard.org. Academy at Smith opened in 2006-07 and Academy at High Point Central in January 2008, so no previous comparison data were available.

28

Cohort Graduation Rate The graduation rates for 2008-09 increased in MP schools (only high schools reported) by 3.9 percentage points. The average graduation rate of a 4-year cohort of students was 81.5%, up from 77.6% in 2007-08 (Table 18). The largest increase was seen at Middle College at NC A&T, where graduation rates increased 17.7 percentage points from the previous year. In GCS, the graduation rate was 79.9%, an increase of 0.2 percentage points from 2007-08. Table 18. Graduation Rate in Percentages

School

2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 Change 05-06 to

06-07

Change 06-07 to

07-08

Change 07-08 to

08-09 Academy at High Point Central N/A N/A 77.8% 78.6% N/A N/A 0.8

Academy at Smith N/A N/A >95% >95% N/A N/A 0

Andrews High 78.8% 80.5% 75.9% 66.8% 1.7 -4.6 -9.1

Dudley High 74.3% 83.7% 74.9% 78.2% 9.4 -8.8 9.4

Eastern Guilford High 64.1% 73.3% 75.7% 75.3% 9.2 2.4 -0.4

High Point Central High 62.1% 77.6% 77.9% 78.2% 15.5 0.3 0.3

Middle College at Bennett 75.8% 83.3% 82.4% 90.5% 7.5 -0.9 8.1

Middle College at NC A&T 68.8% 92.3% 77.3% >95% 23.5 -15 17.7

Smith High 56.8% 63.9% 72.1% 73.3% 7.1 8.2 1.2

Southern Guilford High 76.6% 86.4% 84.2% 83.6% 9.8 -2.2 -0.6

Overall Percentage 69.7% 80.1% 77.6% 81.5% 10.5 -2.6 3.9

GCS Average 73.9% 79.7% 79.7% 79.9% 5.8 0 0.2 Note. Data taken from www.ncreportcard.org. Academy at Smith opened in 2006-07 and Academy at High Point Central opened in January 2008, so no previous comparison data were available. Professional Development Workshops

Mission Possible faculty are required to take professional development courses as stipulated in their contract. Participants in Year 1 of their employment within the MP program are required to take Undoing-Racism and Cooperative Learning. Participants in Year 2 of their employment with the program are required to take Differentiated Instruction and Teacher Expectations and Student Achievement (TESA). Workshop participants complete an evaluation questionnaire at the end of the workshop administrated by GCS. The Professional Development office does not provide results separated by workshop. In Table 19, the combined satisfaction score is presented for the 2008-09 attendees. A score of 4.19 on a 5-point scale indicates that in general, an overwhelming majority of participants were satisfied.

The Mission Possible personnel who are in their third year in the program are able to

participate in a customized professional development curriculum. We do not have results for those varying programs across schools.

29

Table 19. Professional Development Satisfaction Course 2007-08 2008-09a Cooperative Learning 4.51

4.19 Undoing Racism 3.38 Differentiated Instruction 4.32 Teacher Expectations and Student Achievement (TESA) 4.13

Note. Mean Scores reported on a Likert scale of 1-5, with 1 being “lowest” and 5 being “highest.” a2008-2009 course averages were compiled into one data point by the Professional Development Office. Comparison of Mission Possible Schools with Non-Mission Possible Schools

Included in this Year 3 report are the updated matches of non-MP schools to MP schools using a propensity scoring model. As described in the revised analytic approach report (Appendix O-Student Achievement Analysis) there were initially three comparison schools matched to an MP school, an additional feature of the analysis that was mentioned in the Year 1 district report. Due to changes within some controls schools, the schools can no longer act as a comparison. Some changes include, school closed, school broken up into several smaller learning communities, or school receiving similar intervention.

As with last year, the mean scores for math and language arts outcomes were examined for MP and the Comparison schools, and complete results are available in Appendix O. The difference in gains from 2005-06 (baseline) to 2008-09 (at least two years of treatment for both cohorts) for MP and comparison schools were calculated. Among the 20 variables tested, only Grade 6 math showed evidence of a treatment effect.

As part of the Year 3 reports, each MP school will receive an individual progress report, which includes their three non-MP school matches identified in Year 1 through propensity score matching. As with Year 2, the individual school progress reports should be examined for further detail about a particular school and how it has performed in relation to the comparison school. This will facilitate identifying potential treatment effects at individual schools.

Conclusions

The formative outcomes of the program can be summarized in relation to the three evaluation questions. In Table 20, there are indicators of retention, recruitment of teachers, and student achievement. The indicators of retention and recruitment are positive. The number of faculty earning a performance incentive has also increased, which is an indicator of increased student growth. While there is improvement in some areas, climate at MP schools seems to be a challenge. To what extent are the most highly qualified teachers and administrators being recruited and retained at MP Schools?

Improvement in principal and teacher turnover, as well as incentive-paid personnel turnover. Among incentive-paid school personnel, resignations still accounted for the highest amount of

turnover within the MP schools (8%, down from 13.3% in 2007-08). The most common reason given for resigning was to teach in a different NC district, mirroring the previous year’s data.

Overall, there was a decrease in school climate, as measured by the number of staff who gave their school an overall grade of A or B.

30

The number of teachers with an initial or continuing license has increased by 2.3 percentage points.

The number of classes taught by highly qualified teachers has changed negligibly. The number of personnel who earned an incentive has increased by 9 percentage points. The percentage of faculty earning an incentive in elementary schools has increased by 21

percentage points, while middle and high schools increased by 1 percentage point each. The number of applications to open MP positions in Guilford County schools went from 3,434

in 2007-08 to 2,563 in 2008-09.

To what extent did the MP training and incentives impact teacher and student outcomes?

The percentage of AYP goals achieved increased by 18.5 percentage points in MP schools and 11.8 percentage points across GCS.

The percentage of students who passed the ABCs increased by 7.2 percentage points in MP schools and 14.2 percentage points in GCS.

The ABC Growth rate decreased by 10 percentage points in MP schools and 5 percentage points in GCS overall.

The average performance composite increased by 7.3 percentage points in MP schools and 6.5 percentage points in GCS.

The high school cohort graduation rate has increased in MP high schools by 3.9 percentage points and by 0.2 percentage points across all GCS high schools.

The number of personnel who earned an incentive has increased by 9 percentage points. The percentage of faculty earning an incentive in elementary schools has increased by 21

percentage points, while middle and high schools increased by 1 percentage point each. In examining data from MP and matched comparison schools, there appears to be a statistically

significant treatment effect in grade 6 math.

To what extent were the MP teachers and administrators trained as proposed?

Participant satisfaction of the required professional development is high. Many teachers have requested professional development related to student behavior

management. Table 20 below is a summary of key outcomes. The color coding indicates positive or negative

change. The figure within the table is an indicator of amount of change from previous year, unless otherwise noted. Table 20. Summary of Results for Aggregate Grade Levels-Percentage Point Changes from 2007-08 to 2008-09


Positive Change

Negative Change

No Change

Change Unknown–First Year(Y1) of Data or Not Available (N/A)

31


(inclusive of MP) Retention Indicators

Principal Turnover

-15.4 -14.3 0 (22.2% to 22.2%)

-10.7 -10

Teacher Turnover -0.6 -4.2 +0.1% -1.1 +9 Incentive-Paid Teacher Turnover in Schools

-14 -23 -10 -16.1 N/A

Staff School Climatea

-8 -11 -10 -6.8 N/A

Teacher Working Conditions

Available Again in Year 4 Report

Recruitment of Quality Teacher IndicatorsTeachers With Initial or Continuing License

+0.4% +0.8% -3.1% +2.3% +3%

Classes Taught by Highly Qualified Teachers

0% (100% to 100%)

-0.1% -0.4% -0.2% 0% (100% to 100%)

*Number of Incentives Earnedb

N/A N/A N/A +6% N/A

* Number of Personnel Earning Performance Incentives





N/A

Student Achievement IndicatorsPercentage of AYP Goals

+21.8 +22.2 +11.4 +18.5 +11.8

Percentage of Students Who Passed ABCs

+12.9 +7.2% +4.6 +7.2 +14.2

ABC Growth -5 schools No change in # of schools

+2 schools -3 schools -5 schools

Performance Composite

+6.5 +9.2 +4.7 +7.3 +6.5

Short-Term Suspension Average

+2.5 -6.3 +1.3 -0.3 N/A

Cohort Graduation Rate

N/A N/A +3.9 +3.9 +0.2

*Number of Incentives Earned

N/A N/A N/A +6% N/A

*Number of Personnel Earning Performance Incentives





N/A

Note. *Duplicated in another category a Increase or decrease in Climate is measured by comparing the percentage of personnel who graded their school as an A, A-, B, or B- in 2008 compared to 2009. The comparison for high schools excludes the Academy at High Point Central in the 2008 aggregate because the school was not included in 2007. bThe increase is due to more classroom faculty earning incentives as well as more principals and curriculum facilitators earning an incentive when their respective school made AYP.

32

Recommendations

The Mission Possible program is currently finishing its 4th year under the USED TIF program.

As such, the focus within GCS has been sustainability. The additional climate questions reveal that although monthly newsletters are sent and principals are continuously informed about the program, a third of the staff within the schools have misconceptions about the purpose of the program. Paralleling that, the climate surveys show low morale persisting as some schools while Value-Added data show that more growth has occurred in student achievement in the third year of the program and teacher retention has dramatically increased. The misconceptions of the program purpose could explain the relationship between low morale and open-ended comments from teachers suggesting that all teachers should get an incentive. The recommendation would be to try alternative forms of communication, such as utilizing lead MP teachers within schools or being deliberate about saying what the MP program purpose is not, i.e., the purpose of the program is NOT about rewarding teachers for working in certain schools. At this third year of the program, it may be difficult for teachers to remember the number of open positions at each school in 2005-06, which served as the impetus for the MP program.

Follow-up surveys should be conducted to continue to probe teachers for their reasons for resigning and for gathering information about what makes a school a preferred place to work. The human resources standard exit form does not ask for extensive detail about reasons for resigning. With the majority of attrition being related to resignations, it’s important to sort out the various meanings of the term.

33

References

Clotfelter, C., Glennie, E., Ladd, H., & Vigdor, J. (2008). Would higher salaries keep teachers in high-

poverty schools? Evidence from a policy intervention in North Carolina. Journal of Public Economics, 92(5-6), 1352-1370.

Murnane, R., & Cohen, D. (1986). Merit pay and evaluation problem: Why most merit pay plans fail

and few survive. Harvard Educational Review, 56(1), 1-17. North Carolina Department of Public Instruction. (2008). 2007-08 ABCs of public education

technical notes. Raleigh, NC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.ncpublicschools.org/ docs/accountability/reporting/abc/2007-08/0708technicalnotes.pdf

34

Appendix A - Mission Possible Evaluation Plan

The SERVE Center at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro

Data Sources Benchmarks Data-Gathering Points

Analytical Methods Party Responsible

1. To what extent are the most highly qualified teachers and administrators being recruited and retained at Mission Possible (MP) Schools?

Personnel data, e.g., vacancy ratings, turnover, numbers of unlicensed, lateral entry, and high qualified teachers. Includes: GCS application process information

including Haberman Assessment Value added scores

Number of vacancies/ rate of turnover at MP schools

Number of non-highly qualified, unlicensed and lateral entry teachers at MP schools

Years 1 – 5 Pre-/post-analysis of personnel data at MP schools (beginning of school year and end of school year)

GCS Provide/facilitate SERVE Center access

to the necessary data SERVE Center Determine matched comparison group

using propensity scoring Data collection Data analysis

AYP status and ABC status of MP schools vs. non-MP schools)7

ABC and AYP status of MP schools vs. non-MP

Years 1 – 5 Comparison of AYP and ABC data between MP and non-MP schools

System budget review to determine incentives teachers and principals receive compared to system salary budget overall

Percentage of personnel budget that goes to pay teachers’ and principals’ incentives

Years 1 – 5 System budget data MP schools GCS Data collection Data analysis To be included in annual evaluation

report as an addendum (data to be provided by GCS)

2. To what extent were the MP teachers and administrators trained as proposed? Participation rate of teachers/administrators Documentation of

participation in professional development activities

Years 1 – 5 Number/percentage of teachers participating in professional development from MP schools

GCS Data collection (participant sign in

sheets, rosters, etc.) SERVE Center Data analysis

3. To what extent did the MP training and incentives impact teacher and student outcomes? Survey of teacher and administrator satisfaction with school climate in MP

School Climate Inventory (pre/post)

Years 1 – 5 Frequencies and percentages (mean and standard deviations, if applicable) of

GCS Identify School Climate Inventory

7 “Non-MP” schools will be selected, by the SERVE Center, via a matched comparison group process whereby these schools will be matched with MP schools based upon predetermined demographic variables.

35



schools satisfaction survey results (beginning of school year and end of school year).

participants Administer School Climate Inventory –

pre/post SERVE Center Data analysis

Interviews/focus groups of teachers/ administrators to determine satisfaction with professional development activities and Mission Possible project overall

Interview/focus group data Year 2 and Year 4 Content analysis of interviews/focus group transcripts

GCS Identify focus group/interview

participants SERVE Center Develop, collaboratively with GSC,

interview/focus group protocol for teachers and administrators Conduct focus group/interviews Data analysis

Survey of parent satisfaction with MP schools

Parent Survey data Years 1 – 5 Frequencies and percentages of satisfaction survey results

GCS Identify parent participants Administer survey to parents SERVE Center Develop, collaboratively with GSC,

parent survey Data analysis

Survey of student satisfaction with school climate in MP schools

School Climate Inventory (pre/post) – student focused

Years 1 – 5 Frequencies, and percentages (mean and standard deviations, if applicable) of satisfaction survey results

GCS Identify student participants Administer student School Climate

Inventory – pre/post SERVE Center Develop student School Climate

Inventory Data analysis

MP students’ discipline referrals, attendance, promotion rates

School level data Years 1 – 5 GCS Provide/ facilitate SERVE Center access

to the necessary data SERVE Center Data collection Data analysis

MP teachers’ students’ EOG/EOC scores as compared to non-MP teachers’ students’ EOG/EOC scores

EOG/EOC scores of students of MP and non-MP teachers

Years 1 – 5 Comparison of EOG/EOC data between MP and non-MP schools

GCS Provide/ facilitate SERVE Center access

to the necessary data SERVE Center Data collection Data analysis

36



Pre- and Post-MP teachers’ value-added scores Teacher Observations – Incorporate results from teachers observations and evaluations

Current value-added scores Observation data/360 degree feedback

Years 1 – 5

GCS/SAS Calculate teachers’ value-added scores at

Time 1 (pre) and Time 2 (post) Teacher observation data/360 degree

feedback SERVE Center Incorporate value-added and teacher

observation results in to evaluation reporting

Attending monthly/quarterly meetings Years 1 – 5 SERVE Center

Report Writing

Years 1 – 5 SERVE Center

37

Appendix B - Letter to Parents Regarding Climate Survey March, 2009 Dear Parent or Guardian, The school that your child attends is currently participating in the Mission Possible Program. As you may know, this program is a teacher incentive program designed to attract and retain teachers for select schools and to reward teachers for outstanding results. This is a support program for teachers in selected schools focusing on high quality staff development and smaller class sizes. The SERVE Center based at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro has been asked to evaluate the program. As part of the evaluation, the parents and students are being asked to participate by answering some questions related to the school environment. You can help Guilford County improve the program by completing a survey and also by giving your consent for your child to complete a survey. There are consent forms and surveys enclosed. The consent form is a formal document that evaluators and researchers are required to provide to participants and parents of students under 18 years of age. This document outlines the risk of participating and other information about your rights. This document also outlines the rights of your child, if you decide to allow him or her to complete a survey at school. If you consent, your child will also have to agree by signing a separate assent form attached to the student survey. The consent forms provide contact information should you have any questions about the surveys. Please sign the enclosed consent forms and then indicate if you consent to participate. Also indicate if you allow your child to participate. Place one copy of the consent form in the envelope along with the survey and keep the other copy of the consent form for your records. If your child agrees to participate, have him or her sign the assent form and complete the Student Survey. Place the surveys in the postage paid envelope and mail back to SERVE. The envelopes will be delivered to the evaluators at the SERVE Center. There, your consent form will be reviewed. If you completed the survey, your survey will be separated from the consent form so that your survey is truly anonymous. Please return the consent form indicating your level of participation. Please return the surveys by April 10, 2009. Thank you in advance for your participation. Sincerely, Amy Holcombe, Ph.D. Executive Director, Talent Development Guilford County Schools 712 Eugene St. Greensboro, NC 336-370-8091 [email protected]

38

Appendix C - Letter to Parents Regarding Climate Survey (Spanish version) March, 2009

Estimado Padre o Guardián Legal, La escuela a la que su hijo asiste está participando actualmente en el Programa Misión Posible. Misión Posible es un programa de incentivo para maestros. El programa fue diseñado para atraer y retener a maestros en ciertas escuelas y para premiar a maestros que consiguen resultados sobresalientes con sus estudiantes. El Programa Misión Posible es un programa de apoyo para maestros en ciertas escuelas que ponen énfasis en la calidad alta de personal y en tener clases con un número reducido de estudiantes. El Centro SERVE, que forma parte de la Universidad de la Carolina del Norte en Greensboro, fue invitado a evaluar el programa. Como parte de la evaluación, el Centro SERVE está pidiendo a los padres y estudiantes que contesten algunas preguntas sobre la escuela. Usted puede ayudar al Condado Guilford a mejorar el programa al responder a algunas preguntas y al dar su permiso a sus hijos a responder a las preguntas también. Hay documentos adjuntos a esta carta; unos formularios de consentimiento y cuestionarios. El formulario de consentimiento es un documento formal que los evaluadores e investigadores tienen que proveerles a los participantes y a los padres de estudiantes menores de 18 años. Este documento explica el posible riesgo de participar en esta evaluación y otra información sobres sus derechos. Este documento también explica los derechos de su hijo, si usted decide permitir a su hijo a completar un cuestionario. Si usted da su consentimiento, su hijo también tendrá que decir que quiere participar al firmar un formulario diferente que será distribuido con el cuestionario. Si usted tiene cualquier pregunta sobre el cuestionario, el formulario de consentimiento tiene información de contacto que usted puede usar. Favor de firmar los formularios de consentimiento adjuntos e indicar si usted quiere participar y si usted permite que su hijo participe. Favor de poner una copia del formulario de consentimiento y el cuestionario completado dentro del sobre y quedarse la otra copia del formulario de consentimiento. Los evaluadores revisarán su formulario de consentimiento. Si usted llenó el cuestionario, los evaluadores separarán su formulario de consentimiento de su cuestionario, para que sus respuestas en el cuestionario sean verdaderamente anónimas. Si su hijo/a está dispuesto/a a participar, por favor haga que firme la hoja de consentimiento y el cuestionario de estudiante. Introduzca los cuestionarios en el sobre que se adjunta sellad y envíelo a SERVE. Por favor, devuelva el formulario de consentimiento, indicando si usted y su hijo quieren participar. Por favor, devuelva el formulario antes de 10 Abril 2009. Agradecemos su participación. Sinceramente: Amy Holcombe, Ph.D. Executive Director, Programa Talent Development Escuelas del Condado de Guilford 712 Eugene St., Greensboro, NC 336-370-8091 [email protected]

39

Appendix D - Parent/Student Consent Form UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT GREENSBORO

CONSENT FORM PARENT Consent to Act as a Human Participant in Mission Possible Evaluation

Project Title: Mission Possible Evaluation Project Director: Amy Holcombe DESCRIPTION AND EXPLANATION OF PROCEDURES: The purpose of the enclosed survey is to get parent perceptions of the school environment. Classrooms of students and their parents were randomly chosen to be invited to complete a survey. The results of this survey will be analyzed by SERVE Center and the report will be given to Guilford County Schools in an effort to help them improve the school environment and make it a better place for students to learn and for teachers to work. The student version of this survey is similar but the questions are worded slightly different. If you agree to participate, we ask that you complete the enclosed survey and send it back to SERVE with your child along with a copy of this consent form (signed). The answers provided by you and your child are confidential and will not be associated with any name. Once your envelope is received by the evaluators, your answers are guaranteed to be anonymous. We will keep all surveys in our locked file cabinet at the SERVE offices until the year 2015 and then they will be destroyed by a paper shredder. The survey should take approximately 20 minutes to complete. If you also agree that your child can participate, please indicate below by checking the appropriate line. The surveys will not have your child’s name on them. Your child may stop filling out the survey at any time without penalty. If you give permission for your child to participate, your child has to agree by signing the assent form and then completing the Student Survey. RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS: The evaluators have determined that there is minimal risk to you and your child. Parents will have to return their survey along with a consent form for their child and themselves. These consent forms will be in the same envelope as the completed survey, so there is a chance that someone could link their answers on the survey to them. We at SERVE immediately separate surveys from consent forms so that your answers cannot be linked to you.. POTENTIAL BENEFITS: Your responses and your child’s responses will help Guilford County improve their Mission Possible program which is anticipated to improve your child’s education experience. The benefit to society is the anticipated improvement of a school in the local community. CONSENT: By signing this consent form, you agree that you understand the procedures and any risks and benefits involved in this evaluation. You are free to refuse to participate or to withdraw your consent to participate in this evaluation at any time without penalty or prejudice; your participation is entirely voluntary. You and your child’s privacy will be protected because you will not be identified by name as a participant in this project. Your child may also refuse to participate without penalty and withdraw at any time. The University of North Carolina at Greensboro Institutional Review Board, which ensures that research and evaluation involving people follows federal regulations, has approved the evaluation and this consent form. Questions regarding your rights as a participant in this evaluation can be answered by calling Mr. Eric Allen at (336) 256-1482. If you have questions at any time about the Mission Possible evaluation or the procedures used to collect information, you may contact Dr. Holli Bayonas at PO Box 5367, Greensboro, NC 27435, 336-315-7400 or email [email protected] Any new information that develops during the project will be provided to you if the information might affect your willingness to continue participation in the project.

40

Please sign the form and indicate your level of participation below. ____________________________________ Parent/Guardian’s Name-Printed ____________________________________ ______________ Parent/Guardian's Signature Date Parent/Guardian Participation –Place a check next to one statement: ___As a parent or guardian, I wish to participate and have completed the survey. ___As a parent or guardian, I do not wish to participate and have not completed the survey. I understand there is no penalty for this decision. Child Participation-Place a check next to one statement: ___As a parent or guardian, I allow my child to complete a survey. ___As a parent or guardian, I do not allow my child to complete a survey. I understand there is no penalty for this decision.

41

Appendix E - Parent/Student Consent Form (Spanish version)

UNIVERSIDAD DE LA CAROLINA DEL NORTE EN GREENSBORO

FORMULARIO DE CONSENTIMIENTO

PADRE consentimiento para participar en la evaluación del programa misión posible Título del Proyecto: Evaluación Misión Posible Director del Proyecto: Amy Holcombe DESCRIPCIÓN Y EXPLICACIÓN DE PROCEDIMIENTOS: El propósito del cuestionario adjunto es aprender más sobre las opiniones de los padres sobre la escuela de su hijo. Las clases de estudiantes y sus padres fueron escogidos arbitrariamente para ser invitados a completar un cuestionario. Los resultados de este cuestionario serán analizados por el Centro SERVE. Después, el Centro SERVE entregará un informe sobre los resultados del análisis de los cuestionarios a las Escuelas del Condado de Guilford. El Condado de Guilford usará este informe para mejorar sus escuelas para que sean un mejor lugar de aprendizaje para los estudiantes y un mejor lugar para trabajar para los maestros. La versión estudiantil de este cuestionario es similar a la versión para los padres, pero usa palabras diferentes para expresar ideas similares. Si usted decide participar, le rogamos que firme el formulario de consentimiento y rellene el cuestionario adjunto. Después, devuélvalos a SERVE. Las respuestas que usted y su hijo provean son confidenciales y no serán asociadas son su nombre. Una vez que los evaluadores del Centro SERVE reciban sus respuestas, ellos garantizan que sus respuestas serán anónimas. Nosotros, los evaluadores, guardaremos todos los cuestionarios en un armario cerrado bajo llave en la oficina de SERVE hasta el año 2015; en 2015, estos cuestionarios serán destruidos. Rellenar este cuestionario toma aproximadamente 20 minutos. Si usted también quiere que su hijo participe, favor de indicareo abajo. Si usted permite a su hijo/a participar, su hijo/a ha de firmar la hoja de consentimiento y ha de rellenar el cuestionario de estudiante. El cuestionario no tendrá el nombre del estudiante que lo llenó. Su hijo puede decidir no llenar el cuestionario en cualquier momento sin ningún problema. RIESGOS E INCOMODIDADES: Los evaluadores han decidido que hay un riesgo mínimo si usted y su hijo deciden participar en esta evaluación. Los padres tendrán que devolver su cuestionario con un formulario de consentimiento para ellos. Estos formularios de consentimiento estarán en el mismo sobre que el cuestionario completado; por eso, cabe la posibilidad de que alguien asocie el cuestionario con el nombre de la persona que lo llenó. Nosotros en SERVE separamos los cuestionarios de las hojas de consentimiento inmediatamente para que sus respuestas no puedan asociarse con usted. BENEFICIOS POSIBLES: Sus respuestas y las respuestas de su hijo ayudarán al Condado Guilford a mejorar su programa Misión Posible, lo cual ayudará a mejorar la educación de su hijo. El beneficio para la sociedad en general es el mejoramiento de la escuela en la comunidad local que esperamos que resulte de esta evaluación CONSENTIMIENTO: Al firmar este formulario de consentimiento, usted indica que entiende los procedimientos y cualquier riesgo asociado con esta evaluación. Usted puede decidir no participar o dejar de participar en esta evaluación en cualquier momento sin problema; su participación es completamente voluntaria. Su privacidad y la de su hijo serán protegidas porque ustedes no se identificarán con nombre como participantes en este proyecto. Su hijo también puede decidir no participar o dejar de participar en esta evaluación en cualquier momento. El Comité Institucional de Revisión de la Universidad de la Carolina del Norte en Greensboro asegura que las investigaciones que incluyen a personas son conformes a las regulaciones federales. Este comité ha aprobado esta evaluación y este formulario de consentimiento. Si usted tiene preguntas sobre su participación en esta evaluación, favor de llamar al Sr. Eric Allen a (336) 256-1482. Si, en cualquier momento, usted tiene preguntas

42

sobre la evaluación del proyecto Misión Posible o los procedimientos usados para recoger información, usted puede comunicarse con la Dra. Holli Bayonas en PO Box 5367, Greensboro, NC, 27435, 336-315-7400, o por correo electrónico en [email protected]. Si cualquier información nueva se desarrolla durante el proyecto, usted será informado si esta información podría afectar su deseo de continuar su participación en el proyecto. Por favor firme el formulario, e indigue si desea o no participar. ________________________________________ Nombre del Padre/Guardián – Escrito ________________________________________ ____________________ Firma del Padre/Guardián Fecha Participación del Padre/Guardián – Favor de marcar una de las siguientes opciones: _____ Como un padre o guardián, quiero participar en esta evaluación y he llenado el cuestionario. _____ Como un padre o guardián, no quiero participar y no he llenado el cuestionario. Entiendo que no hay ninguna penalidad al esta decisión. Participación de Hijo – Favor de marcar una de las siguientes opciones: _____ Como un padre o guardián, doy permiso a mi hijo para rellenar un cuestionario. _____ Como un padre o guardián, no doy permiso a mi hijo para rellenar un cuestionario. Entiendo que no hay ninguna penalidad al tomar esta decisión.

43

Appendix F - Parent Climate Survey Parent Climate Survey

As a parent or guardian of a student in a Mission Possible school, we would like for you to complete this survey so that we can learn more about your experiences with the school. Your responses will remain confidential. The results of the survey will be summarized in terms of group response. Due to the anonymity of the survey, there are no risks involved. The survey should take no more than 20 minutes to complete. Thank you, in advance, for your feedback! Please fill circle completely that represents your answer. Be sure to fill in each circle completely.

Background Information

A. School Name

Elementary Schools Middle Schools High Schools

Bessemer O Allen O A&T Middle College O Cone O Aycock O Academy at Smith O Fairview O Ferndale O Andrews O Falkener O Hairston O Middle College at Bennett O Foust O Jackson O Dudley O Gillespie Park O Penn Griffin O High Point Central O Hampton O Welborn O Smith O Kirkman Park O Eastern O Oak Hill O Southern O Parkview O Academy at Central O Union Hill O Wiley O Washington O

B. Race/Ethnicity: C. Gender

African American O Male O American Indian/Native Alaskan O Female O Asian/Pacific Islander O Hispanic O White O Other O

Please answer the following questions to the best of your ability by agreeing or disagreeing with the statements. Fill in the circle that best represents your answer.

5-Strongly Agree (SA), 4-Agree (A), 3- Unsure (U), 2-Disagree (D), 1-Strongly Disagree (SD)

SA A U D SD

1. The school is safe. O O O O O

2. The school is kept clean. O O O O O

3. The school is overcrowded to the degree that it affects learning. O O O O O

4. The school maintains high academic standards. O O O O O

44

SA A U D SD

5. The school uses adequate disciplinary measures dealing with disruptive students. O O O O O

6. The school serves lunches that are nutritious. O O O O O

7. The school serves lunches that taste good. O O O O O

8. Teachers are friendly and easy to talk to. O O O O O

9. Teachers make learning interesting. O O O O O

10. Teachers make learning relevant. O O O O O

11. Teachers motivate students to learn. O O O O O

12. Teachers take an interest in students’ educational future. O O O O O

13. Teachers are knowledgeable and understand their subject matter. O O O O O

14. Teachers assign meaningful homework that helps students learn. O O O O O

15. Teachers do their best to include me in matters directly affecting my child’s progress in school.

O O O O O

16. The school teaches students the basic academic skills in reading. O O O O O

17. The school teaches students the basic academic skills in math. O O O O O

18. The school teaches students how to speak correctly in English. O O O O O

19. The school teaches students how to write correctly in English. O O O O O

20. The school teaches how to solve problems in science. O O O O O

21. The school teaches students to think critically. O O O O O

22. The school teaches students to develop good study and work habits. O O O O O

23. The school teaches students to get along with different kinds of people. O O O O O

24. The school is free of violence. O O O O O

25. The school is free of gang activity. O O O O O

26. The school is free of substance abuse and drugs. O O O O O

27. The principal does an effective job running my child’s school. O O O O O

28. The principal is available. O O O O O

29. The principal is easy to talk to. O O O O O

30. The assistant principals are effective administrators. O O O O O

31. School staff try to help students with personal problems. O O O O O

32. School staff try to help students with academic problems. O O O O O

33. School staff respond to my concerns. O O O O O

34. My child is getting a good education at this school. O O O O O

35. The overall climate or atmosphere at my child’s school is positive and helps my child learn.

O O O O O

What overall grade would you give to your child’s school? A A- B B- C C- D D- F

O O O O O O O O O

45

Appendix G - Parent Climate Survey (Spanish Version) Cuestionario para padre/madre o tutor legal

Siendo usted un padre o guardián de un estudiante en una escuela que participa en el programa Misión Posible, favor de llenar este cuestionario. Nos gustaría aprender más sobre sus experiencias con la escuela. Sus respuestas son confidenciales. Los resultados del cuestionario serán al analizados como grupo. Debido al anonimato del cuestionario, usted no corre ningún riesgo al participar. Llenar el cuestionario no debe tomar más de 20 minutos. ¡Gracias por sus comentarios! Favor de llenar completamente el círculo que representa su respuesta.

Información básica

A. Nombre de la escuela Elementary Schools

Middle Schools High Schools

Bessemer O Allen O A&T Middle College O Cone O Aycock O Academy at Smith O Fairview O Ferndale O Andrews O Falkener O Hairston O Middle College at Bennett O Foust O Jackson O Dudley O Gillespie Park O Penn Griffin O High Point Central O Hampton O Welborn O Smith O Kirkman Park O Eastern O Oak Hill O Southern O Parkview O Academy at Central O Union Hill O Wiley O Washington O B. Raza/Etnicidad

C. Género

Negro (no Hispano) O Varón OIndígena Norteamericano/Indígena de Alaska O Hembra OAsiático/Isleño Pacífico O Hispano O Blanco O Otro O Favor de responder a las preguntas siguientes de la mejor forma posible indicando si usted está de acuerdo o no con cada frase. Favor de rellenar el círculo que representa su respuesta en la mejor forma. 5-Estoy totalmente de acuerdo, 4-Estoy de acuerdo, 3-No estoy seguro, 2-No estoy de acuerdo, 1-No estoy nada en absoluto 5 4 3 2 1 1. La escuela es un lugar seguro. O O O O O2. La escuela es un lugar limpio. O O O O O3. La escuela tiene demasiados estudiantes y esto afecta el aprendizaje de los O O O O O

46

5 4 3 2 1 estudiantes.

4. La escuela tiene altas normas académicas. O O O O O5. La escuela sabe disciplinar a los estudiantes que causan interrupciones. O O O O O6. La escuela sirve almuerzos nutritivos. O O O O O7. La escuela sirve comida rica. O O O O O8. Los maestros son amistosos. O O O O O9. Los maestros hacen que el aprendizaje sea interesante. O O O O O10. Los maestros hacen que el aprendizaje sea relevante. O O O O O11. Los maestros motivan a sus estudiantes a aprender. O O O O O12. Los maestros se interesan por el futuro educativo de sus estudiantes. O O O O O13. Los maestros son inteligentes y tienen el conocimiento necesario para enseñar

sus clases. O O O O O

14. Las tareas que los maestras dan son útiles y ayudan a los estudiantes a aprender.

O O O O O

15. Los maestros me invitan a participar en asuntos que afectan directamente al progreso escolar de mi hijo.

O O O O O

16. La escuela les enseña a sus estudiantes las habilidades básicas de la lectura. O O O O O17. La escuela les enseña a sus estudiantes las habilidades básicas de las

matemáticas. O O O O O

18. La escuela les enseña a sus estudiantes a hablar correctamente en inglés. O O O O O19. La escuela les enseña a sus estudiantes a escribir correctamente en inglés. O O O O O20. La escuela les enseña a sus estudiantes a solucionar problemas científicos. O O O O O21. La escuela les enseña a sus estudiantes a pensar analíticamente. O O O O O22. La escuela les enseña a sus estudiantes a tener buenos hábitos de estudiar y

trabajar. O O O O O

23. La escuela les enseña a sus estudiantes a tener buenas relaciones con personas que son diferentes de ellos.

O O O O O

24. No hay violencia en la escuela. O O O O O25. No hay bandas (“gangs”) en la escuela. O O O O O26. No hay drogas ni abuso de ninguna otra sustancia en la escuela. O O O O O27. El director de la escuela (“the principal”) la dirige bien. O O O O O28. El director está disponible cuando hay necesidad de comunicarse con él/ella. O O O O O29. El director es amigable. O O O O O30. Los subdirectores (“the assistant principals”) dirigen la escuela bien. O O O O O31. El personal de la escuela trata de ayudar a los estudiantes con sus problemas

personales. O O O O O

32. El personal de la escuela trata de ayudar a los estudiantes con sus problemas académicos.

O O O O O

33. El personal de la escuela presta atención a mis preocupaciones. O O O O O34. Mi hijo recibe una buena educación en esta escuela. O O O O O35. La atmósfera general de la escuela es positiva y ayuda a mi hijo a aprender. O O O O O ¿En términos generales, qué nota le daría usted a la escuela de su hijo? (A=la nota mejor; F=la nota peor) A A- B B- C C- D D- F O O O O O O O O O

47

Appendix H - Student Climate Survey

Student Climate Survey

As a student in a Mission Possible school, we would like for you to complete this survey so that we can learn more about your experiences with the school. Your responses will remain confidential. The results of the survey will be summarized in terms of group response. Due to the anonymity of the survey, there are no risks involved. The survey should take no more than 20 minutes to complete. Thank you, in advance, for your feedback! Please fill circle completely that represents your answer. Be sure to fill in each circle completely.

Background Information

A. School Name

Elementary Schools Middle Schools High Schools

Bessemer O Allen O A&T Middle College OCone O Aycock O Academy at Smith OFairview O Ferndale O Andrews OFalkener O Hairston O Middle College at Bennett OFoust O Jackson O Dudley OGillespie Park O Penn Griffin O High Point Central OHampton O Welborn O Smith OKirkman Park O Eastern O Oak Hill O Southern O Parkview O Academy at Central O Union Hill O Wiley O Washington O

B. Race/Ethnicity: C. Gender

African American O Male O American Indian/Native Alaskan O Female O Asian/Pacific Islander O Hispanic O White O Other O

Please answer the following questions to the best of your ability by agreeing or disagreeing with the statements. Fill in the circle that best represents your answer.

5-Strongly Agree (SA), 4-Agree (A), 3-Unsure (U), 2-Disagree (D), 1-Strongly Disagree (SD)

SA A U D SD

1. I feel safe at my school. O O O O O

2. The school building is kept clean. O O O O O

48

SA A U D SD

3. The students in my school usually follow school rules. O O O O O

4. My teachers require that I work very hard for the grades I get. O O O O O

5. My school has enough books and equipment to help me learn. O O O O O

6. The school serves lunches that are nutritious. O O O O O

7. The school serves lunches that taste good. O O O O O

8. Most of my teachers are friendly and easy to talk to. O O O O O

9. Most of my teachers make learning interesting. O O O O O

10. Most of my teachers make learning relevant. O O O O O

11. Most of my teachers make me to want to learn. O O O O O

12. My teachers know a lot about the subjects they teach. O O O O O

13. My teachers assign meaningful homework that helps me learn. O O O O O

14. My teachers are interested in how I do in the future. O O O O O

15. My teachers let me know how I am doing on my school work. O O O O O

16. Violence is a problem at my school. O O O O O

17. Gangs are a problem at my school. O O O O O

18. Many students are being distracted by alcohol. O O O O O

19. Many students are being distracted by drugs. O O O O O

20. The assistant principal is easy to talk to. O O O O O

21. The principal is easy to talk to. O O O O O

22. People at my school help me with personal problems. O O O O O

23. People at my school help me with learning problems. O O O O O

24. The adults at my school care about me. O O O O O

25. My teachers teach me how to get along with different kinds of people. O O O O O

26. I like coming to school. O O O O O

27. I am learning a lot at my school. O O O O O

What overall grade would you give your school? A A- B B- C C- D D- F O O O O O O O O O

49

Appendix I - Student Assent Form Student Assent Form

We are doing a survey to try to see how you feel about your school. We are interested in what you think because you attend this school. We will ask students the same questions next year to see if students think any changes have been made to the school environment. If you agree to be part of our evaluation, we are going to have you complete a survey that relates to the school environment. The survey should take 20 minutes to fill out. We want you to answer honestly. You can ask questions that you might have about this survey at any time. Also, if you decide at any time not to finish, you may stop whenever you want. There are no right or wrong answers because this is not a test. Signing this paper means that you have read this or had it read to you and that you want to be part of this evaluation. If you don’t want to be in the evaluation and complete the survey, don’t sign the paper. Completing the survey is up to you, and no one will be mad if you don’t sign this paper or even if you change your mind later. Please return this form with the survey. Signature of Participant ____________________ Date _____________ Signature of Investigator ____________________ Date ____________

50

Appendix J - Directions for Distributing Parent Surveys and Suggested Sampling Plan

Dear Mission Possible Coordinator or Principal, This box contains Mission Possible Climate Surveys for parents and students. These surveys should be handed out in Grade 4 through 12 classrooms by teachers to students who should then, in turn, give them to parents. Please hand out the packets as soon as possible. Instruct teachers to hand these to students. Currently, the letter to parents instructs them to return the survey by April 10th. Packets contain: Introductory letter (English on one side and Spanish on the other side) with instructions to parents 2 IRB consent forms in English (both should be signed by the parent and the parent should keep one) 2 IRB consent forms in Spanish (both should be signed by the parent and the parent should keep one) Parent climate survey in English Parent climate survey in Spanish Student Survey and assent Self Addressed, postage paid envelope addressed to SERVE Center at UNCG *Note: If parent notifies the teacher that they do not speak English or Spanish, SERVE should be notified so that the survey and consent form can be translated into the parent’s language. Please hand the surveys out to any homerooms. Elementary Coordinators, please do not give out to students in K-3, as their reading level is not high enough to understand the student survey. For future questions or assistance, contact Holli Bayonas at SERVE [email protected] or 315-7438. Thank you for your assistance! Holli G. Bayonas, Ph.D. Evaluation Specialist Project Manager for Mission Possible Evaluation SERVE Center at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro 336-315-7438 [email protected]

51

Dear Teacher, You have received these Mission Possible Student and Parent Climate surveys because you have students in 4-12 grade in your homeroom. These packets should be handed out to students who should then, in turn, give them to parents. Please hand out the packets as soon as possible. Currently, the letter to parents instructs them to return the survey by April 10th. Please encourage students to give to parents as a way to provide feedback about their school. A survey for students is also enclosed. Packets contain: Introductory letter (English on one side and Spanish on the other side) with instructions to parents 2 IRB consent forms in English (both should be signed by the parent and the parent should keep one) 2 IRB consent forms in Spanish (both should be signed by the parent and the parent should keep one) Parent climate survey in English Parent climate survey in Spanish Student Survey and assent Self Addressed, postage paid envelope addressed to SERVE Center at UNCG *Note: If you know of parents who do not communicate in English or Spanish, your Mission Possible coordinator should be notified so that the survey and consent form can be translated into the parent’s language. Please hand the surveys out to all students in your homeroom. If If the same students get the surveys again, it is ok. Elementary Coordinators, please do not give out to students in K-3, as their reading level is not high enough to understand the student survey. For future questions or assistance, contact Holli Bayonas at SERVE [email protected] or 315-7438. Thank you for your assistance! Holli G. Bayonas, Ph.D. Evaluation Specialist Project Manager for Mission Possible Evaluation SERVE Center at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro 336-315-7438 [email protected]

5900 Summit Ave Dixon Building

Browns Summit, NC 27214

336-315-7400 800-755-3277 Toll-Free

336-315-7457 Fax

Associated with the School of Education,

University of North Carolina at Greensboro

An Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer

52

Appendix K - Number of Surveys by School

Name of School Approximate # of students

Number of Surveys

Coordinator

Elementary Schools Bessemer 440 100 LaTrice Stokes Cone 470 200 Johnita Readus Fairview 480 200 Melissa Clowe Falkener 580 200 Lauren Waterman Foust 330 100 Tynica Lewis Gillespie 270 100 Lana McCallum Hampton 300 100 Jill Huddle Kirkman Park 180 100 Adriana Gomez Oak Hill 380 100 Kristen Baker Parkview 480 100 Joanna Soza Union Hill 290 100 Don Flowers Washington 190 100 Patricia Taylor Wiley 230 100 Nikeita Constantine Middle Schools Allen 750 200 MichelleDrew-Hurling Aycock 680 200 Janie Copple Ferndale 660 200 Katina Little Hairston 650 200 Adelaide Walker Jackson 490 200 Pam Ford-Brown Penn Griffin 500 200 Gordon Thompson Welborn 560 200 Tiffany Dewar High Schools Academy at High Point Central

100 110 Garriot Rose

Academy at Smith 210 200 Patricia Vi Andrews High 890 200 NaTisha Peacock Dudley High 1400 200 Marcus Gause Eastern Guilford 1040 200 Charlie AbourjilieHP Central High 1190 200 Sylvia Cates MiddColl Benn 100 100 Keotia Smitherman MiddColl NCAT 90 100 Carolyn Daniel Smith High 1200 200 Donna Matthews Southern Guilford 1000 200 Kashanda Ray

53

Appendix L - Staff Climate Summary Results - Fall 2008

All 30 Schools Combined (N =741) Introduction Below are the results of the climate survey administered to staff in the 30 Mission Possible Schools in Fall 2009. In addition, the mean scores from Fall 2007 and Fall 2008 are included so that the viewer can compare the results across years. The open-ended comments are written as recorded from the survey. To control for response agreement, negatively worded items were included in the survey. These items are listed below the positively worded items. Viewing Notes Means are calculated based on a 5-point Likert scale. The scale goes from 5=Strongly Agree to 1=Strongly Disagree. When interpreting the results for positively worded questions, a Mean score of less than 3.0 (midpoint of scale) indicates that this item may be notable. When interpreting the results for negatively worded questions, a Mean score greater than 3.0 may be notable. A color code on the mean scores indicates the direction of change from Fall 2007 to Fall 2009. Green indicates positive improvement, red is negative improvement, and orange is no improvement. Please review all items, not just those that are highlighted. Color scheme-Fall 07 to Fall 09 Change Positive Negative Neutral

Results for a particular question will not always sum to 100% due to nonrespondents.

A. Response Rates for Each Mission Possible School Elementary Schools High Schools Bessemer 22 (3%) Academy at Central 8 (1%) Cone 22 (3%) Academy at Smith 7 (1%) Fairview 23 (3%) Andrews 24 (3%) Falkener 17 (2%) Dudley 50 (7%) Foust 31 (4%) Eastern 33 (4%) Gillespie Park 14 (2%) High Point Central 38 (5%) Hampton 16 (2%) Middle College at Bennett 10 (1%) Kirkman Park 9 (1%) Middle College at NC A&T 8 (1%) Oak Hill 26 (4%) Smith 65 (9%) Park View 22 (3%) Southern 23 (3%) Union Hill 27 (4%) Wiley 28 (4%) Washington 24 (3%) Middle Schools Allen 35 (5%) Aycock 24 (3%) Ferndale 36 (5%) Hairston 29 (4%) Jackson 20 (3%) Penn Griffin 25 (3%) Welborn 18 (2%)

54

Question African

American/Black

American Indian/Native

Alaskan

Asian/Pacific Islander

Hispanic White Multiracial

Other

B Race/Ethnicity 274 (39%) 2 (0%) 6 (1%) 16 (2%) 365 (52%) 22 (3%) 12 (2%)

Question Female Male

C Gender 589 (82%) 130 (18%)

Question Administrator or

Curriculum Facilitator Teacher/Teaching

Assistant Other

D Primary Position Type 48 (7%) 575 (79%) 102 (14%)

Question Less than 1 year 1-3 years 4-6 years 7-10 years 11 or more years

E Number of Years in current position 95 (13%) 267 (37%) 195 (27%) 92 (13%) 77 (11%)

F Number of Years working in Guilford County Schools

36 (5%) 171 (24%) 197 (27%) 113 (16%) 207 (29%)

G Number of Years working in current school

97 (13%) 259 (36%) 204 (28%) 96 (13%) 65 (9%)

Question Yes No Unsure

H Is it your intent to return to this school next year? 465 (64%) 37 (5%) 157 (22%)

I Are you in a position that will enable you to receive a performance incentive?

218 (29%) 388 (52%) 135 (18%)

Questions with Mean Scores Lower than 3.0 are highlighted

2007

2008 2009 SA=5, A=4, U=3, D=2, SD=1

Positively Worded Questions Mean St.Dev. Mean St.Dev. Mean St.Dev. SA A U D SD

1 I feel safe at my school. 3.94 .89 4.07 .90 3.96 .91 24% 61% 6% 6% 3%

2 The school building is kept clean. 3.99 .96 4.00 1.01 3.97 .99 30% 54% 3% 11% 2%

3 The school personnel work together as a team. 3.64 1.01 3.70 1.04 3.56 1.08 14% 56% 9% 17% 5%

4 Administrators solve problems effectively. 3.51 1.11 3.50 1.20 3.19 1.23 12% 39% 16% 22% 11%

5 My students performed at grade level or above last year.

3.17 1.03 3.00 1.10 3.13 1.10 8% 36% 20% 30% 5%

6 Adequate disciplinary measures are used to deal with disruptive behavior.

3.10 1.24 3.23 1.25 3.13 1.23 10% 41% 11% 27% 11%

8 My principal represents the school in a positive manner.

4.27 .87 4.20 .96 3.90 1.13 34% 41% 12% 8% 6%

9 I devote time to remediation. 4.13 .73 4.12 .76 4.07 .82 27% 61% 7% 4% 2%

10 My grade levels/content areas plan together. 3.83 1.04 3.89 1.02 3.88 1.02 27% 50% 9% 12% 3%

11 My principal responds to my concerns. 3.90 1.03 3.79 1.14 3.56 1.18 21% 44% 12% 17% 6%

12 My principal treats me with respect. 4.22 .93 4.12 1.07 3.83 1.20 33% 42% 8% 10% 7%

13 My colleagues and I share resources. 4.21 .77 4.23 .81 4.21 .74 33% 60% 2% 3% 1%

24 Students generally come to my class at the beginning of the term prepared for the grade

2.35 1.04 2.40 1.07 2.46 1.09 2% 22% 14% 44% 18%

55


2007

2008 2009 SA=5, A=4, U=3, D=2, SD=1


level or courses I teach.

25 I feel satisfied concerning how my career is progressing at this school.

3.49 1.04 3.55 1.06 3.38 1.09 10% 49% 18% 17% 7%

26 I have a feeling of job security in my present position.

3.64 1.00 3.75 .98 3.34 1.12 11% 45% 18% 19% 7%

27 I like working at my school. 3.96 1.00 4.05 .98 3.88 1.07 31% 43% 14% 9% 4%

28 Staff morale is high at my school. 2.91 1.17 2.99 1.18 2.59 1.25 5% 25% 19% 25% 26%

30 Teacher evaluations are fair and reasonable. 3.82 .82 3.84 .85 3.51 .97 11% 50% 25% 10% 4%

31 Teacher evaluations are used to improve teacher performance.

3.68 .87 3.72 .92 3.48 1.00 11% 46% 25% 13% 4%

32 In-service programs keep me informed of the latest educational strategies.

3.66 .92 3.66 .96 3.60 .98 12% 57% 14% 14% 4%

34 This school is free of racism. 2.92 1.06 3.01 1.08 3.01 1.08 8% 28% 26% 31% 6%

35 I am adequately trained to differentiate instruction.

3.91 .88 3.98 .87 3.97 .87 25% 58% 9% 8% 1%

36 I am prepared to have students with different learning levels in my classroom.

3.97 .83 4.02 .81 4.01 .80 24% 60% 9% 6% 1%

37 The overall climate or atmosphere at my school is positive for learning.

3.62 1.02 3.72 .99 3.55 1.06 13% 54% 14% 13% 6%

38 We are all actively trying to make this a better school.

4.16 .86 4.17 .87 4.08 .96 36% 48% 6% 7% 7%

39 I am adequately prepared to use cooperative learning in the classroom.

4.12 .77 4.17 .72 4.15 .66 28% 61% 9% 2% 0%

40 Parental participation is high. 2.06 .93 2.11 .97 2.06 .94 1% 10% 14% 45% 30%

43 Students in my school complete homework assignments.

2.64 1.00 2.71 1.02 2.65 1.01 1% 25% 26% 36% 13%

44 My students come to class prepared. 2.68 1.08 2.73 1.10 2.71 1.08 1% 32% 15% 39% 12%

45 Parents respond to material sent home to them.

2.73 .98 2.77 1.03 2.73 1.00 1% 29% 23% 38% 10%

*SA=Strongly Agree, A=Agree, U=Unsure, D=Disagree, SD=Strongly Disagree, NR=No Response

Questions with Mean Scores Greater than 3.0 are highlighted

2007 2008 2009 SA=5, A=4, U=3, D=2, SD=1

Negatively Worded Questions Mean St.Dev. Mean St.Dev. Mean St.Dev. SA A U D SD

7 My principal is not an effective administrator. 2.21 1.15 2.33 1.27 2.48 1.29 9% 16% 17% 30% 28%

14 My principal is not supportive of teachers. 2.07 1.06 2.14 1.15 2.38 1.24 8% 13% 16% 34% 28%

15 I am limited by too many students in each class.

2.74 1.25 2.73 1.25 2.63 1.22 10% 19% 11% 45% 15%

16 I am limited by student deficiencies in basic academic skills.

3.60 1.15 3.62 1.18 3.52 1.16 20% 42% 12% 22% 4%

17 I am limited by lack of concern/support from parents.

3.58 1.12 3.48 1.16 3.40 1.16 17% 40% 11% 29% 3%

18 I am limited by lack of concern/support from the principal.

2.07 .98 2.13 1.13 2.30 1.16 5% 14% 11% 43% 26%

56


2007 2008 2009 SA=5, A=4, U=3, D=2, SD=1


19 I am limited by school violence. 2.12 .97 1.97 .95 1.80 .80 1% 4% 5% 52% 37%

20 I am limited by insufficient resources (e.g., funds, books, equipment, supplies, etc.).

3.04 1.30 2.87 1.32 2.98 1.34 16% 28% 85 35% 14%

21 I am limited by lack of concern/support from the district administration.

3.07 1.10 2.84 1.07 2.71 1.06 6% 18% 27% 38% 10%

22 Student gang activity is a problem at my school.

3.00 1.19 2.63 1.23 2.35 1.08 3% 15% 22% 37% 24%

23 Drugs are a problem at my school. 2.76 1.16 2.49 1.18 2.38 1.13 4% 15% 23% 32% 26%

29 I frequently feel overloaded or overwhelmed while working at my school.

3.55 1.21 3.48 1.21 3.64 1.19 27% 38% 7% 24% 3%

33 Children are not receiving a good education here.

2.04 .88 1.98 .96 1.91 .87 2% 5% 10% 51% 33%

41 I hear racist comments from staff. 2.02 1.00 1.98 1.01 2.01 1.04 3% 10% 7% 44% 36%

42 I hear racist comments from students. 3.12 1.18 3.00 1.24 2.83 1.22 7% 33% 11% 35% 14%

*SA=Strongly Agree, A=Agree, U=Unsure, D=Disagree, SD=Strongly Disagree

Question A A- B B- C C- D D- F

46 What overall grade would you give to this school? 7% 12% 24% 13% 18% 13% 8% 2% 2%

Note: Due to change in survey software, the percentage of nonrespondents was unable to be reported. Percentages are based on those participants that answered the question. 2008 Results

Question A A- B B- C C- D D- F NR

46 What overall grade would you give to this school? 7.6% 13.8% 26.0% 15.4% 16.7% 10.1% 6.3% 2.4% 0.5% 1.1%

2007 Results



New Questions in 2009

47. What do you understand the purpose of the Mission Possible program to be? (Select all that apply)

Recruitment of faculty into hard to fill positions. 314 43%

Retention of faculty in hard to staff positions. 309 43%

To impact student achievement by increasing the number of effective teachers at hard to staff schools. 564 78%

To reward teachers for working at low performing schools. 264 36%

I am not sure of the purpose. 66 9%

Other, please specify 33 5%

57

Answers to Number 47. “Other”


# Response

1 Improve performance levels at low performing school

2 Recruit and retain highly qualified teachers.

3 To impact student achievement.

4 To raise student achievement

5 Increased resources at low-performing schools

6 to reward select teachers, even though we ALL teach

7 Do not see the need.

8 to justify passing students that can not

9 to impact achievement retention graduation

10 Impact the student achievement as measured by NCSD

11 To mark a spot on a federal funding spreadsheet

12 To impact student learning in a positive way.

13 providing an incentive to teach at low performing

14 Help students achieve & reward teachers for the achievement

15 Low performing = hard to staff

16 to reward schools that do well on standardized tests

17 Abuse teacher's and adminstrators at the schools

18 Improve the quality of education

19 to raise test scores

20 impact student achievement for hard subject areas

21 To ensure student success in impoverished areas.

22 To motivate students to become life long learners

23 Most effective teachers are not all here

24 small class size, teacher works with individuals

25 Reward all teachers in low performing schools

26 Low class size so teachers can work with needy students

27 Increase student achievement at low performing schools

28 A combination of choice 1 through 4

29 Cause staff division-not support all core staff

30 over test students with outdated means

31 It is a force that divides our faculty.

32 But is it happening? Not really.

33 I guess to retain federal funds contingent on test

58

48. What is your main source of information about the Mission Possible program? (Select all that apply)

Mission Possible newsletter 407 56%

Mission Possible website 154 21%

Emails from the Mission Possible office 334 46%

Principal 258 36%

Colleagues 226 31%

Site-based Mission Possible contact 94 13%

News and Record 19 3%

Rhino Times 14 2%

I do not get information 63 9%

Please specify other sources of information 11 2%

49. Assuming that the School Board at GCS approves a new compensation model, which of the following groups should be used to pilot the new model?

Newly hired teachers ONLY 34 5%

Select schools 294 43%

Select position types 185 27%

Voluntary participants 195 29%


50. If Guilford County Schools were to create a new teacher compensation model that used a common base pay that was the same for every teacher, which of the following components should be considered for earning additional pay increases?

Years of experience 486 69%

Graduate degree 384 54%

Mentoring other teachers 263 37%

Performance evaluations 417 59%

Serving in a leadership role such as department/grade level chair 267 38%

Accumulation of professional development hours 196 28%

School making Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) 215 30%

Teacher level Value Added Data 194 27%

Teaching in a hard to staff position 308 44%

Teaching in a hard to staff school 422 60%


59

All 13 Elementary Schools Combined (N =281) Introduction Below are the results of the climate survey administered to staff in the 13 Mission Possible Elementary Schools in Fall 2009. In addition, the mean scores from Fall 2007 and Fall 2008 are included so that the viewer can compare the results across years. The open-ended comments are written as recorded from the survey. To control for response agreement, negatively worded items were included in the survey. These items are listed below the positively worded items. Viewing Notes Means are calculated based on a 5-point Likert scale. The scale goes from 5=Strongly Agree to 1=Strongly Disagree. When interpreting the results for positively worded questions, a Mean score of less than 3.0 (midpoint of scale) indicates that this item may be notable. When interpreting the results for negatively worded questions, a Mean score greater than 3.0 may be notable. A color code on the mean scores indicates the direction of change from Fall 2007 to Fall 2009. Green indicates positive improvement, red is negative improvement, and orange is no improvement. Please review all items, not just those that are highlighted. Color scheme-Fall 07 to Fall 09 Change Positive Negative Neutral



Question African

American/Black


Alaskan


Hispanic White Multiracial Other

B Race/Ethnicity 106 (40%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 5 (2%) 143 (54%) 9 (3%) 3 (1%)

60


C Gender 257 (94%) 16 (6%)



Assistant Other





7 (3%) 65 (24%) 76 (28%) 41 (15%) 87 (32%)


32 (12%) 97 (35%) 78 (28%) 36 (13%) 32 (12%)



Why not? (8) Poor Administration/Problems with Principal/ treatment of staff (5) Actively seeking employment in other settings/ schools (3) Poor treatment toward faculty due to low performance (3) I want to be at a school closer to home. (2) Want to be on a traditional schedule. (2) Negative working environment I am graduating and searching for my own classroom. Contract ends next year. Retiring My class numbers determine where I will be


85 (30%) 146 (52%) 50 (18%)


2007

2008

2009 SA=5, A=4, U=3, D=2, SD=1


1 I feel safe at my school. 4.08 .83 4.16 .80 4.01 .87 25% 61% 6% 5% 3%

2 The school building is kept clean. 4.12 .93 3.95 1.05 3.83 1.10 28% 50% 4% 15% 4%

3 The school personnel work together as a team.

3.79 1.01 3.70 1.02 3.62 1.03 15% 54% 12% 15% 4%



3.07 1.06 2.94 1.09 3.13 1.11 8% 40% 12% 35% 4%


3.34 1.21 3.42 1.19 3.35 1.17 11% 49% 10% 21% 8%


4.26 .92 4.24 .93 3.96 1.05 35% 41% 13% 8% 3%

9 I devote time to remediation. 4.18 .74 4.12 .76 4.10 .80 29% 59% 7% 2% 2%

10 My grade levels/content areas plan together. 3.88 1.07 3.99 .91 4.05 .90 32% 51% 9% 6% 2%

11 My principal responds to my concerns. 3.99 .99 3.87 1.08 3.69 1.08 23% 45% 13% 15% 3%

61


2007

2008

2009 SA=5, A=4, U=3, D=2, SD=1


12 My principal treats me with respect. 4.27 .89 4.17 1.01 3.94 1.05 32% 46% 10% 8% 4%

13 My colleagues and I share resources. 4.24 .80 4.22 .80 4.25 .64 32% 64% 1% 2% 1%

24 Students generally come to my class at the beginning of the term prepared for the grade level or courses I teach.

2.30 1.02 2.39 1.04 2.57 1.11 3% 23% 15% 42% 16%


3.53 .99 3.58 1.05 3.44 1.04 9% 51% 18% 16% 5%


3.65 .95 3.76 .91 3.37 1.04 9% 47% 21% 18% 5%

27 I like working at my school. 4.04 .98 4.10 .95 3.86 1.02 29% 43% 18% 7% 3%


30 Teacher evaluations are fair and reasonable. 3.83 .81 3.89 .80 3.50 .91 8% 50% 30% 8% 4%


3.75 .85 3.81 .81 3.53 .92 10% 49% 28% 10% 3%


3.77 .90 3.73 .90 3.69 .90 13% 59% 15% 12% 1%



3.98 .78 4.02 .83 4.01 .83 25% 60% 8% 6% 1%


4.07 .74 4.06 .79 4.12 .70 27% 61% 9% 3% 0%


3.89 .88 3.89 .92 3.65 1.05 16% 55% 13% 11% 5%


4.31 .77 4.24 .78 4.10 .93 36% 49% 6% 7% 2%


4.21 .74 4.19 .68 4.17 .62 28% 62% 9% 1% 0%

40 Parental participation is high. 1.88 .81 1.97 .94 1.88 .85 0% 7% 9% 48% 36%


2.91 .91 2.97 .96 2.97 .96 1% 36% 30% 27% 6%


45 Parents respond to material sent home to them.

2.79 .97 2.78 1.01 2.70 1.01 0% 29% 23% 37% 11%



2007

2008

2009 SA=5, A=4, U=3, D=2, SD=1




15 I am limited by too many students in each class.

2.62 1.21 2.56 1.18 2.44 1.12 6% 15% 10% 52% 16%

62


2007

2008

2009 SA=5, A=4, U=3, D=2, SD=1



3.50 1.16 3.49 1.19 3.29 1.19 15% 39% 13% 27% 6%


3.67 1.07 3.51 1.16 3.46 1.13 17% 43% 12% 26% 3%


1.99 .95 2.08 1.09 2.23 1.09 3% 14% 15% 41% 28%

19 I am limited by school violence. 1.99 .92 1.79 .81 1.68 .68 0% 3% 3% 53% 41%


2.81 1.26 2.68 1.31 2.81 1.34 12% 27% 8% 35% 18%


3.12 1.07 2.88 1.03 2.68 1.05 5% 18% 25% 41% 10%

22 Student gang activity is a problem at my school.

2.27 .99 1.91 .88 1.79 .79 0% 3% 13% 43% 41%

23 Drugs are a problem at my school. 1.94 .79 1.73 .74 1.64 .68 0% 0% 10% 42% 47%


3.64 1.19 3.46 1.21 3.67 1.18 27% 40% 8% 21% 4%


1.91 .84 1.93 .92 1.82 .87 2% 4% 9% 46% 39%

41 I hear racist comments from staff. 2.05 1.02 1.99 .99 1.96 .99 2% 9% 9% 43% 37%




46 14% 10% 14% 24% 13% 17% 14% 6% 0% 2%

Note: Due to change in survey software, the percentage of nonrespondents was unable to be reported. Percentages are based on those participants that answered the question. 2008 Results


46 What overall grade would you give to this school? 10.2% 13.7% 26.5% 17.8% 14.0% 9.6% 5.2% 1.5% .3% 1.2%

2007 Results


46 What overall grade would you give to this school? 11.2% 10.7% 25.9% 17.4% 20.1% 8.2% 3.0% 1.5% .7% 1.2%







63







Principal 113 41%

Colleagues 87 31%



Rhino Times 5 2%





















64

Open-ended Comments

51. What professional development is needed in your school?

(16) None/No more/Unsure

(9) Behavior/Classroom Management

(7) Differentiated Instruction

(5) Team Building

(4) Guided Reading

( 4) Cooperative Learning

(3)Writing Lesson Plans

(2) Marzano

(2) Anti‐Racism

(3) Technology

Assessment for learning; guided reading; teacher directed reading.

using research‐based instruction and intervention; response to intervention

Professionalism

small group ideas, math manipulative (usage of)

general education teachers need more training in the area of special education ‐ disability types, impact of disability type on academic performance, importance of intervention

Targeting needs that produce specific behaviors in the students; e.g. low attention‐span, aggression, whininess, poor communication skills. Varied coping skills within the classroom. Moving away from one lesson fits all students to diversified instruction.

Positive Reinforcement for Students

Using Math Manipulatives

Co‐teaching w/ ESL

Opportunities for teachers to benefit from the knowledge of the other teachers in our school. More time for collaboration and sharing of best practice. Fewer listen and get powerpoint presentations.

how to access mental health services when central office staff are driving you nuts

Have some type of classes for parents to give them some insight on how to help their children to succeed and stay motivated for learning.

RESPECT

Teaching Writing techniques, & More Math training for new series.

Teachers need time after school to make plans and get their materials and rooms ready for their students.

Encouragement

Make‐it, take‐it workshops on different ways to teach students on different levels in your grade.

writing

Reading and Writing

Basic leadership courses

Strategies for teaching guided reading RTI

stronger Administration that is in place to be professional and to support staff. And to realize staff have families to.

Community Involvement/Parental involvement

A professional development that teaches teachers how to reach students with severe ADHD

Teaching Hands on Math with higher order thinking skills incorporated, Teaching students how to develop a life long love of reading, Motivating students

65

The same that is being offered. Increased Reading Instruction

Effective discipline in the classroom

Professional development is needed for assistants.

How to interact or relate to parents with a positive attitude

ones that are not conducted by the administration

Consistent staff development in specific areas and time to utilize with fidelity to measure impact on student achievement

something on special needs students

how to teach word problems

Test taking strategies, Raising student self esteem in poverty areas

Latest reading interventions that work

Effective team work, Identification of Job Duties and what is expected

EC

On‐going financial support for whatever we do. For example, it would be nice to be able to pay for follow up training for the staff development that we did with KAGEN.

communication and leadership training for everybody

Leadership‐ magnet school focus

Data analysis and how to target gaps

Professional development OTHER than data driven. Information for O.T.'s about strategies we can use for engaging students, information from other professionals that allow us to leave with information we can apply to our classrooms immediately instead of additional paperwork to complete and submit.

parent/teacher organizations

meaningful integration of subjects like health, science and ss because these are the subjects shortened when time runs out

‐stress management, health fairs for teachers

Research based interventions to meet specific needs would benefit us all. We could also benefit from time to plan long range with our grade level and time to collaborate professionally with the grade level above and below. We could also benefit from being taught that the process of thinking is more beneficial than the answer itself ‐ i.e. cognitive development theory or brain research. This would help students be less stressed during testing because they would know HOW to THINK about the content, and not just stress about test‐taking strategy and the answer itself.

Reading Rotation training

Literacy Centers, Stations

A workshop that will assist general education teachers about EC services and how we can work together as a team.

Teaching teachers how to instruct guided reading and use the new math series effectively

Overcoming racing

Teaching hard to reach students

Time to reflect and process current professional development trainings ‐ we have much to do as Montessori teachers and the majority of any "extra time" workdays, 1/2 days are spent doing other things.

Strategies that work

How to build effective relationships with Parents to create a plan of success for their children?

66

51. What other comments or suggestions do you have that are related to Mission Possible at your school?

We need to be supported in subject areas where recent scores are low‐i.e. in reading. We are currently

being monitored for math, yet our math scores and achievement in math are not an issue. Also teachers are under a great deal of pressure and stress. Will the MP program offer some coping strategies for teachers like me currently working 12 hour days and taking work home, on top of these hours?

Decrease class size back to 15:1 ratio!

It does not make sense to only pay teachers an incentive for working at high need schools. All staff should receive compensation if they play a critical role in improving the overall success of the student body. Administrators, counselors, psychologists, and social workers work very hard to improve the school climate. They deserve some credit too.

Not all teachers at this school receive the incentive pay‐‐however, ALL feel the stress and work hard. I realize that the incentive pay is also a sort of stipend for trainings.

Regardless of FT or PT status, all teachers who work at a Mission Possible School should receive a bonus.

Include ALL professionals in professional development ‐ recognize the contributions of everyone to the success of the school.

Do not require 3 or 4 days of meetings a week after school. It makes it difficult to meet with parents and fulfill other commitments.

ALL academic teachers should be paid MP money if they choose to teach at a MP school (EC, ESL). ESPECIALLY if they are teaching in an EOG grade, benchmark, etc. Especially when being held to the same standards as regular classroom teachers (attending same PD, meetings, observations, planning, etc)

Provide monetary incentives to schools that make the grade. Many children from these schools come with many social problems and I see some of them coming to school late every day and tired. Many children do not get enough sleep to help them be good performers in the classroom. Some incentive need to be given out to the community to help parents and family members understand the significance of a great education and to be competitive in the future, the children must be ready.

Do not feel adequately supported at my school. Feel left out at times on key information.

Need more true support from Central office personnel on a differentiated basis rather than heaping on more paperwork and additional requirements for all teachers.

None noted at this time

I see the need for more overseeing of teachers‐ones that come unprepared and are disorganized. Teachers whose classrooms are dirty and who use time unwisely.

I feel very strongly that the administrator, teachers and staff members at our school should be held accountable for their job requirements. I feel like no one is watching, and ultimately it is the students who suffer.

Teachers were placed at our school instead of being hired and they are resentful and not cooperating with others.

I feel that money based on students growth is no always fair. One year of growth isn't always fair.....growth is the main key, not necessarily how much, just growth.

Include entire staff with incentives, because it takes thr entire staff to make a positive and effective learning impact for students

If we are supposed to have a team effort, then all positions that impact learning should receive the reward.

Smaller class sizes are crucial for the program to be effective

67

Staff should be compensated for extra heavy loaded responsibilities: ist, grade level chair, etc

Raises should be given yearly to all teachers

Morale would improve if our successes were recognized. We work very hard to get these students to grow over a whole grade level a year, but that doesn't always translate into being on grade level that next school year. We would do better to collaborate and make sure we are meeting our students as people and our staff as people ‐ both with value ‐ rather than analyzing numbers flatly and without a face. We DO have successes each day, and make a real difference in the lives of our students.

I think it is sad that some teachers are not rewarded at mission possible schools.

We need some type of program that will assist parents in being informed about Mission Possible.

Expand the incentives to include other staff positions that impact the Mission Possible Program.

I think MP schools should receive another built in workday per quarter to work on planning ‐ lessons, responses to the latest data gathered, materials, etc.

The specialists tutor, incorporate math/writing/reading into the curriculum, and teach every student in the school. Provided they are doing their job correctly, they should receive extra money too.

I can't believe principals that are ineffective are put in MPS schools? Makes no sense.

none

Equal pay for equal work. All staff members are responsible for our students all of the time. Everyone should receive extra compensation, or none. This program has caused a rift in the staff.

Administrative positions such as curriculum facilitators, etc. should qualify for the monthly incentive just as teachers do. we work hand‐in‐hand with the teachers that impact student achievement

I would like to see parent workshops to encourage engagement in learning and expressive language‐for ALL students.

Professional development in working with students living in poverty and behavior management.

I feel that Support Staff, (EC, Speech, Art, Media, etc.) should also be included in the incentive pay program. We also impact our students learning just as much as classroom teachers.

Teachers should not lose the incentive for being on Action Plans ‐ since Principals sometimes use them to punish employees they simply don't like.

Mission Possible schools need the best teachers who truly care about the students. These teachers need to have at least three years teaching before teaching at a MPP school. Need a strong principal who knows what is going on in each classroom. All should be treated fairly without any favoritism and no double standards! Rules are to be followed by all!

Morale is extremely low‐ Teachers are working VERY hard‐ it would be nice to be appreciated!

The mission possible program is discriminatory because Teachers in positions such as mine do not get any compensation of any kind through the mission possible program, the program does not benefit me in any way but I am expected to participate in the staff developments related to mission possible incentive paid teachers.

We spend so much time in workshops that we don't have the time to actually use the strategies that are given to us. What we need is time for better planning. We are at struggling schools and better planning makes for better teaching. We can attend every workshop that is offered but if we don't have the time to use the information it does no good. Many of us work 60‐75 hours a week working to become better teachers. On top of that, we're then required to attend workshops until 7‐8 o'clock at night and on Saturdays. Bombarding teachers at struggling schools with workshops is not the answer to helping our students achieve.

If staff is expected to attend additional staff development or meetings, compensation should be given. Also, classroom teachers planning time is taken away at least 3 times a week. Yet, other positions have duty free lunch, duty free planning time and usually another block of time that is free. Not fair at all!!!

68

Guilford county needs to look at all the extra training they are requiring staff to take (MP, ER region, in house training)and realize that they are burning teachers in these schools out!!

Consideration should be given to compensation for all staff at a school receiving MP money

Require more responsibility from parents. Getting students to school on time every day. Reading and working with their children more.

All personnel should be a part of the Mission Possible incentive

Train the parents and the children to have a role in their education. Teachers can't do it all. Stop blaming teachers and putting so much pressure on them. Give some pressure to students, family, community. Make sure all schools are equitable with supplies, increase staffing with assistants at Mission Possible Schools and implement ways to deal with behavior problem students.

It's not working ‐ school is still struggling

All staff should be a part of the program including office staff, janitors and cafeteria workers

Education is supposed to be about progressive movements to better all. That might include, hard as it may be, to remove unqualified individuals or those that choose not to stay up to date on practices or pedagogy. Our purpose is to move forward with each year and each class, in order to do that there must be standards of teaching, accountability, administrating, and facilitating. There are already too many ways for an unqualified teacher/administrator to remain in position and hinder growth and student achievement. If one is not performing their job to the level that is promoting growth in not just students but teachers around them, then they shouldn’t be in education. Too many friends in high places and no one making anyone accountable

Effective and experienced leadership is also important to maintain quality staff in any school. I do not appreciate agree and disagree statements on surveys. If you care about my opinion give me space to express it

We need to determine 2‐3 research‐based instructional interventions that we, as a staff, feel would be most effective for our student population. Those interventions need to be implemented school‐wide with adequate and appropriate personnel to lead, assess, schedule groups, and monitor instruction for integrity and effectiveness. Commitment to these interventions should be for a period of time long enough to acquire and assess valid data. It is essential that there is total understanding and support of interventions from the administration.

K‐2 teachers should have the opportunity to earn a bonus as well.

Keep MP principals in their schools to build a sense of community

As a low performing school we are being treated like the only problem at our school is the teachers, we are constantly hearing we can be written up for not doing things, one of the reasons for creating Mission Possible program was to acknowledge it is tough to work in these schools, well when alot of children come to school they are already behind kids at other schools who have been exposed to things and already taught things by their parents or in an organized daycare program. I do believe our kids can learn but it's hard to judge them against schools whose students come to school prepared to learn. We have kindergarten children who have never seen their numbers, letters and do not even know how to spell their own name or to even recognize it spelled...and this year to be treated like the only problem at our school is how we are delivering the instruction, with no acknowledgement of the difficulties of working with such a large group of children who live in poverty. I believe there is a study about the vocabulary knowledge of a child in poverty and they actually call it vocabulary poverty....I heard one very positive teacher say this year, teaching is no longer a joy to me‐I think she probably speaks for a lot of our teachers this year. It was my understanding and what was put in the newspaper that the teams would come to our school to support us instead we feel like we are at the inquisition most of the time.

The Teacher linkage system should really be evaluated to represent what truly happens in the building.

69

I am so shocked that such an ineffective leader is in charge at an MPS school. Do you read these surveys? When you visit our schools can you feel the climate? Why doesn't anyone seem to care?

Our school has a lack of resources which makes it difficult to reach all students. A large percentage of students in each class are below grade level and average student‐teacher ratio is 16‐1. This makes it very difficult to reach all students, even if curriculum is differentiated.

I love the idea and am onboard for another go 'round with the program. We need an effective way to keep teachers motivated while giving them the opportunity to earn what they're worth!

I would encourage other professionals to monitor our school and the people who are working there and keep the teachers who are engaging and appropriate with children and remove teachers who are not the best candidate for the program. This program could be very successful if people who were at dedicated to children were surrounded by others who also cared for their well‐being and the whole child.

We need more resources (besides workshops that take us out of the classroom). We need more help for parents who are in a cycle that may be harmful to the children.

All grade levels need to be included and all staff...

Too many programs started then dropped. Too rigid, teachers are held to schedules that don't work for all situations.

This is a terrible program that divides core subjects and classroom teachers. These divisions effect how we work together as a staff and there is resentment for being told “we do not effect student achievement” by a school that participates in it and the county that created it. It is a waste of money and resources.

staff need to be heard more, even when listened to, I feel like I’m not actually heard

I disagree with performance based pay.

The Mission Possible Program is extremely helpful at my school and schools such as mine. I would really hate for it to be done away with.

Mission Possible Schools should have additional protected workdays not for professional development but for planning, data review, data management, high level planning etc. It is more difficult to teach at such a high level of accountability & stress without additional time provided to manage the volume of extra duties, quality lesson planning and collaboration with team members.

It can be done as long as a team effort is being made. And staff are treated like human beings.

Keep the Mission Possible incentive.

All staff at Mission Possible schools should be compensated, not just classroom teachers.

The Principal needs to model what they want their staff to wants to emulate. I also feel that curriculum facilitators should teach mini‐lessons in the classrooms once‐a‐week to model what and how they want materials taught.

Being that "ALL" teachers (including specialist: Art,Media, EC, Speech, Music) are held accountable and have an impact on every student learning, no one should be excluded for incentive pay. We are one unit working together to impact high growth for every student at our school.

KEEP DR. KENNEDY AT WILEY!!!!!!

Every Teacher should get the incentive THAT WORK WITH STUDENTS (including specialist and reading teachers

70

All 7 Middle Schools Combined (N =187) Introduction Below are the results of the climate survey administered to staff in the 7 Mission Possible Middle Schools in Fall 2009. In addition, the mean scores from Fall 2007 and Fall 2008 are included so that the viewer can compare the results across years. The open-ended comments are written as recorded from the survey. To control for response agreement, negatively worded items were included in the survey. These items are listed below the positively worded items. Viewing Notes Means are calculated based on a 5-point Likert scale. The scale goes from 5=Strongly Agree to 1=Strongly Disagree. When interpreting the results for positively worded questions, a Mean score of less than 3.0 (midpoint of scale) indicates that this item may be notable. When interpreting the results for negatively worded questions, a Mean score greater than 3.0 may be notable. A color code on the mean scores indicates the direction of change from Fall 2007 to Fall 2009. Green indicates positive improvement, red is negative improvement, and orange is no improvement. Please review all items, not just those that are highlighted. Color scheme-Fall 07 to Fall 09 Change Positive Negative Neutral



Question African

American/Black


Alaskan



B Race/Ethnicity 77 (44%) 2 (1%) 1 (1%) 8 (5%) 80 (45%) 5 (3%) 4 (2%)

71


C Gender 148 (81%) 35 (19%)



Assistant Other





15 (8%) 44 (24%) 52 (28%) 29 (16%) 45 (24%)


32 (17%) 67 (37%) 50 (27%) 26 (14%) 8 (4%)



Why not? (3) Poor Administration Do not want to teach in an Enrichment School The demand is overwhelming Need a change Different school, different perspective, to grow Micro-managing of staff in the Enrichment Region (2) School climate/ morale Unsure b/c I think I want to teach high school Yes I plan to return Relocating Seeking promotion opportunities Personal


57 (30%) 96 (51%) 34 (18%)


2007

2008

2009 SA=5, A=4, U=3, D=2, SD=1


1 I feel safe at my school. 3.83 0.97 4.05 .89 3.99 .88 23% 66% 3% 5% 3%

2 The school building is kept clean. 3.94 1.05 4.04 .99 3.88 .98 24% 57% 3% 14% 2%

3 The school personnel work together as a team. 3.43 1.00 3.78 .99 3.60 .99 10% 63% 6% 17% 3%



3.17 1.03 2.94 1.10 3.18 1.08 8% 38% 22% 26% 6%


2.86 1.27 3.17 1.25 3.01 1.23 11% 31% 17% 29% 12%


4.29 0.79 4.36 .85 4.07 1.05 38% 46% 6% 4% 5%

9 I devote time to remediation. 4.04 0.77 4.07 .84 4.03 .77 22% 66% 5% 6% 1%

10 My grade levels/content areas plan together. 3.82 0.98 4.09 .96 3.87 1.01 26% 51% 8% 13% 2%


72


2007

2008

2009 SA=5, A=4, U=3, D=2, SD=1


12 My principal treats me with respect. 4.29 0.84 4.30 .91 4.04 1.09 40% 41% 7% 7% 5%

13 My colleagues and I share resources. 4.18 0.71 4.24 .82 4.19 .74 30% 64% 2% 2% 2%


2.44 1.05 2.46 1.10 2.49 1.11 0% 28% 14% 37% 21%


3.40 1.10 3.60 .97 3.44 1.06 10% 49% 21% 12% 7%


3.63 1.03 3.77 .97 3.40 1.13 12% 46% 17% 17% 7%

27 I like working at my school. 3.82 1.06 4.06 .96 4.03 1.01 35% 47% 9% 5% 4%


30 Teacher evaluations are fair and reasonable. 3.83 0.79 3.80 .83 3.62 .98 13% 56% 17% 10% 4%


3.73 0.82 3.79 .90 3.53 .98 11% 52% 22% 10% 5%


3.68 0.90 3.76 .88 3.62 .95 11% 60% 13% 14% 3%



3.91 0.86 3.98 .92 3.92 .94 27% 51% 10% 10% 1%


3.98 0.77 4.06 .83 4.03 .83 26% 59% 8% 6% 1%


3.40 1.08 3.72 .92 3.67 .97 14% 57% 15% 10% 4%


4.00 0.89 4.17 .87 4.20 .90 43% 43% 8% 5% 2%


4.12 0.75 4.20 .76 4.14 .68 28% 61% 8% 3% 0%

40 Parental participation is high. 2.14 0.98 2.16 .95 2.11 .97 1% 10% 16% 44% 29%


2.51 0.99 2.63 1.04 2.51 1.05 1% 23% 22% 36% 18%


45 Parents respond to material sent home to them. 2.71 0.98 2.77 1.05 2.80 1.04 2% 31% 23% 34% 10%



2007

2008

2009 SA=5, A=4, U=3, D=2, SD=1




15 I am limited by too many students in each class. 2.90 1.29 2.84 1.28 2.57 1.21 9% 17% 11% 48% 16%


3.58 1.14 3.56 1.17 3.54 1.13 20% 43% 12% 22% 3%

17 I am limited by lack of concern/support from 3.54 1.17 3.35 1.18 3.31 1.21 16% 39% 9% 30% 6%

73


2007

2008

2009 SA=5, A=4, U=3, D=2, SD=1


parents.


2.15 1.00 1.99 1.01 2.12 1.10 6% 8% 6% 51% 29%

19 I am limited by school violence. 2.13 0.98 1.94 .92 1.76 .79 1% 3% 7% 49% 40%


3.02 1.31 2.77 1.29 2.99 1.35 17% 26% 7% 37% 12%


3.07 1.10 2.75 1.09 2.76 1.07 7% 17% 30% 37% 9%

22 Student gang activity is a problem at my school. 3.22 1.10 3.05 1.12 2.59 1.03 1% 22% 26% 35% 15%

23 Drugs are a problem at my school. 2.84 0.99 2.63 .96 2.55 .98 1% 18% 33% 33% 15%


3.56 1.25 3.45 1.20 3.71 1.17 29% 41% 8% 20% 3%


2.08 0.85 1.93 .96 1.81 .80 2% 2% 9% 51% 36%

41 I hear racist comments from staff. 1.96 0.93 1.86 .90 2.02 1.09 4% 10% 8% 42% 36%





2008 Results


46 What overall grade would you give to this school? 6.6% 14.8% 30.1% 15.8% 16.9% 7.7% 5.5% 2.2% 0% .5%

2007 Results











74





Principal 68 38%

Colleagues 64 35%



Rhino Times 3 2%





















Open-ended Comments

51. What professional development is needed in your school?

(14) No More Professional Development/Too much

( 9) Differentiation

( 4) Classroom/Behavior Management

75

(6 ) Technology

Gang awareness. I have had to take down posters and different artwork because advisors were oblivious to gang logos. There are many other signs/ shaved eyebrows, sock colors, etc. number writing instead of letters in names. None should be accepted, yet it is every day.

Being a member of a middle school team

Involving parents

Improving relationships with adolescents

Teaching ESL students

Outlook Express for new teachers, especially.

We need some strong cooperative learning instruction, due to our highly increased class sizes.

I would like to see professional development for subjects other than math and reading. The elective teachers NEVER receive professional development on‐site that applies to their area specifically. Science and Social Studies teachers are also rarely acknowledged.

Effective Reading Instruction

Since I am a service professional, I am unsure of current professional needs of teachers at my school. I have viewed highly trained quality teaching.

Anti‐racism training

Time management skills and organization skills.

I think more alternative discipline strategies and differentiated instruction. I think teachers can always use more of each.

A course in professionalism for all administrators and staff.

Grant writing and mastery teaching

Vertical and grade level planning

data driven instruction

Communication skills between the administrative team and the faculty and staff. It is not good.

Professional development for encore teachers, PE/Health, CTE, Music, Read 180, Art

How to teach middle school students to read

Honestly, team building

How to hold parents/students accountable

Working together/Team teaching

more information about Mission Possible

Professional Learning Communities ‐ top down and bottom up comprehension and integration at the school level

Real Character Education

Motivating this disenfranchised student

How to help boys become successful in Middle School.

We need a professional development on leadership/mentoring

Individualized, teacher selected PD that increases content knowledge and gives teachers new and innovative ways to present their content in an engaging manner.

Continue with learning new strategies to engage and push students who are behind and disengaged.

How to treat people professionally

We spend too much time on "professional development", taking away from teacher planning time. Teachers are professionals, let them be professionals. We waste considerable time attending redundant training.

Varying instructional strategies to meet needs of all learners

Teaching challenging students and parents.

A search committee for a new principal.

Funding is needed for PD.

Working with children from poverty

I think the district offers a great variety of professional development, which allows us to select what we want to attend based on our needs. I do not prefer professional development at the school level, because there is no one‐size‐fits‐all plan that includes all the needs of the staff. As a district, I think there needs to be more support for National Board Candidates. Guilford County is far behind other counties with this.

76

how to integrate technology into the classroom & having the resources available to do so

Continued time as a team building the instructional plan

All courses that are taken by the school should be taught by all teachers‐ core teachers to teach encore classes as well.

Professional Code of Ethics

How to teach male students

school climate

Any that will help teachers improve the performance of their students.

Team building to boost morale.

Red Carpet training

Enabling teachers to help each other with specific needs. Teacher provided and taught content!

Parent and teacher professional development workshop. Both are in the same workshop, learning how to work together for the challenging problems of children.

Grade level regular Ed teachers have Pacing guides and NC standards to follow. Human Behavior, BED, medicated awareness may help in constantly removing a student completely out of the classroom and learning experience because this behavior often calculated equalled the removal. Modifications of various teaching styles doesn't just beneift one child it may help the undiagnosed, unidentified and unclassified child and learner. Every behavior isn't because the child is BED or doesn't want to learn. Attention spans in this age of excessive technology and various stimuli make the former model of a classroom actually...boring. Participation in a myriad of classes even for the unintentional stress upon paper and pencil testing EOG & Benchmarks needs some variation is needed. This would allow possible as Howard Gardner in 8 multiple intelligences notes the other types of learners may be reached that aren't just the LD, dyslexic but simply NOT the respective happy paper/scan tran paper & pencil test takers.

Working with impoverished kids.

COMER and positive relationship building of staff members. Parental involvement. 52. What other comments or suggestions do you have that are related to Mission Possible at your school?

There has to be an alternative for those students that are misbehaving/ gang/ sexual misconduct/ profanity/

failure to comply/ total disregard for authority and classmates. To quote one of my students: "If certain kids weren't in this class we could do more..."

Compensate everyone at the school not just math and LA teachers, especially when all of us are called on to increase student achievement

Hire competent curriculum facilitators

Inner city schools which tend to be our Mission Possible schools, should have a limit on classroom size close to 15 students. There needs to be a program that takes the students that continue to disrupt the learning environment and put them in a different learning situation until they can return the the regular classroom without disrupting the learning of the other students. Less importance needs to be placed on the overall schools scores and more on preparing these students for the world. The magnet program and the Spanish emersion program are there to improve the test scores of the school. Put them somewhere else, cater to the needs of the population the school serves.

It's not fair for the state to require so many CEU's per cycle & not provide sub pay for working hrs. This forces teachers to take them after hrs, summer, or weekends. We have families, too. If it's work related, it should be done during work hours. Was told we don't have Prof. Dev. money to pay for subs although GCS offers the workshops needed, for free.

All people that work at a mission possible school should be eligible for the incentive.

I think that just as a team works together to win the game so does a school in regards to making AYP. Therefore everyone should be rewarded something, not just those in the math and LA positions. We all work to help the students do well!

Extend the federal grant.

Offer incentives to ALL teachers including EC

EC Teachers should be included in the equation.

77

I think that Penn‐Griffin being a MP school is contradictory when one takes the High School program into account. We only offer Honors and AP levels in core classes to High School students. Not consistent with Middle school. I would like to see CP level courses offered and a more diverse learning population in the HS. I don't like that students who are interested in the arts are not able to make it academically because of our current course offerings. I think rewarding some subject areas and not others is also a problem. Why are Math and LA considered more important than Science, Arts, Social Studies? They are not!

Mission Possible should be eliminated because if it takes a village to raise a child all the townspeople are not being compensated equally for helping to raise the same children.

Smaller classes.

Why focus only on English and Math? What about the rest of the Big 5 (Civics, US History, and Biology)?

An alternative, permanent place for students who are dangerous, bullies, or consistently disruptive in classes.

To include all EOG and EOC staff in a new compensation model our science teacher are work hard to get good results on the EOG

I feel this program has made a difference in being able to hire better teachers. In my opinion it has worked for Ferndale Middle School.

Great program, but make sure the training is all effective. Anti‐Racism was not helpful, and it should have been.

Got to have more time to plan and evaluate instruction!

Continue to provide positive communication

Brand new and lateral entry teachers should not get MP incentives; teachers should have to earn the incentives.

I think that all teachers instructing students at Mission Possible schools should have opportunities to earn monthly growth incentives. It's unjust/unfair to allow only Math and Language Arts teachers to be eligible for these incentives, we all instruct the same students.

I think administrators allow us more planning time so that we can devise ways of teaching students to read instead of worrying how a hallway looks!

All teachers should be eligible for incentives.

Make parental involvement mandatory!

The mandatory meetings seem to be related to Professional Learning Communities: teachers have not been informed about this or trained in this area, so there's no "buy‐in." "Everyone being on the same page" cannot be mandated from on high. There would be better communication and "buy‐in" if everyone had a say and knew what was going on and why.

I believe that the Mission possible program divides people instead of uniting them. One group feels that they are superior because they get paid incentives when in actuality it is every teacher at the school who helps with the success of the student not just math and reading teachers.

Mission Possible does not apply to me and I believe this is extremely unfair. Just because my content area does not have a test, I do not receive incentive dollars. However, I teach ALL children in my building and I do so without assistance from inclusion teachers or daytime tutors.

I also think the MP workshops esp cooperative learning and differentiating instruction ‐ were great ‐ some of the best PD i have had. Both have been very useful. The MP program is critical for students at schools like Aycock.

There must be a module that considers the uncontrollable factors that affect a student's education and how this will impact the teacher's performance and value added data. ie. family life

8th Grade Science should be included in compensation because it is a tested subject

Teachers are spread too thinly. Teachers need more time to plan. Students need less time in class, time for "study hall", etc.

Give the money to the teachers who work with the hardest kids to teach. Yes, I'm a high school teacher, and nobody on the HS level should be in the program. Never did belong.

Better distribution of compensation and better understanding of program

All teachers at MP schools should be given incentive pay. All teachers help students to achieve their goals. Any teacher could teach at a school of excellence and the school would retain the scores. However, take a teacher from a school of excellence and place them in a MP school and that alone will not make the scores improve. Pay all teachers working at MP schools incentive pay.

I strongly believe that what has contributed to Jackson's academic successes over the last few years has been this incredible, hard working team of teachers AND implementing the PBS program. PBS has made it possible to cut

78

through the discipline issues and get on with instruction. Students no longer come to school with an understanding of learning behaviors and expectations. PBS works because right off the bat, the students are taught what the expectations are and the ENTIRE staff follows through with enforcing those expectations. It is a wonderful program but it is imperative that ALL faculty buy into it. Those who don't should not be at a mission possible school. PBS goes a long way to making our mission possible!

more training that directly relates to the population of the school

Like so many other programs, the people who make the decisions are not here working in the day to day scene. If they were, I suspect some of their decisions would be different, regardless of how "in tune" they claim to be.

On the website, it is listed that Reading Teachers can receive Mission Possible pay, but as a Read 180 teacher, I was told I am not eligible for pay since I do not have value added data. I think that should be changed. My job at a Mission Possible school is much different than the Read 180 teachers at other schools, such as Northern. The work I have done with this group of students has had a tremendous impact on the growth and achievement of these students, but without value‐added data, that is not recognized. If you want to retain the best teachers in this position, and your website says Reading teachers are compensated under the Mission Possible plan, then Read 180 teachers should be paid the incentive.

Need to have fewer meetings for planning & teaching without teachers having homework in order to present to other teachers. Just take time, maybe once per semester to observe a fellow teacher.

Mission has excluded teachers who have equally have impacted growth of students.

Encore classes are a very important part of the educational process. Often these classes are overlooked and not taken seriously as an instructional part of the day. Students are pulled out from the classes for anything that is done for the day‐ Success assemblies, speech, conferences, if teachers are giving a test and wants a student to finish, and the list goes on. Encore teachers are basically treated as a fill in for core classes and not as an instructional time for learning.

I am surprised at the number of students in the Core classes

I think the Mission Possible Program is biased towards to Math teachers because their recruitment/retention incentive is higher than everyone else's, yet we all serve the same students.

It is a morale buster because I work as hard if not harder than other teachers adn my content is hard to staff and I get little resources and little recognition. It makes me angry that our school system has staff that have never taught in the classrooms, especially hard to staff classrooms making decisions about how students are taught. It makes me angry that I work side by side with teachers that make more than I do because our county does not value what I do or my content. I really understand why there is such a high teacher turnover.

Incentives should be based on student performance. For example, not just the level I, II, III, or IV scored on the EOg, but the amount of growth the student makes. We have had students grow anywhere from 14 ‐ 25 points & not make a level III. These students, nor the teacher, (especially EC teachers) were recognized for their progress. Only the level IIIs and IVs were. Very disappointing for students and teachers.

Experienced administrators who are in tune with effective strategies to manage staff and equiped with a full knowledge of curriculum

Let us use planning to actually plan instead of meeting all the time. EC teachers have been part of school improvement plan. We have EC teachers who teach math and language arts who are expected to do more than core teachers but they are not offered Mission Possible Money. How sad.

I think that Science and Social Studies teachers need additional money like LA & Math teachers because we teach the same students.

ALL teachers who work at a Mission Possible School should be compensated. WE attend the same required professional development trainings WE ALL incorporate the same strategies and work COLLABORATIVELY to IMPACT students!

Faculty needs to come together and work as a collective team regarding discipline and behavior issues that disrupt the learning environment.

I teach inclusion and the EC students that make growth and the EC teachers that assist are not recognized for their efforts.

The bonus helps pay for extra classroom materials and my long commute. The training is excellent. All schools should get the Anti‐Racism training.

Mission Possible is a pressure cooker, that doesn't really help anyone, especially students!!

79

All teachers and administrators should be eligible for the incentive pay, not just the math and language teachers that teach those students and the principal. Other teachers and assistant principals play an important role in helping these students progress.

Compensate all staff of all subject areas of hard to staff schools.

80

All 10 High Schools Combined (N =266) Introduction Below are the results of the climate survey administered to staff in the 10 Mission Possible High Schools in Fall 2009. In addition, the mean scores from Fall 2007 and Fall 2008 are included so that the viewer can compare the results across years. The open-ended comments are written as recorded from the survey. To control for response agreement, negatively worded items were included in the survey. These items are listed below the positively worded items. Viewing Notes Means are calculated based on a 5-point Likert scale. The scale goes from 5=Strongly Agree to 1=Strongly Disagree. When interpreting the results for positively worded questions, a Mean score of less than 3.0 (midpoint of scale) indicates that this item may be notable. When interpreting the results for negatively worded questions, a Mean score greater than 3.0 may be notable. A color code on the mean scores indicates the direction of change from Fall 2007 to Fall 2009. Green indicates positive improvement, red is negative improvement, and orange is no improvement. Please review all items, not just those that are highlighted. Color scheme-Fall 07 to Fall 09 Change Positive Negative Neutral



Question African

American/Black


Alaskan



B Race/Ethnicity 89 (36%) 0 (0%) 4 (2%) 3 (1%) 139 (57%) 8 (3%) 3 (1%)

81


C Gender 178 (70%) 78 (30%)



Assistant Other





14 (5%) 60 (23%) 67 (26%) 41 (16%) 74 (29%)


31 (12%) 91 (36%) 75 (29%) 34 (13%) 25 (10%)



Why not? (8) Principal / Administration (4) School climate (2) Retirement (2) Low staff moral due to principal no support Burn-out; student apathy Hope to be an Assistant Principal Requirements leave zero time to do the job Due to commute and monetary issues Time for a change Variety of reasons Transfers are frozen Awaiting a promotion or lateral leave Poor parental support for students Things are progressively getting worse each year


74 (28%) 143 (54%) 49 (18%)


2007

2008

2009 SA=5, A=4, U=3, D=2, SD=1


1 I feel safe at my school. 3.89 0.88 3.97 1.00 3.91 .97 25% 56% 8% 8% 3%

2 The school building is kept clean. 3.90 0.91 4.03 0.99 4.18 .84 35% 56% 2% 6% 2%

3 The school personnel work together as a team. 3.65 1.00 3.63 1.11 3.46 1.20 15% 51% 7% 18% 8%



3.27 1.01 3.10 1.12 3.08 1.11 9% 31% 24% 29% 6%


3.05 1.21 3.03 1.30 2.98 1.26 9% 38% 8% 32% 13%


4.27 0.87 4.07 1.04 3.70 1.25 31% 36% 15% 10% 9%

9 I devote time to remediation. 4.15 0.69 4.16 0.71 4.08 .85 29% 59% 6% 3% 3%

82


2007

2008

2009 SA=5, A=4, U=3, D=2, SD=1


10 My grade levels/content areas plan together. 3.78 1.07 3.67 1.14 3.69 1.14 24% 47% 8% 17% 4%


12 My principal treats me with respect. 4.14 1.02 3.96 1.19 3.55 1.36 28% 38% 6% 16% 12%

13 My colleagues and I share resources. 4.21 0.79 4.24 0.82 4.20 .82 37% 54% 2% 5% 1%


2.33 1.05 2.38 1.10 2.33 1.03 2% 16% 11% 52% 18%


3.52 1.06 3.50 1.12 3.28 1.16 10% 45% 15% 21% 9%


3.66 1.02 3.74 1.04 3.28 1.21 13% 41% 15% 20% 10%

27 I like working at my school. 4.00 0.96 3.99 1.03 3.82 1.15 33% 39% 11% 13% 4%


30 Teacher evaluations are fair and reasonable. 3.80 0.84 3.81 0.90 3.45 1.02 12% 44% 25% 14% 4%


3.60 0.92 3.57 1.02 3.39 1.09 14% 40% 23% 18% 5%


3.56 0.93 3.52 1.05 3.50 1.07 12% 54% 14% 14% 6%



3.83 0.98 3.95 0.86 3.97 .85 23% 60% 8% 8% 1%


3.86 0.96 3.95 0.81 3.90 .87 21% 60% 10% 9% 1%


3.53 1.06 3.50 1.08 3.36 1.12 9% 51% 15% 16% 8%


4.13 0.91 4.08 0.97 3.98 1.02 32% 50% 6% 9% 3%


4.05 0.82 4.13 0.73 4.14 .68 29% 60% 9% 3% 0%

40 Parental participation is high. 2.20 0.99 2.25 1.00 2.20 .98 1% 12% 19% 43% 25%


2.47 1.05 2.45 1.01 2.41 .96 1% 15% 24% 44% 16%


45 Parents respond to material sent home to them. 2.69 1.00 2.77 1.05 2.71 .97 1% 27% 23% 42% 7%



2007

2008

2009

SA=5, A=4, U=3, D=2, SD=1




15 I am limited by too many students in each class. 2.73 1.26 2.88 1.29 2.89 1.30 14% 25% 12% 35% 14%

16 I am limited by student deficiencies in basic 3.73 1.14 3.81 1.15 3.77 1.09 26% 45% 10% 16% 2%

83


2007

2008

2009

SA=5, A=4, U=3, D=2, SD=1


academic skills.


3.49 1.14 3.51 1.16 3.40 1.15 18% 38% 11% 32% 1%


2.08 0.98 2.28 1.21 2.48 1.26 8% 19% 11% 38% 24%

19 I am limited by school violence. 2.25 1.00 2.21 1.07 1.92 .88 2% 7% 6% 54% 32%


3.29 1.29 3.13 1.30 3.13 1.32 18% 30% 9% 33% 10%


3.01 1.13 2.86 1.11 2.71 1.08 6% 19% 28% 36% 12%

22 Student gang activity is a problem at my school. 3.61 1.03 3.24 1.23 2.77 1.12 6% 22% 27% 32% 13%

23 Drugs are a problem at my school. 3.59 0.98 3.31 1.17 3.03 1.16 10% 28% 29% 22% 11%


3.45 1.21 3.49 1.21 3.57 1.21 27% 36% 7% 29% 2%

33 Children are not receiving a good education here. 2.14 0.93 2.09 0.99 2.08 .91 1% 9% 11% 54% 25%

41 I hear racist comments from staff. 2.04 1.01 2.05 1.10 2.04 1.06 3% 12% 5% 46% 34%





2008 Results



2007 Results










84





Principal 76 30%

Colleagues 74 29%



Rhino Times 6 2%





















Open-ended Comments 51. What professional development is needed in your school? (comments typically appear as written by respondents)

( 3)Differentiated Instruction

(7) None

(5) Technology (Wimba, Smartboards, web page creation, etc.)

85

How to Help Adolescent Males Succeed in Middle/High School.

the impact of racism on our students lives

Looking at data and determining what strategies to use as a result of the scores.

Reading in the content areas

Team Building Strategies for Staff

Doing science with no equipment

Needed for the administration‐‐not effective leaders and managers.

Programs to help deal with discipline. Programs to help educate parents that education is a priority

For the teachers, "Strategies for Helping Motivate Today's Teenagers in the Classroom", etc. "Collaborating with Parents for Academic Success"

Marzano Classroom Instruction that Work

How to engage students

Classroom management

How to motivate unmotivated students

When asking administrator to take a school day to attend professional development he said No there was no money for a sub for me to take the class. Said try taking it on a non‐school day like a Saturday, etc. This was poor response!!!!

collaborative teaching

Discipline strategies

Diversity training

Lesson plans, rigor, planning effectively

General support of students at Risk

Things could work if class sizes were reduced. 37 students in a class? in a lab? No wonder there are disciplinary problems,lack of desks,lack of chairs, lack of books and burnout. Too many floating staff. If some of these things were changed, the teacher might be a more effective teacher. Every work day, it seems, we have professional development and some of programs are reinventing the wheel.

Our administration needs budget management training. I.E. This year, I was allotted $100.00 (minus $43.50 for a printer cartridge)to buy instructional materials for the ENTIRE YEAR! Yet we had money to buy several big screen TV's for our hallways? Are you kidding me? The county OK's stuff like this?

Teaching students from low socio‐economic backgrounds

Professional development needs to apply more to the area that i teach in. That will allow me more productive in my area.

More development on differentiated instruction, specific to implementing it in your content area.

Training on classroom management strategies.

How to motivate students to learn.

Personal accountability, fair and just grading.

General overall technology

More of what we are already doing. We have a solid core that we will continue to work on for the next couple of years.

There are Too many professional development classes. Target only teachers who have failing/low scores.

Setting and keeping high standards for students.

Getting students involved in their learning( buying in to their success) ensuring that students are placed in appropriate levels for success

personal communication (how administration tries to belittle faculaty infront of others)

Creative lesson plans

time management

Motivation training.

Atypical information that is looking at other similar schools where the same pervasive factors are mirrored at Smith, then watch videos of interviewers talking to various staff members at those schools, and seeing what they do that makes their poverty stricken school so outstanding. A CNN doucmentary recently hailed a Principal at the absolute worst school in Conneticut, which was almost entirely black students. To hear what he had to say was just phenomenal. He was like Vince Lombardi and the Green Bay Packers. His staff were involved in many

86

decisions, and expectations were high. The principal himself went at 4:00 a.m. to wake kids up that had been missing shcool. He personally made about 6 trips to the projects, getting the kids up, and every day had students look at positive male/female role models on the TV's in each room, and then the teachers would talk about the person....example, Tyler Perry. His unique and eclectic style earned him the respect of rich white Conneticut people who then began to donate money to upgrade his school. I think we need to not only just care, but think out of the box. See what other effective administrative staff and teachers are doing in our country with worse schools than Smith High School. What is working? Why is it working? I would be more than happy to research these schools and then bring them to school. I think our professional development is too narrow. These kids of ours are poor, bone poor. Many of the very young girls are already pregnant with a child or are on their second child. Students needs aren't met at home. How do we fill the gap? What will work? How do we implement a model that is effective? Seeing this principal at what was considered one of the "worst" school in America, and how he turned it around so quickly, is what we need to see and hear. Not just another boring monologue which is what our professional development is at this point. Bring some energy into it, some innovation, look at all of these other successful high schools with worse problems than ours that are turned around. What can we do differently?

Our administrative and counseling teams need training in all areas. Especially budget management (I have $57.00 for my kids this year, yet we were able to purchase FIVE flatscreen TV's for our HALLWAYS!), creating a viable master schedule, effective enrollment of students, resource management, etc.

Teacher motivation.

Increasing student motivation and achievement.

Eliminating bullying and violence.

Cooperative learning; formative and summative assessment

Treating colleagues with respect

Professionalism

Diversity training; how to maintain desire to learn professional materials; overviews of goals and directions of GCS; cirriculum overview and input to central office staff

none‐‐we have too many as it is.

Practical, usable classroom management strategies, not theory.

help with bilingual students. Calling parents is difficult when conferring.

More differentiated instruction that emphasizes technology; and creative and innovative learning.

equal opportunity for all positions to get rewarded

Effective communication ‐‐ conflict resolution ‐‐ effective discipline

cultural diversity

Respect from Administration. Administration and Faculty working together to teach students. Not Administration talking down to the teacher, pitting the students against the teacher. It is student and administration against teachers at this school.

ESOL differentiation and modification

Reading strategies.

how to work with low performing minority males.

classroom/behavior management strategies

working w/ec teachers‐‐more help needed from them in classroom

math skills and reading/writing skills

Teaching with rigorous methods

Eliminate instruction in elementary school and middle school strategies

How do they do it in college?

Working smarter, not harder strategies.

Project‐based learning

How to treat teachers with respect

I think that this school needs to be trained on how to do positive behavior support for interacting with colleagues and administrators. We have been trained on to interact with the children in a positive manner, but not with each other.

Team Building; Servant Leadership for Administration

87

Allow teachers to have more input in running the schools. Training for staff to respect each other as professionals. Administrators to support the teaching staff and work on school morale.

Too many to mention

Adequate opportunities are being provided

harder disciplinary actions. something else needs to be taken place so that students will fear not doing great

Trust building.

leadership skills,

Too many to write here. Diversity training,

curriculum intergration

Professional Team Building

Give us resources to do our jobs!

None we are currently supported by the New Schools Project

more technology training

Effective instructional practices for a 90 minute block schedule

administration management

leadership workshops

literacy enrichment

Sensitivity training for the administration

Teacher/adminstration communication

principal leadership, staff motivation, supporting staff, creating an environment that empowers teachers

We have enough I think.

how to teach African American and Hispanic American males.

Positive discipline strategies

Morzano

CEU hours...right start programs

classroom managemnent 'ala' Lee Cantor!!!

Teacher leadership training, to include communication skills, team building, interpersonal relationships

Helping Parents be Parents

Integrating technology in the curriculum

We are overwhelmed with professional development. We need time in our classrooms to actually work. More time is taken up each year with new initiatives and less is left for us to work for our students! We do not need any more professional development!

How to boost morale without criticizing teachers constantly.

How to deal with angry, undisciplined students.

88

52. What other comments or suggestions do you have that are related to Mission Possible at your school?

(11 ) None.

Keep it going!

Only giving pay incentives to teachers of specific subjects when all teachers in the school teach the same students devalues those subjects which are not included in the incentive program.

Smaller class room sizes for more differentiated instruction. Smaller case loads for counselors to be able to work directly with students instead of paperwork. Need more clerical support in counseling department and data management to relive counselor's of paperwork to allow more student interaction opportunities.

There seems to be a trend to change the emphasis each year. When the scores were increasing we were given a different directive which included scheduling all 9th graders for Alg1 .

I believe students who are placed in the 9th grade should not take algebra 1 until 10th grade. Teachers would still be responsible for teaching them as much of the Alg.1 curriculums possible during the 9th grade school year.

To make the physical school environment better, with a pint job, some new furniture, materials etc. Make the students feel important, and like we are investing in them.

Putting in new programs every two years then switching models does not work. Throwing money away. Johns Hopkins is a drop out prevention model and it is not being done correctly at Smith. Waste of teacher time.

To be fair in this process, I think other professional certified staff such as School Social Worker should also be considered. This likely varies from school to school, but here at my school, I think teachers would agree that some of these people work collaboratively with and supportive of the teacher's work, and heavily impact the success of students.

Literary coach from Enrichment Region provides informational resources and makes school visits. Literacy coach from Enrichment Region meet with teachers to build a relationship with them. Literacy Coach from ER Make class visits and debrief with teachers on strategies for improvement.

continue to keep us updated on the changes that are occurring concerning Mission Possible

There are so many initiatives at MP schools. The coaches for differing groups come in and give their ideas for improvement. Sometimes there is contradiction in strategies to follow. We have too many different groups trying to change our teaching styles. Back off.

It is not working. Pay all teachers based on the same pay scale, years of experience etc.

I feel the reason for Mission Possible is to raise student achievement, not simply to reward teachers for working in a "difficult" school. I consider it "merit pay" for reaching students who might not otherwise succeed.

very good program

This is the third year that I have had nearly twice as many students as other faculty and twice as many classes. My classes are always so big that it is impossible to do much group work. Why so many? I think those of us who have so many should be given a portion of the money as we teach the large classes so Mission Possible can have tiny classes.

Administration stop treating professional teachers as though we are not educational degreed educators and stop threatening our positions when we are getting results. Teacher moral is low with all the meetings prior to, after school and during our planning periods. So many programs‐‐‐when do we teach.

Great program.

More focus on dress code and discipline issues by administration

First, we need to blow up the traditional curriculum and teach subjects relevant to the 21st century. Second, if you don't have enough competent people to run schools...close them and focus on the schools and personnel that are competent.

I'm witnessing harder working teachers that are not in the bonus paid positions, but working for the success of the student.

The money needs to be spent on curing the problems not covering the problems. We need to make the schools better not the pay

We haven't discussed Mission Possible Program as a faculty. What is available to us as a Mission Possible School?

Teachers teach, students learn, no reward or punishment should be delegated to the opposites for failures or successes!

89

Treat us with respect. We are not bad teachers just because we have stayed at DHS

Mission Possible gives teachers a lot of resources and money but also inherently puts a lot of pressure on them as well. Students do not feel the same pressure and have learned that it is okay to blame teachers for their shortcomings because that is what they feel Mission Possible is doing. Parents, students, and administrators need to attend workshops to see the good things that we are doing and how they can help achieve the common goal; students learning what they need to pass and succeed

Remedial reading and writing for everyone who needs it. Mandatory attendance at tutorials and weekend classes based on grades. Anything below a C.

Teachers need to stop being blamed for the failure of students who are unprepared and unmotivated. Students need to take accountability for their own grades. Teachers at Mission Possible schools work harder than teachers anywhere else, and yet it is these teachers who constantly have their positions threatened by administration, lowering morale and teacher retention.

Everyone works very hard at Smith or they don't cut it. The principal is dedicated to the school. However, I still believe in what I wrote above. We need to look at these other schools, what is working and why, and begin to become more enthused ourselves, and with the students and not just drag in here and expect to leave exactly on time but get interested invest your whole self into this school. Let kids know you care and are keeping up with them. Mainly do what I wrote in #60. There is more than one way to skin a cat.

Look, these programs are all well and good. However, you're treating the symptoms, not the disease. It's great to hold educators accountable for the quality of education provided, but until we make parents and students responsible for learning the current 'disease' will not go away. We owe it to these young people to teach them responsibility by whatever means is necessary. Perhaps you should take a look at the British education system; you may find that there is some lessons to be learned.

Feels like instead of support the teachers are told they are inadequate, ineffective, and are not treated like professionals. The principal has told the staff we "can't fail anyone" "I have the students watching you and they snitch to me" He even said over the intercom in the morning announcements that the students need to get their work done but we won't fail anyone. He told the students over the intercom to make sure the teacher's have their Essential Question posted and to tell him if they don't. He sent a student back to class after he had told a teacher to F___ off. etc.... NO support for teachers. Undermines our authority with students. HE is a bully.

We need an increase in student discipline.

This program is a no win program. If you do not create miracles, you fail. If you have average success you fail, since the students need above average help.

Stop blaming teachers for low test scores. Get administrators who are uplifting for staff instead of condemning to them.

Our staff is very supportive of each other and our teacher turnover rate is very low

mentors are great resources

Focus on administrative leadership: planning and organization, consistency, and effective and respectful communication with faculty and staff.

too much work to do/ no financial support

All teachers should be paid the same. We teach the same students and are expected to complete the same requirements.

There needs to be a student requirement component and a parent requirement component.

Why can't all big 5 teachers get compensated like the MATH TEACHERS!!!!!!

More books and computers in class rooms are needed to achieve success.

Teachers need much more appreciation than we are getting from anyone.

Those of us that work many hours overtime need compensation.

Mission Possible is a good program. They have hired very professional people that truly try to help the teachers. Keep Mission Impossible..but you have more deep‐seated problems at this school. You need to improve teacher morale or this school is going to fail. You can't continue to yell at teachers, embarrass them in front of a group of their peers, send them threatening emails, threaten to fire them daily, write them up for every little nit picky thing. You can't expect to have positive results if you can't even attempt to talk to some of the administrators without having them scream and yell at the teachers. Teachers at this school are harassed daily. There is one assistant principal that is very respectful and he does attempt to give teachers positive support. Teaching here is

90

not where a person would ever want to spend the rest of their career. The students behave like all other students and I see them trying daily. Of course they can all do better but their situations at home are so different from the students at the money schools. The students and the teachers work together really well. The teachers spend countless hours helping these students. The teachers are ridiculed daily. This situation is unbelievable and it is just a matter of time before someone presents a lawsuit for harassment. No work place should be as chaotic and treat their employees with this much disrespect!

Don't feel it is resolving the problem system wide concerning student failure. Sometimes students need an alternate environment free from the distractions of friends and community in order to take the task of learning seriously.

Get rid of the Mission Possible schools. Divide up the free and reduced lunch students equally for all schools in Guildford County. Why should one school have 90% reduced lunch and another 10%. If you can't do that make tha schools at least smaller in number.

That the Administration takes ownership of the discipline issues at the school and stops passing it off as poor classroom management skills when teachers write up students for profanity fighting surfing the internet that the Administration deal with the student and parent to resolve the issue students are totally out of control and it starts with poor discipline issues at home and it’s the Administrations responsibility to help the parents understand that these types of discipline issues will not be tolerated at school.

Professional development is an asset to teachers, however, without funding from the district it is hard to adequately support student growth and hands on activities.

Mission possible is great and all of the classes. it's ALL the other stuff they are requiring us to do that is overloading us

More support and less harassing from the principal. It would also be nice if the administration did not constantly bring up the fact that the math teachers make extra money as a negative comment. It's is rude and unprofessional.

Incentives for all staff members.

Quit beating up and blaming teachers. The students come to us not on grade level‐that is what needs to be addressed, help the students with smaller class sizes, less suspensions and consistent guidelines. Help the students, don't just blame the teachers.

Thank you for soliciting teacher's opinion.

Lack of true involvement of teachers in decisions, policies, ER direction and strategies; lack of transparency. ER puts inordinate pressure on teachers to solve larger problems. Some think there are harassing and intimidation strategies of teachers and say ends do not justify means. Concern for ER deprofessionalizing teacher roles and shrinking teacher rights.

Teachers who receive pay should be required to come to school....too many opt out by taking days off but still receive the money!

limit testing

I feel that most of the teachers here feel under the gun, and to a certain extent, rightfully so. We have a good staff here who truly wants our kids to succeed in school and in life. I believe our biggest problem has been our administrative and staff turnover. After everything this school has been through, we need some consistency in both staff and administration. I personally believe there needs to be a "bridging of the gap" between teachers and administration. Instead of an "us" and "them" attitude, there needs to be a "we" attitude.

EC Inclusion and Resource teachers that teach the same classes (ex. Alg. I & Eng. 9) and/or teach in an inclusion setting with those same teachers, should also get a bonus if growth is shown.

I look forward to viewing success.

Supply all students with a book for each class that they are taking.

Professional development training that helps teachers and administrators communicate with students more effectively to reduce student suspensions for non‐compliance.

Our staff gives 110%, but it's only effective if the students attend class.

This is a program that needs to come to an end immediately!!! If teachers are to be rewarded then it should be a bonus that is not tied in to workshops that take teachers out of the classroom! If bonuses were offered to all disciplines then teachers would not work against or resent one another for receiving a bonus. At Eastern the Mission Possible Program is often referred to by all teachers (including those receiving the added monetary

91

benefit) as the Mission Impossible Program. This is a program that in the end is bad for students. If we are to do what is right for our kids then this program needs to come to an end now!!!

Teachers work very hard at this school. The problem is that the students refuse to or are incapable of the material, but that is continuously going unnoticed. Teachers are receiving additional training, support, technology, etc. but the STUDENTS are the issue.

There are a lot of subjects that support those that are included in Mission Possible but these subjects are not eligible for the bonuses‐‐that's a load of crap!

92

Appendix M - Parent Climate Summary Results – Spring 2009

Parent Survey- All Schools Combined (N = 281)

Total Number of Surveys Received = 281 Total Number of Surveys Sent = 4,700 Survey response rate = 6.0%

Question SA A U D SD Blank

1 The school is safe. 79(28.1%) 139(49.5%) 31(11.0%) 22(7.8%) 5(1.8%) 5(1.8%)

2 The school is kept clean. 92(32.7%) 139(49.5%) 21(7.5%) 18(6.4%) 7(2.5%) 4(1.4%)

3 The school is overcrowded to the degree that it affects learning.

31(11.0%) 36(12.8%) 65(23.1%) 101(35.9%) 42(14.9%) 6(2.1%)

4 The school maintains high academic standards. 67(23.8%) 111(39.5%) 51(18.1%) 33(11.7%) 16(5.7%) 3(1.1%)

5 The school uses adequate disciplinary measures dealing with disruptive students.

57(20.3%) 118(42.0%) 52(18.5%) 33(11.7%) 18(6.4%) 3(1.1%)

6 The school serves lunches that are nutritious. 58(20.6%) 107(38.1%) 64(22.8%) 35(12.5%) 16(5.7%) 1(0.4%)

7 The school serves lunches that taste good. 33(11.7%) 92(32.7%) 90(32.0%) 43(15.3%) 19(6.8%) 4(1.4%)

8 Teachers are friendly and easy to talk to. 96(34.2%) 131(46.6%) 19(6.8%) 26(9.3%) 8(2.8%) 1(0.4%)

9 Teachers make learning interesting. 62(22.1%) 134(47.7%) 51(18.1%) 23(8.2%) 8(2.8%) 3(1.1%)

10 Teachers make learning relevant. 55(19.6%) 147(52.3%) 51(18.1%) 18(6.4%) 6(2.1%) 4(1.4%)

11 Teachers motivate students to learn. 75(26.7%) 123(43.8%) 39(13.9%) 34(12.1%) 8(2.8%) 2(0.7%)

12 Teachers take an interest in students’ educational future. 89(31.7%) 115(40.9%) 46(16.4%) 23(8.2%) 6(2.1%) 2(0.7%)

13 Teachers are knowledgeable and understand their subject matter.

66(23.5%) 153(54.4%) 44(15.7%) 11(3.9%) 4(1.4%) 3(1.1%)

14 Teachers assign meaningful homework that helps students learn.

65(23.1%) 134(47.7%) 31(11.0%) 37(13.2%) 11(3.9%) 3(1.1%)

15 Teachers do their best to include me in matters directly affecting my child’s progress in school.

92(32.7%) 115(40.9%) 20(7.1%) 34(12.1%) 17(6.0%) 3(1.1%)

16 The school teaches students the basic academic skills in reading.

83(29.5%) 159(56.6%) 24(8.5%) 10(3.6%) 2(0.7%) 3(1.1%)

17 The school teaches students the basic academic skills in math.

80(28.5%) 167(59.4%) 19(6.8%) 9(3.2%) 4(1.4%) 2(0.7%)

18 The school teaches students how to speak correctly in English.

74(26.3%) 147(52.3%) 34(12.1%) 19(6.8%) 4(1.4%) 3(1.1%)

19 The school teaches students how to write correctly in English.

76(27.0%) 148(52.7%) 31(11.0%) 21(7.5%) 3(1.1%) 2(0.7%)

20 The school teaches how to solve problems in science. 56(19.9%) 148(52.7%) 59(21.0%) 15(5.3%) 1(0.4%) 2(0.7%)

21 The school teaches students to think critically. 50(17.8%) 136(48.4%) 61(21.7%) 31(11.0%) 1(0.4%) 2(0.7%)

22 The school teaches students to develop good study and work habits.

69(24.6%) 123(43.8%) 43(15.3%) 32(11.4%) 10(3.6%) 4(1.4%)

23 The school teaches students to get along with different kinds of people.

76(27.0%) 127(45.2%) 39(13.9%) 25(8.9%) 11(3.9%) 3(1.1%)

24 The school is free of violence. 46(16.4%) 75(26.7%) 61(21.7%) 61(21.7%) 36(12.8%) 2(0.7%)

25 The school is free of gang activity. 63(22.4%) 62(22.1%) 75(26.7%) 47(16.7%) 30(10.7%) 4(1.4%)

26 The school is free of substance abuse and drugs. 76(27.0%) 65(23.1%) 74(26.3%) 36(12.8%) 27(9.6%) 3(1.1%)

27 The principal does an effective job running my child’s school. 94(33.5%) 113(40.2%) 36(12.8%) 23(8.2%) 11(3.9%) 4(1.4%)

28 The principal is available. 98(34.9%) 109(38.8%) 30(10.7%) 21(7.5%) 21(7.5%) 2(0.7%)

29 The principal is easy to talk to. 102(36.3%) 101(35.9%) 48(17.1%) 16(5.7%) 11(3.9%) 3(1.1%)

93



30 The assistant principals are effective administrators. 70(24.9%) 99(35.2%) 75(26.7%) 18(6.4%) 10(3.6%) 9(3.2%)

31 School staff try to help students with personal problems. 67(23.8%) 119(42.3%) 63(22.4%) 24(8.5%) 7(2.5%) 1(0.4%)

32 School staff try to help students with academic problems. 76(27.0%) 137(48.8%) 41(14.6%) 17(6.0%) 6(2.1%) 4(1.4%)

33 School staff respond to my concerns. 82(29.2%) 121(43.1%) 31(11.0%) 30(10.7%) 15(5.3%) 2(0.7%)

34 My child is getting a good education at this school. 89(31.7%) 113(40.2%) 32(11.4%) 28(10.0%) 16(5.7%) 3(1.1%)

35 The overall climate or atmosphere at my child’s school is positive and helps my child learn.

77(27.4%) 110(39.1%) 36(12.8%) 38(13.5%) 11(3.9%) 9(3.2%)

36 What overall grade would you give to your child’s school?

61 - A, 51 - A-, 52 - B, 26 - B-, 35 - C, 19 - C-, 13 - D, 9 - D-, 6 - F, 9- Blank

SA=Strongly Agree, A= Agree, U=Unsure, D=Disagree, SD=Strongly Disagree

94

Parent Survey-All Elementary Schools Combined (N = 104)

Total Number of Surveys Received = 104 Total Number of Surveys Sent = 1600 Survey response rate = 6.5%


1 The school is safe. 45(43.3%) 45(43.3%) 8(7.7%) 5(4.8%) 0.00% 1(1.0%)


3 The school is overcrowded to the degree that it affects learning. 11(10.6%) 10(9.6%) 23(22.1%) 33(31.7%) 26(25.0%) 1(1.0%)


5 The school uses adequate disciplinary measures dealing with disruptive students.

30(28.8%) 37(35.6%) 18(17.3%) 15(14.4%) 3(2.9%) 1(1.0%)

6 The school serves lunches that are nutritious. 43(41.3%) 36(34.6%) 13(12.5%) 7(6.7%) 5(4.8%) 0.00%


8 Teachers are friendly and easy to talk to. 52(50.0%) 40(38.5%) 4(3.8%) 6(5.8%) 2(1.9%) 0.00%

9 Teachers make learning interesting. 38(36.5%) 47(45.2%) 13(12.5%) 6(5.8%) 0.00% 0.00%

10 Teachers make learning relevant. 39(37.5%) 45(43.3%) 14(13.5%) 4(3.8%) 0.00% 2(1.9%)

11 Teachers motivate students to learn. 45(43.3%) 41(39.4%) 14(13.5%) 3(2.9%) 1(1.0%) 0.00%

12 Teachers take an interest in students’ educational future. 51(49.0%) 34(32.7%) 12(11.5%) 6(5.8%) 0.00% 1(1.0%)

13 Teachers are knowledgeable and understand their subject matter.

37(35.6%) 56(53.8%) 10(9.6%) 1(1.0%) 0.00% 0.00%

14 Teachers assign meaningful homework that helps students learn.

41(39.4%) 44(42.3%) 8(7.7%) 8(7.7%) 2(1.9%) 1(1.0%)

15 Teachers do their best to include me in matters directly affecting my child’s progress in school.

58(55.8%) 35(33.7%) 3(2.9%) 6(5.8%) 2(1.9%) 0.00%

16 The school teaches students the basic academic skills in reading.

43(41.3%) 54(51.9%) 5(4.8%) 0.00% 1(1.0%) 1(1.0%)

17 The school teaches students the basic academic skills in math. 40(38.5%) 55(52.9%) 6(5.8%) 1(1.0%) 2(1.9%) 0.00%

18 The school teaches students how to speak correctly in English. 38(36.5%) 55(52.9%) 6(5.8%) 1(1.0%) 2(1.9%) 2(1.9%)

19 The school teaches students how to write correctly in English. 41(39.4%) 52(50.0%) 8(7.7%) 1(1.0%) 1(1.0%) 1(1.0%)

20 The school teaches how to solve problems in science. 30(28.8%) 53(51.0%) 16(15.4%) 3(2.9%) 1(1.0%) 1(1.0%)

21 The school teaches students to think critically. 29(27.9%) 53(51.0%) 19(18.3%) 2(1.9%) 1(1.0%) 0.00%

22 The school teaches students to develop good study and work habits.

44(42.3%) 45(43.3%) 9(8.7%) 4(3.8%) 1(1.0%) 1(1.0%)

23 The school teaches students to get along with different kinds of people.

40(38.5%) 49(47.1%) 10(9.6%) 5(4.8%) 0.00% 0.00%

24 The school is free of violence. 38(36.5%) 36(34.6%) 17(16.3%) 11(10.6%) 2(1.9%) 0.00%


26 The school is free of substance abuse and drugs. 58(55.8%) 30(28.8%) 13(12.5%) 0.00% 2(1.9%) 1(1.0%)


28 The principal is available. 47(45.2%) 37(35.6%) 7(6.7%) 8(7.7%) 5(4.8%) 0.00%

29 The principal is easy to talk to. 52(50.0%) 33(31.7%) 10(9.6%) 4(3.8%) 5(4.8%) 0.00%

30 The assistant principals are effective administrators. 37(35.6%) 31(29.8%) 28(26.9%) 2(1.9%) 0.00% 6(5.8%)

31 School staff try to help students with personal problems. 36(34.6%) 46(44.2%) 17(16.3%) 5(4.8%) 0.00% 0.00%

95



32 School staff try to help students with academic problems. 42(40.4%) 50(48.1%) 10(9.6%) 0.00% 1(1.0%) 1(1.0%)

33 School staff respond to my concerns. 45(43.3%) 40(38.5%) 12(11.5%) 6(5.8%) 1(1.0%) 0.00%


35 The overall climate or atmosphere at my child’s school is positive and helps my child learn.

41(39.4%) 41(39.4%) 7(6.7%) 9(8.7%) 2(1.9%) 4(3.8%)


44 - A, 18 - A-, 12 - B, 9 - B-, 8 - C, 7 - C-, 2 - D, 2 - D-, 2 - Blank

*SA=Strongly Agree, A= Agree, U=Unsure, D=Disagree, SD=Strongly Disagree

96

Parent Survey-All Middle Schools Combined (N = 105)







5 The school uses adequate disciplinary measures dealing with disruptive students. 17(16.2%) 48(45.7%) 17(16.2%) 12(11.4%) 9(8.6%) 2(1.9%)



8 Teachers are friendly and easy to talk to. 31(29.5%) 50(47.6%) 7(6.7%) 11(10.5%) 6(5.7%) 0.00%


10 Teachers make learning relevant. 13(12.4%) 56(53.3%) 24(22.9%) 9(8.6%) 3(2.9%) 0.00%


12 Teachers take an interest in students’ educational future. 26(24.8%) 45(42.9%) 20(19.0%) 11(10.5%) 3(2.9%) 0.00%

13 Teachers are knowledgeable and understand their subject matter. 21(20.0%) 55(52.4%) 22(21.0%) 4(3.8%) 1(1.0%) 2(1.9%)

14 Teachers assign meaningful homework that helps students learn. 17(16.2%) 49(46.7%) 12(11.4%) 20(19.0%) 6(5.7%) 1(1.0%)

15 Teachers do their best to include me in matters directly affecting my child’s progress in school. 23(21.9%) 47(44.8%) 6(5.7%) 22(21.0%) 6(5.7%) 1(1.0%)

16 The school teaches students the basic academic skills in reading. 31(29.5%) 57(54.3%) 10(9.5%) 7(6.7%) 0.00% 0.00%

17 The school teaches students the basic academic skills in math. 31(29.5%) 63(60.0%) 5(4.8%) 4(3.8%) 2(1.9%) 0.00%

18 The school teaches students how to speak correctly in English. 29(27.6%) 47(44.8%) 17(16.2%) 11(10.5%) 1(1.0%) 0.00%

19 The school teaches students how to write correctly in English. 27(25.7%) 51(48.6%) 12(11.4%) 13(12.4%) 2(1.9%) 0.00%

20 The school teaches how to solve problems in science. 21(20.0%) 57(54.3%) 19(18.1%) 8(7.6%) 0.00% 0.00%

21 The school teaches students to think critically. 15(14.3%) 50(47.6%) 21(20.0%) 18(17.1%) 0.00% 1(1.0%)

22 The school teaches students to develop good study and work habits. 17(16.2%) 44(41.9%) 21(20.0%) 15(14.3%) 7(6.7%) 1(1.0%)

23 The school teaches students to get along with different kinds of people. 26(24.8%) 45(42.9%) 12(11.4%) 12(11.4%) 9(8.6%) 1(1.0%)





28 The principal is available. 35(33.3%) 42(40.0%) 8(7.6%) 9(8.6%) 11(10.5%) 0.00%


97




31 School staff try to help students with personal problems. 26(24.8%) 43(41.0%) 23(21.9%) 8(7.6%) 5(4.8%) 0.00%




35 The overall climate or atmosphere at my child’s school is positive and helps my child learn. 24(22.9%) 43(41.0%) 12(11.4%) 16(15.2%) 6(5.7%) 4(3.8%)


11 - A, 22 - A-, 22 - B, 10 - B-, 16 - C, 6 - C-, 3 - D, 6 - D-, 5 - F, 4 - Blank


98

Parent Survey-All High Schools Combined (N = 72)






4 The school maintains high academic standards. 20(27.8%) 27(37.5%) 14(19.4%) 8(11.1%) 3(4.2%) 0.00%

5 The school uses adequate disciplinary measures dealing with disruptive students. 10(13.9%) 33(45.8%) 17(23.6%) 6(8.3%) 6(8.3%) 0.00%

6 The school serves lunches that are nutritious. 3(4.2%) 28(38.9%) 25(34.7%) 11(15.3%) 5(6.9%) 0.00%


8 Teachers are friendly and easy to talk to. 13(18.1%) 41(56.9%) 8(11.1%) 9(12.5%) 0.00% 1(1.4%)


10 Teachers make learning relevant. 3(4.2%) 46(63.9%) 13(18.1%) 5(6.9%) 3(4.2%) 2(2.8%)


12 Teachers take an interest in students’ educational future. 12(16.7%) 36(50.0%) 14(19.4%) 6(8.3%) 3(4.2%) 1(1.4%)

13 Teachers are knowledgeable and understand their subject matter. 8(11.1%) 42(58.3%) 12(16.7%) 6(8.3%) 3(4.2%) 1(1.4%)

14 Teachers assign meaningful homework that helps students learn. 7(9.7%) 41(56.9%) 11(15.3%) 9(12.5%) 3(4.2%) 1(1.4%)

15 Teachers do their best to include me in matters directly affecting my child’s progress in school. 11(15.3%) 33(45.8%) 11(15.3%) 6(8.3%) 9(12.5%) 2(2.8%)

16 The school teaches students the basic academic skills in reading. 9(12.5%) 48(66.7%) 9(12.5%) 3(4.2%) 1(1.4%) 2(2.8%)

17 The school teaches students the basic academic skills in math. 9(12.5%) 49(68.1%) 8(11.1%) 4(5.6%) 0.00% 2(2.8%)

18 The school teaches students how to speak correctly in English. 7(9.7%) 45(62.5%) 11(15.3%) 7(9.7%) 1(1.4%) 1(1.4%)

19 The school teaches students how to write correctly in English. 8(11.1%) 45(62.5%) 11(15.3%) 7(9.7%) 0.00% 1(1.4%)

20 The school teaches how to solve problems in science. 5(6.9%) 38(52.8%) 24(33.3%) 4(5.6%) 0.00% 1(1.4%)

21 The school teaches students to think critically. 6(8.3%) 33(45.8%) 21(29.2%) 11(15.3%) 0.00% 1(1.4%)

22 The school teaches students to develop good study and work habits. 8(11.1%) 34(47.2%) 13(18.1%) 13(18.1%) 2(2.8%) 2(2.8%)

23 The school teaches students to get along with different kinds of people. 10(13.9%) 33(45.8%) 17(23.6%) 8(11.1%) 2(2.8%) 2(2.8%)





28 The principal is available. 16(22.2%) 30(41.7%) 15(20.8%) 4(5.6%) 5(6.9%) 2(2.8%)



31 School staff try to help students with personal problems. 5(6.9%) 30(41.7%) 23(31.9%) 10(13.9%) 3(4.2%) 1(1.4%)


99





35 The overall climate or atmosphere at my child’s school is positive and helps my child learn. 12(16.7%) 26(36.1%) 17(23.6%) 13(18.1%) 3(4.2%) 1(1.4%)


7 - A, 11 - A-, 18 - B, 7 - B-, 11- C, 6- C-, 8 - D, 1 - D-, 1 -F, 2 - Blank

SA=Strongly Agree, A= Agree, U=Unsure, D=Disagree, SD=Strongly Disagree

100

Appendix N - Student Climate Summary Results – Spring 2009

Student Survey-All Schools Combined (N = 153)

Total Number of Surveys Received = 153 Total Number of Surveys Sent =4,700 Survey response rate = 3.3%


1 I feel safe at my school. 44(28.8%) 79(51.6%) 16(10.5%) 10(6.5%) 3(2.0%) 1(0.7%)

2 The school building is kept clean. 32(20.9%) 67(43.8%) 17(11.1%) 29(19.0%) 7(4.6%) 1(0.7%)

3 The students in my school usually follow school rules. 14(9.2%) 28(18.3%) 34(22.2%) 52(34.0%) 24(15.7%) 1(0.7%)

4 My teachers require that I work very hard for the grades I get. 72(47.1%) 63(41.2%) 9(5.9%) 5(3.3%) 3(2.0%) 1(0.7%)

5 My school has enough books and equipment to help me learn. 61(39.9%) 52(34.0%) 13(8.5%) 16(10.5%) 10(6.5%) 1(0.7%)


7 The school serves lunches that taste good. 23(15.0%) 56(36.6%) 39(25.5%) 14(9.2%) 21(13.7%) 0.00%

8 Most of my teachers are friendly and easy to talk to. 53(34.6%) 67(43.8%) 14(9.2%) 16(10.5%) 3(2.0%) 0.00%

9 Most of my teachers make learning interesting. 44(28.8%) 70(45.8%) 18(11.8%) 14(9.2%) 6(3.9%) 1(0.7%)

10 Most of my teachers make learning relevant. 45(29.4%) 67(43.8%) 22(14.4%) 14(9.2%) 3(2.0%) 2(1.3%)

11 Most of my teachers make me to want to learn. 47(30.7%) 62(40.5%) 22(14.4%) 17(11.1%) 4(2.6%) 1(0.7%)

12 My teachers know a lot about the subjects they teach. 68(44.4%) 70(45.8%) 9(5.9%) 2(1.3%) 3(2.0%) 1(0.7%)

13 My teachers assign meaningful homework that helps me learn. 49(32.0%) 62(40.5%) 26(17.0%) 9(5.9%) 6(3.9%) 1(0.7%)

14 My teachers are interested in how I do in the future. 62(40.5%) 50(32.7%) 30(19.6%) 8(5.2%) 2(1.3%) 1(0.7%)

15 My teachers let me know how I am doing on my school work. 54(35.3%) 70(45.8%) 11(7.2%) 12(7.8%) 5(3.3%) 1(0.7%)

16 Violence is a problem at my school. 31(20.3%) 36(23.5%) 31(20.3%) 36(23.5%) 18(11.8%) 1(0.7%)

17 Gangs are a problem at my school. 24(15.7%) 24(15.7%) 26(17.0%) 36(23.5%) 42(27.5%) 1(0.7%)

18 Many students are being distracted by alcohol. 12(7.8%) 12(7.8%) 31(20.3%) 36(23.5%) 58(37.9%) 4(2.6%)

19 Many students are being distracted by drugs. 16(10.5%) 24(15.7%) 30(19.6%) 31(20.3%) 49(32.0%) 3(2.0%)

20 The assistant principal is easy to talk to. 41(26.8% 42(27.5%) 34(22.2%) 14(9.2%) 18(11.8%) 4(2.6%)


22 People at my school help me with personal problems. 27(17.6%) 55(35.9%) 28(18.3%) 26(17.0%) 13(8.5%) 4(2.6%)

23 People at my school help me with learning problems. 41(26.8% 65(42.5%) 19(12.4%) 20(13.1%) 6(3.9%) 2(1.3%)

24 The adults at my school care about me. 55(35.9%) 47(30.7%) 37(24.2%) 7(4.6%) 4(2.6%) 3(2.0%)

25 My teachers teach me how to get along with different kinds of people.

44(28.8%) 57(37.3%) 24(15.7%) 14(9.2%) 12(7.8%) 2(1.3%)

26 I like coming to school. 50(32.7%) 58(37.9%) 23(15.0%) 14(9.2%) 7(4.6%) 1(0.7%)

27 I am learning a lot at my school. 61(39.9%) 68(44.4%) 11(7.2%) 11(7.2%) 1(0.7%) 1(0.7%)

What overall grade would you give to your child’s school?

29 - A, 27 - A-, 33 - B, 27 - B-, 15 - C, 9 - C-, 3 - D, 5 - D-, 1 - F, 4 - Blank


101

Student Survey-All Elementary Schools Combined (N = 52)



1 I feel safe at my school. 24(46.2%) 22(42.3%) 2(3.8%) 2(3.8%) 1(1.9%) 1(1.9%)

2 The school building is kept clean. 24(46.2%) 20(38.5%) 1(1.9%) 3(5.8%) 3(5.8%) 1(1.9%)

3 The students in my school usually follow school rules. 8(15.4%) 12(23.1%) 11(21.2%) 15(28.8%) 5(9.6%) 1(1.9%)

4 My teachers require that I work very hard for the grades I get. 31(59.6%) 17(32.7%) 1(1.9%) 0.00% 2(3.8%) 1(1.9%)

5 My school has enough books and equipment to help me learn. 33(63.5%) 14(26.9%) 2(3.8%) 2(3.8%) 0.00% 1(1.9%)

6 The school serves lunches that are nutritious. 21(40.4%) 23(44.2%) 6(11.5%) 0.00% 1(1.9%) 1(1.9%)



9 Most of my teachers make learning interesting. 25(48.1%) 25(48.1%) 0.00% 0.00% 2(3.8%) 0.00%

10 Most of my teachers make learning relevant. 27(51.9%) 20(38.5%) 3(5.8%) 0.00% 1(1.9%) 1(1.9%)

11 Most of my teachers make me to want to learn. 28(53.8%) 20(38.5%) 1(1.9%) 2(3.8%) 1(1.9%) 0.00%

12 My teachers know a lot about the subjects they teach. 27(51.9%) 24(46.2%) 1(1.9%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

13 My teachers assign meaningful homework that helps me learn. 25(48.1%) 21(40.4%) 5(9.6%) 1(1.9%) 0.00% 0.00%

14 My teachers are interested in how I do in the future. 33(63.5%) 14(26.9%) 4(7.7%) 1(1.9%) 0.00% 0.00%

15 My teachers let me know how I am doing on my school work. 30(57.7%) 15(28.8%) 0.00% 5(9.6%) 2(3.8%) 0.00%

16 Violence is a problem at my school. 11(21.2%) 12(23.1%) 4(7.7%) 13(25.0%) 12(23.1%) 0.00%

17 Gangs are a problem at my school. 7(13.5%) 4(7.7%) 4(7.7%) 12(23.1%) 25(48.1%) 0.00%



20 The assistant principal is easy to talk to. 25(48.1%) 17(32.7%) 2(3.8%) 1(1.9%) 3(5.8%) 4(7.7%)



23 People at my school help me with learning problems. 22(42.3%) 23(44.2%) 2(3.8%) 3(5.8%) 2(3.8%) 0.00%

24 The adults at my school care about me. 33(63.5%) 15(28.8%) 3(5.8%) 0.00% 0.00% 1(1.9%)


26(50.0%) 21(40.4%) 4(7.7%) 1(1.9%) 0.00% 0.00%

26 I like coming to school. 26(50.0%) 17(32.7%) 8(15.4%) 1(1.9%) 0.00% 0.00%

27 I am learning a lot at my school. 33(63.5%) 15(28.8%) 2(3.8%) 1(1.9%) 0.00% 1(1.9%)


23 - A, 10 - A-, 9- B, 6 - B-, 1 - C, 1 - C-, 1 - D-, 1 - Blank


102

Student Survey-All Middle Schools Combined (N = 61)

Total Number of Surveys Received = 61 Total Number of Surveys Sent = Survey response rate = %


1 I feel safe at my school. 13(21.3%) 36(59.0%) 5(8.2%) 5(8.2%) 2(3.3%) 0.00%

2 The school building is kept clean. 4(6.6%) 30(49.2%) 11(18.0%) 14(23.0%) 2(3.3%) 0.00%

3 The students in my school usually follow school rules. 5(8.2%) 9(14.8%) 16(26.2%) 17(27.9%) 14(23.0%) 0.00%

4 My teachers require that I work very hard for the grades I get. 25(41.0%) 28(45.9%) 4(6.6%) 3(4.9%) 1(1.6%) 0.00%

5 My school has enough books and equipment to help me learn. 21(34.4%) 23(37.7%) 6(9.8%) 6(9.8%) 5(8.2%) 0.00%




9 Most of my teachers make learning interesting. 15(24.6%) 22(36.1%) 12(19.7%) 7(11.5%) 4(6.6%) 1(1.6%)

10 Most of my teachers make learning relevant. 13(21.3%) 25(41.0%) 13(21.3%) 8(13.1%) 1(1.6%) 1(1.6%)

11 Most of my teachers make me to want to learn. 14(23.0%) 25(41.0%) 11(18.0%) 8(13.1%) 2(3.3%) 1(1.6%)

12 My teachers know a lot about the subjects they teach. 28(45.9%) 24(39.3%) 6(9.8%) 1(1.6%) 1(1.6%) 1(1.6%)

13 My teachers assign meaningful homework that helps me learn. 17(27.9%) 21(34.4%) 14(23.0%) 3(4.9%) 5(8.2%) 1(1.6%)

14 My teachers are interested in how I do in the future. 19(31.1%) 21(34.4%) 14(23.0%) 4(6.6%) 2(3.3%) 1(1.6%)

15 My teachers let me know how I am doing on my school work. 15(24.6%) 31(50.8%) 7(11.5%) 4(6.6%) 3(4.9%) 1(1.6%)

16 Violence is a problem at my school. 15(24.6%) 14(23.0%) 18(29.5%) 9(14.8%) 4(6.6%) 1(1.6%)

17 Gangs are a problem at my school. 9(14.8%) 11(18.0%) 16(26.2%) 14(23.0%) 10(16.4%) 1(1.6%)



20 The assistant principal is easy to talk to. 14(23.0%) 15(24.6%) 16(26.2%) 10(16.4%) 6(9.8%) 0.00%



23 People at my school help me with learning problems. 16(26.2%) 21(34.4%) 10(16.4%) 9(14.8%) 3(4.9%) 2(3.3%)

24 The adults at my school care about me. 18(29.5%) 17(27.9%) 18(29.5%) 4(6.6%) 2(3.3%) 2(3.3%)


13(21.3%) 21(34.4%) 15(24.6%) 5(8.2%) 6(9.8%) 1(1.6%)

26 I like coming to school. 17(27.9%) 23(37.7%) 9(14.8%) 6(9.8%) 5(8.2%) 1(1.6%)

27 I am learning a lot at my school. 18(29.5%) 31(50.8%) 5(8.2%) 6(9.8%) 1(1.6%) 0.00%


5 - A, 10 - A-, 14 - B, 13 - B-, 7 - C, 4 - C-, 1 - D, 4 - D-, 1 - F, 2 - Blank


103

Student Survey-All High Schools Combined (N = 40)

Total Number of Surveys Received = 40 Total Number of Surveys Sent = Survey response rate = %


1 I feel safe at my school. 7(17.5%) 21(52.5%) 9(22.5%) 3(7.5%) 0.00% 0.00%

2 The school building is kept clean. 4(10.0%) 17(42.5%) 5(12.5%) 12(30.0%) 2(5.0%) 0.00%

3 The students in my school usually follow school rules. 1(2.5%) 7(17.5%) 7(17.5%) 20(50.0%) 5(12.5%) 0.00%

4 My teachers require that I work very hard for the grades I get. 16(40.0%) 18(45.0%) 4(10.0%) 2(5.0%) 0.00% 0.00%

5 My school has enough books and equipment to help me learn. 7(17.5%) 15(37.5%) 5(12.5%) 8(20.0%) 5(12.5%) 0.00%

6 The school serves lunches that are nutritious. 0.00% 14(35.0%) 13(32.5%) 9(22.5%) 4(10.0%) 0.00%


8 Most of my teachers are friendly and easy to talk to. 10(25.0%) 25(62.5%) 2(5.0%) 3(7.5%) 0.00% 0.00%

9 Most of my teachers make learning interesting. 4(10.0%) 23(57.5%) 6(15.0%) 7(17.5%) 0.00% 0.00%

10 Most of my teachers make learning relevant. 5(12.5%) 22(55.0%) 6(15.0%) 6(15.0%) 1(2.5%) 0.00%

11 Most of my teachers make me to want to learn. 5(12.5%) 17(42.5%) 10(25.0%) 7(17.5%) 1(2.5%) 0.00%

12 My teachers know a lot about the subjects they teach. 13(32.5%) 22(55.0%) 2(5.0%) 1(2.5%) 2(5.0%) 0.00%

13 My teachers assign meaningful homework that helps me learn. 7(17.5%) 20(50.0%) 7(17.5%) 5(12.5%) 1(2.5%) 0.00%

14 My teachers are interested in how I do in the future. 10(25.0%) 15(37.5%) 12(30.0%) 3(7.5%) 0.00% 0.00%

15 My teachers let me know how I am doing on my school work. 9(22.5%) 24(60.0%) 4(10.0%) 3(7.5%) 0.00% 0.00%

16 Violence is a problem at my school. 5(12.5%) 10(25.0%) 9(22.5%) 14(35.0%) 2(5.0%) 0.00%

17 Gangs are a problem at my school. 8(20.0%) 9(22.5%) 6(15.0%) 10(25.0%) 7(17.5%) 0.00%

18 Many students are being distracted by alcohol. 5(12.5%) 9(22.5%) 13(32.5%) 6(15.0%) 7(17.5%) 0.00%

19 Many students are being distracted by drugs. 8(20.0%) 14(35.0%) 8(20.0%) 5(12.5%) 5(12.5%) 0.00%

20 The assistant principal is easy to talk to. 2(5.0%) 10(25.0%) 16(40.0%) 3(7.5%) 9(22.5%) 0.00%

21 The principal is easy to talk to. 7(17.5%) 12(30.0%) 18(45.0%) 2(5.0%) 1(2.5%) 0.00%

22 People at my school help me with personal problems. 2(5.0%) 15(37.5%) 11(27.5%) 10(25.0%) 2(5.0%) 0.00%

23 People at my school help me with learning problems. 3(7.5%) 21(52.5%) 7(17.5%) 8(20.0%) 1(2.5%) 0.00%

24 The adults at my school care about me. 4(10.0%) 15(37.5%) 16(40.0%) 3(7.5%) 2(5.0%) 0.00%

25 My teachers teach me how to get along with different kinds of people. 5(12.5%) 15(37.5%) 5(12.5%) 8(20.0%) 6(15.0%) 1(2.5%)

26 I like coming to school. 7(17.5%) 18(45.0%) 6(15.0%) 7(17.5%) 2(5.0%) 0.00%

27 I am learning a lot at my school. 10(25.0%) 22(55.0%) 4(10.0%) 4(10.0%) 0.00% 0.00%


1 - A, 7 - A-, 10 - B, 8 - B-, 7 - C, 4 - C-, 2 - D, 1 - Blank


104

Appendix O - Student Achievement Analysis

Mission Possible: Guilford County Schools Teacher Incentive Program – Evaluation Design-Revised 2008-09

Holli Bayonas, Ph.D. Eric S. Howard, M.A.

105

Guilford County Schools (GCS) has contracted with the SERVE Center at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro to conduct an independent evaluation of their Mission Possible (MP) teacher incentive program. This proposal outlines evaluation of Mission Possible impacts on student outcomes. Section 1 provides an overview of the teacher incentive programs generally and the MP program specifically. Section 2 outlines the evaluation questions for the evaluation plan of the MP program. Section 3 describes the analytical approach for the quantitative evaluation of impact of teacher incentive program on student achievement. 1. Overview Since the passage of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 educational reform has had a renewed concentration on improving teacher quality. One of NCLB’s stipulations is to promote local educational agencies and schools to develop programs that:

…recruit, train, and hire highly qualified teachers to reduce class size, especially in the early grades, and professional development activities carried out in accordance with Title II, that give teachers, principals, and administrators the knowledge and skills to provide students with the opportunity to meet challenging State or local academic content standards and student academic achievement standards (NCLB 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, § 5131, 115 Stat. 1781 [2002]).

As a result of the renewed emphasis on teacher quality reformers have also returned to interventions designed to address teacher incentives in the form of merit or performance pay schemes. Teacher incentive systems slowly declined throughout most of the 20th century, with approximately 48% of U.S. public school districts utilizing them in 1918, to 20% in 1939, and just 4% in 1953 (Murnane & Cohen, 1986). However, by 1993 the trend had reversed with approximately 12% of U.S. public school districts utilizing some form of teacher incentive program (Ballou, 2001, 54 table 1). Currently, the U.S. Department of Education has begun making several awards through the Teacher Incentive Fund (TIF) to support school and district efforts to pilot teacher incentive pay programs. Since fall 2006, 16 awards have been made nationally totaling $99 million, with GCS being one of the recipients (Podgursky & Springer, 2007, 921-927). The Mission Possible program at GCS is a five-year financial incentive program that includes 29 schools (13 elementary, 7 middle, and 9 high schools) from two cohorts (20 schools in cohort 1 [2006-07] and 9 in cohort 2 [2007-08]). Two content areas are being targeted for incentives: English/language arts and mathematics. Those eligible for the incentives include kindergarten through second-grade teachers, third-through-eighth-grade teachers of math, language arts or reading, high school math and English teachers, curriculum facilitators, and principals.8 Eligible teachers are expected to participate in two structured years of professional development to qualify for the incentives. The professional development session topics include sessions on cooperative learning and “Undoing Racism” in year 1 and differentiated learning and Teacher Expectations and Student Achievement (TESA)9 in year 2. Professional development sessions customized to the 8 See Mission Possible Overview at: http://www.guilford.k12.nc.us/depts/mission_possible/background.htm, retrieved 01/15/2008. 9 See TESA information at: http://streamer3.lacoe.edu/tesa/.

106

educators needs are undertaken in years 3-5. Educators are allowed 13 months to complete the required sessions during the year they anticipate qualifying for the incentives.10 Financial/pay incentives are divided into two categories: recruitment/retention incentives and performance incentives. The recruitment incentives are paid annually for eligible teachers and principals, with larger incentives paid for math at middle and high schools. Performance incentives are paid annually as well and are based on the teacher’s prior year performance (expected growth) as measured by their students’ end-of-grade (EOG) or end-of-course (EOC) value-added test scores.11 The value-added data is from the Education Value Added Assessment System (EVAAS) from the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction (NCDPI).12 While there are concerns over the statistical reliability and robustness of these value-added estimates among researchers, they remain the primary metric for evaluating most teacher incentive programs (Podgursky & Springer, 2007, 927). Participation in Mission Possible was determined by three main criteria: (1) the school’s free and/or reduced-price lunch rate, (2) their Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) and ABC status, and (3) their teacher retention history. Mission Possible has three central goals:13

The number of Mission Possible schools that meet Adequately Yearly Progress (AYP) will increase from 19% to 100% by 2011.

The percentage of students in Mission Possible schools who pass the ABC’s end of course tests will increase from 56.2% (2004-05 data) to at least the state average of 74.8% (2004-05 data) by 2011.

The teacher turnover rate for Mission Possible schools will decrease from: 33.1% (2004-05 data) in elementary schools to at least the North Carolina state average of 20% (2004-05 data) by 2011.

o 31.6% (2004-05 data) in middle schools to at least the North Carolina state average of 22% (2004-05 data) by 2011.

o 37.8% (2004-05 data) in high schools to at least the North Carolina state average of 19% (2004-05 data) by 2011.

The SERVE Center at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro, which also has the contract for the Regional Educational Lab for the Southeast (REL-SE) from the U.S. Department of Education’s Institute for Education Sciences (IES), will conduct an independent evaluation of Mission Possible. The evaluation plan involves several components which are described in the following two sections. 2. Evaluation/Research Questions GCS and the SERVE Center have outlined three overarching evaluation questions as part of the MP evaluation plan:

1. To what extent are the most highly qualified teachers and administrators being recruited and retained at Mission Possible (MP) Schools?

2. To what extent were the MP teachers and administrators trained as proposed?

10 See Professional Development at: http://www.guilford.k12.nc.us/depts/mission_possible/prof_dev.htm; retrieved 01/15/2008. 11 See Pay Incentives at: http://www.guilford.k12.nc.us/depts/mission_possible/pay.htm; retrieved 01/15/2008. 12 See information on EVAAS at: http://www.ncpublicschools.org/evaas/. 13 See Frequently Asked Questions, General Information at: http://www.guilford.k12.nc.us/depts/mission_ possible/FAQ.htm; retrieved 01/15/2008.

107

3. To what extent did the MP training and incentives impact teacher and student outcomes? This proposal is concerned only with data required for Question 3; that is evaluating the impact of MP on student outcomes. Specifically, the SERVE Center evaluation seeks to evaluate the estimated effect of MP on student learning through analysis of MP teachers’ students’ EOG/EOC scores as compared to non-MP teachers’ students’ EOG/EOC scores in a quasi-experimental design (see Section 3) of matched comparison/control schools from outside GCS. 3. Analytical Approach and Comparison School Selection This section describes the data requirements and proposed analytical approach of the MP evaluation. Subsection 3.1 explains the evaluation design in more detail and subsection 3.2 addresses the need for matched student level data. 3.1. Analytical Approach The proposed analytical approach for the evaluation of the MP teacher incentive programs utilizes a quasi-experimental design. This is appropriate since GCS would like to compare MP school/student outcomes with non-MP school/student outcomes and due to the fact that randomization was not utilized as part of the program implementation. Quasi-experimental or non-experimental designs have limitations when attempting to make generalizations and inferences, as has been well documented (See: Fraker & Maynard, 1987; Friedlander & Robbins, 1995; Glazerman, Levy & Myers, 2003; LaLonde, 1986; Shadish, Cook & Campbell, 2002; and Winship & Morgan, 1999). The goal of the evaluation is to provide a reliable estimate of how the MP teacher incentive plan impacts student learning as measured by the EOG/EOC exams. Ideally, we would like to have outcomes for the same student while receiving the treatment (in this case receiving instruction from an MP teacher that has completed program requirements) and while in the control state (no treatment) over the same period. One of the problems posed by observational studies is that we do not have both realizations (treatment and control) of the outcomes of interest for the same student, only one of the two possible states. The purpose of non-experimental or quasi-experimental designs is to try and estimate the impact of a program on subjects where we do not have both conditions satisfied for the population under consideration. This description of empirical causality has often been labeled the counterfactual account of causality (see Shadish, Cook, & Campbell, 2002 and Winship & Morgan, 1999). One approach that is commonly used in education and medicine for non-experimental and quasi-experimental designs is propensity score matching (PSM). This model uses a matched comparison group from the non-treated population to estimate the impact of the treatment on the target population. Specifically, comparison/control matches are constructed by generating a propensity score, which is the probability of being in the treatment group based on selected variables. Comparison/control subjects are then matched to treatment subjects based on their propensity score with the closest score (or another algorithm like nearest neighbor, etc.). This modeling approach produces accurate statistical matches based on the observed information provided and therefore “controls” for those variables included in the model (see Hahs-Vaughn & Onwuegbuzie, 2006; Joffe & Rosenbaum, 1999; Luellen, Shadish, & Clark, 2005; Rosenbaum & Rubin, 1983 & 1985; and Winship & Morgan, 1999).

108

Using a PSM methodology has several advantages including: (1) it allows the researcher to identify non-comparable covariates early in the analysis; (2) it is less sensitive to model misspecification; and (3) the research is allowed to generate a non-parsimonious model (Hahs-Vaughn & Onwuegbuzie, 2006, 34). There are several disadvantages as well including the model only considers and controls for observed data. Differences between treatment and control groups based on their unobservable characteristics are not controlled for and this must be emphasized when using PSM methodologies. Other disadvantages include the need for larger data sets to get optimal performance from PSM and inclusion of irrelevant covariates will reduce model efficiency (Hahs-Vaughn & Onwuegbuzie, 2006, 35). 3.2. Baseline Comparisons Podgursky and Springer (2007) note that due to the limited number of teacher incentive program evaluations and complicated nature of attempting to quantitatively disentangle teacher effects and impacts on student learning it is critical that teacher incentive “programs be introduced in a manner amenable to effective evaluation” (943). Figlio and Kenny (2007) contend:

The major reason why we know so little about the relation between teacher performance and incentives in the United States and student performance is that the large micro education data sets have gathered very little information about schools’ personnel practices (902).

The evaluation of MP is an opportunity to overcome the limitations noted within the evaluation and research literature on teacher incentives. Due to the nature of effects, teacher impacts on their students within specific classrooms, the evaluation requires student level data matched to teachers. Examining grade and school level data will not suffice in this instance for two reasons: (1) MP program participation is targeted at two content areas (English/language arts and math) so only select teachers within a participating school are receiving “treatment” (in this case professional development and the performance incentives); and (2) analysis of grade/school level outcomes will not have sufficient statistical power to detect impacts if they are indeed generated by the program, whether positive or negative. Assignment to treatment, however, was at the school level. Comparison school matches using PSM methodology were therefore assigned also at the school level even though entire schools are not “treated.” In all, 29 GCS elementary, middle and high schools14 are participating in MP and began in two “cohorts.” In year one of MP (2006-07) 20 schools (9 elementary, 4 middle, and 7 high schools) began implementing the program while an additional 9 schools (4 elementary, 3 middle and 2 high schools) began in year two (2007-08). Utilizing PSM methodology involves three steps: (1) selecting the matching variables and deciding on a model to estimate the propensity scores, the probability of being in the treated group; (2) calculating the propensity scores through estimating of the model using logistic regression; and (3) matching the schools based on a specific algorithm or program. Steps 1 and 2 or the most challenging and require the most time. 14 An additional high school, the Academy at Central (High Point Central High School, 410-406) began MP program participation in the 2007-08 academic year, yielding a total of 30 schools. The initial analysis and matching does not reflect this school’s participation in MP.

109

Preparing the Database The data used came from three different sources and had to be merged together into one file using a newly created variable of “schoolcode” as the variable on which to merge. The teacher data came from an Access database file from the NC School Report Card Data Disc 2001-2007, version 10-3-07 and other student data and school data come from the NC ABCs and NCES Common Core of Data, available online at http://abcs.ncpublicschools.org/abcs/ and http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/schoolsearch/ respectively. Once the three files were merged, charter schools and other schools that had missing data were eliminated. The database of 2005-06 school year data began with 2,245 schools, but after eliminated the missing/irrelevant cases, the final pool of North Carolina schools was 1,871 including the 28 Mission Possible cases/schools. Determining the variables to use for the model were based on at least two criteria: the empirical literature and theory to indicate what should be included in the model and the constraints of the data (availability, missing data, sample size, etc.). Covariates that theory and empirical research dictate are essential to include (prior achievement, SES, and minority student measures) were included as well as the one year average teacher turnover rate and proportion of teachers with 0-3 years experience, which was considered essential based on the intervention. The variables that were selected are included in Table 1. Before the matching process, a t-test was run on the Mission Possible Schools and total pool of comparison schools. Results show that there were statistically significant differences before matching, which is consistent with PSM process. Table 115 presents the summary statistical comparisons before PSM matching. An independent samples t-test was used for determining statistical difference between treatment and control groups (p-value provided in the final column). Across most categories the two groups are significantly different from one another before matching, except for number of students.

Table 1. Descriptive Comparisons Prior to Matching-2005-06 School Characteristics Mission

Possible Schools N=28

All Potential Comparison Schools N=1843

Significant Difference B/W Groups (t-test)

p-value Enrollment 610 (420) 670 (384) .455 1 Year Teacher Turnover Rate

35.5 (14.7) 21.1 (10.0) .000*

Percent Free Lunch 68.6(19.4) 40.7 (20.0) .000* Percent Reduced Lunch 6.5(1.9) 8.4 (4.3) .000* Percent Minority 88.1 (13.4) 44.7 (27.5) .000* Percent of Teachers w/ 0-3 Years Experience

34.0 (10.7) 23.6 (10.1) .000*

Performance Composite 2004-05

64.0 (16.6) 84.2 (9.0) .000*


51.3 (11.7) 71.0 (10.8) .000*

Note. Standard deviations are in parenthesis. *Statistically significant, α = 0.05

15 Academy and Smith began in 2007-08, and thus, baseline data is not available and matches were not included.

110

3.3. Computing Propensity Scores and Matching Schools For the MP evaluation three sets of propensity scores were calculated based on school type (elementary, middle and high school). Determining the school matches was conducted utilizing a one-to-many nearest neighbor approach. This was achieved by generating a propensity score using logistic regression in SPSS version 16. The schools were sorted by propensity score and then the matches were hand picked using the propensity score and refined by examining the variables. This was done for each school type. In some cases, the propensity scores that most closely matched that of the treatment school were passed over in favor of the next closest score when it seemed that the other variables matched better. These matches and the results are presented in three tables by school type in Appendix A. Table 2 presents the summary statistics for the key variables after the one-to-many matching. Nearly all the covariates have been balanced between the MP control group schools. There is one exception: one year average teacher turnover was still statistically different at α = 0.05, with p-value of 0.014. The summary statistics in Table 2 indicate that appropriate matches were found using the propensity score matching. Table 2. Comparisons After One-to-Many Matching-2005-06

School Characteristics Mission Possible Schools N=28

All Potential Comparison Schools N=70

Significant Difference B/W Groups (t-test)

p-value Enrollment 610 (420) 670.1 (496.4) .549 1 Year Teacher Turnover Rate 35.5 (14.7) 27.7 (9.5) .014* Percent Free Lunch 68.6 (19.4) 70.7 (18.6) .624 Percent Reduced Lunch 6.5 (1.9) 7.1 (2.6) .199 Percent Minority 88.1 (13.4) 91.2 (10.2) .272 Percent of Teachers w/ 0-3 Years Experience

34.0 (10.7) 30.7 (10.4) .163


64.0 (16.6) 68.3 (11.5) .216


51.3 (11.7) 52.8 (7.0) .554

Note. Standard deviations are in parenthesis. *Statistically significant, α = 0.05 The final matches are listed in Appendix A. School names for the comparison schools are not included and have been replaced by a unique identifying number. Each Mission Possible school is matched to three comparison schools. Matches will reappear in subsequent individual school reports so that visual comparisons can be made. This document does not include any treatment effects that may be present. 4.0 Analysis

An independent samples t-test was conducted on the following variables available from www.ncreportcard.org, at baseline (2005-06) and after 3 years of treatment 16(2008-09):

Elementary Schools % Grade 3 reading ABC student scores at or above grade level % Grade 4 reading ABC student scores at or above grade level

16 The nine federally funded TIF schools began in 2007-08 and thus experienced only two years of treatment.

111

% Grade 5 reading ABC student scores at or above grade level % of overall reading ABC student scores at or above grade level % Grade 3 Math ABC student scores at or above grade level % Grade 4 math ABC student scores at or above grade level % Grade 5 math ABC student scores at or above grade level % overall math ABC student scores at or above grade level Middle Schools % Grade 6 reading ABC student scores at or above grade level % Grade 7 reading ABC student scores at or above grade level % Grade 8 reading ABC student scores at or above grade level % of overall reading ABC student scores at or above grade level % Grade 6 math ABC student scores at or above grade level % Grade 7 math ABC student scores at or above grade level % Grade 8 math ABC student scores at or above grade level % of overall math ABC student scores at or above grade level High Schools % of English ABC student scores at or above grade level % of Algebra I ABC student scores at or above grade level % of Algebra II ABC student scores at or above grade level % of Geometry ABC student scores at or above grade level % of all students who passed ABC

All variables showed no statistically significant differences at baseline (α = 0.05), except for Grade 7 reading (refer to Appendix B). Because of the differences at baseline for Grade 7 reading, scores in 2008-09 were not compared. Among the eight variables in elementary schools, the Control schools fared better than MP schools in terms of gains made and average percent achieving in each subject area. There was one exceptions; third grade reading. The descriptive statistics show that Grade 3 reading in MP schools had a higher average percent pass. In addition, when comparing the average differences from 2006 to 2009, the grade 3 MP schools decreased by 21.1 percentage points compared to the controls schools of 28.4 percentage points. There were statistically significant differences within the elementary schools but in favor of the control schools. The areas were Grade 4 and 5 reading. Among the seven variables tested in middle schools, MP schools made higher gains in all four categories of math from 2006 to 2009. In addition, Grade 6 math was statistically significant. Grade 6 math at MP schools showed a 22.3 percentage point gain from 2006 while the control schools showed a 15.6 percentage point gain. In reading, the control schools made more gains in 2009 compared to 2006. There were no statistically significant differences among reading scores. While at first glance, it appears that MP schools showed an average higher passing rate in 2009, it is important to point out that they also started out in 2006 with higher passing rates compared to the control schools. In high schools, English, and Algebra I and II scores decreased in 2008-09 for both MP schools and comparison schools. In English, the MP schools decreased less than in comparison schools. The average percentage of students passing increased in both comparison and MP schools for Geometry

112

and Overall ABCs. As with the previous year’s comparisons, none of the differences at the high school level were statistically significant. See Table 3 for complete results of the MP and comparison schools. Note that the low sample size is a limitation in this study.

113

Table 3. Differences in Performance for Comparison Group and Mission Possible Schools in 2009

Variable Group: MP or

Control

Na

Mean Standard Deviation

Difference from 2006 to 2009

Leader in Percent

Passing in 2008-

09/Difference Between Means

Significant Difference between

Control and Mission

Possible?

t-test statistics

Effect size (when

significant)

2006 2009 2006 2009

% Grade 3 reading ABC student scores at or above grade level

Control 34 67.9 39.5 9.7 8.9 -28.4 MP

2.3 points No

t=-.63 df=17.9

p=.54 MP 13 62.9 41.8 10.5 12.0 -21.1


Control 34 64.9 46.2 8.0 11.8 -18.7

Control 8.2 points

Yes

t=2.27 df=25.5

p=.03 Effect size

(Cohen’s d=-0.74)

MP 13 66.6 38.0 10.3 10.4 -28.6


Control 33 76.3 47.0 9.4 13.5 -29.3

Control 8.7 points

Yes

t=2.37 df=32.3

p=.02 Effect size

(Cohen’s d=-0.75)

MP 13 74.3 38.3 9.6 9.5 -36

Percent of overall ES reading ABC student scores at or above grade level

Control 34 69.7 44.7 6.2 7.9 -25 Control

5.3 points No

t=1.22 df=22.8

p=.24 MP 13 68.0 39.4 7.7 8.4 -28.6 % Grade 3 Math ABC student scores at or above grade level

Control 34 41.1 61.6 13.4 11.1 20.5 MP

2.4 points No

t=-.54 df=18.2

p=.60 MP 13 46.5 64.0 12.3 14.8 17.5

% Grade 4 math ABC student scores at or above grade level

Control 34 40.0 62.5 10.8 12.5 22.5 Control

2.5 points No

t=.62 df=23.3

p=.54 MP 13 39.9 60.0 11.1 12.1 20.1


Control 33 38.5 63.2 12.1 12.0 24.7

Control 4.3 points

No

t=-1.31 df=31.7

p=.20 MP 13 37.1 58.9 12.0 8.6 21.8

114


Control

Na



Leader in Percent

Passing in 2008-



Control and Mission

Possible?

t-test statistics

Effect size (when

significant)

2006 2009 2006 2009

% overall ES math ABC student scores at or above grade level

Control 34 39.8 62.7 8.6 9.1 22.9 Control

1.8 points No

t=.57 df=21.6

p=.58 MP 13 41.0 60.9 8.6 9.6 19.9


Control 21 68.5 51.9 7.4 10.0 -16.6 MP

5.1 points No

t=-1.10 df=10.3 p=.30 MP 7 71.8 57.0 8.7 10.5 -14.8


Not included. Scores were not the same at baseline. na na

na


control 21 76.3 46.1 6.1 12.3 -30.2 MP

0.4 points No

t=-.08 df=12.7

p=.94 MP 7 80.5 46.5 6.3 10.1 -34

% of overall MS reading ABC student scores at or above grade level

control 21 73.0 47.4 5.8 9.3 -25.6 MP

3.9 points No

t=-.92 df=10 p=.38 MP 7 77.5 51.3 6.4 9.9 -26.2


control 21 41.5 57.1 9.3 13.4 15.6

MP 10.4 points

Yes

t=-2.63 df=21.41

p= .02 Effect size (Cohen’s

d=.98)

MP 7 45.2 67.5 8.8 6.7 22.3


control 21 40.4 63.3 9.9 10.8 22.9 MP

6.5 points No

t=-1.68 df=14.4

p=.11 MP 7 42.8 69.8 6.0 8.0 27


control 21 43.2 65.4 10.9 10.8 22.2 MP

5.2 points No

t=-1.17 df=11.4

p=.27 MP 7 45.1 70.6 9.6 9.9 25.5

% of overall MS math ABC control 21 41.8 61.9 8.9 9.6 20.1 MP No t=-1.77

115


Control

Na



Leader in Percent

Passing in 2008-



Control and Mission

Possible?

t-test statistics

Effect size (when

significant)

2006 2009 2006 2009

student scores at or above grade level

MP 7 44.4 69.2 7.0 7.5 24.8 7.3 points df=11.5 p=.10

% of English ABC student scores at or above grade level

Control 15 70.8 61.8 7.2 13.1 -9 Control 3 points

No t=.60

df=18 p=.56 MP 8 64.0 58.8 10.7 9.9 -5.2

% of Algebra I ABC student scores at or above grade level

Control 15 63.4 55.4 10.3 20.2 -8 Control

4.4 points No

t=1.95 df=18.2

p=.07 MP 8 59.0 40.3 17.1 15.2 -18.7

% of Algebra II ABC student scores at or above grade level

Control 15 63.1 61.3 14.1 27.6 -1.8 Control

11.8 points No

t=1.24 df=19.8

p=.23 MP 8 51.4 49.5 31.6 16.7 -1.9

% of Geometry ABC student scores at or above grade level

Control 15 37.2 54.6 15.4 22.3 17.4 Control

3.6 points No

t=.36 df=14.2

p=.72 MP 8 33.6 51.0 20.2 23.4 17.4

% of all HS students who passed ABC

Control 15 51.9 58.0 9.7 15.1 6.1 Control

6.2 points No

t=1.21 df=19.9

p=.24 MP 8 44.9 51.8 19.0 8.9 6.9

Note. Equal variances were not assumed in the t-test statistics. *Statistically significant, Evaluator’s α = 0.05. See Appendix B for more t-test statistics. aThe N sizes are for 2005-06. In the 2008-09 data, three elementary schools, one middle school, and two high schools were taken out of the comparison sample due to school closings.

116

References Ballou, D. (2001). Pay for performance in public and private schools. Economics of Education Review, 20(1),

51-61. Figlio, D. N., & Kenny, L. W. (2007). Individual teacher incentives and student performance. Journal of Public

Economics, 91(5-6), 901-914. Fraker, T., & Maynard, R. (1987). The adequacy of comparison group designs for evaluations of employment-

related programs. Journal of Human Resources, 22(2), 194-227. Friedlander, D., & Robins, P. K. (1995). Evaluating program evaluations: New evidence on commonly used

nonexperimental methods. American Economic Review, 85(4), 923-937. Glazerman, S., Levy, D. M., & Myers, D. (2003). Nonexperimental versus experimental estimates of earnings

impacts. The Annuals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences, 589(Sept.), 63-93. Hahs-Vaughn, D. L., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2006). Estimating and using propensity score analysis with

complex samples. Journal of Experimental Education, 75(1), 31-65. Joffe, M. M., & Rosenbaum, P. R. (1999). Propensity scores. American Journal of Epidemiology, 150(4), 327-

333. LaLonde, R. J. (1986). Evaluating the econometric evaluations of training programs with experimental data.

American Economic Review, 76(4), 604-620. Luellen, J. K., Shadish, W. R., & Clark, M. H. (2005). Propensity scores: An introduction and experimental test.

Evaluation Review, 29(6), 530-558. Murnane, R. J., & Cohen, D. K. (1986). Merit pay and the evaluation problem: Why most merit pay plans fail

and few survive. Harvard Educational Review, 56(1), 1-17. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110 (2001). Podgursky, M. J., & Springer, M. G. (2007). Teacher performance pay: A review. Journal of Policy Analysis

and Management, 26(4), 909-949. Rosenbaum, P. R., & Rubin, D. B. (1983). The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for

causal effects. Biometrika, 70(1), 41-55. Rosenbaum, P. R., & Rubin, D. B. (1985). Constructing a control group using multivariate matched sampling

methods that incorporate the propensity score. American Statistician, 39(1), 33-38. Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs. Boston:

Houghton Mifflin Company. Winship, C., & Morgan, S. L. (1999). The estimation of causal effects from observational data. Annual Review

of Sociology, 25(1), 659-706.

117

Appendix A – Propensity Scores for One-to-Many Matched Treatment Schools ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS

MP or

Control

SERVE Center ID

School Name &

LEA

05-06 Enroll-ment

05-06 1-Year

Teacher Turnover

Rate

05-06 %

Free Lunch

05-06 %

Reduced Lunch

05-06 %

Minority

05-06 % Teachers w/0-3 Yrs

Exper.

04-05 Perf.

Composite

05-06 Perf.

Composite

Propensity Score

Delta

MP MP1 Bessemer (Guilford) 400 16.6 74.0 7.0 95.5 22.2 72.7 50.0 0.0296488

--

C School A CS01 377 21.4 82.5 11.9 72.7 28.6 66.9 55.0 0.0306456 0.0009969

C School B CS02 720 18.8 73.2 9.4 88.3 29.8 66.3 52.4 0.0318918 0.0022430

C School C CS03 548 15.2 78.8 8.6 94.3 21.7 76.7 66.3 0.0305257 0.0001199

MP MP2 Foust

(Guilford) 305 28.1 74.1 7.5 93.8 32.3 77.7 59.7 0.0321542 --

C School A CS04 436 25.8 74.5 7.3 93.6 27.3 75.5 59.3 0.0318411 0.0003131

C School B CS05 181 14.2 81.2 7.7 97.2 6.7 76.6 63.0 0.0335759 0.0014217

C School C CS06 578 46.3 75.1 8.7 73.0 45 71.3 51.0 0.0322003 0.0000461

MP MP3 Oak Hill

(Guilford) 366 22.2 80.6 6.0 82.5 20 66.9 53.3 0.035645245 --

C School A CS07 407 15 73.2 7.9 91.4 28.2 65.2 46.0 0.03567797 0.00003273

C School B CS08 335 26.6 83.0 6.6 87.8 28.6 81.6 59.0 0.035605763 0.00003948

C School C CS09 486 23.3 76.1 9.3 97.3 18.9 77.1 53.3 0.036754654 0.00110941

MP MP4 Falkener

(Guilford) 578 30 77.9 7.4 98.3 37.3 87.0 66.5 0.039281862 --

C School A CS10 644 18.1 79.7 6.4 93.8 21.1 74.6 54.4 0.038824166 0.00045770

C School B CS11 594 17.5 81.8 11.4 96.1 10.8 79.1 58.0 0.03846821 0.00081365

C School C CS12 173 23.8 89.6 8.7 79.8 10 75.0 52.9 0.040960608 0.00167875

MP MP5 Union Hill (Guilford) 398 15.1 79.1 5.8 90.5 27.3 69.2 51.3 0.041735395 --

C School A CS13 436 17.3 79.6 6.0 97.0 29.2 79.1 51.8 0.041888056 0.00015266

118

MP or

Control

SERVE Center ID

School Name &

LEA

05-06 Enroll-ment

05-06 1-Year

Teacher Turnover

Rate

05-06 %

Free Lunch

05-06 %

Reduced Lunch

05-06 %

Minority


Exper.

04-05 Perf.

Composite

05-06 Perf.

Composite

Propensity Score

Delta

C School B CS12 173 23.8 89.6 8.7 79.8 10 75.0 52.9 0.040960608 0.00077479

C School C CS14 465 17.6 80.4 8.6 89.5 31.6 73.1 51.9 0.044111803 0.00237641

MP MP6 Parkview Village

(Guilford) 419 15.7 90.2 5.7 93.8 23.7 77.7 54.8 0.078078194 --

C School A CS15 413 24.2 80.9 5.3 96.6 45.7 76.1 64.2 0.075803013 0.00227518

C School B CS16 234 15.3 87.6 3.0 99.1 12.5 72.4 61.7 0.081154612 0.00307642

C School C CS17 402 23.3 79.9 8.7 99.8 35.7 77.7 50.0 0.07482333 0.00325486

MP MP7 Cone

(Guilford) 476 24.3 82.4 7.8 97.3 27.9 70.2 50.2 0.101561103 --

C School A CS18 272 40.9 83.8 8.5 95.6 11.8 74.6 56.5 0.096338465 0.00522264

C School B CS19 249 21.7 91.2 2.0 96.8 9.1 74.2 49.3 0.102673414 0.00111231

C School C CS20 406 22.7 84.2 8.4 98.3 24.4 71.4 50.0 0.108523414 0.00696231

MP MP8 Fairview

(Guilford) 522 28.5 94.8 4.6 94.8 27.9 76.4 56.2 0.176494748 --

C School A CS21 201 30.7 91.5 7.0 99.0 14.3 75.9 50.0 0.162195634 0.01429911

C School B CS22 397 11.1 90.7 5.3 97.0 29.7 65.8 50.4 0.166094391 0.01040036

C School C CS23 411 34 87.1 2.9 99.0 33.3 75.3 56.2 0.152584212 0.02391054

MP MP9 Gillespie Park 262 28.1 95.0 3.8 97.7 7.1 71.5 56.9 0.1829303 --

C School A CS24 409 28.5 93.9 5.1 98.3 20 73.0 55.0 0.2042903 0.02136001

C School B CS25 494 28.9 90.7 5.3 98.4 34.2 73.0 52.8 0.204547072 0.02161673

C School C CS26 170 47 86.5 2.4 92.9 31.3 71.5 37.8 0.182455723 0.00047462

MP MP10 Hampton (Guilford) 281 44.8 89.3 9.6 98.2 46.9 66.5 45.2 0.417309175 --

C School A CS27 325 46.1 90.2 3.4 99.1 50 76.5 54.6 0.298591915 0.11871726

119

MP or

Control

SERVE Center ID

School Name &

LEA

05-06 Enroll-ment

05-06 1-Year

Teacher Turnover

Rate

05-06 %

Free Lunch

05-06 %

Reduced Lunch

05-06 %

Minority


Exper.

04-05 Perf.

Composite

05-06 Perf.

Composite

Propensity Score

Delta

C School B CS28 512 27.2 96.7 2.7 97.5 13.5 63.1 45.9 0.313121699 0.10418748

C School C CS29 176 36 92.0 6.3 98.3 31.8 64.4 50.0 0.355002921 0.06230625

MP MP11 Kirkman Park

(Guilford) 248 55.1 89.1 4.8 89.9 50 58.9 44.2 0.446555413 --

C School A CS30 337 34.6 94.4 4.7 98.5 28.9 56.6 42.1 0.490161237 0.04360582

C School B CS28 512 27.2 96.7 2.7 97.5 13.5 63.1 45.9 0.313121699 0.13343371

C School C CS29 176 36 92.0 6.3 98.3 31.8 64.4 50.0 0.355002921 0.09155249

MP MP12 Washington (Guilford) 207 45.8 95.2 3.4 99.5 41.7 54.5 43.6 0.666624752 --

C School A CS30 337 34.6 94.4 4.7 98.5 28.9 56.6 42.1 0.490161237 0.17646351

C School B CS31 367 28.5 85.6 6.8 97.8 27.3 56.9 47.0 0.257232783 0.40939197

C School C CS32 241 23.5 91.7 2.9 100.0 33.3 66.7 46.2 0.265982565 0.40064219

MP MP13

Wiley Accel/Enrichmen

t (Guilford) 242 82.1 95.9 2.9 99.2 61.5 76.1 43.1 0.718451976 --

C School A CS30 337 34.6 94.4 4.7 98.5 28.9 56.6 42.1 0.490161237 0.22829074

C School B CS33 438 28.1 91.3 3.4 97.7 35.3 79.1 46.3 0.159489114 0.55896286

C School C CS34 426 25.7 88.0 4.0 99.1 33.3 72.6 50.2 0.161220331 0.55723164

Note. Baseline data presented above is from the 2005-2006 academic year, one year prior to Mission Possible implementation, except for the 2004-05 Performance Composite. Mission Possible Schools are followed by their corresponding matched Comparison school. Data taken from NC ABCs, NCES, and North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, NC School Report Card Data Disc 2001-2007, version 10-3-07. Grade Range was used to restrict the pool of schools to those with PK-5 and K-5 grade configurations when estimating the model. Propensity scores calculated using SPSS version 16.0 and all matches were generated using the nearest neighbor approach.

120

MIDDLE SCHOOLS MP or

Control

School Name &

LEA

05-06 Enroll-ment

05-06 1-Year

Teacher Turnover

Rate

05-06 %

Free Lunch

05-06 %

Reduced Lunch

05-06 %

Minority


Exper.

04-05 Perf.

Composite

05-06 Perf.

Composite

Propensity Score

Delta

MP MP14 Penn-Griffin

(Guilford) (M) 556 35.8 58.1 8.1 75.5 44.7 74.3 59.4 0.049744 --

C School A CSM35

506 30.6 53.2 7.5 78.5 28 76.9 62.8 0.050615 0.000870991

C School B CSM36

781 37.9 46.5 6.8 78.9 22.4 67.3 46.3 0.033225 0.016518943

C School C CSM37

721 23.4 66.6 8.0 97.5 22.7 77.2 50.2 0.041963 0.008651751

MP MP15 Welborn

(Guilford) 713 33.9 59.2 8.4 81.1 32.1 74.9 59.4 0.055188 --

C School A CSM38

1007 42.4 58.1 10.0 79.4 45 77.8 58.4 0.055142 0.000045610

C School B CSM39

1075 26.1 59.4 9.3 93.1 40.6 73.2 50.1 0.051445 0.003743264

C School C CSM40

270 14.2 67.8 10.4 99.6 28.6 76.2 59.6 0.05907 0.003882495

MP MP16 Ferndale

(Guilford) 594 40 65.2 4.9 81.8 35.8 69.8 46.5 0.068081 --

C School A CSM40

734 23.3 70.0 7.8 87.7 50 73.8 56.5 0.064108 0.003972337

C School B CSM41

440 25 90.5 6.1 96.4 29.8 66.2 46.2 0.072354 0.004273441

C School C CSM42

1025 29 48.2 4.3 79.6 38.8 67.1 50 0.073179 0.005098227

MP MP17 Allen

(Guilford) 787 31.2 57.9 10.9 95.4 29.1 77.4 60.8 0.125492 --

C School A CSM43

627 28.5 69.4 8.3 95.2 37.5 66.8 50 0.121061 0.004431421

C School B CSM44

613 25.5 30.0 7.0 82.2 33.3 84.4 70.4 0.131537 0.006045233

C School C CSM45

242 36.3 88.0 7.0 99.2 20.8 66.7 44.6 0.121047 0.004445207

MP MP18 Aycock

(Guilford) 623 46.2 56.0 8.5 78.8 40.8 82.3 65.7 0.137441 --

C School A CSM46

1196 36.2 55.2 9.3 91.5 39.3 69.3 51.2 0.132715 0.004725553

C School B CS47

443 24.2 41.8 6.3 92.6 38.9 85.1 64.3 0.195547 0.058106015

121

MP or

Control

School Name &

LEA

05-06 Enroll-ment

05-06 1-Year

Teacher Turnover

Rate

05-06 %

Free Lunch

05-06 %

Reduced Lunch

05-06 %

Minority


Exper.

04-05 Perf.

Composite

05-06 Perf.

Composite

Propensity Score

Delta

C School C CSM48

735 30.9 43.0 6.4 97.0 20 87.8 59.5 0.162172 0.024731058

MP MP19 Jackson

(Guilford) 563 40 75.7 6.9 94.0 38.8 68.8 50 0.22749 --

C School A CSM49

574 46.3 77.2 8.0 87.1 53.7 83.5 63.2 0.236133 0.0086435

C School B CSM50

601 42.5 77.4 9.2 94.8 46 74.8 53.5 0.198832 0.028657742

C School C CSM51

840 48.1 53.7 11.0 91.5 30.4 69.9 53.4 0.204933 0.022556648

MP MP20 Hairston

(Guilford) 640 35 69.1 5.6 99.4 39.7 73 58.1 0.537933 --

C School A CSM52

677 38.1 83.0 6.8 99.4 40.4 71.1 50.1 0.28286 0.25507304

C School B CSM53

369 25 77.8 4.9 98.4 30.6 56.6 51.3 0.409804 0.128129033

C School C CSM54

258 51.7 74.4 11.2 97.3 30.8 64.6 49.2 0.29158 0.246353005

Note. Baseline data presented above is from the 2005-2006 academic year, one year prior to Mission Possible implementation, except for the 2004-05 Performance Composite. Mission Possible Schools are followed by their corresponding matched Comparison school. Data taken from NC ABCs, NCES, and North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, NC School Report Card Data Disc 2001-2007, version 10-3-07. Propensity scores calculated using SPSS version 16.0 and all matches were generated using the nearest neighbor approach.

122

HIGH SCHOOLS MP or

Control

School Name &

LEA

05-06 Enroll-ment

05-06 1-Year

Teacher Turnover

Rate

05-06 % Free Lunch

05-06 %

Reduced Lunch

05-06 %

Minority


Exper.

04-05 Perf.

Composite

05-06 Perf.

Composite

Propensity Score

Delta

MP MP21 Southern (Guilford) 955 25.7 34.7 8.4 50.3 27.3 58.3 61.4 0.018004 --

C School A CSH55 367 18.1 52.3 15.8 82.0 41.9 65.2 54.7 0.017105 0.000899

C School B CSH56 1159 12.6 44.8 7.2 73.3 40.3 62.5 55.7 0.020738 0.00273

C School C CSH57 2497 30.5 17.1 4.0 41.0 34.5 65.9 64 0.020824 0.00372

MP MP22 Eastern (Guilford) 975 27.2 41.5 6.2 55.6 41.8 57.5 62.3 0.232814 --

C School A CSH58 967 19.6 45.7 4.9 65.0 39.4 72.5 67.2 0.029957 0.202858

C School B CSH59 2347 17.8 39.7 7.5 83.1 31.6 53.4 60.8 0.060263 0.172552

C School C CSH60 1390 28.5 41.7 7.7 93.5 38.5 51.2 52.9 0.212151 0.020664

MP MP23 Middle College at Bennett (Guilford) 104 50 47.1 4.8 94.2 22.2 20.6 18.7 0.363189 --

C School A CSH61 666 23.8 77.6 4.5 98.6 29.3 37.2 34.9 0.22124 0.141949

C School B CSH62 1107 34.8 51.2 8.4 92.1 38 49.1 51.0 0.377821 0.01463

C School C CSH63 1780 24.5 64.2 7.2 98.0 30.3 37.1 40.4 0.242038 0.121151

MP MP24 High Point Central (Guilford) 1347 32 47.5 5.7 63.3 37.4 52.4 61.1 0.396349 --

C School A CSH64 435 33.3 53.6 14.0 94.9 33.3 46.4 46.5 0.152547 0.243803

C School B CSH65 1236 29 49.8 8.3 83.8 36 48.4 49.3 0.18719 0.209159

C School C CSH66 1390 28.5 41.7 7.7 93.5 38.5 51.2 52.9 0.212151 0.184199

MP MP25 Ben L Smith (Guilford) 1623 23.8 53.1 8.1 93.0 31.8 45.5 47.5 0.120415 --

C School A CSH67 1517 26.5 40.6 6.4 97.6 35.3 47.3 43.5 0.094229 0.026186

123

MP or

Control

School Name &

LEA

05-06 Enroll-ment

05-06 1-Year

Teacher Turnover

Rate

05-06 % Free Lunch

05-06 %

Reduced Lunch

05-06 %

Minority


Exper.

04-05 Perf.

Composite

05-06 Perf.

Composite

Propensity Score

Delta

C School B CSH68 1786 26.4 58.1 6.1 91.8 25.8 42.7 45.5 0.112604 0.00781

C School C CSH69 1776 18.8 53.7 7.6 79.6 37.6 47.9 48.0 0.117146 0.003269

MP MP26 Dudley (Guilford) 1704 33.3 55.3 5.8 99.2 39.2 50.9 51.7 0.450362 --

C School A CSH63 1780 24.5 64.2 7.2 98.0 30.3 37.1 40.4 0.242038 0.208323

C School B CSH62 1107 34.8 51.2 8.4 92.1 38 49.1 51.0 0.377821 0.07254

C School C CSH70 963 34.4 52.3 5.5 84.2 41.9 50.7 51.6 0.502993 0.05263

MP MP27 Middle College High at NC A&T (Guilford) 117 62.5 31.6 5.1 95.7 30 24.6 17.6 0.55857 --

C School A CSH70 963 34.4 52.3 5.5 84.2 41.9 50.7 51.6 0.502993 0.055576

C School B CSH62 1107 34.8 51.2 8.4 92.1 38 49.1 51.0 0.377821 0.180748

C School C CSH63 1780 24.5 64.2 7.2 98.0 30.3 37.1 40.4 0.242038 0.316531

MP MP28 T Wingate Andrews (Guilford) 1086 39.7 51.5 7.0 79.0 36.5 35.2 42.1 0.681208 --

C School A CSH63 1780 24.5 64.2 7.2 98.0 30.3 37.1 40.4 0.242038 0.439169

C School B CSH70 963 34.4 52.3 5.5 84.2 41.9 50.7 51.6 0.502993 0.178214

C School C CSH62 1107 34.8 51.2 8.4 92.1 38 49.1 51.0 0.377821 0.303386

Note. Baseline data presented above is from the 2005-2006 academic year, one year prior to Mission Possible implementation, except for the 2004-05 Performance Composite. Mission Possible Schools are followed by their corresponding matched Comparison school. Data taken from NC ABCs, NCES, and North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, NC School Report Card Data Disc 2001-2007, version 10-3-07. Propensity scores calculated using SPSS version 16.0 and all matches were generated using the nearest neighbor approach.

124

Appendix B-Independent Sample t-test Statistics for 2005-06 data Elementary Schools Group Statistics

Variable MP/Control N Mean Std. Deviation Percent of grade 3 reading ABC student scores at or above grade level-05-06

Control 34 67.859 9.7305

MP 13 62.908 10.5023Percent of grade 3 Math ABC student scores at or above grade level-05-06

Control 34 41.135 13.4425

MP 13 46.454 12.3303

Percent of grade 4 reading ABC student scores at or above grade level-05-06

Control 34 64.926 8.0206

MP 13 66.585 10.2679

Percent of grade 4 math ABC student scores at or above grade level-05-06

Control 34 39.959 10.7986

MP 13 39.931 11.0522


Control 33 76.279 9.4007

MP 13 74.346 9.6147


Control 33 38.515 12.1497

MP 13 37.092 12.0029

Percent of overall reading ABC student scores at or above grade level-05-06

Control 34 69.691 6.1957

MP 13 67.962 7.7392

Percent of overall math ABC student scores at or above grade level-05-06

Control 34 39.791 8.6372

MP 13 41.023 8.5849

Independent Samples Test

Variable t df Sig. (2-tailed) Percent of grade 3 reading ABC student scores at or above grade level-05-06 1.475 20.372 .156

Percent of grade 3 Math ABC student scores at or above grade level-05-06 -1.290 23.612 .210

Percent of grade 4 reading ABC student scores at or above grade level-05-06 -.524 17.898 .607

Percent of grade 4 math ABC student scores at or above grade level-05-06 .008 21.326 .994

Percent of grade 5 reading ABC student scores at or above grade level-05-06 .618 21.592 .543

Percent of grade 5 math ABC student scores at or above grade level-05-06 .361 22.281 .722

Percent of overall reading ABC student scores at or above grade level-05-06 .722 18.204 .479

Percent of overall math ABC student scores at or above grade level-05-06 -.439 21.894 .665

125

Middle Schools

Group Statistics

Variable MPControl N Mean Std. Deviation Percent of grade 6 reading ABC student scores at or above grade level-05-06

control 21 68.452 7.4013

MP 7 71.814 8.7496Percent of grade 6 math ABC student scores at or above grade level-05-06

control 21 41.462 9.2532

MP 7 45.200 8.8493


control 21 74.148 6.5135

MP 7 80.571 5.2810


control 21 40.438 9.8936

MP 7 42.771 6.0127


control 21 76.257 6.1102

MP 7 80.543 6.3403


control 21 43.243 10.8547

MP 7 45.100 9.6334


control 21 73.043 5.7942

MP 7 77.543 6.4148


control 21 41.795 8.9432

MP 7 44.357 6.9995


Variable t df Sig. (2-tailed)


-.913 9.05

.385


-.957

10.74

.360


-2.622 12.65

.022


-.744 17.45

.467


-1.563 10.00

.149


-.428 11.53

.677


-1.646 9.50

.132


-.779 13.14

.450

Note. Test statistic is for equal variances not assumed.

126

High Schools

Group Statistics

Variable MPControl N Mean Std. Deviation Percent of English ABC student scores at or above grade level-05-06

Control 15 70.793 7.1585

MP 8 64.037 10.7371

Percent of Algebra1 ABC student scores at or above grade level-05-06

Control 15 63.447 10.3075

MP 8 59.037 17.1460

Percent of Algebra2 ABC student scores at or above grade level-05-06

Control 15 63.100 14.0525

MP 8 51.413 31.6244

Percent of Geometry ABC student scores at or above grade level05-06

Control 15 37.153 15.3624

MP 8 33.613 20.1610

Percent of all students who passed ABC-05-06

Control 15 51.853 9.6713

MP 8 44.863 18.9730


Variable t df Sig. (2-tailed) Percent of English ABC student scores at or above grade level-05-06 1.600 10.419 .139

Percent of Algebra1 ABC student scores at or above grade level-05-06 .666 9.777 .521

Percent of Algebra2 ABC student scores at or above grade level-05-06 .994 8.505 .348

Percent of Geometry ABC student scores at or above grade level05-06 .434 11.457 .672

Percent of all students who passed ABC-05-06 .977 8.988 .354

127

Appendix P-2007-08 Incentive-Paid Personnel Turnover Data

Mission Possible Incentive-Paid Personnel Turnover in 2007-08


other MP school

*Resigned Transfer to non-MP School


Interim Contract-not

Rehired

Total Turnover Rate

by School

Total MP Personnel by

School


Bessemer 1 3 1 7 (25%) 28 Cone 2 2 (7%) 27

Fairview 4 1 1 6 (19%) 32 Falkener 7 3 10 (28%) 36

Foust 1 2 5 3 11 (46%) 24 Gillespie Park 1 1 1 3 (17%) 18

Hampton Academy 2 3 1 6 (29%) 21 Kirkman Park 1 2 3 (21%) 14

Oak Hill 4 4 (13%) 30 Parkview 3 2 3 8 (27%) 30

Union Hill 1 1 2 4 (19%) 21 Washington 1 2 3 (20%) 15

Wiley 4 2 1 2 9 (47%) 19 Elementary School

Totals 2 30 26 3 7 1 7 76 (24%) 315

Middle Schools N=7

Allen 1 2 2 1 2 8 (33%) 24 Aycock 2 7 2 1 2 14 (56%) 25 Ferndale 8 2 2 12 (50%) 24 Hairston 1 8 6 1 1 17 (61%) 28 Jackson 1 4 2 1 8 (36%) 22

Penn Griffin 2 1 1 4 (19%) 21 Welborn 6 1 7 (39%) 18


5 37 13 2 2 4 7 70 (43%) 162

High Schools N=10

128


other MP school

*Resigned Transfer to non-MP School


Interim Contract-not

Rehired

Total Turnover Rate

by School

Total MP Personnel by

School Academy at High

Point Central* 0 (0%) 3

Academy at Smith 1 1 (25%) 4 Andrews 1 1 2 (14%) 14 Dudley 1 4 2 7 (25%) 28

Eastern Guilford 1 2 3 (33%) 9 High Point Central 2 3 2 7 (30%) 23 Middle College at

Bennett 1 1 (20%) 5


1 1 1 3 (43%) 7

Smith 2 1 1 1 5 (19%) 26 Southern 1 1 1 1 4 (33%) 12

High School Totals 5 14 3 0 3 3 5 33 (25%) 131 Overall Turnover within MP Schools

12 of 608 (2.0%)

81 of 608 (13.3%)

42 of 608 (6.9%)

5 of 608 (0.8%)

12 of 608 (2.0%)

8 of 608 (1.3%)

19 of 608 (3.1%)

179 of 608 (29.4%)

608

Note. *Reasons for resignation are broken down in the subsequent table. Data were provided by the MP office. VIF is an acronym for Visiting International Faculty. The VIF faculty have a 3-year limit for teaching in the United States.

129

Reasons for MP Personnel Resigning from GCS in 2007-08 Schools Documented Reason for Resigning in 2007-08 School Year Accept

non- teaching position in Ed.

Go back to School


Teach in Other NC

District

Teach in

Other State

Health, person or

family related

Job Dissatisfaction

Teach in Non public

school

Total % of Turnover

Total Turnover


Bessemer 1 1 2 of 7 (29%)

7 (25%)

Cone 0 of 2 (0%) 2 (7%) Fairview 2 1 1 4 of 6

(67%) 6 (19%)

Falkener 1 1 2 1 5 of 10 (50%)

10 (28%)

Foust 1 1 2 of 11 (18%)

11 (46%)

Gillespie Park 1 1 of 3 (33%)

3 (17%)

Hampton Academy

1 1 2 of 6 (33%)

6 (29%)

Kirkman Park 1 1 of 3 (33%)

3 (21%)

Oak Hill 3 1 4 of 4 (100%)

4 (13%)

Parkview 1 2 3 of 8 (38%)

8 (27%)

Union Hill 1 1 of 4 (25%)

4 (19%)

Washington 1 1 of 3 (33%)

3 (20%)

Wiley 1 1 1 1 4 of 9 (44%)

9 (47%)

Elementary Totals

1 1 2 3 2 7 4 5 4 1 30 of 76 (39%)

76 (24%)

130



Go back to School


Teach in Other NC

District

Teach in

Other State

Health, person or

family related

Job Dissatisfaction

Teach in Non public

school

Total % of Turnover

Total Turnover

Middle Schools N=7

Allen 1 1 2 of 8 (25%)

8 (33%)

Aycock 2 1 1 2 1 7 of 14 (50%)

14 (56%)

Ferndale 1 2 2 1 2 8 of 12 (67%)

12 (50%)

Hairston 2 1 4 1 8 of 17 (47%)

17 (61%)

Jackson 1 1 2 4 of 8 (50%)

8 (36%)

Penn Griffin 1 1 2 of 4 (50%)

4 (19%)

Welborn 2 1 1 2 6 of 7 (86%)

7 (39%)


1 0 7 5 4 7 1 6 3 3 37 of 70 (53%)

70 (43%)

High Schools N=10

Academy at High Point Central*

0 (0%) 0 (0%)

Academy at Smith

0 of 1 (0%) 1 (25%)

Andrews 0 of 2 (0%) 2 (14%) Dudley 1 1 1 1 4 of 7

(57%) 7 (25%)

Eastern Guilford

1 1 2 of 3 (67%)

3 (33%)

High Point Central

1 1 1 3 of 7 (43%)

7 (30%)

Middle College at

1 1 of 1 (100%)

1 (20%)

131



Go back to School


Teach in Other NC

District

Teach in

Other State

Health, person or

family related

Job Dissatisfaction

Teach in Non public

school

Total % of Turnover

Total Turnover

Bennett Middle College at NC A&T

1 1 of 3 (33%)

3 (43%)

Smith 1 1 2 of 5 (40%)

5 (19%)

Southern 1 1 of 4 (25%)

4 (33%)

High School Totals

1 2 0 1 3 3 1 2 0 1 14 of 33 (42%)

33 (25%)

Overall Totals

3 of 179 (1.7%)

3 of 179 (1.7%)

9 of 179 (5%)

9 of 179 (5%)

9 of 179 (5%)

17 of 179 (9.5%)

6 of 179 (3.4%)

13 of 179 (7.3%)

7 of 179 (3.9%)

5 of 179 (2.8%)

81 of 179 (45.3%)

179 of 608 (29.4%)

Note. Data provided by MP Office.

Download - GUILFORD COUNTY SCHOOLS MISSION POSSIBLE PROGRAM · GUILFORD COUNTY SCHOOLS MISSION POSSIBLE PROGRAM YEAR 3 (2008-09) EXTERNAL EVALUATION REPORT Executive Summary Introduction In

Top Related