guilford county schools mission possible program · guilford county schools mission possible...

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

Category Elementary Middle High Overall MP Overall GCS (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:

Type of change Color

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

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

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

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

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


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

Middle College at NC A&T 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

High Schools N=10 Academy at High Point Central* 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

Middle College at NC A&T 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

High Schools N=10 Academy at High Point Central* 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

High Schools N=10 Academy at High Point Central* 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

Middle College at NC A&T 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

guilford county schools mission possible program · guilford county schools mission possible...

Documents

Mission vim possible

Mission Possible Power Point

Goal V: Suspension Report - Guilford County Schools€¦ · Goal V: Suspension Report DIVISION OF ACCOUNTABILITY AND RESEARCH GUILFORD COUNTY SCHOOLS DECEMBER 17, 2019. Mission Guilford

MISSION IM POSSIBLE

MISSION: POSSIBLE

Mission Possible: Mission Possible: Reaching for the As at Chinese

Mission Possible 2015

Mission I'm Possible

2013 Mission Possible Recap

E-MISSION POSSIBLE

Mission Possible VenTESOL

Web Accessibility: MISSION POSSIBLE!

Mission (im)possible: Thailand

Mission possible audemagna onlineversion

Mission possible splunk+paloaltonetworks_6_2015

DevOps : mission [im]possible ?

Mission Possible B - 2013

Mission Possible uutislehti_4_012

2012 Mission Possible Camp

MISSION: POSSIBLE!

Mission Possible: Accreditation

MISSION POSSIBLE - North Carolina General Assembly · MISSION POSSIBLE . GUILFORD COUNTY SCHOOLS February 25, 2014 . Guilford County Schools . Dr. Amy Holcombe . ... Otis L Hairston

Mission Possible?

Mission Possible

Proposed Mission CONQUERING CANCER: MISSION POSSIBLE

Mission vim possible-full

Project Mission Possible

Prayer – Mission Possible

Flyer Mission Possible

SAS Mission Possible

Power BI Mission Possible

“ Mission (im)possible ? ”

CYBERSECURITY Mission Possible

OFM Mission Possible

GUILFORD COUNTY GANG ASSESSMENT...Guilford County Pretrial Services . Guilford County Schools . Guilford County Sheriff’s Office . Guilford Education Alliance . Guilford Technical