My Students Don’t Look Like Me What Shall I Do? My Students Dont Look Like Me…What Shall I Do?

Strategies to address diverse student populations

De Washingtonand Christina Elf

I t lli T t R fl tiIntelligence Tests Reflection How would you feel if these tests were used as a

standardized intelligence test?

Are these intelligence tests fair? Why or why not?g y y

What have you learned from taking this test in terms of how non-middle-class individuals might gfeel about typical standardized tests?

How would you work with someone who scores How would you work with someone who scores at an IQ of only 90 on a standardized intelligence test by very well on one of the other intelligence tests?intelligence tests?

http://wilderdom.com/personality/intelligenceCulturalBias htmlulturalBias.html

OPS District DataOPS District Data2008-2009

Science ProficiencyScience Proficiency2008-2009

Math ProficiencyMath Proficiency2008-2009

OPS S i P fi i OPS Science Proficiency

S i P fi i M lScience Proficiency: Males

S i P fi i F lScience Proficiency: Females

American Indian/Alaska NativeAmerican Indian/Alaska Native

A i /P ifi I l dAsian/Pacific Islander

Whit /N t Hi iWhite/Not Hispanic

Bl k/N t Hi iBlack/Not Hispanic

Hi iHispanic

F /R d d M lFree/Reduced Meals

Mi tMigrant

S i l Ed tiSpecial Education

E li h L LEnglish Language Learners

C t OPS I l t tiCurrent OPS Implementation

Building Assistance Teams

Grading

C t B d C i l Concept-Based Curriculum

Minnesota Humanities Project

Vertical Teaming

Alternative Paths for Student Achievement

B ildi A i t TBuilding Assistance Team

Program designed to provide support to specific Middle and High Schools who failed to reach Middle and High Schools who failed to reach their AYP goal

1. Team Members

2. Proposed plan of supportp p pp

3. Next steps

G diGrading

As we transition to a standards based report card it was important to consider and realign current was important to consider and realign current grading practices.

1. Is a grade of zero fair?g

2. Using of weighted percentages

3. How do points for participation asses student understanding?

Ken O’Connor – How to Grade for Learning

C t B d C i lConcept-Based Curriculum

Committed to ensuring students gain a deep conceptual understanding of content standards

1. All content areas were involved1. All content areas were involved

2. Currently in revision stage

3. Available on ANGEL

Erickson, L. H. (2007). Stirring the Head, Heart, Erickson, L. H. (2007). Stirring the Head, Heart, and Soul. Sage Publications.

Minnesota Humanities CouncilMinnesota Humanities Council

District wide diversity training focused on cultural proficiency

1. Increased awareness about the importance of cultural proficiency

2. Development of culturally relevant curriculum for students

3. Support for teachers who are working with increasingly diverse populations of students

www minnesotahumanities orgwww.minnesotahumanities.org

Alternative Paths for Student Alternative Paths for Student Achievement

Ongoing programs to assist students with earning their High School diploma in non traditional their High School diploma in non-traditional settings

1. ANGEL

2. UNO

3. Independent Studies

V ti l T iVertical Teaming

Currently this program is a three school collaboration with a focus on common skills and collaboration with a focus on common skills and content strands

1. Common topics across grade levels

2. Content that builds from one grade and subject g jto the next

3 Identify and unify common knowledge and skills 3. Identify and unify common knowledge and skills for students

Strategies for Diverse Student Strategies for Diverse Student Populationsp

Assess Culture: Name the Differences

Value Diversity: Claim Your Differences

Manage the Dynamics of Difference:R f th C fli t C d b DiffReframe the Conflicts Caused by Differences

Strategies for Diverse Student Strategies for Diverse Student Populationsp

Adapt to Diversity: Change to Make a DiffDifference

Institutionalize Cultural Knowledge: Train About DifferencesTrain About Differences

Understanding Diverse LearnersUnderstanding Diverse Learners

Communication styles vary among groups

Id tif d it li t d t t th Identify and capitalize on student strengths

Don’t allow cultural communication differences to lead to behavior problemsto lead to behavior problems

Understanding Diverse LearnersUnderstanding Diverse Learners

Seek understanding about different cultural behaviors and incorporate that understanding behaviors and incorporate that understanding when creating lessons

Understand the peer pressure affecting different p p gcultures

What We Know About the What We Know About the Achievement Gapp

All students deserve the same expectations for academic excellence regardless of ethnicity and academic excellence regardless of ethnicity and socio-economic status

Rigorous academic coursework makes a difference

St d t t b li th i t h d Students must believe their teachers are engaged with the content and care about them as individuals

RResources

Davis, Bonnie M. (2006). How to Teach Students Who Don’t Look Like You Thousand Oaks CA: Who Don t Look Like You. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Lindsay, R. B., Robins, K. N., & Terrell, R. D. (2003). Cultural Proficiency: A Manual for School Leaders Thousand Oaks, CA: CorwinLeaders. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

OUR DEMOGRAPHICSOUR DEMOGRAPHICS

LEXINGTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS:7 P h l Cl7 Preschool Classrooms4 Elementary Schools4 Elementary Schools

1 Middle School1 Middle School1 High Schoolg

2008-2009 Student Demographics

Enrollment 2953Enrollment - 2953

Free/Reduced Price Meals - 74%

Mobility Rate - 17%

English Language Learners - 39%English Language Learners - 39%

Special Education - 15%

Ethnicity

White 20%White-20%Black 4%Black-4%

Hispanic-74%Hispanic 74%Asian-1%

American Indian-1%

Attendance Rate - 95%

SIX SUCCESSFUL STRATEGIES TO SIX SUCCESSFUL STRATEGIES TO REACH EVERY LEARNER:

L to J assessment processpEnrichment SchoolTechnology

M T ti gMap TestingK-13 CurriculumK 13 CurriculumKearney Bound Scholarship

Program

L TO J ® ASSESSMENT PROCESSL TO J ® ASSESSMENT PROCESSSuccess Story Handout Highlights:

Systems Thinking as an Intervention Tool Systems Thinking as an Intervention Tool Identify new concepts Weekly Random Testing Weekly Random Testing Multiple opportunities to Learn No longer given permission to forget Review –Preview of important materialp High success along with high standards

http://www.ltojconsulting.com/.

TheL to J process is a learning TheL to J process is a learning method developed by Dr. Lee Jenkins. L to J contends that in a classroom where learning

d d hi h i standards are high, testing early in the school year should early in the school year should result in an “L” shape when result in an L shape when student knowledge is charted student knowledge is charted.

The down stroke onthe L indicates that

l t f kid d ’ta lot of kids don’tknow much,know much,And the short horizontal footmeans that a few means that a few know something.g

In the middle of the school year,school year,

testing should result in a classic “bell curve ” classic bell curve.

Picture the shapeof a bell on the graph:

after weeks of instruction,

a few kids stilla few kids stilldon’t know much,

most kids show average knowledge,

and a few kids know a lot.

By the end of the year By the end of the year, a “J” should dominate the graph:all the kids know all the kids know more than they did before, though a few kids still won’t few kids still won t know as much while most kids

ill k l twill know a lot.

Previous excerpts from:p

http://www.yorknewstimes.com/articles/2009/12/10/news/doc4b202b4675ce570931421/ / / /4.txt

Curriculum Department Link available:

Lexington Public Schools L to J ® WorksheetsMATH –

These documents and more can be found on the Lexington Math page.

L to J Quiz Calendar 2009-10Math Class Run Chart

Kindergarten Math Student Run ChartMath Student Run ChartMath Student Run Chart

Kindergarten Math Class Scatter DiagramMath Class Scatter DiagramMath Class Scatter Diagram

Kindergarten Math Class HistogramMath Class Histogram

SAMPLE RUN CHARTSAMPLE RUN CHART

ACTUAL GROWTH

L xin t n P bli S h l ' Di t i t M th R n Ch t 2008 09

20000

Lexington Public Schools' District Math Run Chart 2008-09

School District Target 20434

14000

16000

1800094 80

8

565

975

9122 9653

9474 1017

4

9788 1071

3

1022

9

9861

9667 9935

1015

0

9881 1077

6

1160

5

1071

0 1189

7

1155

4

1202

3

10000

12000

14000

tal C

orre

ct

5742 6111 6930

6835 7293

7277 81

9 88 85 89 9

6000

8000Tot

2000

4000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28Week Number= All Time Best

ENRICHMENT SCHOOL

The Problem:The Problem: Many students lack support for homework The mentality that a lack of effort is acceptable in academics The mentality that a lack of effort is acceptable in academics

The Solution: To provide an opportunity for every student to succeed (no

zeros allowed) through a structured homework session

Basic organization: Students referred by classroom teachers Students referred by classroom teachers Tuesday and Thursday every week 3:30 to 5 pm

5 t 7 t d t t h 5 to 7 students per teacher

SAMPLE ENRICHMENT REFERRAL FORM:_____________________________________________________________ Last Name First Mi GRADE DATE _____________________________________________________________Referring Teacher/subject ES Teacher Assignment Attached (Yes/No) Computer Needed_________ Assignment CompletedAssignment Completed

Enrichment School Teacher’s Comment_______________________ _____________________________________________________________ (continued on back) Work Completed – YES NO Absent___________________ Please resubmit if work is not completed by next ES session

First Semester 2009 First Semester 2009 Enrichment School Statistics:

3,135 students were referred23 sessions were held136 attended on average per

isessionO 5 500 t t l f lOver 5,500 total referrals

LOOKING FOR A CHANGE IN FINAL FAILING GRADES?FINAL FAILING GRADES?

Before implementing Enrichment SchoolBefore implementing Enrichment SchoolTotal F’s for 2005-2006 = 878

2006 2007 = 8502006-2007 = 850

After Enrichment School began:After Enrichment School began:2007-2008 = 5782008-2009 = 7572008 2009 757

Average change:Average change:859 –667.5 = 191.5 less F’s

One snapshot of a big picture

TECHNOLOGY

One to One Laptop Initiative UseO e to O e aptop t at e UseGoogle Accounts:Go to http://mail.lexschools.orgp // g

Wiki spaces:Go to http://lexhighteachers.wikispaces.com/

Software examples: Software examples: Podcasts, Comic Life, Inspiration, PowerPoint, Photo Booth

Web Sites:www.quia.comqwww.shsu.edu/ txcae/lessons.htmlhttp://foridahoeteachers.org

Lexington Clipper Herald article on the school laptop programschool laptop program

handout summary-

P itiPositives:Increased communication with studentsIncreased communication with students.

Increased student responsibility and p yaccountability.

Less paper is being used and has increased Less paper is being used and has increased organization.

Tests, homework, projects can all be done online and graded online.online and graded online.

Fostered collaboration among teachers.

Negatives: (Many have been solved)g ( y )

Classroom Management and iChatting.

Need more time to work on developing curriculum and learning new programs.g p g

Access to resources like Apple Remote Desktop, programs, & TIME!

Previous handout from:

http://www.lexch.com/articles/2009/11/10/news/local/doc4af9eaad37fc5035067332.txt

MAP TESTING

GIVEN BYGIVEN BYNORTHWEST EVALUATION ASSOCIATION

http://www.nwea.org/

a formative testing system that responds dynamicallya formative testing system that responds dynamicallyto the child, and gives detailed insight into kids' llearning.

Several of NWEA BELIEFS: Continuous growth provides opportunity and

challengechallenge.

Investment in local expertise and resources enhances kids' growthenhances kids growth.

Continuing relationships are vital to effectiveness.

Thoughtful questioning and reflection are critical to creating the future.

MAPMAP(MEASURES OF ACADEMIC PROGRESS)

TEST OVERVIEW

l f hA Tool for Teachers

Adapting the TestAdapting the Testto the Student

Computer-based Adaptive Assessments

“Rich Data on Student Learning Rich Data on Student Learning –as it happens”

One Size Doesn’t Fit AllOne Size Doesn t Fit All

Tests That Adapt to the Student

Powered By Datay

MAP tests are:MAP tests are:-untimeduntimed-created to return immediate results-providing teachers with the instructional level of every student

it i t d t th -monitoring student growth throughout the school year and throughout the school year and from year to year

MAP TESTS ARE:MAP TESTS ARE:

-drawn from DesCartes: A Continuum of drawn from DesCartes: A Continuum of Learning framework, available to NWEA membersmembers

f t d t’ di l l d -a measure of a student’s reading level and growth, using Lexile scores: www.lexile.com

DECARTES EXAMPLE:

K-13 CURRICULUMK 13 CURRICULUM

WESLEYAN COLLEGE CREDITWESLEYAN COLLEGE CREDIT

KEARNEY BOUND SCHOLARSHIP SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAMPROGRAMA partnership with the University

of Nebraska at Kearneyof Nebraska at Kearneyand selected Nebraska High and selected Nebraska High

Schools

OBJECTIVE:

To identify freshman students who: ymeet the Federal government’s

it i f ti i ti i TRIOcriteria from participation in TRIO programs p g

show academic promise partner with the high school to

maximize their opportunities formaximize their opportunities for graduation from the University of Nebraska at Kearney

STUDENT SELECTION:STUDENT SELECTION:15 students chosen by a committee of high 15 students chosen by a committee of high

school personnelAcademic promise, ability and motivation to

participateparticipateFirst-generation college prospectNebraska resident with a social security

bnumberParental CommitmentParental CommitmentPotential to be Pell Grant eligible

D th t i ht Do the next right thing for Nebraska gmath students math students

Thank you!Thank you!

Success Story: Lexington Public Schools Lexington, Neb.

Julie A. Otero, Ed.S., is director of education for Loverseeing the K-12 curriculum; staff developmenassessments; Title I, II and V grant management; also the principal of two rural elementary schools: Lexington, Neb.

Systems thinking is being used in Lexington Public SImprovement Process for staff K-12 and as part of th First of all, collaboratively using information from RoKnowledge and from Lee Jenkins’ book, PermissionFrustration, grade level teachers (K-12) met and ideand Key Math Concepts for each grade level. The liidentified, and students are responsible for remembgrade level lists of vocabulary with definitions and Mpublished for teachers, parents, and students. Next, school personnel were taught how to conduct LtoJ® assessment process. After the weekly randodocumented in several ways to use instructionally. individual student achievement, class student achieare then documented. In math, grade level teachersstudents are accountable for knowing at the end of etime, the teachers who created the key concepts alsin making the weekly math quizzes given to studentat the student, teacher, building, and district level. Systems thinking has helped ensure that all studentlearn what our teachers have deemed as necessarythinking has changed student achievement by helpinpermission to forget; rather they are accountable forAdditionally through the use of the LtoJ® process, thand preview of important material. The buy-in from our stakeholders for a systems appfrustration and then implementing a system that allefocused on the system perspective because of the s In order to get started in using systems thinking, reabe helpful: Improving Student Learning: Applying DPermission to Forget and Nine Other Root Causes oday conference. The goal of leaving no child behind is honorable andHowever, according to Dr. Jenkins, the current strucstudents to be successful with high standards. By inthe non-negotiable learning for each grade level for assessment method of learning, Lexington Public Shave high success along with high standards.

Success Story: Systems TSystems Thinking for Sch

exington Public Schools. Her responsibilities include t; school improvement; district CRT and NRT and state reporting for staff and students. She is Principal Windy Acres and Horseshoe Bend in

chools as an intervention tool in the School e district’s regular math instruction.

bert Marzano’s Building Background for Vocabulary to Forget and Nine Other Root Causes of America's ntified the must-know key content vocabulary words sts/concepts do not repeat as only new learning is ering previous grade level information. Once the ath Key-Concepts were developed they were

weekly random vocabulary testing sessions using the m testing is completed, the results are then For example, vocabulary achievement through vement, school building achievement. District results identified “key concepts” under 7 math strands that ach grade. However, in an effort to save teachers o created weekly LtoJ® math questions that are used s at all grade levels. Once again the results are used

s in the school system have multiple opportunities to and nonnegotiable in vocabulary and math. Systems g our students realize that they no longer have the what our teachers have asked them to learn. e students have opportunity for continuous review

roach was done through acknowledging teacher viates their frustration. And, our school system stays uccess our teachers and students demonstrate.

ding the following books written by Lee Jenkins would eming’s Quality Principles in Classrooms and f America's Frustration as well as attending his two

the right thing for which educators should aim. ture of education systems does not allow for all corporating a systems approach such as identifying each subject level, then employing the LtoJ® chools’ students are proving it is indeed possible to

hinking in Public Education ool System Leaders Toolkit

References

Jenkins, L. (2003). Improving Student Learning: Applying Deming’s Quality Principles in Classrooms. American Society for Quality Press. Milwaukee, WI. Jenkins, L. (2007). Personal Interviews with Lee Jenkins. December 3-7, 2007. Lexington Public Schools, Lexington, NE. Jenkins, L. (2007) http://www.ltojconsulting.com/ Jenkins, L. (2004) Permission to Forget and Nine Other Root Causes of America's Frustration. ASQ Quality Press. Lexington Public Schools website. Lexington, NE http://manila.lex.esu10.org/lexcurric/about

http://manila.lex.esu10.org/lexcurric/about http://manila.lex.esu10.org/lexcurric/about

http://manila.lex.esu10.org/lexcurric/stories/storyReader$6 Marzano, Robert, J. (2004). Building Background Knowledge for Academic Achievement. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Alexandria, VA.

Success Story: Systems Thinking in Public Education Systems Thinking for School System Leaders Toolkit

LPS updated on school laptop program by Danny Gruber C-H staff writer

Published: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 4:35 PM CST LEXINGTON – Lexington Public School teachers gave a presentation to school board members Monday night at the board’s regularly scheduled meeting. The presentation gave an overview of the progress students and teachers are making in the recently implemented 1 to 1 Computer Initiative. Topics presented included laptop insurance information, student use surveys and classroom impact feedback from teachers. Each student who opts to take a laptop home for schoolwork is required to purchase an insurance policy to cover for accidental damage, loss or theft. Since the beginning of the school year, of the 1147 laptops in use in the Lexington district, 24 have needed repairs. Most repair work has been covered by device warranty and includes items such as battery issues, electronic circuitry and outer cases that cracked. Of those 24 computers repaired, nine were not covered under warranty because the damage was a broken screen. For those nine computers, $1,120 was subtracted from insurance monies, leaving the district with a little more than $51,000 remaining in district’s self-insured fund. The percent of students who opt to take a laptop home to complete schoolwork is 92. Interestingly enough, the 92 percent is a constant number across each grade; seventh, eighth and high school grades nine through 12. Students who take the computers home for use were given a survey to complete to gauge their perception of the computers and the 1 to 1 Computer Initiative. The survey consisted of five questions, asking the students if they felt the quality of their education had improved because of the use of the computer, if they spent more time working on homework and projects, if they were more interested in their schoolwork and learning because of the computer, if teachers were able to allow them to collaborate with peers and if using a computer helped them become more prepared for college. While many students did not feel their interest in schoolwork had increased, 42 percent said no,

the larger majority indicated having a computer at their disposal increased their interest in learning. Other questions in the survey garnered more favorable responses. Seven out of every 10 students felt the quality of their education had improved and that they would be more prepared for college. Teachers also touted the positive impact of the computer initiative. Positive aspects of the program for instructors included the increased communication and organization and the decrease in paper. In fact, most instructors present at the board meeting indicated their classrooms had become paperless. Using Wiki spaces and Google Docs across all classes, students and teachers are better able to post discussions and homework. Honors students upload work and allow peers to collaborate on projects. In addition, the instructors said time stamps and document revision histories allowed them to determine if work was original or most likely copied from a friend. Wiki spaces and Google Docs are free services for the school, as well as the general public. The only negative teachers reported was the time constraints in getting their lessons and plans digitized. They did indicate, however, that as lessons, homework and tests were converted, the task would be easier in the future.

Copyright © 2009 - Lexington Clipper-Herald