teaching & learning in urban schools - vanderbilt … & learning in urban schools, 2010-11...

Teaching & Learning in Urban Schools, 2010-11

Summary Evaluation Report

Rachael Tanner-Smith

Mark Lipsey

Peabody Research Institute

October 2011

Peabody Research Institute 2

Table of Contents Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 3

Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 4

Program Evaluation ....................................................................................................................................... 4

Teacher Characteristics ............................................................................................................................. 4

Teacher Surveys ........................................................................................................................................ 5

Figure 1. Teacher Survey Ratings of the Content-Specific Seminars .................................................... 6

Figure 2. Teacher Survey Ratings of the Coaching ................................................................................ 6

Figure 3. Teacher Survey Ratings of the Urban Studies Seminar .......................................................... 7

Table 1. Teacher Survey: Content Seminar Activities ........................................................................... 8

Table 2. Teacher Survey: Coaching Activities ........................................................................................ 8

Table 3. Teacher Survey: Urban Studies Seminar Activities ................................................................. 9

Teacher Interviews .................................................................................................................................. 10

Student Surveys ...................................................................................................................................... 12

Table 4. Responses to the TLUS Student Survey (N=506) ................................................................... 13

Moving Forward .......................................................................................................................................... 13

Summary ..................................................................................................................................................... 14

Appendix A: School Descriptive Information .............................................................................................. 15

Appendix B: Teacher Survey ....................................................................................................................... 18

Appendix C: Teacher Interview ................................................................................................................... 22

Appendix D: Student Survey ....................................................................................................................... 23

Appendix E: Quotes from Teacher Interviews & Survey ............................................................................. 25


Executive Summary The Teaching and Learning in Urban Schools (TLUS) Master’s degree program at

Vanderbilt’s Peabody College, offered in partnership with Metro Nashville Public

Schools (MNPS), was launched in the fall of 2010 with the aim of preparing teachers for

the challenges of working in an urban school system. Licensed teachers are eligible to

enroll in this program at no cost if, in return, they make a five year commitment to

teaching in Nashville’s public school system. Coursework focuses on improving

instruction in one of three areas—math, science or literacy—and on issues related to

teaching in an urban classroom. In addition, the program supports the implementation of

best teaching practices by providing in-class coaching from Vanderbilt faculty.

The Peabody Research Institute (PRI) was asked to evaluate the TLUS program and,

for this first year, focused the evaluation on feedback from the initial cohort of

participating teachers in two areas: (1) Their assessment of the program and

suggestions for improvement, and (2) their experiences and perceptions of their

placement schools and students. A survey of students in the TLUS teachers’

classrooms was also conducted.

Teachers’ assessment and suggestions for the TLUS program

The content-specific coursework and coaching were perceived as very helpful by the

majority of TLUS teachers.

Some teachers thought they would benefit from training sessions at the beginning of

the school year on middle school politics and culture for those new to teaching in

middle school, and a content overview and resources for those teaching a new

grade level or subject area.

Many TLUS teachers desired more frequent coaching.

Some teachers requested a shorter interval between a classroom observation and

the post observation conference.

Many voiced a desire for a more balanced workload in overall coursework between

semesters one and two.

Teachers’ experiences and perceptions of their placement schools and students

Many TLUS teachers noted that more time during the school day to work with other

TLUS teachers to compare lesson plans would be helpful.

The difficulties most often cited by teachers were lack of student motivation,

students being far behind, behavioral problems, issues with parents, and the amount

of paperwork required. They suggested that discussion about how to cope with

these issues would be beneficial.

Many TLUS teachers suggested that an orientation explaining the purpose and

nature of the TLUS program to non-TLUS teachers in the placement schools would

help smooth the way for their presence.


Introduction The Teaching and Learning in Urban Schools (TLUS) Master’s degree program was

developed as a partnership between Peabody College and Metro Nashville Public

Schools (MNPS) to recruit, train, and prepare teachers for work in urban middle

schools. The TLUS program focuses on improving instruction and student learning by

helping teachers build specific, content-related knowledge while maintaining a focus on

the issues associated with teaching in urban settings. The two year degree program

works with teachers in grades five through eight and has tracks in literacy, mathematics

and science. Admission to the program is limited to currently licensed teachers who pay

no tuition but agree to teach in a MNPS middle school for five years—two years while

enrolled in the TLUS program and then three years after graduating.

Three key program components aim to improve teacher knowledge and instructional

skills and include content-specific coursework, instructional coaching, and urban studies

seminars. Weekly on-campus instruction is provided in best teaching practices in one of

three content areas—literacy, science, or mathematics. The content specific courses

are small and include only TLUS teachers within each content track. Regular, in-

classroom coaching by faculty members supports the implementation of the teaching

practices learned in the content-specific courses. Finally, weekly on-campus urban

studies seminars bring the teachers together to discuss student learning within the

context of the urban school environment.

Three high priority middle schools—Bailey, Litton, and Wright—were selected by MNPS

as placement sites for the first cohort of TLUS teachers. Upon acceptance to the

program, TLUS teachers were placed at one of these schools and assigned to a specific

grade level. Descriptive information for each school is provided in Appendix A.

Program Evaluation In the fall of 2010, the TLUS faculty developed a program evaluation strategy that

focused initially on implementation of the program and feedback from the participants

about their experiences and how the program could be improved. Primary responsibility

for carrying out the evaluation plan was assigned to the Peabody Research Institute

(PRI). PRI collaborated with TLUS faculty to develop interview and survey protocols for

documenting the implementation of the TLUS program and enrollees’ satisfaction with

the key program components. Additionally, MNPS students enrolled in TLUS classes

were surveyed about their attitudes towards learning.

Teacher Characteristics

The 2010-11 cohort of TLUS teachers was initially composed of sixteen teachers;

however, one person withdrew from the program at the beginning of the year. That

teacher agreed to participate in the program evaluation survey and interview and


provided responses that are included in this report. The participating teachers range in

age from 22 to 54 years of age. Twelve (75%) of the teachers are female, four (25%)

are male, and they include both recent graduates from teacher training programs and

experienced teachers.

All TLUS teachers were placed in a middle school classroom in one of the three

selected MNPS middle schools. For many of the teachers this meant a change in

teaching environment and for some it meant a change in grade level as well. Their prior

experience in urban schools varied greatly, ranging from zero to sixteen years with a

median of only 1.5 years. Four teachers had no prior experience in an urban school and

another four teachers had only one year of experience. Prior experience at the grade

level to which they were assigned also varied greatly within the group, likewise ranging

from zero to sixteen years with 69% of the teachers reporting one or fewer years

experience teaching that grade.

Teacher Surveys

A survey of TLUS teachers was conducted in February, 2011, to inquire about their

perceptions of both the overall utility of the TLUS program components—content-

specific coursework, in-class coaching, and urban studies seminars—as well as specific

activities within each component. Survey responses were collected online using

Vanderbilt’s Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) software. The sixteen

participants rated items pertaining to each program component on a scale of 1-5 and

also provided open-ended feedback about their experiences. A copy of the teacher

survey is provided in Appendix B.

Overall, 69% of TLUS teachers rated the content-specific seminar as “very helpful” with

an additional 13% rating it “often helpful” (Figure 1). With regards to coaching, 75% of

TLUS teachers rated the coaching they received as “very helpful” with another 13%

rating it as “often helpful” (Figure 2). The urban studies seminar, in turn, was rated as

“very helpful” by 56% of TLUS teachers, “often helpful” by 19%, and only “somewhat

helpful” by 25% (Figure 3).

In addition to rating the overall usefulness of each program component, TLUS teachers

were asked about the utility of specific activities that took place within each component.

Each item was rated on a scale of 1-5 with 1 indicating that an activity was “not helpful”

and 5 indicating that it was “very helpful.”


Figure 1. Teacher Survey Ratings of the Content-Specific Seminars

*Overall, how helpful has the content seminar been in preparing you to be an effective teacher?*

Figure 2. Teacher Survey Ratings of the Coaching

*Overall, how helpful do you think the coaching has been for preparing you to be

an effective teacher in an urban setting?*

6% 13% 13%

69%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Not Helpful Rarely Helpful Somewhat Helpful

Often Helpful Very Helpful

Pe

rce

nt

of

Re

spo

nd

ants

in E

ach

Cat

ego

ry

Content-Seminar

6% 0% 6% 13%

75%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%



Pe

rce

nt

of

Re

spo

nd

en

ts p

er

Cat

ego

ry

Coaching


Figure 3. Teacher Survey Ratings of the Urban Studies Seminar

*Overall, how helpful has the Urban Studies Seminar been for preparing you to be

an effective teacher in an urban school?*

Nine content related seminar activities were rated by the TLUS teachers with all nine

considered “often helpful” or “very helpful” by most respondents. The items that were

rated the highest, and were thus viewed as the most helpful, included “general

discussion in content seminar” and “analysis of instructional interactions and materials.”

Additionally, teachers found the content seminar activities very helpful in deepening

their understanding of both subject matter knowledge and instructional methods. The

videotape of teaching was considered “not often helpful” by 25% of the teachers while

the review of student work samples was found “not often helpful” by 13% of teachers.

Table 1 summarizes the survey responses for the content seminar activities.

Eight coaching activities were rated by the TLUS teachers. Seven of these were

considered “often helpful” or “very helpful” by most respondents. Those most often rated

as “very helpful” included the in-class observation (69% of the teachers) and the help

with analyzing inquiry activities (63% of the teachers). The pre-observation conference

to discuss a lesson plan was rated the lowest, with 44% of the teachers describing it as

only “somewhat helpful.” Table 2 summarizes survey response for specific coaching

activities.

Finally, nine of the urban studies seminar activities were rated. All nine were considered

“often helpful” or “very helpful” by most respondents. The activities with the highest

percentages of teachers rating them as either “very helpful” or “often helpful” included

25% 19%

56%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%



Pe

rce

nt

of

Re

spo

nd

ants

In E

ach

Cat

ego

ry

Urban Studies Seminar


Table 1. Teacher Survey: Content Seminar Activities

Not Helpful

Not Often Helpful

Somewhat Helpful

Often Helpful

Very Helpful

How helpful were the following content seminar activities:

1. Assigned readings 0% 0% 19% 31% 50%

2. Review of lesson plans 0% 0% 19% 25% 56%

3. Analysis of instructional interactions and materials

0% 6% 6% 19% 63%

4. Review of student work samples 0% 13% 31% 25% 31%

5. Videotape of teaching 6% 25% 19% 25% 25%

6. General discussion 6% 0% 0% 19% 69%

To what extent did the content seminar:

7. Deepen my understanding of subject matter knowledge

6% 6% 13% 13% 63%

8. Increase my knowledge of instructional methods

6% 6% 0% 31% 56%

9. Increase my knowledge of how to relate theoretical perspectives to teaching methods

0% 6% 19% 44% 31%

Table 2. Teacher Survey: Coaching Activities

How helpful were the following coaching activities:

Not Helpful

Not Often Helpful

Somewhat Helpful

Often Helpful

Very Helpful

1. The pre-observation conference discussing the lesson plan

0% 6% 44% 19% 31%

2. The in-class observation 6% 0% 6% 19% 69%

3. The post-observation conference analyzing the lesson's effectiveness

0% 0% 13% 31% 56%

4. How to structure lesson plans 6% 6% 6% 44% 38%

5. How to analyze lesson plans 6% 6% 31% 25% 31%

6. How to analyze the effectiveness of inquiry approaches

6% 0% 13% 19% 63%

7. Understand how to improve the classroom climate

13% 6% 13% 13% 56%

8. How to improve student understanding

6% 0% 6% 44% 44%


Table 3. Teacher Survey: Urban Studies Seminar Activities

Not Helpful

Not Often Helpful

Somewhat Helpful

Often Helpful

Very Helpful

How helpful were the following Urban Studies seminar activities:

1. Assigned readings 0% 13% 6% 31% 50%

2. Review of case studies 6% 6% 19% 19% 50%

3. Video of self for self assessment purposes

6% 19% 31% 19% 25%

4. Reflective essay or multimedia video

6% 19% 25% 13% 38%

5. Discussion of classroom management techniques

0% 6% 25% 25% 44%

6. General discussion in Urban Studies seminar

0% 0% 13% 25% 63%

To what extent did the Urban Studies seminar:

7. Deepen understanding of how students’ cultures impact the learning experience

0% 0% 25% 25% 50%

8. Increase knowledge of things you could do to better address diversity in the classroom

0% 6% 38% 19% 38%

9. Increase understanding of working from a strengths based model of educating urban students rather than beginning from a deficit model

0% 6% 31% 31% 31%

the assigned readings and general discussion. Additionally, teachers found the urban

studies seminar activities “very helpful” in deepening understanding of how students’

cultures impact the learning experience. On the other hand, 19% of the teachers rated

both the videotape of self and the reflective or multimedia essay as “not often helpful.”

Table 3 summarizes the survey responses for the urban studies seminar activities.

As part of the online survey, the TLUS teachers were given the opportunity to provide

open-ended feedback about each of the three program components. Over half of them

offered suggestions about how to make the content seminar more helpful. Two teachers

who were new to the teaching profession suggested that there be an initial training

session prior to or just at the beginning of the school year to bring them up to speed in

their content area and provide them with some immediately applicable tools. Two other

teachers noted a desire to have more time during the school day to work with other


TLUS teachers in their school to compare lesson plans. Although noted by only two

teachers on the survey, this theme was echoed throughout the teacher interviews.

Most TLUS teachers described their general experience with coaching as “very helpful.”

They seemed to be very satisfied with the classroom observations by the coach and the

post-observation conferences to analyze the effectiveness of a lesson. One teacher

mentioned a desire for a shorter lag time between the classroom observation and the

post-observation conference. However, when changes to the coaching were mentioned,

it was usually within the context of a desire for more frequent in-class coaching.

A few more than half of the teachers provided comments about their experience with the

Urban Studies seminar. A desire for a general orientation to middle school politics and

culture was noted by two teachers. Additionally, one teacher wished for a more

balanced workload between semesters one and two of the seminar. Although noted

only once on the teacher survey, this theme was echoed by others during the teacher

interviews.

The teacher survey yielded many positive sentiments about the content seminars and

the coaching. A variety of compliments were offered, including one teacher’s statement

that, “I cannot say enough good things about the Science instruction and guidance…

very insightful.” Another teacher described the coaching experience as “the release

valve, sounding board, guide, cheerleader and coach.”

Teacher Interviews

Structured interviews were conducted with each TLUS teacher in March and April.

These were conducted by one PRI staff member and three graduate students. Each

teacher in TLUS cohort one was interviewed, including the person who withdrew from

the program. The interviews took place at the school, often during a planning period

before or after the school day, and were recorded. The teachers’ responses were then

coded by a graduate student for the following categories: Difficulties, Pleasant

Surprises, Unpleasant Surprises, Satisfying Aspects of Teaching, Relationships with

Peers, Relationships with the Cohort, and Areas for Program Improvement. A copy of

the teacher interview questions is provided in Appendix C.

The interview asked teachers to reflect on their teaching experience and the TLUS

program. Although the questions were scripted, they allowed TLUS teachers to voice

opinions on issues not captured in the survey. Teachers took the opportunity to describe

the many difficulties they had experienced during their first year in the TLUS program.

The five most frequently occurring responses included lack of student motivation,

students being far behind, behavioral problems, issues with parents, and the amount of

paperwork required of them.


Nonetheless, TLUS teachers cited many pleasant surprises that helped them feel

satisfied with their work including seeing students improve in general, but also in

response to TLUS strategies. In spite of being frustrated by perceptions that students

lack motivation, seven teachers reported that they were pleased to see students

improve throughout the year. One teacher expressed enjoyment about seeing students’

reading levels grow past the elementary school level. Another teacher found it satisfying

to introduce students to science concepts they had not anticipated learning. A third

teacher noted, with considerable pleasure, that students had finally “kicked the

worksheet habit.”

When asked to describe their relationship with the other members of their TLUS cohort,

all the teachers described it in superlative terms. This praise ranged from “generally

supportive” and “great” to “phenomenal,” “highly positive,” and “excellent, sharing, and

caring.” The TLUS program seems to be doing a good job of developing professional

learning communities within MNPS middle schools by developing strong relationships

between TLUS cohort members.

Throughout the interviews many teachers made suggestions about changes they would

like to see in the TLUS program. As in the online surveys, TLUS teachers expressed a

preference for a more balanced workload across both semesters and for more frequent

in-classroom coaching. The most frequent item on their wish list was the desire to have

more contact with TLUS teachers during the school day. Although appreciative of the

time spent planning lessons during TLUS coursework, the teachers wanted more

opportunities for professional collaboration during school hours. Almost half of those

interviewed wished they were on the same teaching team with other TLUS teachers or

could share planning time with them.

Several of the TLUS teachers expressed the belief that working with a grade-level team

composed entirely of TLUS teachers would allow for more cohesion and consistency in

teaching and management practices across classrooms, thus providing students a more

stable and supportive learning environment. Although some teachers felt that their

grade level teams were generally supportive, more than half noted that some non-TLUS

teachers in their schools were suspicious and resentful of TLUS participants and

reluctant to collaborate to the degree the TLUS teachers desired. Teachers who

experienced this challenge believed that the school faculty and staff would have

benefited from an orientation explaining the purpose and nature of the TLUS program.

They thought this might make the non-TLUS faculty more receptive to working with

TLUS teachers and less concerned about the TLUS coaches visiting their schools.

Moreover, TLUS teachers felt that such an orientation would facilitate the transition to a

new school and enable them to contribute more positively to the learning communities

within their respective schools. Overall, the level of familiarity and support found

between TLUS cohort members was highly valued, and a similar level of unity and


collaboration with their peers outside the program was desired. Direct teacher quotes

are provided in Appendix E.

Student Surveys

In May, MNPS students in 15 TLUS classes were surveyed on two key concepts related

to student interest in learning and their perceptions of their teacher’s expectations for

them. The survey items were drawn from the 2007 survey of Chicago public schools

created by the Consortium on Chicago School Research. Eight Academic Engagement

items measured students’ interest in learning; higher scores indicate a higher level of

engagement. Six Academic Pressure items measured how students perceive their

teacher’s attempts to press them towards academic accomplishment; higher scores

indicate a higher level of perceived academic pressure. Each item was rated by the

students on a scale of 1-4.

Five hundred and six students were surveyed; this number included two class periods of

MNPS students from each TLUS teacher except in an exceptional education class,

where only one period was surveyed. Paper surveys were administered by a PRI staff

member and two graduate students at either the beginning or end of the class period,

as determined by the teacher. The students were informed of the nature of the survey,

asked not to put their name on the questionnaire, and then given the opportunity to opt

out. The surveys were administered to an entire class at one time, pencils were

provided if necessary, and candy was provided as an incentive. Very few students

opted out; those who did were nonetheless offered the candy. The questionnaires were

returned to the PRI office in sealed envelopes and the responses entered into a data file

by a graduate research assistant.

Table 4 summarizes the survey response across all the classrooms. Items 9 and 10

were most often give the highest ratings with 62% of the students reporting that “my

teacher expects me to do my best” “all of the time” and 61% reporting that “my teacher

expects everyone to work hard” “all of the time.” On the other hand, 10% of the students

reported that the teacher never asks difficult questions on tests,10% indicated that the

teacher never asks difficult questions in class, and 8% “never” find the work difficult.

Whether these responses are entirely truthful, of course, is an open question. The

teachers will be provided with a copy of the survey responses for their respective

classes, although these are not included in this report. A copy of the student survey

form can be found in Appendix D.


Table 4. Responses to the TLUS Student Survey (N=506)

Never

(1)

Once in a while

(2)

Most of the time

(3)

All of the time (4)

Average item

score

Academic Engagement

1. The topics we are studying are interesting and challenging

4% 12% 65% 19% 2.98

2. I am usually bored in this class 23% 40% 25% 12% 2.25

3. I usually look forward to this class 5% 17% 53% 25% 2.97

4. I work hard to do my best in this class

2% 5% 51% 43% 3.35

5. Sometimes I get so interested in the work I don’t want to stop.

10% 27% 45% 17% 2.71

6. I often count the minutes until this class ends.

23% 36% 28% 12% 2.29

Academic Pressure

7. How often do you have to work hard to do well

1% 20% 48% 31% 3.1

8. This class really makes me think 3% 13% 59% 24% 3.05

9. My teacher expects me to do my best at all times

2% 6% 30% 62% 3.52

10. My teacher expects everyone to work hard

2% 2% 35% 61% 3.64

11. How often do you find the work difficult

8% 62% 25% 4% 2.25

12. How often are you challenged 5% 46% 40% 9% 2.53

13. How often does the teacher ask difficult questions on tests

10% 51% 32% 7% 2.42

14. How often does the teacher ask difficult questions in class

10% 54% 29% 6% 2.32

Moving Forward The second cohort of TLUS teachers will begin coursework in the fall of 2011. Ongoing

evaluation activities for both the first and second cohort will include further collection of

teacher survey, teacher interview, and student survey data. The student attitude survey

will be administered twice—once in the beginning of the school year and once at the

end. School principals will be interviewed by the evaluation team regarding their views

on the TLUS program and teachers within their schools. Additionally, data will be

requested from the Metro Nashville Public Schools Research, Assessment, and

Evaluation Department to assess student learning. These data will include attendance


information, disciplinary data, and TCAP scores for the students in TLUS classrooms

and for matched non-TLUS classrooms.

Summary The Teaching and Learning in Urban Schools degree program was established to train

teachers to provide high quality literacy, science, and mathematics instruction to

students in urban middle schools. The satisfaction of the first cohort of TLUS teachers

with the three main components of the program― content-specific coursework,

instructional coaching and urban studies seminars― was queried through a variety of

methods. The main findings, including specific suggestions for the TLUS program, have

been reported here.

The teachers’ suggestions for improvement in the TLUS program include initial training

sessions to address middle school politics and culture and a content overview

addressing resources. This was especially desired by TLUS teachers new to teaching

and those new to the content area or grade level of their placement. Additionally,

coaching was viewed as an important component of the program and many teachers

expressed a desire for more frequent coaching. Finally, the teachers thought that better

balancing of the workload between urban studies seminars one and two would help

them and provide more time to reflect on how the material applies to their placement

school.

The teachers’ experiences with and perceptions of their placement schools and

students yielded several potential suggestions. A number of them thought that an initial

orientation explaining the purpose and nature of the TLUS program to non-TLUS school

faculty would help smooth the way for TLUS teachers. Secondly, the TLUS teachers

repeatedly voiced a desire for increased contact with other TLUS teachers during the

school day to work on lessons plans. Finally, specific instruction or discussion on how to

cope with the most often cited difficulties of teaching in an urban school would reduce

frustration. Such discussion could provide experienced teachers in the program an

opportunity to mentor newer teachers.

Although the teachers did offer a number of suggestions for improving the TLUS

program, their overall satisfaction was high. The teachers in this first TLUS cohort will

be asked to provide further input as they move into their second year and the incoming

second cohort of TLUS teachers will also be offered the opportunity to provide their

input as the evaluation continues. These ongoing evaluation activities and further data

collection will allow for a broader assessment of the impact of the TLUS program on

both teaching and learning.


Appendix A: School Descriptive Information School descriptive information was obtained from the Tennessee Department of

Research, Assessment, and Evaluation 2010-2011 School Improvement Plan forms.

A1. Bailey Middle School 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010

School Demographic

Information

Enrollment 321 280 557 525

% Female 43.0% 46.8% 49.7% 47.4%

% Male 57.0% 53.2% 50.3% 52.6%

% Asian 1.9% 1.8% 3.2% 2.1%

% Black 73.8% 68.2% 74.3% 74.7%

% Hispanic 11.2% 10.4% 3.5% 7.4%

% American Indian .2%

% White 13.1% 19.6% 15.8% 15.8%

% Free/Reduced Lunch 91.6% 89.6% 90.3% 94.9%

% ESL Eligibility 17.1% 14.6% 7.0% 9.1%

% Special Education 12.8% 12.9% 13.5% 14.1%

Non Academic Information

Mobility Rate (entries & exits after

2nd

week as % of enrollment) 53.0% 47.5% 46.0% 48.3%

Discipline Information

% Students Suspended Out of

School 37.7% 38.6% 45.6% 51.0%

% Students Expelled or Remanded 1.9% 1.6% 1.0%


A2. Litton Middle School 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010

School Demographic

Information

Enrollment 342 370 417 385

% Female 42.4% 42.2% 44.1% 42.6%

% Male 57.6% 57.8% 55.9% 57.4%

% Asian 3.2% 3.2% .7% 1.6%

% Black 57.6% 55.9% 57.3% 52.7%

% Hispanic 6.7% 5.4% 5% 5.2%

% American Indian .3% .5% .2% .3%

% White 32.2% 34.9% 36.7% 40.6%


% ESL Eligibility 1.2% .5% .7% 1.8%




2nd




School 45.9% 27.6% 29.7% 20.5%

% Students Expelled or Remanded 1.8% 1.2% .5%


A3. Wright Middle School 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010

School Demographic

Information

Enrollment 866 859 860 858

% Female 46.9% 47.5% 48.1% 48.4%

% Male 53.1% 52.5% 51.9% 51.6%

% Asian 6.0% 6.6% 6.5% 5.8%

% Black 27% 27.1% 26.7% 26.8%

% Hispanic 37.5% 38.5% 40.1% 43.6%

% American Indian .2% .1% .1%

% White 29.4% 27.5% 26.5% 23.7%


% ESL Eligibility 23.2% 21.0% 20.8% 21.8%




2nd




School 34.9% 31.2% 30.5% 29.3%

% Students Expelled or Remanded .3% .8% .1% .2%


Appendix B: Teacher Survey

The Master’s Degree program in Teaching and Learning in Urban Schools (TLUS) is a

partnership between Peabody College of Education and Human Development and the

Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools (MNPS). It is designed to enhance the

pedagogical skills and teaching perspectives teachers need to succeed in urban school

environments.

The Peabody Research Institute (PRI) is conducting an independent evaluation of the

TLUS program to provide feedback to help improve the program. This survey asks for

your opinions and suggestions about the key components of the TLUS training

program. A personal interview will be scheduled with you soon to ask about your

experiences in the school where you are teaching. Your responses will remain

confidential and will only be distributed in summary form without any personal

identifiers.

If you have any questions or concerns regarding the evaluation or this survey please

feel free to contact Rachael Tanner-Smith, the evaluation coordinator, by phone at 615-

322-6028 or by email at [email protected].

mailto:[email protected]


This first section asks for your views on the Urban Studies seminar that meets

regularly throughout the year. Please answer all items using the following scale:

1 2 3 4 5 6

Not helpful Somewhat helpful Very helpful Did not receive

1. Overall, how helpful has the Urban Studies seminar been for preparing you to be an

effective teacher in an urban school? ____

2. How helpful has each of the following aspects of the Urban Studies seminar been for

preparing you to be an effective teacher in an urban school:

a. The assigned readings? ____

b. The review of case studies? ____

c. Videotape of self for self assessment purposes? ____

d. Reflective essay or multimedia video? ____

e. Discussion of classroom management techniques? ____

f. The general discussion of topics during the seminar meetings? ____

g. The orientation to your school? ____

3. To what extent was the Urban Studies seminar helpful in deepening your understanding of

the following topics:

a. How student’s cultures impact the learning experience ____

b. Things you could do to better address diversity in the classroom ____

c. Working from a strengths based model of educating urban students rather than

beginning from a deficit model ____

4. Please share any suggestions you have for making the Urban Studies seminar more helpful

for preparing TLUS enrollees to be effective teachers in urban schools?


This second section asks for your views on the content seminar in math, language

arts or science that meets regularly throughout the year. Please answer all items using

the following scale:

1 2 3 4 5 6


1. Overall, how helpful has the content seminar been in preparing you to be an effective

teacher? ____

2. How helpful has each of the following aspects of the content course been for preparing you to

be an effective teacher:

a. The assigned readings? ____

b. The review of lesson plans? ____

c. The analysis of instructional interactions and materials? ____

d. The review of student work samples? ____

e. The videotape of teaching? ____

f. The general discussion of topics during the content course meetings? ____

3. To what extent was the content course helpful in deepening your understanding of the

following topics:

a. Subject matter knowledge? ____

b. Instructional methods? ____

c. Relating theoretical perspectives to teaching methods? ____

4. Please share any suggestions you have for making the content seminar more helpful for

preparing TLUS enrollees to be effective teachers?


This section asks for your views on the coaching you receive from the TLUS coaches

at your school site. Please answer all items using the following scale:

1 2 3 4 5 6


1. Overall, how helpful to you think the coaching has been for preparing you to be an effective

teacher in an urban setting? ____

2. How helpful has each of the following aspects of the coaching been for preparing you to be

an effective teacher in an urban setting:

a. The pre-observation conference discussing the lesson plan? ____

b. The in-class observation? ____

c. The post-observation conference analyzing the lesson’s effectiveness? ____

3. To what extent was the coaching helpful in deepening your understanding of the following

topics:

a. Structuring lesson plans? ____

b. Analyzing lesson plans? ____

c. Analyzing the effectiveness of inquiry approaches? ____

d. Effectively implementing lesson plans? ____

4. To what extent has the coaching helped you in improving classroom climate? ____

5. To what extent has the coaching helped you in improving student understanding? ____

Please use the space below to share any other comments or suggestions you have

about the TLUS program, including ideas about how it might be approved.


Appendix C: Teacher Interview The Peabody Research Institute (PRI) is conducting an independent evaluation of the TLUS

program to provide feedback to help improve the program. This interview asks about your

experiences in this school. Please be assured that all your responses will remain confidential

and will only be distributed in summary form without any personal identifiers.

There are well known difficulties associated with doing effective teaching in urban schools…

Interview Item

A. Reflections on

Teaching

Experience

1. What do you perceive to be the greatest difficulties working in an urban

school?

2. What did you expect to be the most challenging?

a. Was it or not?

b. What were some pleasant &/or unpleasant surprises?

3. Describe the students you teach.

a. Most & least satisfying aspects of working with them

b. Their strengths

c. What gets in the way of their learning & achievement

d. Behavioral problems & your approach to classroom management – what

has worked & what hasn’t

e. Has your approach to classroom management changed/evolved as a result

of enrolling in TLUS?

4. Describe your relationship with the principal at your school and the level of

support you receive

- Query perceived barriers that interfere with teaching/learning

5. Describe your relationship with your colleagues and peer teachers

- Query perceived barriers that interfere with teaching/learning

6. Describe your relationship with your cohort and the level of support you

receive from them.

- Perceived barriers that interfere with teaching/learning

B. Reflections on the

TLUS program

1. How might TLUS help better prepare you for teaching in an urban schools like

the one you’re in.


Appendix D: Student Survey

1. In this class, how often do you have to work hard to do well.

Never Once in a While Most of the Time All of the Time

2. The topics we are studying are interesting and challenging.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

3. I am usually bored in this class.


4. I usually look forward to this class.


5. I work hard to do my best in this class.


6. Sometimes I get so interested in my work I don’t want to stop.


7. I often count the minutes until this class ends. Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree


8. How much do you agree with the following statement: this class really makes

me think.


9. How much do you agree with the following statement: my teacher expects

me to do my best at all times.


10. How much do you agree with the following statement: my teacher expects

everyone to work hard.


11. In this class, how often do you find the work difficult.


12. In this class, how often are you challenged.


13. In this class, how often does the teacher ask difficult questions on tests.


14. In this class, how often does the teacher ask difficult questions in class.



Appendix E: Quotes from Teacher Interviews & Survey

Regarding Pleasant Surprises

“Seeing results from applying TLUS strategies in my class.”

“Seeing students learn even though it may not be reflected in their TCAP scores.”

“A lot of students have matured and made significant progress.”

“Students have finally ‘kicked the worksheet habit’ and learned to persevere when doing complex problems, instead of giving up like they did at the beginning.”

“Seeing when they are successful and the ‘aha’ moment that happens when they surprise themselves with what they know or have learned.”

“Watching kids step out of their comfort zone and turn a corner and build confidence so that they can look back and see how they’ve improved over the year.”

“Students don’t have a lot of background knowledge, so when they make progress I know I played a role in it.”

“I’ve been pleasantly surprised by student success as a consequences of things I’ve learned in the TLUS program.”

“It’s satisfying to watch students learn and thirst for more.”

“Students are curious, eager to learn and very willing to share their own ideas.”

“It’s satisfying to see students succeed, even when success is small like when they use vocabulary that they’ve recently been taught.”

Regarding Difficulties

“The amount of paperwork is daunting!”

“Students want to learn but aren’t very concerned about their grades or doing homework.”

“I’m overwhelmed by the students’ learned helplessness. In the past there have been low expectations for them and it’s been hard to help them learn to think critically when they’re used to doing worksheets.”

“There are lots of behavior problems so my classroom management style has to be completely different.”

“Outside stressors in my students lives often negatively impact their learning and behavior in the classroom.”

Regarding Relationships with Cohort

“The other TLUS teachers in my school, and I, work really well together.”

“My relationships with other TLUS teachers are good; we email each other frequently for support and enjoy talking to each other.”

“Relationships with other teachers in my cohort are very supportive and collaborative.”

“I wish we had more common planning time for collaboration with other TLUS teachers in the building.”


“My relationship with other cohort members is phenomenal!”

Perceptions by non-TLUS Teachers

“Other teachers feel nervous about the coaches because they feel like they’re being watched too.”

“I engage with joint lesson planning with my team members and am close with my team leader and others on my grade level team.”

“Other staff in the school is a little resentful of TLUS teachers because we’re more protected and allowed to use research based practices rather than the districts prescribed curriculum.”

“I like my team members personally but the differences in our approaches to behavior management and teacher are very dissimilar, which can seem confusing to students.”

“The urban environment brings teachers closer together because they have to rely and depend on each other more on a moment-by-moment basis.”

“Early on my relationship with other grade level teachers was a little uncomfortable but it’s improved considerably over the year. We constantly share ideas and documents that help each other and have been planning together, including an upcoming interdisciplinary unit.”

Program Feedback

“We need a more balanced workload between semesters one and two.”

“There needs to be a summer course instead of an orientation week. Teachers may need to be brought up to speed with either the content or age group they’ll be teaching.”

“Overall, issues in the classroom have been addressed in our classes as they come up. However, it would be helpful to have a discussion at the beginning of the semester about how to handle behavior management, all of the paperwork required of us, how to handle parents, etc.”

“I cannot say enough good things about the Science instruction and guidance. Very helpful and insightful.”

“It would be helpful to begin learning about lesson planning and notebook setup immediately.”

“Overall, the coaching has been the release valve, sounding board, guide, cheerleader and coach. More time with the coach would be great.”

teaching & learning in urban schools - vanderbilt … & learning in urban schools, 2010-11...

Documents