mps high school evaluation council of the great city schools annual fall conference october, 2010...

MPS High School Evaluation

Council of the Great City Schools Annual Fall Conference

October, 2010

Deb Lindsey, Milwaukee Public SchoolsBradley Carl, Wisconsin Center for Education Research

High School Evaluation: Purpose, Design, Methodology• Evaluation designed as comparisons

between high school types (Small vs. Large, Charter vs. Non-Charter, etc.)– Not designed as a comparison/ranking of

individual high schools– Not all schools included in some

comparisons– Small/Large cutoff: 400 students– “Selectivity” defined somewhat narrowly:

admissions requirement (4 schools)

High School Evaluation: Purpose, Design, Methodology• 2 context measures (enrollment &

demographics) + 11 outcome metrics (completion rate, test scores, attendance, suspensions, etc.)

• Time period generally 2004-05 through 2008-09, corresponding to start of HS Redesign process

• Descriptive data + inferential (regression) analysis to account for differences in students served

High School Evaluation: Key Findings

Enrollment: distinct and purposeful shift toward smaller high schools Corresponding increases in enrollment

(numerical and “market share”) for several subsets of small high schools: small charters, small newly-created charters, etc.

Demographics: no evidence of any school types consistently under-serving student subgroups of interest (SpEd, ELL, etc.)


• WKCE Test Performance:– Stagnant rates of non-cohort proficiency on

Grade 10 tests (% Proficient + Advanced); small increases in Grade 10 mean scale scores

– Small schools appear to serve lower-performing students overall

– Same-student gains (Grade 8-10; Fall 2005-Fall 2007 and Fall 2006-Fall 2008) for non-mobile students with matched tests:• Most remain in same proficiency level, but more

students drop 1+categories than increase• No school types produce consistently superior gains for

both Reading/Math for both growth cohorts; greater variation within school types than between


Mobility: higher rates of within-year mobility for Small sites, both descriptively (unadjusted) and inferentially (regression-adjusted): Based on month-to-month changes in school

of enrollment during 2005-06 and 2008-09 Regression controls for student/school

demographics + prior (grade 8) attendance & mobility

Variation in mobility again higher within school types than across school types


• Within-Year (September-May) Grade 9 Reading & Math Benchmark Gains:– Similar pattern to WKCE: no school type

produces consistently superior gains, either descriptively or regression-adjusted; lower prior achievement in Small sites

– Again, greater variation within than between types– Low participation rates may bias results


• Retention rates for first-time 9th graders: Small schools have higher rates descriptively (2005-06 through 2008-09), but lower regression-adjusted rate for 2008-09– Controls used in regression: student and

school-level demographics & prior retention history (past 5 years)

– Again, substantial within-type variance


• Attendance: 75-80% for grades 9-12 across school types; no significant change for most school types over past 5 years– Descriptive data: higher attendance rates

(grades 9-12) for Large sites– Regression-adjusted data: higher for first-

time 9th graders in Small sites after controlling for demographics + prior (grade 8) attendance history

– Again, large variance within school types


• GPA (overall and core subject): – Low GPA for all school types (1.5 - 1.8);

marginal (if any) improvement– GPA (both types) lower in Small sites;

likely reflects lower ability levels upon entering high school


• High School Completion Rate: – Insufficient data to make meaningful

comparisons (new schools/types + small student counts + high grade 9 retention rates)

– “Total Quality Credits” (during Year 1 of H.S. and overall) used as proxy for progression through high school; higher TQC attainment in Large sites, but (again) substantial within-type variance

Conclusions

• Conclusion 1: very limited evidence of systemic improvement in high school outcomes studied

• Conclusion 2: some evidence that Small high schools overall serve different student populations (lower prior achievement, etc.)

• Conclusion 3: some high school types fare better on some outcomes, but very limited evidence of consistently superior outcomes for any school type across all years/metrics– Outcome variance generally greater within school

types than across

Implications for HS Reform

• Change focus to a quality control/ performance management approach that encourages diversity of offerings + accountability for results – Select most valued/relevant outcomes,

establish expectations, monitor results–MPS already taking steps in this direction:

evaluating charters, EdStat, data warehouse reports, etc.

mps high school evaluation council of the great city schools annual fall conference october, 2010...

Documents