Horizonte School Improvement Grant Site Visit, February 2013 Executive Summary March 5, 2013

As part of the ongoing evaluation for the School Improvement Grant (SIG) at Horizonte, Angelina E. Castagno spent two days at Horizonte in late February. The purpose of this visit was to collect second-year qualitative data for the SIG evaluation.

My site visit to Horizonte occurred on February 27-28. The visit began with a presentation of SIG highlights by the principal and other administrators. The rest of the time was filled with individual and group interviews. I spoke with two individuals, and the groups ranged in size from two to eight members. Groups were primarily organized by similar content areas (for teachers) and/or roles within the school (i.e., counselors and social workers).

I spoke with 33 adult staff members and 10 students over the course of two full days at Horizonte. The staff included administration, coaches, teachers from multiple content areas and grade levels, social workers, and counselors. Only three individuals were from (or otherwise could represent) outside sites. Since this visit did not include trips to the outside sites, the views of a range of outside site teachers is an important absence to note in this report. The students were a diverse group; they ranged from those who had been at Horizonte since before SIG was implemented to those that had only been at the school for a few months. The majority had been at Horizonte for about one year or just under a year. The group included both young men and young women, mothers, and various racial groups.

The following sections include the major ideas that were shared with me during my visit. Given the mid-point of the SIG efforts and the limited time I had with people, I focused my questions on the successes and challenges of SIG and recommendations for the future. When needed, I followed up these broad questions with prompts about specific aspects of SIG (i.e., professional development, curriculum alignment, etc.). All material in quotation marks are direct quotes from respondents during interviews or focus groups.

Successes and highlights of SIG thus far: The majority of staff with whom I spoke agreed that the SIG has had a “tremendously positive impact” on Horizonte. Another staff member used the word “synergy” to describe the way multiple elements of the work they’ve been doing seem to be “coming together in a consistent way.” In my conversations, I was also struck by the consistency in what I heard – which speaks well to the efforts and success at the school. Highlights and successes of SIG include the following:  Additional Language Arts coach (so 2 total) during year two of SIG  Daily math and edits available online for teachers, including teaching notes to assist teachers in areas or topics with which they may be less familiar  A Reading Specialist worked full time for the first half of the year at Horizonte. The reading specialist developed a curriculum to be used in Advisory, along with a Wiki that maps out each week of each session. This is available for all teachers at all sites to use. She was also able to model reading instruction during the first half of the

1 year. As one teacher expressed, “my advisory this year has been more meaningful.” In a similar vein, another noted that “every teacher in the building is saying ‘set a purpose to read’” so there is greater consistency for students around what engaged reading looks like. Although there was not a sense that all teachers had been using the reading curriculum, those that were using it were very pleased and felt it was a positive change for their students. Now that the reading specialist position is gone (she is teaching), there are some questions about the sustainability of the work.  An additional Counselor (so 2 total, in addition to 2 social workers) was added during year two of the SIG. As a result of the additional counselor position, Horizonte staff has noticed “better relationships” with other schools in the district and “better services provided” to the outside sites.  Ability to get CRTs at 4 different points throughout the year  Transitioned to a co-teaching model for special education, so all students with disabilities are mainstreamed and have support through their SPED teacher being in class with the content area teacher  Horizonte Learning Communities (HLCs) were developed and have been in place during year two of the SIG. Every staff member serves on one, and each HLC works independently on a particular issue (i.e., attendance, student recognition, etc.). They meet once per month, and participation is linked to a small percentage of the overall bonus teachers can receive. The groups have accomplished a tremendous amount of work in less than one year’s time.  Curriculum development in language arts, including two separate curricula for grades 9/10 and another two for 11/12 to ensure that students never repeat. This also ensures consistency across the various sites of Horizonte.  Curriculum development in math, including accounting for the transition to the common core. They have developed Secondary Math 1, Secondary Math 2, and Math and Decision Making curricula aligned with the common core. As the math department transitions to the common core, the coach has played a key role in “buffering and organizing all that change.”  Advisory curriculum development. There are two aspects to this; one is the development of a reading curriculum that is already complete and available for use, and the other is the development of a CTE/Art-related curriculum that one of the HLC’s is creating to be implemented next year.  Development of pre and post-tests to be used in each session for math, language arts, and reading. These tests have taken the place of “Classworks” and were described as a significant improvement over that previous system.  Seeing and hearing students own their successes, recognize the hard work in which they are engaging, and acknowledging that they are getting “the real stuff” (i.e., challenging curriculum similar to that at other schools)  Professional development seems to have found the right balance of relevance, rigor, and efficiency. Most teachers agree that “they don’t waste my time,” and they spoke positively of both the PD offered by Horizonte coaches/admin and that offered by outside consultants. In particular, coaches, teachers, and administration agreed that the work facilitated by Dr. Javius was meaningful, relevant, interesting, and “not a waste of time.”

2  Social studies teachers have mapped out their curriculum, which includes cross- curricular mapping with language arts. Both social studies and language arts teachers talked about this in positive ways and noted how students were bringing in knowledge from other classes and building on what they learned across the content areas.  Regarding the overall school culture and climate, there was a consistent message that Horizonte had raised academic expectations for students, and that students were excelling. As one staff member expressed, “expectations for students have increased across the board.” And another explained, “rigor is not just a word that we throw out there.” Staff across the school noted that as a result of the changes implemented under the SIG, “our students are more willing to give it a go and put effort into school.” Similarly, others explained that “our kids are starting to believe in themselves” and “believe that college is for us.”  Coaches have spent more time in the classroom observing and offering feedback to teachers during year two of the SIG (more so in Language Arts since there are two coaches available). Teachers appreciate the opportunity to identify areas on which the coach can focus his/her observations and feedback.  Separate class for the lowest level English Language Learners (ELL), which includes pre-teaching of core content.  Pre-teaching is occurring with certain groups of students in math (i.e., special ed and ELL), and this seems to be having a tremendous impact on their math achievement. Teachers noted that these students feel more confident and are doing well; they also serve as leaders within their mainstream math classes.

Challenges associated with SIG:

Issues identified by almost every staff member with whom I spoke:  Exhaustion among staff. Everyone agreed that the staff is working extremely hard at Horizonte and that the hard work is taking its toll. As one person articulated, “everyone is exhausted here.”  Some anxiety about the sustainability of successful aspects of the SIG, particularly the instructors, professional development, curriculum, additional counselor, and coaches. Many shared the sentiment expressed by one teacher who said, “I don’t want to go in reverse.”  Frustration over the absence of quality instructors during year 2 of the SIG. This was a significant concern among teachers and coaches. I was told that a change in the hiring criteria from HR led to a difficulty in filing many funded positions. Individuals who Horizonte staff believes would be excellent instructors cannot be hired because they don’t meet the new criteria.  Student attendance continues to be a challenge for teachers and for consistent achievement gains. Some of the coaches and teachers talked about how they are trying to “plan for bad attendance,” but at the same time, they recognize there is a delicate balance between “enabling the absence and supporting it.”

Issues identified by a smaller number of staff:

3  Frustrations among teachers about the over-reliance on standardized, “traditional forms of assessment.” Some teachers felt tests were becoming “meaningless” to students because they were taking so many of them. Other teachers had concerns about the “growth model” that is being used at Horizonte, and, specifically, that growth is often rewarded when it isn’t really growth (because students are guessing, or the change is minimal, etc.). Some felt that growth needed to be measured differently, so that it had some statistical significance and the expectations needed to be lowered.  Lack of time for teaches to plan (this is especially true for those who have many different preps). Teachers expressed needing either more time or fewer preps.  Lack of up-to-date technology was raised by administrators and a smaller number of teachers. Although there appear to be plans in place for a systems upgrade at the main school site, there is still a clear need for updated equipment.  Resistance and lack of buy-in among some teachers was identified by a small number of staff. It was difficult to assess the extent of this based on the conversations I had, and there were some varying opinions expressed. For those who felt this was a problem, there was a related concern that there is “no plan in place for teachers who are not doing the work”—in other words, there may be minimal accountability to ensure every teacher is following the expected curriculum in their content area. This resistance may be related to an observation by a small number of teachers who noted of their colleagues: “there are a group of teachers who don’t believe our kids can do this work.” Data indicate this may be an area for administration and teacher leaders to further consider and strategize around, both because of the obvious impact on students and the potential for creating divisions and tensions within the staff.  Some questions were raised related to the time expectations for teachers and, specifically, “how much can they expect under our contract”?  Overall, teachers felt the pacing of the curriculum was better this year than during year one of the SIG, but a small number of teachers still wanted to see more time built in for “instructional conversations.”  Math coach has had less time available to directly support the main site teachers, and they have felt this loss. Importantly, I did not speak to any outside site math teachers, so I was unable to hear their perspectives about the support the math coach was providing to them.  Loss of time for program teachers to get together, collaborate, and problem-solve. Some teachers noted that this is one of the unintended consequences of all the other formal meetings associated with the SIG. They would like to see a way for program meetings to be re-implemented.  Reduced administrative presence around the building and in classrooms. Some teachers noted that the administrative team “feels more busy doing other things” and, as a result, is not as present in the hallways and classroom. Related to this, some teachers have felt the absence of the administrative support person that used to also be a go-to person for teachers (for ordering classroom supplies, etc.).

4 Looking ahead for the final year of SIG and beyond: The strongest theme in all my conversations was about the “sustainability of all this.” Among both teachers and administrators, there was a consistent desire (and a related concern) about how Horizonte would be able to maintain the many positive elements that have been implemented under SIG. As one teacher expressed, “what can we create at Horizonte that we will be able to keep?”  The language arts program is working towards teachers being able to obtain and decipher their own pre and post-test data. This is a positive step towards ensuring that these practices can continue even if/when the coaches are no longer available, and it may be a practice that other content areas consider utilizing to address part of the sustainability concern.  The loss of instructors and the additional counselor position were identified as key resources that staff did not want to see lost. Most math and language arts teachers expressed something similar to the one who said, “I don’t know how I’m going to teach without an instructor in my room.” A small number of teachers suggested that Horizonte consider forming a partnership with the local universities to bring pre- service teachers in as part-time instructors under the work study program (and thus using work study funds to help them). It may be useful to explore this and other possibilities before the SIG funds expire.  Some teachers expressed a strong preference for “more time, rather than money.” They felt that SIG funds should be spent on hiring more teachers so class sizes were smaller and teachers had more planning time (or fewer preps to plan for), rather than “incentivizing us.”  While those I spoke with wanted to maintain the HLC model that had been created this year, some expressed a desire to see it “more focused on deliverables” and on creating “things that will stick around after SIG.” Some staff members felt that the work being done in HLCs was being “lost” because there was “not a consistent way to roll out the ideas and implement them.” The reports I heard from the HLC leads seemed to me to include a number of sustainable deliverables, so it is unclear whether these accomplishments have not been communicated well to all staff or whether there is a real discrepancy in how staff think about the accomplishments thus far of the HLCs.

Student voices: Similar to the findings from our year one report, students with whom I spoke were extremely positive about their experiences and relationships at Horizonte. I won’t go into those details, but I do think it is important to point out how strong and consistent the messages about Horizonte are among students. One of the most commonly heard phrases from students initially (i.e., when they introduce themselves), was “Horizonte is easy.” We spent a lot of time talking about this, and I questioned students about what they meant by this. They were clear that they did not mean easy in the sense that they were “let off the hook” or “got easy work.” Instead, they agreed that the school provided the conditions necessary to facilitate their learning and success. Some of those conditions include, everyone gets along; there are clear college expectations; there are strict rules, but that is good because it “keeps me in line”; and the teachers and administrators “really care” about students.

5