California Academic Partnership Program High School Exit Exam Project: Jordan Freshman Academy Annual Report

California Academic Partnership Program High School Exit Exam Project: Jordan Freshman Academy Annual Report Sheila Shea, Research Associate Jordan Horowitz, Project Director October 2003

BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION The Jordan Freshman Academy CAPP California High School Exit Exam Project involves Jordan Freshman Academy (JFA) and their main feeder school, Lindbergh Middle School (LMS), both of which are a part of the Long Beach Unified School District (LBUSD). The post-secondary partner is California State University, Long Beach. Jordan Freshman Academy is a unique case among the CAPP CAHSEE projects. It houses ninth graders on a campus separate from the tenth to twelfth grade main campus. The project currently focuses on ninth graders at the freshman academy and all activities this past year addressed ninth graders and middle school students at Lindbergh. Students at Jordan Freshman Academy receive a double-dose of English one English class and one reading class. The project director is with the High School Office-Gear UP department at LBUSD. The second year of the CAPP CAHSEE grant for the Jordan Freshman Academy and Lindbergh Middle School project shows progress made in two areas communication and coaching. Communication is getting stronger between the middle and high school, as evidenced by the commitment on both sides to attend vertical teaming meetings and the effort made to share and discuss school data. The project director and coaches at both schools also communicate often. For example, the project director was well aware of some of the concerns regarding JFA s tutoring program early on and had ongoing conversations with coaches about possible remedies for the upcoming year before the current school year ended. Another strength is the coaching component. Coaches at both schools are experienced and teachers found meetings with them productive and useful for their own classroom needs. However, like many schools, the project is challenged by a lack of time to conduct ongoing meetings with school staff. For example, project leaders struggled with finding time to get feedback from teachers about tutoring curricula. They must also find time to work with teachers closely one on one, despite district budget cuts and teaching demands. Another challenge is motivating freshman students to focus their energy early to prepare for high school graduation and then entrance into a fouryear college. JFA staff are committed to freshman students and would like to see their students graduate from high school and enter a university or college. Data Collection and Reporting Findings in this report are based on a one-day site visit to Jordan Freshman Academy in February and a two-day site visit to JFA and Lindbergh Middle School in May 2003. In February, the following staff were interviewed: project director, JFA s literacy coach/english chair, JFA math tutorial teacher, and JFA math coach. In addition, a math tutorial was observed. In May the following were interviewed: project director, Lindbergh Middle math coach, Lindbergh Middle principal, JFA principal, JFA math coach, JFA literacy coach/english chair, district literacy coach, JFA counselor, six JFA 1

English teachers, five JFA math teachers, and 14 JFA students. One JFA math tutorial was also observed. In addition, a teacher s survey was administered in April 2003 (see Appendix). This report is divided into two main sections. It begins with a discussion of the main grant activities that took place during the second year of implementation including student support services, partnerships, and structural and curricular support. We then briefly discuss how the project is being monitored internally to measure progress. The second section, the conclusion, is comprised of a discussion of the strengths and challenges for this year, the progress made on last year s recommendations and finally, recommendations for the 2003-04 school year. 2

YEAR TWO IMPLEMENTATION: MAIN GRANT ACTIVITIES The focus of the Jordan Freshman Academy project is on improving mathematics and writing by providing professional development to faculty, in addition to various types of student intervention. Other goals are (a) to increase the number of students in algebra or pre-algebra at the middle school and (b) increase the number of students who complete the A through G course requirements at the high school. Jordan Freshman Academy outlined several activities in their proposal but this report highlights the main activities this year. Student Support Jordan Freshman Academy and Lindbergh Middle School provide math tutoring for students. The middle school offers two types of tutorials, one during seventh period and one after school. The high school offers after school math tutoring. In addition, both schools provide students college preparatory information through AVID courses. Tutorial Services Both the middle and high school provide support for students who need extra assistance in mathematics, with a focus on helping students at risk of failing algebra. Lindbergh Middle School is implementing a seventh period and an after school tutorial. The seventh period tutorial is based on a reteach-retest model. Students take the end of chapter test in class and if they fail the test, they are strongly encouraged to take the four-to-six week tutorial. The tutorial focuses on mathematical concepts that students have difficulty with, as evidenced by the end-of-chapter test results. The after-school tutorial is much more basic and aimed at low-level math students. Results at the end of the school year indicate that both types of tutorials led to increased scores from pre-to post-tests for all students. However, increases are slight and the gains may not always be enough for students to receive a passing grade. Like the middle school, Jordan Freshman Academy is also implementing a tutorial program that takes place during an advisory period, the last period of the day. JFA teachers asked Lindbergh teachers to identify students who had difficulty with pre-algebra concepts toward the end of their eighth grade year. Approximately 60 students were placed in this advisory period math tutorial class for the entire year. The purpose of the class is to help students prepare for the CAHSEE. Students focus on algebraic concepts, review basic math concepts, and are given worksheets with sample CAHSEE test questions. Students receive a pass or fail grade in the class. However, there s no effect on students grade point average if they fail the tutoring class. 3

The challenges at JFA are getting students to come to the last period of the day consistently and finding a curriculum that engages students and increases their algebra skills. Students do not appear to be motivated since grades are not assigned. Also passing grades in the tutorial class do not correlate with passing grades in math courses. Teachers speculate that the lack of time to prepare a strong curriculum for the tutorial made the content unappealing to students. The school used CAPP funds to pay for several days of planning, but it was not enough to create the type of curriculum needed. JFA staff and the project director have discussed the possibility of either canceling this tutoring (due to the district s initiative to double-dose in math next year) or restructuring the curriculum to make it more engaging for students by incorporating more project based assignments. The school s math coach does not believe the classes are having a significant impact on student performance. She suggested the reason might be that the material may not have been presented in a way that is interesting to students who need the most help in math. She estimates that only five to ten percent of students go from a grade of D to a grade of B or C as a result of taking the tutorial class. The project director concluded that student intervention was probably the most difficult component for them this year due to little time devoted to planning the curriculum and follow up with teachers. In response, the project director and the math coach identified steps to create a revised tutoring model for fall 2003. The CAHSEE Students we interviewed reported taking the exit exam quite seriously and were aware of the consequences of the exam. Teachers and some administrators, on the other hand, do not believe freshman are taking the exam seriously enough, but more importantly that students are not prepared to pass the exam. They point to the overwhelming number of students reading well below grade level and who have difficulty with basic math skills. Despite students lack of preparedness, a majority of teachers interviewed believed that a test of basic competency is necessary to end social promotion and postponing the exam would have detrimental effects (e.g., teachers lack of credibility, students taking test less seriously). The principal also agreed that the test should not be postponed. He added that schools need to do a better job of informing parents about the exam since many parents want their children to graduate high school. He stated, If parents see the test as important, they ll make the kids think about it seriously. College Preparation Working with AVID created a new partnership layer for the project, since both schools received a GEAR UP grant this year. (The project director explained that AVID helps to address the third goal of the CAHSEE grant which is to help students complete the A through G requirements.) Students and 4

teachers reported that AVID courses, which are funded through a GEAR UP grant, provided students with information about college preparation. AVID promotes college readiness through visits to colleges, resource materials, and tracking of students progress as they transition to the main campus. AVID appears to be a strong program at the school. It not only helps students become aware of the college application process, it also provides academic support from teachers and college aids. It is a voluntary program, but students must fit a certain profile to participate: middle to low achieving student, good attendance, few behavioral issues, and a commitment to taking the AVID elective course. The program does not directly address all students at JFA, but by training all core content teachers in AVID methodologies, the project director hopes that all students can gain access to the good teaching strategies and hopefully reap some of the benefits of AVID. Despite a solid program, students at JFA are not fully aware of what is required to enter a fouryear college nor are they actively pursuing resources to find out. Rather, students are interested in learning about different colleges and life on a college campus. The principal stated, There is total lack of knowing what it takes to get there. It s like being an NBA star. One high school counselor agreed, stating that ninth grade students do not have many questions about college. It appears that freshman students do not realize they need to begin thinking about college when they enter high school. The counseling office provides information about college but it may need to be ongoing, throughout the year. Given students interest in college campuses, there may be ways to tie workshops about the college application process and steps needed to become eligible, with visits to college campuses. Partnerships The partnership between Lindbergh Middle School and Jordan Freshman Academy continued to grow this year, as schools met several times to conduct vertical team meetings. Both schools are committed to examining student data and discussing how to data to improve instructional practice at these meetings. The partnership with CSU Long Beach has not been as strong this year but opportunities for future collaboration are being considered. Middle and High School Articulation Lindbergh Middle School had several opportunities this year to do vertical teaming with Jordan Freshman Academy math and English teachers. The purpose was to align curricula and ease the transition from middle to high school. The middle school math coach believes that the articulation meetings were critical to the partnership and set a precedent for the school, and possibly the district. Currently LBUSD is looking into the partnership between the two schools as a model in the district. 5

The project director believes that articulation is improving each year and efforts to have the two schools meet next year will continue. Articulation meetings helped schools address programming issues and the time spent in meetings was worthwhile. For example, JFA now offers geometry for entering freshman based on the fact that some students took algebra at Lindbergh and mastered high school algebra standards in eighth grade. This past year, both schools looked closely at the population of students from Lindbergh entering JFA and how they performed on the mock CAHSEE. As of May 2003, out of 264 students who took the ELA mock exam, only 34 freshman students from Lindbergh passed and only 12 out of 257 students who took the math portion passed the exam. Both schools are looking closely at this data to guide instructional practice and student intervention for the upcoming year. Lindbergh s middle school math coach was also invited to attend the week of summer training for JFA math teachers. Middle school teachers, however, were not able to attend the training due to their classroom commitments on the tracked schedule. It is critical that vertical teaming continues in the future as both schools have gained important information to help strengthen and focus math instruction at their schools. Finally, the partnership with CSU Long Beach has not been a focus this year. The project director acknowledged that both schools needed to find time to discuss how a partnership would best serve the needs of the staff. It is recommended that this discussion take place in the beginning of the year, as noted in the annual workbook. Furthermore, project schools should consider using the partnership to help address obstacles with tutoring and/or furthering the progress of examining student work in both departments. The project also may want to consider using the CSU partnership to help freshman students become more aware about requirements for entry to a four-year college. Structural and Curricular Support One of the major goals of the project is to provide Lindbergh and Jordan teachers professional development during CAPP Summer Institutes and through work with coaches. Teachers walked away from summer institutes with strategies and resources to use in their classrooms, while coaching sessions provided teachers with opportunities to reflect on their own teaching and receive feedback from others. Professional Development English and ELD teachers from JFA and Lindbergh participated in the CAPP Summer Writing Institute in summer 2002. The institute focused on (a) finding the best strategies to teach students to write different genres, (b) curriculum mapping, and (c) common writing tasks. Lindbergh and Jordan math teachers also participated in summer institutes last year. The focus was on common assessments and developing projects for the school year. Teachers used practice CAHSEE, SAT9, and end-of-course 6

data to guide their discussions. This year, math and English teachers participated in summer institutes as well. Math teachers focused on standards-based unit planning and English teachers continued the work on curriculum mapping from the previous summer. Both Lindbergh Middle School and Jordan Freshman Academy benefited from working with onsite coaches. Lindbergh has a full time math coach and English coach (who has been on maternity leave since December, 2002). Jordan has a math and English coach who spend half their time at the freshman academy and half their time at the main campus. The math coach/department chair at Lindbergh observes each teacher in the department at least once each quarter and helps to model, co-teach, develop lessons, analyze student work, and discuss delivery strategies. The math coach continually examines data so she can identify areas of needed improvement. The use of data is important because it allows coaches and teachers to see which teachers need support to help the neediest students. The department used CAPP funds this year to support professional development time to address disaggregated data and pacing charts to support curriculum mapping. Unfortunately, due to district budget cuts Lindbergh s math coach may return to the classroom full time in fall 2003 and not be able to work one on one with teachers as she did during the 2002-03 academic year. At Jordan Freshman Academy the math coach is not the department head but a resource teacher who spends her time supporting teachers in her department. She conducts meetings with Jordan staff to develop and implement common assessments, examines disaggregated data, and supports teachers in their classrooms by providing information about best practices and materials. She acknowledged the difficulty she had this year finding time to examine results from common assessments due to her other responsibilities at the main campus. The previous year (first year of the academy), she was able to devote full time to JFA but this year she spent only half her time at JFA. She spent individual conference periods with teachers to discuss results of the end-of-chapter tests. The coach showed teachers their results compared to schoolwide data so they could get a better idea of how their students were doing, which often led to discussions about teaching strengths and challenges. The project director believes that the common assessments, combined with rubrics and pacing are really moving things forward. The district now is considering using some of these ideas for their own summer institute for all high school teachers in the district. The project director noted, The district saw a need for teachers to have time and resources to plan. The English department also benefited from working with coaches. One on-site coach also serves as the department chair. The second coach, from the district office, worked with teachers several times a month. Both coaches collaborated with teachers to find the most effective ways of teaching writing. Sometimes teachers worked with one coach while in other instances both coaches were present. This past year, the focus was on evaluating student work to improve instructional practice. Teachers used the meetings to share common difficulties and find best practices. Initially, teachers were hesitant to share their student work, but increasingly grew to see it as a beneficial professional activity. Teachers often 7

asked each other, What did you do to get those results? The biggest impact both coaches saw was the atmosphere these sessions created one where teachers willingly collaborated to improve instruction. The district coach stated, Those who plan together do better. Teachers report that the student work meetings were very productive and as one noted invaluable. Specifically, teachers focused on unpacking the writing prompt. The student work meetings enabled teachers to get valuable feedback from their colleagues. As one teacher stated, Am I the only one having this problem or is it across the board? What do we do? Other teachers remarked that it helped them be more objective, become less isolated, and validate their own work. Rather than being uncomfortable and unprepared prior to meetings, teachers now plan ahead before meetings, bringing in folders of student work, both strong and weak. According to the English coach, the presentation of student work motivated teachers to become more reflective and find various ways to improve their own instruction. Teachers were generally very positive about the benefits of the meetings, but there was some debate about where student work meetings should start. While a few teachers believed teachers should not expect students to have adequate skills to write essays as freshmen, others tended to disagree, arguing that this sets up low expectations. These types of discussions are important to pursue because they set up assumptions about the kinds of skills students have and where teachers should set priorities. This discussion be a good starting point for the beginning of the school year so teachers are on the same page about the purpose of student work meetings and the direction they should take. According to the coaches, the impact on student work is evident. The English coach has seen more sophisticated student writing, the use of more quotations, citing of sources, thesis statements, and support for statements. Students essays are more detailed and not limited to a standard five-sentence paragraph. Teachers also say they see growth, but since students enter as freshman with very low levels of reading and writing, they are still not making enough jumps to be able to master ninth grade standards. This may be a good opportunity to engage middle school teachers so both schools can work together to address gaps in writing. We now discuss how grant activities were internally monitored throughout the year and some of intermediate effects of these activities. Monitoring Progress The project director utilized disaggregated data and regular meeting with coaches to monitor progress throughout the year. The project director is measuring a number of outcomes. They are: (a) tracking the number of students in algebra and pre-algebra in the middle grades; (b) the number of students receiving a C or better in algebra at the high school; (c) the number of students in grades six through ten scoring proficient in the LBUSD writing assessment; (d) the number of students receiving math interventions; (e) and the number of students who are on track with the A through G course 8

requirements. These data are used to examine the impact of CAHSEE activities (e.g. professional development and intervention) on student outcomes. Not all results from the 2002-2003 school year are available yet. Some indicators showed positive gains. For example, math tutorials at Lindbergh improved results on end-of- chapter tests. JFA decreased enrollment in Algebra AB (first part of a two year algebra course) by 79 students and increased enrollment in algebra 1/2 (one year algebra course) by 49 students. This suggests that more students were placed in a one-year algebra course (thus helping them meet A through G requirements) and fewer students were on a slower track. Furthermore, 32 percent of JFA students are on track to meet A through G requirements in 2002-2003 compared to only 23 percent the previous year. Other areas however, need improvement. The number of students passing the practice CAHSEE ELA section decreased from 25 to 14 percent over the past two years, while the proportion of those passing math stayed the same at 3 percent. In the next section we will draw some conclusions about the Jordan Freshman Academy project. 9

CONCLUSION The Jordan Freshman Academy project is in a good position to continue the progress made during the first two years of the grant. The project provides students and teachers resources to address the exit exam. Coaching and communication are two assets at JFA and LMS. Although there are challenges, project staff recognize them and are trying to find solutions that will best prepare students for passing the CAHSEE. The following sections of the report are based on the activities implemented during the second year of CAPP CAHSEE funding. We first highlight the strengths of the partnership, components or best practices that we believe are important to capitalize on and continue next year, then we move to challenges. Next we briefly discuss the progress made on the first year recommendations and we end with recommendations for project staff to consider. We recommend that project directors share this report with other project leaders, school faculty, administrators, and partners and use this last section as main discussion points as plans for 2003-04 are being developed. Strengths Student work meetings have been beneficial to teachers. Meetings prompted teachers to be more reflective about their own work and problem-solve to find ways to improve instruction with their colleagues. Ultimately, it has created an atmosphere of professional collaboration. On-site coaches and district coaches provided much needed support for teachers at both schools. Teachers value their feedback and expertise. The school utilized the district s Research, Planning and Evaluation Office to provide needed disaggregated data. Both schools created opportunities among teachers to examine results individually and as a staff. It allowed teachers to see the impact of their work, as well as engage in conversations about how to further improve their work. The project director and school coaches also met during the year to review data and discuss instructional approaches to address gaps in student achievement. The project director and staff communicated regularly to identify strengths and challenges within the project. For example, while tutoring interventions have not been entirely successful, they are finding ways to remedy the problem so a more effective program can begin by fall 2003. 10

JFA and Lindbergh Middle School did innovative work that the district is interested in expanding to other schools. For example, articulation meetings are now being considered as a model for the district, as are some of the activities done with coaches (common assessments, rubrics and pacing guides). Challenges The middle school math coach will return to the classroom full time next year. The challenge will be to continue progress made this year, without a full time coach. Demands on high school coaches at both the main campus and the freshman campus made it difficult to accomplish many of their efforts from last year. It is likely their dual roles will remain the same next year. Tutoring interventions have proven difficult this year, especially at the high school. Little time for planning and lack of student motivation to attend were major hurdles this year. However, the staff and project director are a strong team and have already discussed ways to restructure the program for next year. Given that the CAHSEE is delayed, schools will be challenged to keep freshman motivated to do well on the exam. For the class of 2007, for whom the test is required for graduation, staff should encourage freshman to make the test a priority despite postponement of the test. Teachers, administrators, and counselors may want to work together to discuss strategies to address this potential challenge. Progress on First Year Recommendations A number of recommendations were made in the 2002 evaluation report. The school has taken steps to address some of the recommendations outlined. For example, last year it was suggested that ELD teachers be included in all English professional development activities. This past year they have been invited to the Summer Writing Institute as well as monthly meetings to score and analyze writing assessments. The school also is continuing to use results of the practice CAHSEE at both the middle and high school level, as was suggested during year one. Last year it was recommended that students be made more aware of the consequences of CAHSEE and graduation requirements. This year students seemed more aware of the ramifications of failing the CAHSEE. Other recommendations such as establishing a mentor program for freshman 11

students may take more time to establish. Last year we recommended that the project identify a CSU faculty member early to assist them with faculty needs. As discussed earlier, the partnership was not focused on this year but there may be opportunities to collaborate next year. Recommendations for Year Two Math teachers need more opportunities to discuss student work with other teachers. Teachers mentioned only a few opportunities do so this year. It may be helpful to discuss lessons learned from the student work meetings in the English department. As noted earlier in this report, faculty in the math department at CSU may be able to provide some support through workshops and consultation. Both schools should look closely at the impact of their tutoring programs next year. At Lindbergh, student scores on end of chapter tests seemed to improve, although not significantly and gains may not be enough to help students receive a passing grade. At JFA project staff should continue examining the link between course performance and test performance, placement, and finding ways to improve student performance and incentives. Furthermore, teachers and coaches involved with the new tutoring model should meet several times throughout the year to monitor the progress and impact of the program. Begin next year s student work meetings with discussions about expectations for students and instructional strategies needed to help all students at JFA. The student work meetings have been successful but there seems to be a need to discuss expectations more openly. Staff should build on lessons learned from last year, identify priorities for 2003-04, and include discussions about expectations for students and teachers. Continue to work with core content teachers trained in AVID and with counselors to find strategies to disseminate information to students about college more effectively. Students, especially at the ninth grade, are not self-motivated to actively pursue information about post secondary opportunities. Schools may need to find alterative ways to bring information to students, so they are fully aware of college entrance requirements by the end of freshman year. The partnership between CSU was not established this year but there may be opportunities to increase student awareness through this partnership next year. 12

Appendix 13

Faculty Survey Responses: Year 2 Similar to last year, seventh through eleventh grade math and language arts teachers were asked to complete the CAPP CAHSEE survey at participating schools. The following tables compare combined responses of Jordan Freshman Academy and Lindbergh Middle School teachers to all other CAPP CAHSEE schools, for this year and the previous year. Please note that most questions remained the same from last year. After each survey question, the corresponding question number from Year 2 and then Year 1 are listed. However, in a few cases, questions were worded slightly differently. In these cases, both questions are listed as they appeared on the survey. Questions are listed in ascending order from the Year 2 survey. Total number of JFA and LMS surveys returned: 29 Total number of CAHSEE surveys returned: 305 Table 1: Subject taught by teachers (Year 2 /Year 1) Mathematics 11 39.3 114 44.2 11 39.3 110 47.2 Lang Arts 16 57.1 139 53.9 16 57.1 116 49.8 Both 1 3.4 5 1.9 1 3.6 7 3.0 Table 2: Credentialed teacher (Year 2 /Year 1) No 10 35.7 35 12.8 12 41.4 30 12.6 Yes 18 64.3 238 87.2 17 58.6 209 87.4 Table 3: Teach ELL students (Year 2 /Year 1) No 5 17.2 49 17.9 5 17.2 51 21.3 Yes 24 82.8 225 82.1 23 79.3 184 76.7 14

Table 4: Teach Special Ed (Year 2 /Year 1) No 19 67.9 107 39.2 20 71.4 105 45.3 Yes 9 32.1 166 60.8 8 28.6 127 54.7 Table 5: Teach classes to support students not passing CAHSEE in 10 th grade (Year 2 /Year 1) No 27 93.1 238 88.8 -- -- -- -- Yes 2 6.9 29 10.8 -- -- -- -- Table 6: Complete this survey last year (Year 2 /Year 1) No 17 60.7 157 60.2 -- -- -- -- Yes 11 39.3 103 39.5 -- -- -- -- Table 7: Familiar with CAHSEE content (Year 2 q 1/Year 1 q1) Disagree 1 3.4 30 11.1 -- -- 28 11.8 Agree 28 96.5 241 88.9 29 100.0 210 88.2 Table 8: Familiar with CA state standards (Year 2 q 2/Year 1 q2) Disagree 1 3.4 2.7 1 3.4 4 1.7 Agree 28 96.5 272 99.3 28 96.6 236 98.3 Table 9: Textbooks used are aligned to CA state standards (Year 2 q 3/Year 1 q3) Disagree 2 6.8 26 10.0 5 17.2 51 22.1 Agree 27 93.1 233 90.0 24 82.8 180 77.9 15

Table 10: CAHSEE Reflects standards students should learn (Year 2 q 4/Year 1 q4) Disagree 5 17.2 86 33.5 6 22.2 84 37.5 Agree 24 82.8 171 66.5 21 77.8 140 62.5 Table 11: CAHSEE is neither too hard nor easy (Year 2 q 5/Year 1 q5) Disagree 10 37.0 86 34.4 10 38.5 98 43.6 Agree 17 63.0 164 65.6 16 61.5 127 56.4 Table 12: Granting diploma in CA should be dependent on passing CAHSEE (Year 2 q 6/Year 1 N/A) Disagree 16 55.1 141 52.8 -- -- -- -- Agree 13 44.8 126 47.2 -- -- -- -- Table 13: I teach standards covered in CAHSEE classes that are related to the exam (Year 2 q 7/Year 1 q7) Disagree 2 7.1 26 10.5 1 3.8 33 15.0 Agree 26 92.9 222 89.5 25 96.2 187 85.0 Table 14: Modified student assessments based on CAHSEE (Year 2 q 8/Year 1 q 10) Disagree 7 25.0 106 41.1 9 36.0 107 47.6 Agree 21 75.0 152 58.9 16 64.0 118 52.4 Table 15: Accommodations have been made for special ed students taking CAHSEE (Year 2 q9/year 1 q 11) Disagree 13 46.4 146 61.3 6 24.0 113 61.1 Agree 15 53.5 92 38.7 19 76.0 72 38.9 16

Table 16: Classroom practices in dept have changed due to CAHSEE (Year 2 q 10/Year 1 q 12) Disagree 3 10.7 46 18.3 4 15.4 63 28.4 Agree 25 89.3 206 81.7 22 84.6 159 71.6 Table 17: My students will pass the CAHSEE Year 2 q 11/Year 1 q 13 Disagree 8 28.6 85 33.9 8 34.8 62 28.8 Agree 20 71.4 166 66.1 15 65.2 153 71.2 Table 18: Only a selection of CA standards are on CAHSEE (Year 2 q 12/Year 1 q 14) Disagree 5 20.8 57 25.1 12 50.0 54 27.0 Agree 19 79.1 170 74.9 12 50.0 146 73.0 Table 19: New texts acquired to align to CA state standards (Year 2 q 13/Year 1 q 16) Disagree 5 18.5 64 24.5 7 25.0 61 28.4 Agree 22 81.5 197 75.5 21 75.0 154 71.6 Table 20: With accommodations special ed students can pass CAHSEE (Year 2 q 14/Year 1 q 17) Disagree 14 50.0 154 63.1 10 40.0 110 57.6 Agree 14 50.0 90 36.9 15 60.0 81 42.4 17

Table 21: CAPP resources at school likely to help students pass CAHSEE (Year 2 q 15) Being involved in CAPP has students better prepared to pass CAHSEE (Year 1 q 19) Disagree 5 17.9 50 20.2 2 7.4 58 28.3 Agree 23 82.2 197 79.8 25 92.6 147 71.7 Table 22: Appropriate to expect all ELL to pass CAHSEE to get diploma (Year 2 q 16/Year 1 q 20) Disagree 16 55.1 152 56.9 10 35.7 126 55.5 Agree 13 44.8 115 43.1 18 64.3 101 44.5 Table 23: Our school has a clear vision for improving achievement (Year 2 q 17/Year 1 q 22) Disagree 3 10.3 61 22.6 2 7.1 53 23.6 Agree 26 89.6 209 77.4 26 92.9 172 76.4 Table 24: Students aware of CAHSEE (Year 2 q 18/Year 1 q 23) Disagree 2 6.8 41 15.4 2 8.3 55 23.9 Agree 27 93.1 226 84.6 22 91.7 175 76.1 Table 25: Students will graduate with English and math skills as result of CAHSEE (Year 2 q 19/Year 1 N/A) Disagree 12 41.4 124 47.1 -- -- -- -- Agree 17 58.6 139 52.9 -- -- -- -- Table 26: I am aware of subject standards on CAHSEE (Year 2 q 20/Year 1 q 24) Disagree 1 3.4 44 16.7 2 7.4 39 17.0 Agree 28 96.6 220 83.3 25 92.6 190 83.0 18

Table 27: Assess students more frequently to prep for CAHSEE (Year 2 q 21/Year 1 q 25) Disagree 8 27.5 101 38.4 9 34.6 80 36.4 Agree 21 72.4 162 61.6 17 65.4 140 63.6 Table 28: Standardized tests are important (Year 2 q 22/Year 1 q 28) Disagree 17 58.6 129 49.8 19 65.5 129 56.6 Agree 12 41.3 130 50.2 10 34.5 99 43.4 Table 29: Appropriate to change instruction methods for CAHSEE (Year 2 q 23/Year 1 q 29) Disagree 12 41.3 70 26.5 3 10.7 61 28.1 Agree 17 58.6 194 73.5 25 89.3 156 71.9 Table 30: Our students have good chance to pass CAHSEE (Year 2 q 24/Year 1 q 30) Disagree 16 55.1 134 50.2 14 50.0 99 44.4 Agree 13 44.8 133 49.8 14 50.0 1224 55.6 Table 31: passing CAHSEE will endure as diploma requirement (Year 2 q 25/Year 1 q 31) Disagree 15 51.7 158 60.8 9 33.3 110 50.2 Agree 14 48.2 102 39.2 18 66.7 109 49.8 Table 32: Our students take CAHSEE seriously (Year 2 q 26/Year 1 q 32) Disagree 11 37.9 85 32.2 12 48.0 83 38.6 Agree 18 62.1 179 67.8 13 52.0 132 61.4 19

Table 33: CAHSEE has had more influence than other reform efforts (Year 2 q 27/Year 1 N/A) Disagree 18 62.1 141 55.1 -- -- -- -- Agree 11 37.9 115 44.9 -- -- -- -- Table 34: I have received enough professional development regarding CAHSEE (Year 2 q 28/Year 1 q N/A) Disagree 6 20.7 126 48.1 -- -- -- -- Agree 23 79.3 136 51.9 -- -- -- -- Table 35: Quality of CAHSEE professional development has been adequate (Year 2 q 29/Year 1 N/A) Disagree 4 14.3 115 45.1 -- -- -- -- Agree 24 85.7 140 54.9 -- -- -- -- Table 36: Professional development I receive regarding the CAHSEE helped students succeed on exam (Year 2 q 30) My professional development experiences help me prepare students for the CAHSEE (Year 1 q 9) Disagree 2 34.7 117 51.8 3 11.5 55 24.3 Agree 15 65.2 109 48.2 23 88.5 171 75.7 Table 37: School made following changes to improve performance on CAHSEE: scheduling (Year 2 q 31a/Year 1 N/A) No 20 69.0 185 67.0 -- -- -- -- Yes 9 31.0 91 33.0 -- -- -- -- 20

Table 38: School made following changes to improve performance on CAHSEE: tutoring Year 2 q 31b/Year 1 N/A: No 7 24.1 107 38.8 -- -- -- -- Yes 22 75.9 169 61.2 -- -- -- -- Table 39: School made following changes to improve performance on CAHSEE: banking time (Year 2 q 31c/Year 1 N/A) No 29 100.0 262 94.9 -- -- -- -- Yes 0 0.0 14 5.1 -- -- -- -- Table 40: School made following changes to improve performance on CAHSEE: small learning communities (Year 2 q 31d/Year 1 N/A) No 21 72.4 199 72.1 -- -- -- -- Yes 8 27.6 77 27.9 -- -- -- -- Table 41: School made following changes to improve performance on CAHSEE: curriculum (Year 2 q 31e/Year 1 N/A) No 10 34.5 100 36.2 -- -- -- -- Yes 19 65.5 176 63.8 -- -- -- -- Table 42: School made following changes to improve performance on CAHSEE: support classes (Year 2 q 31f/Year 1 N/A) No 15 51.7 99 35.9 -- -- -- -- Yes 14 48.3 177 64.1 -- -- -- -- 21

Table 43: School made following changes to improve performance on CAHSEE: other (Year 2 q 31g/Year 1 N/A) No 26 89.7 262 94.9 -- -- -- -- Yes 3 10.3 14 5.1 -- -- -- -- Table 44: 10 th Graders had enough opportunity to prep for CAHSEE (Year 2 q 32/Year 1 q 6) Disagree 4 25.8 56 36.6 8 42.1 86 46.0 Agree 10 71.4 97 63.4 11 57.9 101 54.0 Table 45: Students who did not pass had adequate remediation opportunities (Year 2 q 33/Year 1 N/A) Disagree 4 25.1 43 27.2 -- -- -- -- Agree 12 75.1 115 72.8 -- -- -- -- Table 46: Used results from CAHSEE to modify teaching (Year 2 q 34/Year 1 q 8) Disagree 3 21.4 65 42.8 7 31.8 108 51.2 Agree 11 78.5 87 57.2 15 68.2 103 48.8 Table 47: Sch/dist monitoring of who takes exam works (Year 2 q 35/Year 1 q 15) Disagree 5 31.3 49 32.2 7 30.4 78 42.9 Agree 11 68.8 103 67.8 16 69.6 104 57.1 Table 48: School has effective CAHSEE results info system for individual understanding (Year 2 q 36Year 1 q N/A) Disagree 6 37.5 96 61.9 -- -- -- -- Agree 10 62.5 59 38.1 -- -- -- -- 22

Table 49: School has effective CAHSEE results info system for group understanding (Year 2 q 37/Year 1 N/A) Disagree 6 40.0 95 62.5 -- -- -- -- Agree 9 60.0 57 37.5 -- -- -- -- Table 50: I am aware of which students receive CAHSEE remediation (Year 2 q 38/Year 1 N/A) Disagree 8 50.0 81 51.3 -- -- -- -- Agree 8 50.0 77 48.7 -- -- -- -- Table 51: School implementing system to assist students (Year 2 q 39/Year 1 N/A) Disagree 2 11.8 20 12.3 -- -- -- -- Agree 15 88.2 142 87.7 -- -- -- -- 23