An Evaluation Report: i3 Development Grant Dev07 – Sammamish High School
“Re-imagining Career and College Readiness: STEM, Rigor, and Equity in a Comprehensive High School”
Randy Knuth, Ph.D. Knuth Research, Inc. [email protected]
Paul S. Sutton, Ph.D. Pacific Lutheran University [email protected]
Sheldon Levias, Ph.D. University of Washington, Seattle
Annie Camey Kuo, Ph.D. Stanford University
Matthew Callison Indiana University
March 1, 2016
Knuth, et al.: An Evaluation Report: Investing in Innovation (i3) Development Grant Dev07
Acknowledgements
The findings reported herein were supported by funding from an Investing in Innovation Grant (i3), PR/Award # U396C100150, as awarded by the Department of Education.
The authors would like to thank the teachers and school leaders at the awarded institution who gave generously of their time and insights to help us complete this evaluation. The authors acknowledge, as well, the assistance of Andrew W. Shouse and Elizabeth Wright who made contributions to this project and, in some cases, early support towards this evaluation.
2
Knuth, et al.: An Evaluation Report: Investing in Innovation (i3) Development Grant Dev07
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ...... 1
Chapter 1: The School Context ...... 7 District Impact on Teacher-Centered Curriculum Design ...... 8 Why PBL? ...... 10
Chapter 2: Fidelity of Implementation ...... 12 Scoring ...... 22 Analysis ...... 23
Chapter 3: Qualitative Methods ...... 25
Chapter 4: Increasing Teacher Pedagogical Expertise ...... 30 Summer Institute of Learning and Teaching (SILT) ...... 32 Methodology ...... 32 Findings ...... 34 PBL Curriculum Design Teams ...... 38 Methodology ...... 41 Findings ...... 43
Chapter 5: School Leadership Structure ...... 51 Purpose of Leadership Team...... 51 Methodology ...... 51 Leadership Team Membership ...... 52 Peripheral Members of Leadership Team ...... 53 Leadership Team Roles ...... 53 Leadership Team Meetings ...... 60 Advisory Board Meetings ...... 60 Findings ...... 61 Discussion ...... 65
Chapter 6: Exploratory Studies 1 and 2 ...... 66 Assessing the Impact of Problem Based Learning (PBL) on Students’ Career and College Readiness ...... 66 Stated Goals and Student Populations ...... 67 PBL Redesigned Courses, Student Cohorts, and Student Populations ...... 67 How We Describe Groups of Students ...... 71 Methodology: Exploratory Study #1 ...... 73 Findings: Exploratory Study #1: Comparison of Student Performance in AP Coursework ...... 78 Impact on Special Populations: English Language Learners ...... 99 PBL Adoption and Comparative AP Scores by Department ...... 107 Adoption of PBL Within Departments ...... 109
Comparison of Mean AP Scores by All Students Disaggregated by Department ...... 122 College and Career Readiness Outcomes for Students Not Participating in AP Coursework ...... 130
i
Knuth, et al.: An Evaluation Report: Investing in Innovation (i3) Development Grant Dev07
Findings: Exploratory Study #2: Impact of Starting Strong/Sammamish Leads on Students’ Career and College Readiness ...... 132 Methodology: Exploratory Study #2 ...... 132
Chapter 7: Discussion and Conclusions ...... 140
References ...... 142
Appendix A. Implementing PBL Classroom Observation Protocol ...... 145 Appendix B: Key Element Classroom Observation Protocol ...... 148 Appendix C: Levels of Use (LOU) Teacher Interview Protocol ...... 151
ii
Knuth, et al.: An Evaluation Report: Investing in Innovation (i3) Development Grant Dev07
List of Tables and Charts
Tables:
Table 1: Sammamish High School’s Free and Reduced Lunch Population Table 2: Teacher Population by Year Table 3: Levels of Use (LOU) Table 4: Establishing the Threshold for PBL Implementation and PBL Readiness Table 5: Sammamish High School Professional Learning Infrastructure Table 6: Measuring Relevance at SILT Table 7: Teacher Participation in SILT Table 8: Fidelity Rating: SILT Table 9: SILT Data Collection Summary Table 10: Overall SILT Effectiveness of Relevance Table 11: Teacher Design Team Data Summary Table 12: Instances of Sharing in AP Human Geography Design Team Meetings Table 13: Instances of Sharing in the Junior English Design Team’s Satire Unit Table 14: Instances of Sharing in Geometry Design Team Meetings Table 15: Overview of Teacher Leaders, Department Affiliation, Major Responsibilities, and FTE Table 16: Advisory Board Meetings Table 17: Courses Targeted for PBL Redesign Table 18: Description of Cohort and Graduation Year Table 19: Comparison of Mean Number of PBL and All Courses Taken by Cohort Table 20: Description of PBL Dosage by Cohort Table 21: Sammamish High School Changing Demographics Over Time Table 22: Number of Students in Each Cohort Matched by Number of SHS Years and AP Test Table 23: AP Tests taken by Course Table 24: Statistically Significant Gains in AP Scores by Course Table 25: Statistically Significant Gains by Students Who Speak a First Language Other Than English at Home (EngNotFirst) in Mean AP Scores by Course Table 26: Statistically Significant Gains by Students Who Receive Free and Reduced Lunch (FRL) Services in Mean AP Scores by Course Table 27: Statistically Significant Gains by Students with Disabilities (SWD) in Mean AP Scores by Course Table 28: Comparison of Mean AP Scores Between All Students in Exploratory Study #1: Mean AP Scores Table 28a: Course Pre/Post Assignment in initial ITS Pass Rate Exploratory Study Table 29: Sample of ELL Students Table 30: CBAM Survey Respondents by Year Table 31: Dependent Variable: Advanced Placement Test Score (Social Studies) Table 32: Dependent Variable: Advanced Placement Test Score (Science) Table 33: Dependent Variable: Advanced Placement Test Score (Math) Table 34: Dependent Variable: Advanced Placement Test Score (English) Table 35: Statistically Significant Gains in Mean AP Scores by Department Table 36: Statistically Significant Gains in Mean AP Scores by FRL Students by Department Table 37: Statistically Significant Gains in Mean AP Scores by EngNotFirst Students by Department
iii
Knuth, et al.: An Evaluation Report: Investing in Innovation (i3) Development Grant Dev07
Table 38: Statistically Significant Gains in Mean AP Scores by Students with Disabilities (SWD) by Department Table 39: Data Collection for Exploratory Study #2 Table 40: Dimensions, Aspects, and Components of the Campus Ready Instrument
Charts:
Chart 1: Percent of SWD, FRL, and EngNotFirst by Matched, Non-Matched, and Non-AP test Takers Chart 2: Number of SWD and EngNotFirst Students Taking AP Tests Chart 3: Percentage of Each Cohort as Members of PBL Exposure Groups Chart 4: School Level AP Test Performance (Estimated Marginal Means) Chart 5: Percent of AP test Takers Passing with a Score of 3 or Higher – Whole School Chart 6: Course Level AP Test Results (Estimated Marginal Means) Chart 7: Percent of AP Test Takers Passing with a Score of 3 or Higher – Whole School (By Course) Chart 8: School Level AP Test Performance – EngNotFirst (Estimated Marginal Means) Chart 9: Course Level AP Test Results – EngNotFirst (Estimated Marginal Means) Chart 10: Percent of AP Test takers Passing with a Score of 3 or Higher – EngNotFirst Chart 11: School Level AP Test Performance – FRL (Estimated Marginal Means) Chart 12: Course Level AP Test Results – FRL (Estimated Marginal Means) Chart 13: Percentage of AP Test Takers Passing with a Score of 3 or Higher - FRL Chart 14: School Level AP Test Performance – SWD (Estimated Marginal Means) Chart 15: Course Level AP Test Results – SWD (Estimated Marginal Means) Chart 16: Percent of AP test Takers Passing with a Score of 3 or Higher – SWD Chart 17: AP Test Mean by Targeted PBL Course Exposure Chart 18: Percent of Students Passing AP Tests by dose of PBL Exposure, Cohorts 2005-2011 Chart 19: School Level AP Performance – Took AP Human Geography Course (Estimated Marginal Means) Chart 20: School Level AP Test Performance – Took AP Human Geography Test (Estimated Marginal Means) Chart 21. Course Level AP test Results – Took AP Human Geography Course as Freshman (Estimated Marginal Means) Chart 22: Course Level AP Test Results – Took AP Human Geography Test as Freshman (Estimated Marginal Means) Chart 23: Hypothesized CBAM Implementation Wave Chart 24: CBAM: SHS 2011-2015 Chart 25: CBAM: Social Studies 2011-2015 Chart 26: CBAM: Science 2011-2015 Chart 27: CBAM: Math 2011-2015 Chart 28: CBAM: English 2011-2015 Chart 29: CBAM: Years of Experience: 2015 Chart 30: CBAM: Chart 31: Percent of AP Test Takers Passing with a Score of 3 or Higher – Whole School (Department) Chart 32: Department Level AP Test Performance – FRL (Estimated Marginal Means) Chart 33: Percent of AP Test Takers Passing with a Score of 3 or Higher - FRL Chart 34: Department Level AP Test Performance – EngNotFirst (Estimated Marginal Means) Chart 35: Percent of AP Test Takers Passing with a Score of 3 or Higher – EngNotFirst iv
Knuth, et al.: An Evaluation Report: Investing in Innovation (i3) Development Grant Dev07
Chart 36: Department Level AP Test Performance – SWD (Estimated Marginal Means) Chart 37: Percent of AP Test Takers Passing with a Score of 3 or Higher – SWD Chart 38: Mean Campus Ready Scores for Non-AP Students: PBL Exposure Chart 39: Campus Ready Post Test Mean
v
Knuth, et al.: An Evaluation Report: Investing in Innovation (i3) Development Grant Dev07
vi
Knuth, et al.: An Evaluation Report: Investing in Innovation (i3) Development Grant Dev07
Executive Summary
In 2009, Sammamish High School, a public comprehensive high school in the Bellevue School District, was struggling. Enrollment was declining. Since 2002, Sammamish High School has served an increasingly linguistically, socio-economically, racially, and ethnically diverse student body. Student achievement data revealed that gaps between groups of students remained a chronic problem despite efforts by various school leaders to significantly narrow them. Whereas gaps in reading and writing were narrowed, gaps continued in math and, to some extent, graduation rates. White students continued to outperform their African American and Hispanic peers. Middle class and affluent students continued to outperform their more impoverished peers. Students qualifying for Special Education and English Language Learner services and accommodations struggled to keep up with their mainstream, native English peers. Instigated by a committee of teachers looking for a dramatic way to reset the school’s academic culture, the school investigated various options for improving student outcomes. Problem- based learning (PBL) emerged as a promising approach. In 2010, Sammamish High School received a “Development”-level Investing in Innovation (i3) grant from the Department of Education. The school focused on science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) disciplines and identified PBL as their primary tool of school-wide improvement. In their grant proposal Sammamish articulated several goals and student learning and achievement outcomes they hoped to accomplish by 2015.
Their goals included: Implementation of PBL curriculum throughout the school to establish a scalable, sustainable, 21st century skills based program in Advanced Placement (AP) and non-AP coursework, Use PBL as a framework to support student growth in key cognitive strategies and academic behavior, Implement a series of specific supports for struggling students, focused on increased mathematics literacy, Provide customized and situated professional development (PD) that will help teachers implement new PBL curricula and evaluate their effectiveness to do so.
Their student learning and achievement outcomes included: 20% increase in AP pass rates, especially in STEM content areas (Biology, Chemistry, Statistics, Calculus AB/BC, Physics, Environmental Science), 20% increase in students with disabilities (SWD) and limited English proficient students (LEPS) enrolling in AP STEM classes, 75% of all students, 50% of SWDs, and 60% of LEPS successfully completing pre-calculus with a B or better, 100% of all students reaching standard on the state math test, 10% annual improvement on the state science test for all students,
1
Knuth, et al.: An Evaluation Report: Investing in Innovation (i3) Development Grant Dev07