edited sizemore conf eval report draft - duquesne university · ! 6! fortheevaluation...
TRANSCRIPT
"#$%&$'(#)!*)+,-'!!.-)+$-)/!012!!3-4!5)%6$!7',8)9!
:';!<==&$%!3-4!>$-0$-$!<4!7(?)@,-)!!7&@@)-!A,=B)-)=C)!$=/!<D$-/!A)-)@,=1!
E;)!*(6;'!',!$=!"FC)%%)='!"/&C$'(,=!B,-!$%%!A;(%/-)=2!3,!G)!5$#)!';)!G(%%H!
!I$1!JK!L!JMN!JOPQ!
!
2
Table of Contents Page
Introduction 5
Evaluation Procedures and Analysis 6
Evaluation Design 6
Data Collection 7
Survey Construction 7
Conference Promotion 8
Sampling for the Survey 8
Sampling for Conversational Interviews 9
Data Analysis 9
Survey Data Analysis 9
Qualitative Data Analysis 9
Potential Limitations of Evaluation Design and Implementation 9
Evaluation Findings 10
Promotion 10
Youth Conference 10
Quantitative Survey Results 11
Qualitative Survey Results 13
Field Notes 14
Conclusion 16
Main Sessions 16
Day 1: Opening Plenary Speaker: Dr. Paul Gorski 17
Quantitative Survey Results 17
Qualitative Survey Results 19
Day 1: A+ Schools -‐ Teen Block Panel 19
3
Quantitative Survey Results 20
Qualitative Survey Results 21
Day 2: Morning Plenary Speaker: Dr. Gloria Ladson-‐Billings 21
Quantitative Survey Results 22
Qualitative Survey Results 23
Day 2: Keynote Speaker: Dr. John Hodge 24
Quantitative Survey Results 24
Qualitative Survey Results 26
Day 2 Panel: "What Does Excellence Mean to You?" 26
Quantitative Survey Results 27
Qualitative Survey Results 28
Conclusion – Main Sessions 28
Day 2: Concurrent Workshops 29
Findings for All Workshops 29
Quantitative Data for All Workshops Combined 30
Return Rate of Individual Workshop Surveys 31
Findings by Individual Workshop 33
Classroom Management for Middle School Educators 33
Classroom Management for Pre-‐K -‐ 5th Grade Educators 34
Culturally Responsive Education 35
Differential Instruction 36
Ease on Down to Equity 37
Filling the Opportunity Gap … -‐ Global Learning 38
Partnering with Parents 39
Science, Technology, Engineering and Math 40
Student Centered Learning 41
4
The Poverty Simulation Experience 42
Trauma & Mental Illness 43
Conclusion – Workshop Findings 43
Findings from Informal Conversations 44
Analysis and Recommendations 45
Recommendations from Surveys and Conversations 46
Appendices Appendix A: Conference Program Appendix B: Youth Survey Appendix C: Main Sessions and Workshop Surveys Appendix D: Frequency Distribution – Workshop Survey Data
5
Introduction
The Duquesne University School of Education and the Barbara A. Sizemore Urban
Education Initiative hosted the 6th Annual Dr. Barbara A. Sizemore Summer Conference on
May 27 and 28, 2015. The Right to an Excellent Education for All Children: Do We Have the
Will? was the theme of the conference.
The conference encapsulates the Barbara A. Sizemore initiative:
The Sizemore Initiative and Duquesne University’s School of Education aspire to
succeed in linking the Spirit and tradition of caring, concern and respect for the God-‐
given freedom and dignity of every human being, “particularly the poor, the
forgotten, and the marginalized,” to innovations in urban education inspired by the
vision of Barbara Sizemore. We focus on closing the gap and on addressing issues of
equity, excellence and social justice for students from all backgrounds, languages
and cultures through education and research conducted at Duquesne University
School of Education.1
The conference highlights this initiative in a yearly event. This year’s conference brought
together Duquesne University faculty and administrators from the School of Education,
teachers and administrators from Pittsburgh area schools, high school students and
community members engaged in educational improvement through non-‐profit agencies or
as volunteers. Presentations and workshops focused on equity and social justice in
education, which were addressed through practical, theoretical and experiential
contributions. The conference featured five plenary sessions, three of them with individual
speakers, and two panels.2 In addition, eleven consecutive workshop sessions and the
inaugural youth conference were held.
1 Spiritan Tradition & the Barbara A. Sizemore Initiative. Accessible at: http://www.duq.edu/academics/schools/education/barbara-‐a-‐sizemore-‐urban-‐education-‐initiative/spiritan-‐tradition-‐and-‐the-‐sizemore-‐initiative 2 See Appendix A, conference program
6
For the evaluation, an independent evaluator was engaged to ascertain the participants’
perceptions of the various conference sessions as indicated by the session quality and
relevance for urban education, social justice and participants’ work. Duquesne University
students and staff supported the data gathering process by distributing and collecting
surveys during the conference. A graduate student in the evaluation program supported
the processing of workshop data.
Evaluation Procedures and Analysis
Evaluation Design
The evaluation design, particularly that of the survey instruments, was developed in close
collaboration with conference organizers. The design was informed by the goals of the
conference and the evaluation’s purpose. The evaluation’s purpose was to gauge
participants’ perception of the quality of the various sessions, appropriateness for urban
education and social justice and the usefulness of those sessions for their work. These data
will be used to inform future conference designs.
The evaluation employed mixed methods. Surveys were designed to collect quantitative
and qualitative data. The surveys had agreement options on a scale from “1” to “4” for each
statement and a space for open-‐ended comments. Each individual session was surveyed
separately.
In addition to the comment box on the surveys, other qualitative data were collected
through:
− Informal conversations with conference participants. They were asked how they foresee themselves implementing practical changes at their places of work or studies based on this conference experience.
− Participant observations at the youth conference.
The evaluator was able to attend all sessions except the panels, which were reviewed
afterwards using video recordings.
7
Data Collection
Survey Construction The surveys contained statements to be agreed or not agreed with on a scale from one to
four, with one meaning strongly disagree and four strongly agree. The surveys did not
contain a neutral option. Surveys were vetted with conference organizers and sponsors3.
The key statements focused on:
Individual session quality indicated by:
− Overall Quality
− Session Organization
− Supporting Materials
Relevance for the conference topic and for participants indicated by:
− Relevance for Urban Education
− Relevance for Social Justice in Education
− Relevance for Participants’ Work
Speaker, facilitator or panelist skills indicated by:
− Connecting with Audience
− Engaging Participants
− Responding to Questions
An open comment box on each survey allowed survey takers to add any comments they
wished to give.
3 See Appendices B and C for surveys
8
Conference Promotion
Upon registration, participants chose from a drop-‐down menu by what means they learned
about the conference. Those who registered on site were given a paper-‐based survey sheet
with the same categories as the drop-‐down menu. These data were provided by conference
organizers to be included in this report and will be used for promoting next year’s
conference.
Sampling for the Survey
Conference participants were invited to complete the paper-‐based surveys at each session.
All (100%) conference participants are therefore included and had the option to
participate. The following rate of return was achieved based on registration numbers, not
based on actual people in the audience: Table 1: Survey Participation Rates
Session
Registered Attendees/
Estimated People in Audience4
Number of Surveys Received
Return Rate in Percentage Based on
Registration/ Estimated Attendance
Day 1 Youth Conference 150/150 93 62%/62%
Day 1 Opening Plenary Speaker: Dr. Paul Gorski 250/70 45 18%/64%
Day 1 A+ Schools -‐ Teen Block Panel 250/70 37 15%/53%
Day 2 Plenary Speaker: Dr. Gloria Ladson Billings 250/250 75 30%/30%
Day 2 Concurrent Workshops 193/193 108 56%/56%
Day 2 Dr. John Hodge, President, Urban Learning and Leadership Center
250/250 75 30%/30%
Day 2 What Does Excellence Mean to You?" Panel 250/250 59 24%/24%
4 The actual attendance at each session varied from the overall conference registration. Based on a visual scan of the conference room on Day 1, it is estimated that approximately 70 people were present with some leaving after the opening speech. Day 2 attendance is estimated to be close to the registered numbers. Youth conference and workshop attendance are also estimated to closely match registration numbers.
9
The paper-‐based surveys were distributed and collected by a team of graduate students
and the School of Education staff and evaluator. At the main conference surveys were left
on tables or chairs, depending on room set up. For the workshops, a set of survey copies
was given to the facilitator for distribution before the beginning of the workshop and
collected by the support team afterwards.
Sampling for Conversational Interviews
A convenience sample of ten conversational interviews was achieved during the main
conference and took place towards the end of Day 2 during the lunch break and at the
closing of the conference. If consent was given, the brief interviews were recorded.
Data Analysis
Survey Data Analysis
Quantitative data from the paper-‐based surveys were entered into an Excel workbook.
Analysis was conducted with the use of descriptive statistics.
Qualitative Data Analysis
The qualitative data collected from the open-‐ended survey comments and interviews were
classified and sorted by emerging themes. Field notes were used to describe the context.
Potential Limitations of Evaluation Design and Implementation
Much care was taken by conference organizers and support team to achieve a high rate of
return for the surveys. For the youth conference and workshops the rate was over the
aspired-‐to 50% mark. For day 2 plenary speakers the response rate is estimated at 30%
based on registration. It was lower for the panels. The day 1 response rate for the plenary
speaker would be at approximately 64%, based on estimated audience size, but is at 18%
based on conference registration.
Survey results are always dependent on the care and thought survey takers put into the
completion of the surveys. If the survey taker circled the same number for all statements, it
10
has to be questioned if survey takers gave the issues enough thought. Open-‐ended
comments and participant observations were used in verifying such trends.
Evaluation Findings
Promotion
The following categories were available on the drop-‐down menu integrated in the
registration web page, seen here with the number of participants who learned about the
conference through the respective medium: Table 2a: Promotion
Newspaper Advertisement
Previous Conference Attendance
Promotional Flyer Website Word of
Mouth Other
2 71 12 14 69 59
The “other” category could be further broken down into the following major sub-‐categories
using the specific comments: Table 2b: Promotion
E-‐mail At Work Personal Connection Invitation Facebook Web Search
13 28 12 3 1 1
Clearly, Previous Conference Attendance had the greatest impact on current attendance,
followed by Word of Mouth. All but two sub-‐categories resemble the Word of Mouth
category if personalized electronic messages are defined as such.
Youth Conference
The youth conference was an inaugural conference, held for the first time in connection
with the 6th Annual Dr. Barbara A. Sizemore Summer Conference. It was by invitation only.
Approximately 150 high school students from the following schools attended:
11
Table 3: Youth Conference Attendance
School Approximate Number of Students
Imani Christian Academy 40
Propel St. Andrews 45
Obama International Academy 6
Brashear Teaching Academy 25
Westinghouse High School 30
All schools are high diversity schools. For example, Brashear High School has 491 (36%)
students identified as African American; Obama 6-‐12 has 676 (73%) students identified as
African American and at Westinghouse 6-‐12, 492 (95%) of the student population are
African American5. The participants in the room reflected the schools’ demographics.
The program featured Dr. Christopher Emdin, Associate Professor in the Department of
Mathematics, Science and Technology at Columbia University, and Mr. Jabari Johnson,
Columbia University B.A.T.T.L.E.S.6 winner. The focus of the session was on the integration
of science and hip-‐hop music so that urban youth might better feel their familiar cultural
expressions related to academic achievement, especially in science fields.
Quantitative Survey Results
The survey statements for the youth conference varied slightly from the main session, in
order to be appropriate for the topic and audience, but inquired about the same major
themes. Overall, the response rate was 62%. The mean results for all statements ranged
between three and four on a scale of one to four with one being “strongly disagree” and
four signifying “strongly agree.” A neutral option was not included in order to encourage
survey participants to make opinionated choices.
5 Demographics found at the website of Pittsburgh Public Schools, at: http://www.discoverpps.org/brashear for Brashear http://www.discoverpps.org/obama for Obama http://www.discoverpps.org/westinghouse for Westinghouse 6 Science Genius B.A.T.T.L.E.S. (Bring Attention to Transforming Teaching, Learning and Engagement Science) is an initiative that is focused on utilizing the power of hip-‐hop music and culture to introduce youth to the wonder and beauty of science. http://chrisemdin.com/science-‐genius/
12
The graph below illustrates the mean for each statement. Overall the results show a high
satisfaction with the session. The mean varied between 3.28 for “The inclusion of the arts
inspired me to learn more science” to 3.68 for “The speakers answered questions in a
comprehensible and clear manner.” The mode for all but one statement is 4. The statement
“Supporting materials such as visuals and handouts helped my learning” had a mode of 3.
Standard deviation was low for all statements with an average standard deviation of 0.64.
Overall scores were close to the mean.
Table 4: Youth Conference N=93; survey scale: 1-‐4, with 1=strongly disagree and 4=strongly agree
Criterion Mean Median Mode SD
I enjoyed this conference. 3.65 4 4 0.56
The presentation was organized and clear. 3.66 4 4 0.62
The speakers connected well with students. 3.63 4 4 0.60
The speakers were skillful in stimulating discussions. 3.64 4 4 0.59
The speakers answered questions in a clear manner. 3.68 4 4 0.53
This presentation was useful for my school work. 3.47 4 4 0.72
This presentation was useful for my future educational plan(s). 3.53 4 4 0.66
This presentation was useful for my future career plan(s). 3.43 3 4 0.65
Supporting materials (visuals and handouts) helped my learning. 3.35 3 3 0.62
The inclusion of the arts inspired me to learn more science. 3.28 3 4 0.78
The information tables helped to learn about different options. 3.41 4 4 0.71
,.!
S(6&-)!P!T,&';!A,=B)-)=C)!7&-#)1!*)9&%'92!I)$=U7'$')@)='!
;"24.,2,.$%'!"#$%&'?%+"4,+''
Y5!$77`!",!B>\\&5K?!a&8&!W><5I!65!KC&!48>Z6I&I!B>\\&5K
14
Audience reactions during the talk confirmed Dr. Emdin’s connection and recognition of
personal experiences in his talk. Dr. Emdin inspired students to do more, as this comment
illustrates: “This really inspired me to do more & grow instead of sitting on my butt and not
doing anything. I will/know I am more & will do more!!”
Towards the end of the talk, Dr. Emdin expressed the hope of being able to come back to
Pittsburgh and do more work, as one student referred to in the comment: “Looking forward
to how Dr. Emdin and Jabari can help students here in Pittsburgh, Obama especially.”
Field Notes
Upon arrival at the Power Center, I [this evaluator] met a group of students from the
Brashear Teaching Academy. They are participating in the Duquesne teacher pipeline
program. The students were exited about their participation. They had designed T-‐shirts
that illustrated Barbara Sizemore's teachings with a quote by her:
“I think it is progressive to expect that a poor child can learn and to have high
expectations and outcomes to match them.”
Conversation turned towards the timing of the conference and how it unfortunately
conflicts with standardized testing. The group’s accompanying teacher had to assuage
some of her colleagues’ fears. They were concerned about letting students leave for a day
because they had to review for a test and worried in case low test scores should reflect
badly on them as teachers.
The room had filled with about 150 students from the participating schools. The
overwhelming majority of students were African American.
After a welcome, Dr. Judith Griggs presented briefly on the legacy of African American
leaders such as Maya Angelou and Malcolm X and left students with some advice. Overall,
the students in the audience looked focused and attentive. There was no interaction
beyond a couple of questions.
15
Dr. Emdin opened his session with two questions. First, Who wants a speech? One student
raised his hand. Next, Who wants a conversation? All applauded.
Dr. Emdin related experiences from his personal journey as a rapper and scientist, gave
historical examples of African Americans who had little or no formal schooling but were
really outstanding scientists and mathematicians. He emphasized how one can create
combined or hybrid identities by bringing out all that one is and not hiding one’s identities
in order to live up to perceived expectations.
Students showed a high level of engagement. Frequently, students voiced agreement in
various ways though applause or other expressions (“Yeah…,” “That’s right…,” etc.). During
a question and answer segment they readily came up to the microphone to ask questions
and participated in the science rap practice with Mr. Jabari Johnson. Male students
participated without hesitation when asked to join the rapping practice on stage. Dr. Emdin
encouraged the female students to come up to but it took the initiative of one school
principal to break through this gender barrier and get them to perform a rap.
After the session I had the opportunity to converse with some students, mostly in small
groups, and asked in what ways they see themselves using the messages they heard that
morning in their studies and for shaping future plans.
Three students related that it made them think about their studies and college and plan
more for the future. Four others commented that it influenced them in changing their
mindset. They also wanted to affect changes in school. They commented that it begins with
changing one's own mindset and then it can be taken into the school to affect changes. The
speaker’s elaboration on a hybrid identity and combining interests had the attention of two
students. One of them is interested in combining law and journalism. A student (from
Brashear) who is currently participating in the Sizemore teacher pipeline said it made her
think about teaching and how one can bring out the talents of children. She reflected that it
makes for better assessment if children have choices in demonstrating what they learned. A
Westinghouse student will use the messages from the talk to become more engaged and
16
approach teachers to converse about what would help her to do so. A student from the
Propel Charter School commented that Chris Emdin was really engaging and related to
them. When hearing the first speaker, she was worried that it would be another conference
where someone just spoke to them, but she really liked Chris.
One student expressed the desire to her teacher to have more of an opportunity to mix with
students from other schools, possibly to have some structured group work where students
can collaborate.
Conclusion
Survey results, comments, observations and brief conversations combined show that the
youth conference was successful and highly appreciated by participants. The high level of
engagement was clearly visible in the room. The presenters obviously managed to reach
the 150 high school students and connected to their experiences and aspirations.
Main Sessions
Five main sessions were surveyed: three speeches by individual speakers and two panel
presentations. Survey results, both quantitative and qualitative, are described by session in
chronological order. The evaluator had the benefit of attending all three speeches by
individual speakers and is therefore familiar with the context. Survey results are
summarized by mean, median, mode and standard deviation. Charts compare the mean of
each individual statement. The statements on each chart are abbreviated as follows:
17
Table 5: Survey Item Abbreviations
Survey Item Abbreviation
The overall quality of the presentation was high. QualityHigh
The presentation was well organized. WellOrganized
The supporting materials (e.g. visuals, handouts) helped my learning. MatHelpLearn
The presentation was relevant for urban education. RelUrbanEd
The presentation was relevant for social justice in education. RelSocJustEd
The presentation was relevant for my work. RelWork
The speaker connected well with the audience. Connect
The speaker showed skill in engaging participants in discussions. Engage
The overall quality of the presentation was high. AnswersClear
Day 1: Opening Plenary Speaker: Dr. Paul Gorski, George Mason University
Dr. Paul Gorski, Associate Professor at George Mason University, gave the opening speech.
Surveys with open-‐ended comments were distributed before the speech began and
collected after both day 1 sessions ended.
Quantitative Survey Results
A total of 45 surveys for Dr. Gorski’s session were returned. With an approximate actual
attendance of 70 people on day 1, that constitutes 64% of the people in the room. The
survey takers identified themselves with the following roles:
− Teachers (19) − Administrators (2) − Students (10) − Others (10) − Role Not Marked (4)
Survey statements addressed quality, relevance for various aspects of education and
speaker skills. Survey statements are listed verbatim in the table summarizing the results.
On a scale of 1-‐4, with one equaling “Strongly disagree” and four “Strongly agree,” the mean
for all statements is above 3.5. Standard deviation is small, which means that answers are
close to the mean. No outliers contrary to the trends in the data set existed.
,*!
E$[7&!(!2!#$<7!=>8?:6`!h<$5K6K$K6Z&!9<8Z&1!X&?<7K?![1!9<8Z&1!9K$K&\&5K!mn/'l!?<8Z&1!?B$7&2!,D/`!a6KC!,n?K8>5%71!I6?$%8&&!$5I!/n?K8>5%71!$%8&&!
A-(')-(,=! I)$=! I)/($=! I,/)! 73!
EC&!>Z&8$77!]<$76K1!>W!KC&!48&?&5K$K6>5!a$?!C6%C;! .;))! /! /! -;/*!
EC&!48&?&5K$K6>5!a$?!a&77!>8%$56_&I;! .;),! /! /! -;',!
EC&!?<44>8K65%!\$K&86$7?!i&;%;!Z6?<$7?`!C$5I><K?k!C&74&I!\1!7&$8565%;! .;(,! /! /! -;("!
EC&!48&?&5K$K6>5!a$?!8&7&Z$5K!W>8!<8[$5!&I<B$K6>5;! .;*/! /! /! -;.)!
EC&!48&?&5K$K6>5!a$?!8&7&Z$5K!W>8!?>B6$7!e<?K6B&!65!&I<B$K6>5;! .;*/! /! /! -;/*!
EC&!48&?&5K$K6>5!a$?!8&7&Z$5K!W>8!\1!a>8:;! .;*! /! /! -;'+!
EC&!?4&$:&8!B>55&BK&I!a&77!a6KC!KC&!$<I6&5B&; .;(( / / -;(-
EC&!?4&$:&8!?C>a&I!?:677!65!&5%$%65%!4$8K6B64$5K?!65!I6?B<??6>5?;! .;'.! /! /! -;),!
EC&!?4&$:&8!$5?a&8&I!]<&?K6>5?!65!$!B>\48&C&5?6[7&!$5I!B7&$8!\$55&8;! .;*"! /! /! -;'-!
EC&!%8$4C
19
Qualitative Survey Results
Sixteen survey takers added comments with all but two of them unhesitatingly positive.
Eight comments are of general praise and include descriptors such as “passionate,”
“commanding,” “vulnerable,” “amazing,” “thought provoking,” and “excellent.”
The other eight comments included references to the content or suggestions. In his talk,
Gorski discussed the conditions that create marginalization, which was alluded to by one
teacher: “I feel inspired to become more informed so I can inform.” Another teacher asked,
“So how do we get equity in underprivileged schools?” A faculty emeritus commented on
the stance Gorski takes on diversity: “Excellent introduction to conference. He challenged
and informed us. I appreciate how he carefully defined and clarified the emerging
terminology related to equity.” A student challenged this stance, because “…although White
in color, my relatives were discriminated against upon arrival in the US” and asked, “Why
leave out European Americans? Diversity encompasses all people of all cultural
backgrounds and cultures.” A teacher found Gorski to be an excellent speaker but did not
agree with some of his views, which the teacher described as “extremely left wing and
liberal.” Another teacher stated that, “Dr. Gorski gave me a lot to think about,” and an
education professor found that, “His message was great and he actually gave practical
suggestions.” One teacher who called the talk “awesome,” asked that he “come talk to
everyone in Pittsburgh Public Schools!”
Day 1: A+ Schools -‐ Teen Block Panel, Facilitator: Mrs. Pam Littlepoole, Teen Block
Coordinator
The teen block panel featured four high school students from various Pittsburgh Public
Schools. They discussed their own school experience and issues surrounding education.
They shared their definition of excellence in education and what an excellent education
should include.
20
Quantitative Survey Results
The panel followed Dr. Gorski’s talk on the evening of day 1. Thirty-‐seven surveys for the
A+ Schools -‐ Teen Block Panel were returned, which is slightly lower compared to the
Gorski talk. Both surveys were on the same sheet, but eight survey sheets did not have
completed surveys pertaining to the panel. Again, based on an estimated attendance of 70
people on day 1, that constitutes 53% of the people in the room. Roles of survey takers are:
− Teachers (15) − Administrators (1) − Students (8) − Others (11) − Role Not Marked (2)
Survey statements follow the same pattern as those for individual speakers, with minor
adjustments to make them suitable for a panel scenario. Survey statements are listed
verbatim in the table summarizing the results. The mean for the statements is at or above
3.5. Standard deviation is small, which means that answers were close to the mean. No
outliers contrary to the trends in the data set existed.
Table 7: A+ Schools -‐ Teen Block Panel Quantitative Survey Results by Survey Statement N= 37; survey scale: 1-‐4, with 1=strongly disagree and 4=strongly agree
Criteria Mean Median Mode SD
The overall quality of the panel was high. 3.92 4 4 0.28
The panel was well organized. 3.86 4 4 0.35
The supporting materials (e.g. visuals, handouts) helped my learning. 3.5 4 4 0.83
The content was relevant for urban education. 3.89 4 4 0.31
The content was relevant for social justice in education. 3.86 4 4 0.35
The content was relevant for my work. 3.96 4 4 0.62
The panelists connected well with the audience. 3.78 4 4 0.42
The facilitator showed skill in engaging participants in discussions. 3.86 4 4 0.36
The panelists answered questions in a comprehensible and clear manner. 3.89 4 4 0.31
",!
EC&!%8$4C
22
no matter what a child’s background is, should be practiced. Participants’ views of the
presentation are summarized here.
Quantitative Survey Results
A total of 75 surveys for Dr. Ladson-‐Billings’ session were returned. With an estimated
presence of 250 people on day 2, that constitutes 30% of the people in the room. Roles are
identified as such:
− Teachers (35) (two marked both “teacher” and “administrator”) − Administrators (6) (not counting the two who also identified as teacher) − Students (13) − Others (16) − Role Not Marked (5)
As seen in the result summaries, the mean for each statement is high, at a minimum of 3.82
on a scale form 1-‐4. Standard deviation is very small, which means answers are close to the
mean. No outliers contrary to the trends in the data set existed. One survey taker marked
all items with a 4+. No outliers contrary to the trends in the data set existed.
Table 8: Gloria Ladson Billings, Quantitative Survey Results by Survey Statement N= 75; survey scale: 1-‐4, with 1=strongly disagree and 4=strongly agree
Criterion Mean Median Mode SD
The overall quality of the presentation was high. 3.92 4 4 0.27
The presentation was well organized. 3.89 4 4 0.31
The supporting materials (e.g. visuals, handouts) helped my learning. 3.82 4 4 0.42
The presentation was relevant for urban education. 3.96 4 4 0.20
The presentation was relevant for social justice in education. 3.89 4 4 0.31
The presentation was relevant for my work. 3.88 4 4 0.33
The speaker connected well with the audience. 3.91 4 4 0.29
The speaker showed skill in engaging participants in discussions. 3.83 4 4 0.45
The speaker answered questions in a comprehensible and clear manner. 3.89 4 4 0.31
".!
@!B7>?&8!7>>:!$K!&$BC!65I6Z6I<$7!?K$K&\&5K!65!B>\4$86?>5!?C>a?!KC$K!?<44>8K65%!\$K&86$7?!
$5I!&5%$%65%!4$8K6B64$5K?!8&B&6Z&I!?76%CK71!7>a&8!?B>8&?`!aC67&!8&7&Z$5B&!W>8!<8[$5!
&I<B$K6>5!C$?!KC&!C6%C&?K!?B>8&?;!F<K!$%$65`!$77!$8&!$[>Z&!.;*"!$5I`!KC&8&W>8&`!C6%C!>5!$!
?B$7&!W8>\!,D/;!
S(6&-)!V2!.%)=$-1!7+)$8)-!3-4
24
several new things (resources) that will support my practice. I’m on board with mindset
change.” Some emphasized the new ideas offered: “Great presentation –fresh and new
ideas about topic. I learned a lot” (Student). One teacher wished “… I would have been a
more adamant follower of her work and contribution to education.” The overall sentiments
of the comments are summed up by this comment: “Wonderful – she engaged us with
research and practical practices and examples for future teaching, research, PD, etc. Made
her work accessible to all [in] attendance” (Professor, Higher Education).
Day 2: Keynote Speaker: Dr. John Hodge, President, Urban Learning and Leadership Center
Dr. Hodge spoke from his personal life experience and demonstrated with examples how
one teacher can make a difference in a child’s life.
Quantitative Survey Results
A total of 75 surveys for Dr. John Hodge’s session were returned. With an estimated
presence of 250 people on day 2, that constitutes 30% of the people in the room. Roles of
survey takers are:
− Teachers (30) − Administrators (5) − Students (9) − Others (21) − Role Not Marked (10)
The mean for each statement is high, at a minimum of 3.93 on a scale from 1-‐4. Standard
deviation is very small, which means answers are close to the mean. No outliers contrary to
the trends in the data set existed.
"'!
E$[7&!!+2!L>C5!M>I%&`!h<$5K6K$K6Z&!9<8Z&1!X&?<7K?![1!9<8Z&1!9K$K&\&5K!mn!)'l!?<8Z&1!?B$7&2!,D/!a6KC!,n?K8>5%71!I6?$%8&&!$5I!/n?K8>5%71!$%8&&!
A-(')-(,=! I)$=! I)/($=! I,/)! 73!
EC&!>Z&8$77!]<$76K1!>W!KC&!48&?&5K$K6>5!a$?!C6%C;! .;+'! /! /! -;"*!
EC&!48&?&5K$K6>5!a$?!a&77!>8%$56_&I; .;+'! /! /! -;".!
EC&!?<44>8K65%!\$K&86$7?!i&;%;!Z6?<$7?`!C$5I><K?k!C&74&I!\1!7&$8565%;! .;++! /! /! -;,"!
EC&!48&?&5K$K6>5!a$?!8&7&Z$5K!W>8!<8[$5!&I<B$K6>5;! .;+)! /! /! -;".!
EC&!48&?&5K$K6>5!a$?!8&7&Z$5K!W>8!?>B6$7!e<?K6B&!65!&I<B$K6>5;! .;+(! /! /! -;"(!
EC&!48&?&5K$K6>5!a$?!8&7&Z$5K!W>8!\1!a>8:;! .;+.! /! /! -;.-!
EC&!?4&$:&8!B>55&BK&I!a&77!a6KC!KC&!$<I6&5B&;! .;+)! /! /! -;,(!
EC&!?4&$:&8!?C>a&I!?:677!65!&5%$%65%!4$8K6B64$5K?!65!I6?B<??6>5?;! .;+'! /! /! -;"*!
EC&!?4&$:&8!$5?a&8&I!]<&?K6>5?!65!$!B>\48&C&5?6[7&!$5I!B7&$8!\$55&8;! .;+/! /! /! -;"/!
@!B>\4$86?>5!>W!65I6Z6I<$7!?K$K&\&5K?!?C>a?!KC$K!8&7&Z$5B1!W>8!a>8:!8&B&6Z&I!?76%CK71!
7>a&8!?B>8&?`!$5I!?<44>8K65%!\$K&86$7?!i#>a&8#>65K!?76I&?k!C$I!KC&!C6%C&?K!?B>8&?;!F<K!
$%$65`!$77!$8&!$[>Z&!.;+.!$5I`!KC&8&W>8&`!C6%C!>5!$!?B$7&!W8>\!,D/;!
S(6&-)!Q2!!"#$%&"'()"*+",'-,.'/%0$'1%23"2!!I)$=U7&-#)1!7'$')@)='!
.;+!.;+,!.;+"!.;+.!.;+/!.;+'!.;+(!.;+)!.;+*!.;++!
/!
26
Qualitative Survey Results
Altogether 36 comments were given, all but one positive. Twenty-‐four of the commentators
expressed general praise and appreciation. The descriptors used included “awesome,”
“excellent,” “powerful,” “engaging,” “inspirational,” “perspective-‐shifting,” “real-‐life,” “fun,”
and “sincere.” Five comments referred specifically to motivation, as one teacher expressed:
“Amazing presentation that makes me want to keep striving for greatness with my
students.” Going beyond the minimum expectation was also referred to in this comment: “It
was inspiring, passionate and a great way to teach educators or go beyond common core”
(Internship Coordinator). One survey taker found the presentation less useful:
“Unfortunately I found the presentation cliché. I did not acquire new knowledge that I
could apply to my role as an educator in an urban high school working with staff focused on
social justice” (Instruction & Learning Coach). The personal stories Dr. Hodge shared were
very much appreciated: “Dr. Hodge engaged us with his personal life stories. He showed us
that every child does have the potential to succeed and live their dreams! Excellent!!!”
(School Administrator). One teacher stated s/he related personally to the stories, while
another confirmed the sentiment by stating: “Excellent presentation! Truly inspiring.
Thank you. You remind me of the teacher who was ‘the One’ for me.” Two suggestions
asked for more time with Dr. Hodge and the opportunity to attend additional workshops.
Day 2 Panel: "What Does Excellence Mean to You?"
The panel consisted predominantly of local educators: Superintendent Thomas
Washington, Penn Hills School District; Dr. John Hodge, President, Urban Learning and
Leadership Center; Mrs. Debra Smallwood, Parent/Advocate; Superintendent Linda Lane,
Pittsburgh Public School District; Dr. Sandra Quiñones, Assistant Professor, Duquesne
University; and Panel Facilitator Dr. Jason Margolis, Duquesne University, Chair
Department of Instruction and Leadership. They discussed issues of excellence in education
by asking if the quest for equity and excellence is furthered or hindered by the testing and
accountability movement.
27
Quantitative Survey Results
A total of 58 surveys were returned for the panel session. With an estimated presence of
250 people on day 2, that constitutes 24% of the people in the room. The survey was on the
same sheet as the one for Dr. Hodge, but fewer of the participants completed it. Roles of
survey takers are:
− Teachers (23) − Administrators (4) − Students (8) − Others (15) − Role Not Marked (8)
As seen in the result summaries, the mean for each statement is at or above 3.36 on a scale
from 1-‐4. Standard deviation is again small, ranging between 0.56 and 0.73, which signifies
that answers are close to the mean. Table 10: Day 2 Panel, Quantitative Survey Results by Survey Statement N=58; survey scale: 1-‐4, with 1=strongly disagree and 4=strongly agree
Criteria Mean Median Mode SD
The overall quality of the panel was high. 3.52 4 4 0.6
The panel was well organized. 3.53 4 4 0.57
The supporting materials (e.g. visuals, handouts) helped my learning. 3.36 3.5 4 0.73
The content was relevant for urban education. 3.68 4 4 0.54
The content was relevant for social justice in education. 3.60 4 4 0.62
The content was relevant for my work. 3.58 4 4 0.65
The panelists connected well with the audience. 3.52 4 4 0.66
The facilitator showed skill in engaging participants in discussions. 3.60 4 4 0.56
The panelists answered questions in a comprehensible clear manner. 3.53 4 4 0.63
A comparison of individual statements shows that supporting materials received slightly
lower scores (3.36) and relevancy for urban education has the highest scores (3.68).
Overall quality, organization and connecting with audience are in the middle.
"*!
S(6&-)!:2!4*$"5'670*&'-%"8'9:;"55"$;"'<"*$'&%'=%>?62!!I)$=U7&-#)1!7'$')@)='!
;"24.,2,.$%'!"#$%&'?%+"4,+'
@7K>%&KC&8`!.(!B>\\&5K?!a&8&!%6Z&5;!V6Z&!B>\\&5K?!&Q48&??&I!%&5&8$7!48$6?&!a6KC!a>8I?!
?<BC!$?!c:5>a7&I%&$[7&`d!cC&74W<7`d!c%8&$Kd!$5I!c&5%$%65%;d!EC&!?4&B6W6B!8&\$8:?!%$Z&!
?<%%&?K6>5?!$5I!?>\&!B86K6]<&?;!35&!?<8Z&1!K$:&8!?K$K&I2!cY!a$?!5>K!6\48&??&I!a6KC!KC&!
4$5&7di5>!8>7&!%6Z&5k;!@5>KC&8!8&\$8:&I2!cY!8&$771!W&7K!5&<K8$7!$[><K!KC6?!&Q4&86&5B&!$5I!
KC$K![>KC&8?!\&;!EC&!B>\\&5K?!a&8&!KC>?&!KC$K!Y!$%8&&!a6KC`![<K!Y!I6I5bK!W&&7!B>\4&77&I!K>!
KC65:!$5I!$BK!>5!5&a!KC><%CK!48>Z>:65%!6I&$?d!iY5?K8<BK6>5!f!H&$8565%!T>$BCk;!EC&8&!a$?!
$448&B6$K6>5!W>8!>5&!?4&B6W6B!4$5&76?K2!cY!$448&B6$K&!KC&!4$8&5K!4>a&8!$IZ>B$K&d!iY5K&85?C64!
T>>8I65$K>8k;
9<%%&?K6>5?!$8&2!
! Y!a6?C!a&!C$I!\>8&!K6\&!K>!I6?B<??!KC&!]<&?K6>5;!i9K<I&5Kk!
! EC&8&!?C><7I!C$Z&
29
offer some insights regarding interests and concerns around education that are on peoples’
minds. The comments clearly indicate that the presenters all addressed important issues in
today’s education system and that the conference participants could relate to the content of
what was said.
Day 2: Concurrent Workshops
Findings for All Workshops
Eleven workshops were held on the morning of day 27, following the plenary speaker.
Twelve were originally planned but one had to be cancelled due to unforeseen
circumstances. A total of 108 surveys were collected for all workshops combined. With
registration numbers at 193, that is a return of 56%. The survey takers identified
themselves with the following roles:
− Teachers (38) − Administrators (12) − Students (9) − Others (24) − Role Not Marked (25)
The description of findings will first give summary survey numbers for all workshops
combined and then a brief data summary for each individual workshop, organized by mean
scores for each statement and open-‐ended comment. The survey items and chart
abbreviations are:
7 For a complete listing of workshop topic with descriptions see Appendix B, Workshop Themes
30
Table 11 : Chart Abbreviations
Survey Item Abbreviation
The overall quality of the workshop was high. QualityHigh
The workshop was well organized. WellOrganized
The supporting materials (e.g. visuals, handouts) helped my learning. MatHelpLearn
The workshop content was relevant for urban education. RelUrbanEd
The workshop content was relevant for social justice in education. RelSocJustEd
The workshop content was relevant for my work. RelWork
The facilitator connected well with the audience. FacConnect
The facilitator showed skill in engaging participants in discussions. FacEngage
The facilitator answered questions in a comprehensible and clear manner. FacQuClear
Quantitative Data for All Workshops Combined
The survey results for all workshops taken together show mean scores at or above 3.61,
with a standard deviation ranging from 0.38 to 0.63. The low value for standard deviation
shows that most data were close to the mean.
Table 12: Day 2 Concurrent Workshops, Quantitative Survey Results by Survey Statement N=108; survey scale: 1-‐4, with 1=strongly disagree and 4=strongly agree
Criteria Mean Median Mode SD
The overall quality of the workshop was high. 3.65 4 4 0.48
The workshop was well organized. 3.78 4 4 0.41
The supporting materials (e.g. visuals, handouts) helped my learning. 3.67 4 4 0.49
The workshop content was relevant for urban education. 3.65 4 4 0.57
The workshop content was relevant for social justice in education. 3.61 4 4 0.63
The workshop content was relevant for my work. 3.71 4 4 0.51
The facilitator connected well with the audience. 3.82 4 4 0.38
The facilitator showed skill in engaging participants in discussions. 3.69 4 4 0.52
The facilitator answered questions in a comprehensible clear manner. 3.76 4 4 0.45
A comparison of individual means for each survey statement seen in Fig. 7 shows that
connection with audience ranked high, while relevancy for social justice in education
ranked lowest, but still high overall. Social justice issues were pertinent to the topic of each
.,!
a>8:?C>4!65!Z&81!I6WW&8&5K!a$1?;!@5!$5$71?6?
32
Table 13: Return Rate of Surveys/Workshop
Workshop Name Registration Number
Surveys Received
Return in %
Classroom Management for Middle School Educators 4 3 75
Classroom Management for Pre-‐K -‐ 5th Grade Educators 9 10 111
Culturally Responsive Education: Uplift of African American Middle and High School Students Using Art and the Media
30 10 33
Differential Instruction: How to Effectively Engage All Learners at Different Levels in the Same Classroom 28 15 54
Ease on Down to Equity: Exploring Effort and Engagement in African American Males 30 14 47
Filling the Opportunity Gap for High School Students Through Global Learning 10 7 70
Partnering with Parents: How to Engage Parents as Equal Partners in Their Child's Education 18 10 56
Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM) Workshop for Educators 25 16 64
Student Centered Learning: A Motivating Approach to Learning and Knowledge Retention 13 13 100
The Poverty Simulation Experience 11 4 36
Trauma & Mental Illness 15 6 40
..!
@.*>.*5+'D&'7*>.$.>"24'B)#C+6)3'
(42++#))1'E2*25%1%*,'/)#'E.>>4%'!-6))4'=>"-2,)#+'
@!B>\4$86?>5!>W!KC&!\&$5!>W!65I6Z6I<$7!6K&\?!?C>a?!$5!<5<?<$7!$%8&&\&5K!65!
?<8Z&1!$5?a&8?;!@77!?K$K&\&5K?!8&B&6Z&I!KC&!C6%C&?K!?B>8&!4>??6[7&;!EC6?!6?
./!
(42++#))1'E2*25%1%*,'/)#'0#%FG'F'H,6'I#2>%'=>"-2,)#+''
EC&!?<8Z&1!8&?<7K?!65I6B$K&!KC$K!4$8K6B64$5K?!W><5I!KC&!a>8:?C>4!<?&W<7!W>8!KC&68!
a>8:!i.;/k!I&?46K&!KC&!B>\\&5K?!KC$K!6K!I6I!5>K!I68&BK71!8&7$K&!K>!B7$??8>>\!
\$5$%&\&5K;!EC&!6K&\!c8&7&Z$5K!W>8!?>B6$7!e<?K6B&d!65!&I<B$K6>5!8&B&6Z&I!KC&!7>a&?K!
?B>8&!i";*k;!EC&!C6%C&?K!?B>8&!a$?!$KK86[<K&I!K>!B>55&BK6>5!a6KC!KC&!$<I6&5B&!i.;*k;!
E$[7&!,'2!V65I65%?!W>8!(42++#))1'E2*25%1%*,'/)#'0#%FG'F'H,6'I#2>%'=>"-2,)#+''imn!,-k'
I)$=U7&-#)1!7'$')@)='! A,@@)='9!
!
7&66)9'(,=92!• H>5%&8!?&??6>5!W>8!\>8&!65DI&4KC
.'!
("4,"#244&'?%+3)*+.$%'=>"-2,.)*Q'V34./,')/':/#.-2*':1%#.-2*'E.>>4%'2*>'R.56'
!-6))4'!,">%*,+'V+.*5':#,'2*>',6%'E%>.2'
@77!\&$5!?B>8&?!$8&!$K!.;'!>8!C6%C&8;!EC&!K>46B!8&7$K&?!I68&BK71!K>!?>B6$7!e<?K6B&!$5I`!
5>K!?<8486?65%71`!KC&!?>B6$7!e<?K6B&!B$K&%>81!8&B&6Z&I!KC&!C6%C&?K!?B>8&!a6KC!.;+;!m>!
%&5&8$7!B>\\&5K?!a&8&!7&WK!>5!KC&!?<8Z&1?`!>571!?<%%&?K6>5?;!
E$[7&!,(2!V65I65%?!W>8!("4,"#244&'?%+3)*+.$%'=>"-2,.)*l!mn,-!
I)$=U7&-#)1!7'$')@)='! A,@@)='9!
!
!
7&66)9'(,=92!• 08;!#86&8!a$?!&5%$%65%`!KC><%CK!48>Z>:65%!
$5I!4>a&8W<7!a6KC!8&?4&BK!K>!B>5K&5K!$5I!48&?&5K$K6>5;!96?K&8!Y@?C$b?!>4&565%!$BK6Z6K1!a$?!\&$565%W<7`
.(!
9.//%#%*,.24'7*+,#"-,.)*Q'R)8',)'=//%-,.$%4&'=*525%':44'<%2#*%#+'2,'9.//%#%*,'
<%$%4+'.*',6%'!21%'(42++#))1'
G&$5!?B>8&?!W>8!$77!6K&\?!$8&!$K!>8!$[>Z&!.;/;!EC&!Ka>!C6%C&?K!$8&!W>8!>8%$56_$K6>5!
$5I!B7&$8!$5?a&865%!>W!]<&?K6>5?;!EC&!8&?<7K?!$7?>!65I6B$K&!?<[?K$5K6$7!8&7&Z$5B1!W>8!
a>8:;!9<%%&?K6>5?!8&4&$K&I71!8&]<&?K!\>8&!K6\&;!
E$[7&,)!2!V65I65%?!W>8!9.//%#%*,.24'7*+,#"-,.)*l!mn,'!
I)$=U7&-#)1!7'$')@)='! A,@@)='9!
'
7&66)9'(,=92!
• T>5?6I&8!$77!7&Z&7?!JD,";!!
• G>8&!K6\&!K>!&Q47>8&!K>46B?;!!
• Y!a><7I!76:&!K>!?&&!\>8&!K6\&!?4&5K!>5!KC6?!a>8:?C>4;!!
• E14&!@!A!E14&!F!>W!48&?&5K$K6>5!Z&81!&Z6I&5K;!!
• G>8&!K6\&!$77>KK&Io!!
• M$Z&!K&$BC&8!I6WW&8&5K6$K&!$!7&??>5!a6KC!W&&I[$B:!W8>\!1><;!!
• #>a&8!4>65K?!I>!5>K!B>41!a&77`!?>\&!B>7>8?!$8&!5>K!8&$I$[7&!65!4865K;!!
• YK!a$?!%8&$Ko!!
• 06Z&!65K>!KC&!?4&B6W6B!$5Ig>8
.)!
=2+%')*'9)8*',)'=J".,&Q'=O34)#.*5'=//)#,'2*>'=*525%1%*,'.*':/#.-2*''
:1%#.-2*'E24%+'
@77!\&$5!?B>8&?!$8&!$[>Z&!.;+"`!a6KC!W6Z&!>W!KC&\!$K!/;!EC&!B>\\&5K?!?<44>8K!KC&!
C6%C!?<8Z&1!?B>8&?!$5I!$8&!$77!Z&81!4>?6K6Z&;!!
E$[7&!,*2!V65I65%?!W>8!=2+%')*'9)8*',)'=J".,&l!mn,/!
I)$=U7&-#)1!7'$')@)=' A,@@)='9
'
7&66)9'(,=92!
• 0&4&5I65%!>5!K6\&`!?C>8K&5!&Z&81KC65%!?>!KC$K!a&!I>5bK!C$Z&!K>!B<K!KC&!I6?B<??6>5!?C>8K;!!
• 9C><7I![&!7>5%&8!
• @a&?>\&!48&?&5K$K6>5!!• G>8&!K6\&o!Y!&5e>1&I!KC&!KC65:`!4$68`!?C$8&;!Y!B$5!
C>5&?K71!?$1!KC&!"!W$B676K$K>8?!a&8&!>5!4>65K!$5I!8&7&Z$5K!K>!KC&!K>46Bo!=8&$K!O>8:'
X';)-!D,-89;,+9!1,&!D,&%/!%(8)!',!9))!,BB)-)/2!• G>8&!a>8:?C>4?!65!C&7465%!4$8&5K?!7&$85!C>a!
K>!$IZ>B$K&!W>8!KC&68!BC67I8&5;!!
• T<7K<8$771!B>55&BK65%!a6KC!1><8!?K<I&5K?;!!
• T>5K65<&I!I6?B<??6>5!>5!X$B6?\D!P$?&!>5!0>a5!4K;YY
X';)-!C,@@)='92!• PQB&77&5K`!>8%$56_&I!48&?&5K$K6>5!W>8!?<BC!$!
B>\47&Q!K>46B;!EC$5:!1><o!@7?>`!KC$5:?!W>8!B8&$K65%!$!?&5?&!>W!B>\\<56K1!a6KC!KC6?!?4$B&;!
!• EC6?!a>8:?C>4!a$?!4C&5>\&5$oo!Y!a><7I!7>Z&!
K>!?C$8&!KC6?!65W>!65!>KC&8!?BC>>7?!a6KC!>KC&8!K&$BC&8?;!!
• =>>I!8&?><8B&?!g!H6K&8$K<8&!K>!8&$Io!!
• Y!C$Z&!B>\47&K&I!B><8$%&><?!B>5Z&8?$K6>5?!I6Z&8?6K1!K8$6565%!D![<K!Y!7&$85&I!$!%8&$K!I&$7!\>8&!DEC$5:!1><o!!
• V$B676K$K>8?!a&8&!&QB&77&5K!$5I!65W>8\$7;!
• =8&$K!a>8:?C>4!D!P5%$%65%!D!F&5&W6B6$7!D!x&81!%>>I!]<&?K6>5?o!
.;**!.;+!
.;+"!
.;+/!
.;+(!
.;+*!/!
/;-"!
.*!
@.44.*5',6%'K33)#,"*.,&'I23'/)#'R.56'!-6))4'!,">%*,+'N6#)"56'I4)D24'<%2#*.*5'
G&$5!?B>8&?!$8&!$K!";*!>8!C6%C&8;!P5%$%65%!a6KC!4$8K6B64$5K?!8&B&6Z&I!KC&!7>a&?K!
?B>8&!i";*k;!O&77D>8%$56_&I!$5I!$5?a&865%!]<&?K6>5?!B7&$871!C$I!KC&!C6%C&?K!i.;'k;!
9>\&!<56]<&!6I&$?`!?<BC!$?!Z6I&>!B>5W&8&5B65%!a6KC!7&$85&8?!65!>KC&8!B><5K86&?`!
a&8&!$448&B6$K&I;!
E$[7&!,+!2!V65I65%?!W>[email protected].*5',6%'K33)#,"*.,&'I23Ll!mn)'
I)$=U7&-#)1!7'$')@)='! A,@@)='9!
'
7&66)9'(,=92!
• G>8&!65K&8$BK6>5;!!
• 3KC&8!>8%$56_$K6>5?!KC$K!48>Z6I&!%7>[$7!7&$8565%!>44>8K<56K6&?!?C><7I![&!65B7<I&I!$?!a&77;!
• 06I!5>K!C$Z&!$51!?<%%&?K6>5?;!O>8:?C>4!a$?!Z&81!65W>8\$K6Z&;!!!
• G$:&!KC6?!$!4$5&7!a6KC!7>B$7!K&$BC&8?g!?K<I&5K?!$5I!O>87I!$WW$68?!B><5B67;!
X';)-!D,-89;,+9!D,&%/!1,&!%(8)!',!9))!,BB)-)/2!• x&81!65K&8&?K&I!65!>[K$6565%!\>8&!65W>!>5!C>a!
K>!I>!Z6I&>!B>5W&8&5B65%!a6KC!B7$??8>>\!$[8>$I;!!
• =7>[$7!$WW$68?!W>8!K&$BC&8!&I<B$K6>5;!
X';)-!C,@@)='92!• EC$5:!1><`!1><!%$Z&!?>\&!8&$771!<56]<&!6I&$?!
KC$K!Y!B$5!?C$8&!a6KC!K&$BC&8?o!!
• x&81!65W>8\$K6Z&;!
'
-!-;'!
,!,;'!
"!";'!
.!.;'!
/!
.+!
02#,*%#.*5'8.,6'02#%*,+Q'R)8',)'=*525%'02#%*,+'2+'=J"24'02#,*%#+'.*'N6%.#'
(6.4>W+'=>"-2,.)*'
@77!\&$5!?B>8&?!$8&!$K!>8!$[>Z&!.;)`!a6KC!KC&!7>a&?K![&65%!W$B676K$K>8D$5?a&8&I!
]<&?K6>5?!B7&$871!$5I!KC&!C6%C&?K!i.;+k
/-!
!-.%*-%M'N%-6*)4)5&M'=*5.*%%#.*5'2*>'E2,6'X!N=EY'B)#C+6)3'/)#'=>"-2,)#+'
G&$5!?B>8&?!W>8!$77!6K&\?!$8&!$K!.;)!>8!$[>Z&`!a6KC!?<44>8K65%!\$K&86$7?!$K!KC&!7>a&8!
&5I!$5I!B>55&BK6>5?!a6KC!4$8K6B64$5K?!$5I!B7&$871!$5?a&865%!]<&?K6>5?!$K!KC&!C6%C&8!
&5I;!!T>\\&5K?!$8&!4>?6K6Z&!$5I!$!?<%%&?K6>5!6?!KC$K!BC67I8&5!B>\&!K>!KC&!48>%8$\!
$5I!?4&$:!>W!KC&68!&Q4&86&5B&;!!
E$[7&!",2!V65I65%?!W>8!!-.%*-%M'N%-6*)4)5&M'=*5.*%%#.*5'2*>'E2,6'X!N=EY'Ll!mn,('
I)$=U7&-#)1!7'$')@)='! A,@@)='9!
'
7&66)9'(,=92!
• X&$771!?K8>5%!\$KC!W>B<?`!aC6BC!Y!76:&I!$?!$!\$KC&\$K6B?!K&$BC&8!&I<B$K>8`
/,!
!,">%*,'(%*,%#%>'<%2#*.*5Q':'E),.$2,.*5':33#)2-6',)'<%2#*.*5'2*>''
G*)84%>5%'?%,%*,.)*'
G&$5!?B>8&?!$8&!$K!.;.!>8!$[>Z&`!a6KC!KC&!C6%C&?K![&65%!B>55&BK6>5!a6KC!KC&!
$<I6&5B&!$5I!KC&!7>a&?K!4&8K$6565%!K>!?>B6$7!e<?K6B&!65!&I<B$K6>5;!T>\\&5K?!$8&!
4>?6K6Z&!$5I!8&W&8!K>!48$BK6B$7!65?6%CK?!$5I!8&?><8B&?;!!9<%%&?K6>5?!W>B<?`!$\>5%!
>KC&8!KC><%CK?`!>5!\>8&!K6\&![&B$<?&!KC&8&!a$?!K>>!\<BC!B>5K&5K;!
E$[7&!""2!V65I65%?!W>8!!,">%*,'(%*,%#%>'<%2#*.*5'Ll!mn,.'
I)$=U7&-#)1!7'$')@)='! A,@@)='9!
'
7&66)9'(,=92!
• @!7>K!>W!B>5K&5K!65!?C>8K!K6\&;!!
• G>8&!I6Z&8?&`!$<KC>8?g!?><8B&?!iO>\&5`!4&>47&!>W!B>7>8`!&KB;k!
• E>>!\<BC!B>5K&5K!65!>5&!K6\&`!\>8&!I&&4&8!KC$5!]<$76K1`!>Z&8$77!%>>I;!
X';)-!D,-89;,+9!D,&%/!1,&!%(8)!',!9))!,BB)-)/2!• R><KCD7&I!a>8:?C>4!KC$K!?4&B6W6B$771!I&K$67?!
C>a!$I<7K?!B$5!&WW&BK6Z&71!4$8K5&8!$5I!?<44>8K!?K<I&5K?!KC$K!$8&!K8165%!K>!6\48>Z&!KC&68!&I<B$K6>5o!!
• =>>I!Z$86&K1!I6WW&8&5K!a>8:?C>4?!>WW&8&I;!
X';)-!C,@@)='92!• PQB&77&5K!8&?><8B&?;!!
• x&81!%8&$K!8&?><8B&?!K>!K$:&!C>\&;!!
• =>>I!a>8:`!KC65:!><K!KC&
/"!
N6%'0)$%#,&'!.1"42,.)*'=O3%#.%*-%'
EC&!\&$5!?B>8&?!W>8!$77!6K&\?!$8&!$K!.;'!>8!$[>Z&`!a6KC!W><8!6K&\?!?B>865%!$K!$5!&Z&5!
W><8;!EC>?&!W><8!$8&2!8&7&Z$5B1!W>8!<8[$5!&I<B$K6>5`!?>B6$7!e<?K6B&!65!&I<B$K6>5`!
a>8:`!$5I!B>55&BK6>5!a6KC!$<I6&5B&;!9<44>8K65%!\$K&86$7?`!&5%$%65%!4$8K6B64$5K?!
$5I!$5?a&865%!]<&?K6>5?!$8&!$K!KC&!7>a&8!&5I;!@\>5%!B>\\&5K?!$5I!?<%%&?K6>5?`!
KC&!8&]<&?K!W>8!$!8&$7!&Q4&86&5B&!>W!KC&!?6\<7$K6>5!I>\65$K&I;!
E$[7&!".2!V65I65%?!W>8!0)$%#,&'!.1"42,.)*'=O3%#.%*-%l!mn/'
I)$=U7&-#)1!7'$')@)='! A,@@)='9!
'
7&66)9'(,=92!
• F&65%!$[7&!K>!$77>B$K&!&5><%C!K6\&!K>!B>5I<BK!KC&!a>8:?C>4;!!
• E>>
/.!
N#2"12'P'E%*,24'744*%++'
EC&!\&$5!?B>8&?!W>8!$77![<K!>5&!6K&\!$8&!$K!.;*;!EC&!>571!&QB&4K6>5!6?!KC&!6K&\!W>8!
&5%$%65%!KC&!$<I6&5B&!i.;(k`!aC6BC!B><7I![&!?>\&aC$K!8&7$K&I!K>!KC&!8&]<&?K!W>8!
\>8&!K6\&;!EC&!>5&!B>\\&5K!I&?B86[&?!KC&!a>8:?C>4!$?!6\4$BKW<7;!!
E$[7&!"/2!V65I65%?!W>8!N#2"12'P'E%*,24'744*%++Z'mn('
I)$=U7&-#)1!7'$')@)='! A,@@)='9!
'
7&66)9'(,=92!
• G$1[&!\>8&!I6?B<??6>5!K6\&;!!
• G>8&!K6\&o!PQB&77&5Ko'
X';)-!D,-89;,+9!D,&%/!1,&!%(8)!',!9))!,BB)-)/2!• X&7$Q$K6>5!9K8$K&%6&?;'
X';)-!C,@@)='92!• YK!a$?!Z&81!6\4$BKW<7;'
()*-4"+.)*'U'B)#C+6)3'@.*>.*5+'
EC&!8&K<85!8$K&!W>8!?<8Z&1?!a$?!$BB&4K$[7&!W>8!\>?K!a>8:?C>4?;!V><8!$8&!$[>Z&!
)-j`!KC8&&![&Ka&&5!'-j!$5I!)-j`!$5I!W><8![&Ka&&5!..j!$5I!'-j;!iV>8!I&K$67?!
?&&!E$[7&!,.`!4;!."k;!35&!B$5!?$1!KC$K!KC&!W65I65%?!$8&!8&$?>5$[71!8&48&?&5K$K6Z&!>W!
KC&!>4656>5?!>W!KC&!\$e>86K1!>W!4$8K6B64$5K?;!O6KC!\&$5!?B>8&?!5&$871!B>5?6?K&5K71!
$[>Z&!.!$5I!\$51!$K!/`!6K!B$5![&!B>5B7<I&I!KC$K!KC&!a>8:?C>4?!a&8&!a&77!8&B&6Z&I!
$5I!8&$BC&I!KC&!65K&5I&I!%>$7?;!T>\\&5K?!$8&!$77!4>?6K6Z&!$5I!?<%%&?K6>5?!
B>5?K8<BK6Z&;!m>!><K76&8?!a&8&!I&K&BK&I;*!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*!V>8!76?K65%!>W!W8&]<&5B6&?!?&&!@44&5I6Q!!02!V8&]<&5B6&?!W>8!O>8:?C>4!9B>8&?!
.;'!.;''!.;(!
.;('!.;)!
.;)'!.;*!
.;*'!
44
Findings from Informal Conversations
Ten brief informal conversations took place towards the end of the conference.
Sampling was purely convenience. During the lunch break on day 2 and towards the
end of the last session, participants who milled around were approached and asked
if they agreed to share some takeaways from the conference. The conversations
were about concrete ideas respondents plan to implement at their schools. Nine of
the participants identified themselves as teachers. One was an international student.
Most respondents referenced the workshops they attended. Two, who attended the
global learning session, garnered new ideas. One of them found the strategy of video
conferencing with students in other countries very interesting and wanted to learn
more. The other saw these ideas fit nicely with a move towards more project-‐based
learning at his/her school and plans to share ideas with colleagues.
Other respondents also plan on sharing ideas with colleagues and peers. One wants
to do the poverty simulation at her school with the teachers. Another teacher stated,
“… [A]s a teacher leader I will help my co-‐workers and my peers to understand why
we need to have the will do this work [use unique strategies to reach all students]
and help to grow all of our students.”
One high school math teacher appreciated the strategies that were offered for math
teaching:
“The conference gave me opportunities as a math teacher to incorporate
meta-‐cognitive skills into my kids so they are not only learning the content
that I am presenting but giving it to them so it is tangible, real life. Make
sense of the content, why they are learning it and applying it to their real life
situation.”
Application of learning to real life is also related to the comment by another teacher
who plans to get less caught up in testing and look more at depth instead of covering
content.
45
Two teachers found the second day of the conference more daunting than the first
day, which they thought was more inspiring. They were still searching for concrete
ideas and looking for answers to “What does a kid need? What defines a child’s
success?” An international student found the conference geared towards the United
States and said s/he would not be able to take much home to implement since it is
not applicable. Circumstances there are very different.
Two teachers mentioned the trauma workshop. One said:
“That really hit home; even if I don’t understand everything the students
have been through, but to consider that they might have had trauma and
what I can I do so I don’t re-‐traumatize them but actually provide a nurturing
and safe environment so they can get through what they are going through.
So they feel safe with me… and actually get to be their best.”
The other called for more training around “Trauma informed strategies and trauma
informed education and teach different strategies to the teachers and inform the
classroom practices more.”
It seems that respondents were just beginning to develop concrete plans and it
might result in more refined data if such conversations can be revisited at a later
date, several months after the conference has ended.
Analysis and Recommendations One outstanding feature of the event was certainly the youth conference. It is not
easy to connect to and impress a room full of high school students. The findings
show that engagement and appreciation were dominating features of the
conference. The connections went beyond the immediate topic of science and art
and also addressed sentiments of being oneself and not hiding one’s culture while
working on achieving academic excellence.
46
Participants equally appreciated the main sessions and workshops. Survey results,
comments and sentiments expressed in conversations show that participants
learned and gained innovative insights they can apply at work. The core theme, The
Right to an Excellent Education for All Children: Do We Have the Will? came through
in the conference sessions.
Additionally, the conference managed to reach the larger public. Radio station WESA
interviewed Dr. Ladson-‐Billings on the program “Essential Pittsburgh” as part of its
Life of Learning series. The interview is accessible at:
http://wesa.fm/post/essential-‐pittsburgh-‐discovering-‐best-‐practices-‐culturally-‐
relevant-‐educators. The program is introduced by mentioning, “Dr. Gloria Ladson-‐
Billings is the keynote speaker for this year's Barbara A. Sizemore Summer
Conference on Urban Education, a one-‐day conference held by Duquesne
University’s School of Education.”
Recommendations from Surveys and Conversations
Comments that had the character of recommendations for future topics and
strategies were excerpted from the findings sections and listed here. The survey
used at the workshops included two fields, one for suggestions and another for
future workshops to be offered. The general suggestions were excerpted.
Workshop-‐ specific ones can be found under each workshop header.
Youth Conference − Dr. Emdin and Jabari should return to help students here in Pittsburgh, Obama especially. − Structured group work where students can collaborate Main Sessions − Dr. Gorki should talk to everyone in Pittsburgh Public Schools. − Invite more students to speak about what they see in schools. − More time with Dr. Hodge and the opportunity to attend additional workshops − Address testing: There needs to be an action we can be involved in so we walk away with a
sense of accomplishment instead of just more concerns regarding testing.
47
Workshops General Suggestions − More Time (mentioned multiple times) − Longer session for more in-‐depth building community − Have some children within their programs to come and speak on their experience.
Other Workshops to be Offered − Launch a great program − Science, motivation, confidence − Classroom management − Classroom culture of respect − Culturally responsive (Geneva Gay) − Standardized testing -‐ strategies to teach and help students relax and be successful! − How teachers can build students’ confidence with testing − More workshops in helping parents learn how to advocate for their children − Culturally connecting with your students − Continued discussion on Racism-‐ Ease on Down part II − How to do video conferencing with classrooms abroad − Global affairs for teacher education − How to get parents to become involved − Specific strategies to incorporate STEM into public schools, not just the presented program − Deliberate, consistent, compete, Family Engagement, Life Change, but need specifics for
public teachers − Hip Hop in Math? − Technology focused workshops − Youth-‐led workshop that specifically details how adults can effectively partner and support
students that are trying to improve their education! − I would love to participate in the simulation in the fall. Please bring it back! − How does culture impact our classroom? − Relaxation Strategies