Organizing Schools for Improvement:

Lessons from ChicagoPresented by: Anthony S. Bryk, Penny Bender Sebring, Elaine Allensworth and Stuart Luppescu

Gleacher Center, Chicago, January 14, 2010

A Framework of Essential Supports

Likelihood of Substantial Improvement, Given Weak or Strong Supports

Reading

11% 10% 9%

16%

10%

43%40%

47%

36%

45%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

SchoolLeadership

ParentInvolvement

WorkOrientation

Safety &Order

CurriculumAlignment

Perc

enta

ge o

f Sch

ools

that

Sub

stan

tially

Impr

oved

in

Rea

ding Weak

Strong

Schools with strong teacher cooperative relationships focused on curricular alignment were very likely to show

substantial academic improvements

Reading Math

Strong Work Orien-tation and Curricular

Alignment

Strong Professional Community and Curricular Align-

ment

Strong Work Orien-tation and Curricular

Alignment

Strong Professional Community and Curricular Align-

ment

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

67%

56%

43%48%

5%9%

5% 4%

Percent that Substantially Improved Percent that Were Stagnant

Strong Work Orientation and Strong Curricular

Alignment

Strong Professional Com-munity and Strong Curric-

ular Alignment

Strong Work Orientation and Strong Curricular

Alignment

Strong Professional Com-munity and Strong Curric-

ular Alignment

Schools did not improve attendance if their learning climate was unsafe/disorderly and instruction was weak

Schools with Poor Curricu-lar Alignment and Little

Safety/Order

Schools with Little Interac-tive Instruction and Little

Safety/Order

Schools with a Strong Emphasis on Didactic In-

struction and Little Safety/Order

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

0% 0%6%

53% 53%

67%

Percent that Substantially Improved Percent that Were Stagnant

Relationships of Essential Supports with Improvements in Value-Added,

1997-2005Essential Support Effect of strength in base year

Effect of improvement

School leadershipInstructional leadership .18*** .10**Program coherence .15*** .10**Parent community tiesParent involvement in the school .34*** .14***Professional capacityReflective dialogue .03 .02Collective responsibility .22*** .11**Orientation toward innovation .21*** .08*School commitment .29*** .15***Student-centered learning climateSafety .43*** .17***

Recent CCSR ResearchAttendance, grades and

pass rates are higher in schools with stronger:

• Instruction• Student-centered

climates– Teacher-student

relationships– Safety

• Teacher collaboration– Collective responsibility– Instructional program

coherence

Recent CCSR ResearchTeachers remain in schools

with stronger:• Student-centered

climates– Safety

• Teacher collaboration– Collective responsibility– Innovation

• Parent involvement– Teacher-parent trust

• Leadership– Program coherence– Teacher influence– Instructional leadership

A Framework of Essential Supports

Classification of School Communities by Students’ Racial/Ethnic and SES

CompositionPercent African

American

Percent Latino

Percent White

Median Family Income

Truly Disadvantaged 100 0 0 $9,480African-American Low SES 99 1 0 $19,385

African-American Moderate SES 99 1 0 $33,313Predominantly Minority 34 61 4 $23,293Predominantly Latino 3 93 4 $23,381Racially Diverse 21 56 17 $33,156Racially Integrated 14 35 40 $37,350

Stagnation or Substantial Improvement in Reading by Race/Ethnicity and Socioeconomic Status of Students

and Their Communities46

31 31

1815

9

15

24

2018

31

35

42

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Truly Disadvantagedn=46

African-American,Low SES n=95

African-American,Average to

Moderate SES n=74

PredominantlyMinority n=45

PredominantlyLatino n=39

Racially Diversen=34

Racially Integratedn=57

Perc

enta

ge o

f Sch

ools

that

Sta

gnat

ed o

r Im

prov

ed

Stagnant Substantially Improved

23 Expected: 25%

Data on Community CharacteristicsBonding Social Capital

• Collective Efficacy • Religious Participation• Crime statistics for school neighborhood

and students’ neighborhoodsBridging Social Capital

• Contacts with people in other neighborhoods

Percent of Students Who Were Abused or Neglected

Odds of Substantial Improvement in Reading Compared to Integrated Schools, Unadjusted and

Adjusted

Racially Diverse

Predominantly Latino

Predominantly Minority

African-American Moderate SES

African-American Low SES

Truly Disadvantaged

Unadjusted

Adjusted for bonding socialcapital

Adjusted for bonding andbridging social capital

Adjusted for social capital anddensity of abuse and neglect

Even Odds

1.0 2.0

5% 6%8%

39% 38%

33%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

Religious Participation Collective Efficacy Outside Connections

Perc

enta

ge o

f Sch

ools

with

Str

ong

Esse

ntia

l Sup

port

s in

199

4

Low High

Expected: 20%

Influence of Bonding and Bridging Social Capital on Essential Supports

4%2%

36%

40%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

Crime Density of Abused or NeglectedStudents

Perc

enta

ge o

f Sch

ools

with

Str

ong

Esse

ntia

l Sup

port

s in

1994

High Rate Low Rate

Expected: 20%

Influence of Crime and Abuse and Neglect on Essential Supports

For more information…. About the book:Email: organizingschools@ccsr.uchicago.eduWebsite: ccsr.uchicago.edu/osfi

About CCSR:Website: ccsr.uchicago.edu