Policy Recommendations for the Transition Planning Commission

a thoughtful platform that represents the input of our diverse community, the experiences of parents, students, and teachers, and researched best practices
Stand for Children 4/9/2012

We show up. We speak up. We reach out. We vote.

Contents
Who We Are .............................................................................................................................................. 1 The Put Education First Campaign ............................................................................................................ 4 What We Stand For ................................................................................................................................... 5 Every Child Ready for School .................................................................................................................... 6 Effective Instructional Leaders: .............................................................................................................. 11 Effective Teachers ................................................................................................................................... 16 Rigorous Implementation of Standards .................................................................................................. 18 Tailored Interventions and Supports ...................................................................................................... 22 Quality and Accessible Choices ............................................................................................................... 27 Engaged Parents and Students ............................................................................................................... 31 Culture and Climate of High Expectations .............................................................................................. 34 Every student ready for success in college and career ........................................................................... 37 Supportive community members and partners...................................................................................... 39 Cradle to Career Civic Infrastructure: ......................................................................................................... 39 Resources ................................................................................................................................................ 41

Who We Are

Vision We believe ALL children deserve an equal opportunity to succeed in life. Education is the key that unlocks the door to success but far too many children, through no fault of their own, arent getting the education they need to make it in life. We at Stand are passionately committed to righting this wrong, so that all children, regardless of their background, can graduate from high school prepared for, and with access to, a college education. Mission Our mission is to ensure that all children, regardless of their background, graduate from high school prepared for, and with access to, a college education. To make that happen, we:

Educate and empower parents, teachers, and community members to demand excellent schools. Advocate for effective local, state and national education policies and investments. Ensure the policies and funding we advocate for reach classrooms and help students. Elect courageous leaders who will stand up for our priorities.

Values

Values are the foundation of our culture. They shape how our staff, members, key stakeholders, and the community experience Stand for Children. Stands values guide our decision-making; they inform what we do and how we do it. Results for All Children We believe that all children deserve an equal opportunity to succeed in life, but that far too many children are growing up with the deck unfairly stacked against them because of poverty and other challenges. Our mission is to ensure that all children, regardless of their background, graduate from high school prepared for, and with access to, a college education, and we continually push ourselves to innovate and improve in order to accomplish more for children who urgently need our help.

Bold Independence

In a political arena dominated by parties and adult-focused special interest groups, were non-partisan and child-focused. We fearlessly and unapologetically challenge the status quo in pursuit of solutions that help more children graduate high school prepared for, and with access to, a college education. For the sake of children, were willing to take difficult stands because our priority is to help children whose lives are at stake. Empowerment People standing up for children make all the difference. Thats why were relentless in our drive to empower parents, educators, Stand volunteers, and staff to do whats needed to help children get an excellent education. We dont do for others what they can do for themselves. Wherever we work, we stay true to who we are, what we believe, and to hold the good of the children we serve above all else. Diversity Diversity is our strength. The more varied our perspectives and the more we reflect and partner with the communities we serve, the more effective well become at advocating for an equitable education system. Being the Change We Seek We show up. We speak up. We reach out. We vote. Active participation makes Stand work, and it enables us to make our democracy work for children. We ask ourselves: If not us, who? If not now, when? We meet people where they are and engage them in this struggle in ways that work for them. In this time of rapid change and great uncertainty, were steadfast in our commitment to listen, learn, and lead. Direct and Respectful Communication The magnitude of the progress we seek for students requires teamwork. Direct and respectful communication is the cornerstone to long-lasting and trusting relationships. We assume the best intentions. We strive to collaborate and build, not blame. We approach this work with thoughtfulness and humility.

The Put Education First Campaign

Stand for Children has been leading a campaign called Put Education First as an effort to demand a plan for the consolidation of Memphis and Shelby County Schools that will comprehensively improve education and student outcomes in Shelby County and ensure that the needs of all students remain at the forefront of the political process. Stand for Childrens goal for the Put Education First campaign is to serve as a vehicle through which parents, teachers, and community residents hopes and concerns about consolidation will be heard and addressed throughout the schools merger planning and transition process; that the community is educated around the work of the Transition Planning Commission and the Shelby County School Board; a comprehensive plan to raise college and career readiness and student achievement is adopted; and school board members are elected in August 2012, who support and advocate for the plan, and will ensure its implementation. This work has been driven by a committee of Stand for Children volunteer leaders who have dedicated significant time to the research and discussion of ideas and policies that we believe will make a difference for all students. The following is the result of this committees work. The Put Education First committee has taken the accepted priorities of the Transition Planning Commission and filled in background information, research, and has made policy recommendations in each priority.

What We Stand For

Every Child Ready for School

Research shows that young childrens earliest learning experiences can have powerful long-term effects on their cognitive and emotional development, school achievement, and later life outcomes. Decades of research in brain development and cognitive science have shown that young children are constantly learning and are capable of learning much more than previously believed. Unfortunately, research also shows that many American preschoolers do not have access to high-quality early learning opportunities, that there are significant disparities in childrens early learning experiences, and that these disparities result in large achievement gaps even before children enter school. Pre-k programs that provide highquality early learning experiences for young children, coupled with full-day kindergarten and other elementary reforms that sustain early learning gains, are a critical tool for improving student achievement and narrowing achievement gaps. Achievement Gaps Begin Early Researchers estimate that as much as one-half to one-third of the white-black achievement gap already exists when children start first grade. Gaps for children from low-income or low-SES families are similarly large. Many children enter school lacking key language, literacy, pre-math, and socialemotional skills. Research shows that these gaps begin to emerge as early as 9 months of age. Gaps in school readiness are the result of disparities in childrens early learning experiences, both at home and in child care settings. By age 3, children from the most disadvantaged families have heard 30 million fewer words than children of professional parents. Children from low-SES families are less likely to be read to by their parents or caregivers, watch more TV, and are less likely to be taken to zoos, museums, and exposed to other learning opportunities. Quality Early Learning Programs Improve Outcomes and Narrows Gaps Research shows that high-quality pre-kindergarten programs (which may include state pre-k, Head Start, and other early learning and development programs designed to foster young childrens early development and learning to support school readiness) can help compensate for these disparities in early learning experiences and improve school readiness and later educational and life outcomes. Longterm, randomized controlled and quasi-experimental studies of children participating in high-quality pre-k and early childhood interventions programs, such as the High/Scope Perry Preschool Program, the Abecedarian Project, and Chicagos Child-Parent Centers, find that these programs have improved students learning, increased their education attainment and income as adults, and produced long-term reductions in unemployment, crime, and out-of-wedlock childbearing. More recent research has found similar learning gains for youngsters participating in large-scale, publicly funded pre-K programs in Oklahoma, New Jersey, New Mexico, and Tennessee. These studies find that high-quality pre-k programs benefit all children, but have the greatest impact on disadvantaged and minority youngsters, helping to narrow achievement gaps even as they boost learning for all participants.

Yet despite this evidence, many children who need high-quality pre-k experiences still are not getting them. Publicly funded pre-k programs, such as state pre-k and Head Start, have grown over the past decade, but still serve only 40 percent of 4-year-olds and less than 15 percent of 3-year-olds. Only twothirds of the poorest 4-year-olds and one-third of the poorest 3-year-olds attend prekindergarten programs, compared to 90 percent and 70 percent, respectively, of children from affluent families. Children from low-to-moderate-income families are even less likely to attend pre-k, even though many children in this group also face challenges in school. Latino students, a growing percentage of the population, are less likely than children from other ethnic and racial backgrounds to attend pre-Kand there is some evidence that Latino families may have less access to quality pre-k programs due to a combination of economic, demographic, and other factors. Even when children do attend pre-k, many pre-k programs are not providing the high-quality early learning experiences necessary to prepare children to succeed in school. A 2005 study of state-funded pre-K in 11 states found that 57 percent of classrooms ranked in the lowest level of instructional quality and none ranked in the highest level. A California study that include Head Start, state pre-k, and private preschool classrooms found that 16 percent fail to meet even adequate standards of quality, meaning they may be actively harming child development. Only 22 percent were classified as good, and lowincome and minority children were less likely than others to be in such classrooms. In Shelby County, 32% of all children live in poverty and 90% of those children reside within the Memphis City limits. This is 20% higher than the national child poverty rate. We also have a significant enrollment gap between those who qualify for services and those that have access to them. -8000-9000 students in each year of age from 0-5 qualify for at risk early childhood services -3800 students enrolled in head start -200+ enrolled in Early Head Start -3,520 enrolled in Pre-K in 176 classrooms; 1280 of these attend classrooms combined pre-k/head start program There is clear evidence that the learning that occurs in childrens early years has long-term impacts on their educational and life outcomes, and that investments in early learning programs can yield long-term benefitsparticularly for low-income students. To yield greatest benefit, early childhood programs must be of high-quality: they must provide adequate resources, employ highly skilled teachers who know how to promote young childrens learning and development, emphasize content that predicts school readiness, utilize appropriate instructional techniques, foster high-quality interactions between teachers and children, and utilize ongoing assessment to monitor childrens progress and target resources and strategies accordingly. To sustain and maximize early learning gains, quality pre-k or early learning programs must also be linked with quality kindergarten and elementary programs that ensure an aligned, high-quality Prek-3rd learning experience for young children. There are a variety of ways in

which states or communities can improve access to and quality of early learning experiences for young children, and the most effective approach for a given state or community will vary based on community demographics and needs; available resources; and existing infrastructure, capacity, and community resources. State or district policy makers must carefully consider both their own context and the body of existing research to identify the strategies that are most likely to result in improved early learning outcomes. Policy recommendations -The TPC should make a recommendation for a comprehensive early childhood investment strategy for Shelby County that would offer a range of interventions in order to reach children most at-risk. This agenda should also be linked between municipal, county, and state government and private entities through a comprehensive data sharing system, emphasizing both program evaluations and related assessments of child outcomes. -Examples include: Bostons Thrive in Five Initiative http://thrivein5boston.org/ Bostons Mayor Thomas M. Menino and the United Way of Massachusetts Bay and Merrimack Valley launched Thrive in 5 in 2008 with the goal of ensuring universal school readiness for all of Bostons children. Designed through a year-long community planning process involving a diverse team of 65 professionals and 35 parents, Bostons School Readiness Roadmap outlines the vision and strategies that drive Thrive in 5s work. Their approach is illustrated by Bostons School Readiness Equation, recognizing that a childs success relies on the concerted effort of everyone involved in their lives. Annual Report: http://issuu.com/thrivein5/docs/ti5_year_2_annual_report JumpStart Tulsa http://www.jumpstarttulsa.com/ Tulsa's partnership is part of a statewide network of community partnerships under the Smart Start Oklahoma umbrella. Smart Start Oklahoma is a grassroots initiative with a shared vision that all Oklahoma children will be safe, healthy, eager to learn, and ready to succeed by the time they enter school. http://www.smartstartoklahoma.org/ Smart Start increases awareness of the developmental needs of young children, connects existing programs for young children, and marshals community resources to focus on early care and education. Smart Start reaches out to support families who want to give their children a good start in life. Oklahoma currently has eighteen Smart Start communities, including Tulsa. Tulsa Smart Start is also known as JumpStart. Publications: http://www.smartstartoklahoma.org/publications

To accomplish this the TPC should recommended in its plan to: - provide universal Pre-K with Head Start partnerships where feasible within Shelby County Schools and classrooms. - Expand early education teacher support, recruitment, and compensation, through inclusion of early educators within a Teacher Effectiveness Initiative program expansion. -After reviewing return on investments of k-12 intervention programs, reallocate funding from less effective programs towards early childhood investments with higher return on investment. - develop through a strategic partnership with the state of TN, Shelby County, the City of Memphis, and other public and private entities to provide universal access to Pre-K, Head Start, Early Head Start, Home Visitation Programs ( ex.Home Nurse Partnership), and Centering Programs to ensure school readiness. The earlier we intervene in early childhood, the better. Additional Case Studies: As stated above, several state pre-k programs have demonstrated effectiveness in improving student learning outcomes. Pre-k programs can be delivered in a variety of settings, including community-based child care, Head Start programs, and public schools. There is no evidence that a specific type of pre-k provider is better or more effective than another. Three examples illustrate that, with well-designed programs and supports, pre-k programs can improve childrens learning in a variety of contexts and settings: New Jerseys Abbott Pre-K program provides universal pre-k to more than 40,000 3- and 4-year-olds in 31 high-poverty school districts. Structural features of Abbott include teachers with a bachelors degree and PreK-3rd certification, small class sizes and low adult-child ratios, and mandated use of stateapproved, developmentally appropriate and research-based curriculum. Abbott ensures quality across diverse school- and community based providers through the use of quality guidelines, observational quality measures (ECERS) in all programs, trained master teachers who provide professional development, and collection of a variety of types of data to inform ongoing improvement. High-quality evaluations find that children participating in Abbott pre-k make significant gains in language, early literacy, and math skills, and that these gains persist through the end of second grade. Although Abbott spends more per-pupil than typical state pre-k programs, the strategies and data it uses to drive ongoing program improvement can be replicated in programs with fewer resources. AppleTree Early Learning Public Charter School, in Washington, D.C., provides high-quality, full-day pre-k to 3- and 4-year-olds. AppleTrees educational model includes qualified teachers and a low adult-child ratio (each 20-student classroom has 3 adults, two of whom have bachelors degrees), ongoing teacher professional development, regular monitoring of childrens performance, tiered instruction, and a evidence-based curriculum designed to develop childrens language, emergent literacy, cognitive, and social-emotional skills. Children attending AppleTree make statistically significant gains in language, mathematics, and literacy skills closing the achievement gap for children entering the program with significant deficits in early language, literacy, and math skills. AppleTree is currently developing a set of

curriculum and professional development resources, Every Child Ready, that will allow other programs, including those with fewer resources, to replicate core components of its educational model. Both AppleTree Early Learning Public Charter School and Abbott Pre-k benefit from high levels of funding and resources. But less resource-intensive programs, working in existing child care and early education settings, can also produce positive results: Texas School Ready! is a quality improvement strategy that works across all three sectors of programs serving Texas preschoolers, state funded pre-k (delivered mostly in public schools), Head Start, and center-based child care. TSR has four core elements: a research-based curriculum and materials; professional development; coaching and mentoring; and progress monitoring. Research shows that participation in TSRs training produces meaningful improvement in the quality of early learning experiences that teachers are providing to young children. Children whose teachers participated in all four TSR components made gains in vocabulary, letter knowledge, print awareness, and phonological awareness that were significantly greater than those for children in a control group. TEEM leverages existing resources by working in Head Start and child care classrooms. The TEEM intervention costs approximately $23,000 per classroom over four-years, with roughly half the costs occurring in the first year and phasing out over time. After four-years the only cost to sustain TEEM is a $200-300 licensing fee for progress monitoring software.

Effective Instructional Leaders:

Effective principals are critical to developing and ensuring effective teaching, improving student achievement, and turning around low-performing schools. Researchers find that about 60% of a schools impact on student learning is attributable to educators: 25% to principals and 33% to teachers. These figures actually understate principals role, because principals are responsible for hiring, developing, and retaining effective teachers. While an individual effective teacher can boost student learning in any given year, only the principal can ensure effective teaching in every classroom. Unless students have multiple effective teachers in a row, nearly all the gains they make in one effective teachers classroom are erased in two years with less effective teachers. While all schools need effective principals, strong principal leadership is particularly important for lowperforming schools in need of rapid improvementand may be the deciding factor between success and failure. Researchers have not found a single example of a turnaround school without an effective principal at the helm. Principal succeed by focusing attention in three key areas: learning and teaching; creating an effective, aligned staff; and school culture. Undergirding these three areas must be strong personal leadership and systems that support the end goal of student achievement. To improve principal effectiveness and thus student achievement, districts need to make three major changes: overhaul principal preparation program, improve development for existing principals, and revamp the current practices and rules that impede principal autonomy. The following paragraphs explain the current need in each area, give examples of organizations or districts that are showing progress, and provide several recommendations for what states and districts can do to improve in these areas.

1. Principal Preparation: Overhauling principal preparation is a critical step to building a cadre of principals prepared to improve student achievement.
An improved principal preparation pipeline starts with strategic, aggressive recruitment and selection. While most districts wait for principal to self-select, high performing districts recruit internally and externally. High-performing districts are also crystal clear on their definition of a strong principal candidate, so their entire recruitment staff knows what attributes, knowledge, and skills principal candidates need to have or need to be able to rapidly develop. Recruitment must be matched with a rigorous selection process, including intensive candidate interviews. Rigorous principal training programs look very different from the traditional, classroom-based preparation program that currently train almost all school leaders. Rigorous programs focus on experiential learning and development based on the original definitions of what an effective principal

has to look like. Course content focuses on personal leadership, systems and operations, teaching and learning, ensuring an aligned staff, and school culture (the areas in which principals must excel). Content must be applied and allow principals to develop their skills through simulations and role playing. In addition, through district or school partnerships, future principals apprentice in a school for at least 6 months to practice their learning on the ground and to be mentored by an experienced principal. New Leaders, a non-profit organization, is an example of a strong principal preparation program. New Leaders focuses on recruiting and training high quality principals for low income districts, from New York to the Bay Area to Memphis and Charlotte. By implementing rigorous recruitment, interview, training, and support system, New Leaders has seen results. An external evaluation found that students in elementary and middle schools led by a New Leaders-trained principal perform significantly better than students in a control school. These results exist only when the principal has been in the school for three or more years. Gwinnett County Public Schools in Georgia has seen impressive student achievement gains in recent years, in part due to of a sustained focus on principal effectiveness. Gwinnett provides examples of how to improve the preparation and the ongoing development of principals. There is a district-wide acceptance of the importance of quality principals on student achievement, and an unrelenting focus on driving improvements in the major areas that lead to improved principal quality: improved principal recruitment and preparation, ongoing support, and autonomy. The best example of Gwinnetts commitment to leadership is their Quality Plus Leader Academy Aspiring Principals Program. The academy, taught by senior administrators in the district, is aligned to the districts goals and needs and required for individuals planning to become principals in the district. The academys residency model ensures participants have real-life experience and mentoring prior to assuming control of a school, and each principal academy student, receives support from a team comprised of fellow administratorsi. Once principals are in their jobs, Gwinnett also support two years of mentoring from fellow principals (who must have a proven track record of success and a commitment to growing others and to the vision and mission of Gwinnett PS). Gwinnett also hosts a yearly summer leadership academy for all principals and administrators to share new research and information, develop skills, and set goals for the coming year. The North Carolina Principal Fellows Program (PFP) provides a competitive, merit-based scholarship loan to individuals of exceptional academic ability who have teaching or relevant experience and who desire to enter school administration in a North Carolina public school. Fellows have the opportunity to attend school on a full-time basis and earn an MSA degree in two years. The Principal Fellows Program, which is offered at eleven campuses of the University of North Carolina, provides one year of full-time academic study and a one year full-time internship in a North Carolina public school. Fellows also participate in enrichment experiences designed to enhance their preparation

for a career as a principal or assistant principal. The Principal Fellows Program was created in 1993 by the North Carolina General Assembly. Over1100 Principal Fellows have completed the Program. Fellows are required to maintain employment as a principal or assistant principal in a public school in North Carolina for four years to repay the scholarship loan. Financial need is not a criterion for selection as a Principal Fellow.

2. Principal Development: Once principals are on the job, districts and CMOs must ensure ongoing support and comprehensive evaluations for all leaders.
Currently, on-the-job support and development for principals is weak. A survey of almost 1,000 principals cites that more than half of them believe they would be more effective if they had better ongoing development (specifically more facilitated networks of fellow principals as opposed to lectures). Current principal evaluations also leave much room for improvement: many principals are not evaluated regularly, and many evaluations are out-of-date, not aligned around a principals core competencies, and do not include information on student learning. The nonprofit School Leaders Network builds networks of principals who, with a skilled facilitator, engage in action research, determine ways to improve outcomes at their schools, and hold each other mutually accountable for results. 86% of principals participating in the SLN program showed improvements in student academic achievement. On the evaluation side of development, principal evaluations should strive to measure the principals impact on improving teaching and learning; building an aligned, effective, staff; and fostering a healthy, equitable, and high-standard school culture. But measuring these components can be difficult. ii One promising evaluation tool out of Vanderbilt University is the VAL-Ed model, which includes six major components: high standards for student learning, rigorous curriculum, quality instruction, culture of learning and professional behavior, connections to external communities, and performance accountability. The evaluation tool lays out key processes to break down how the leader does (or doesnt) achieve those competencies. The tool has proven to accurately identify learning-centered leadership and accurately differentiate principals based on strength.iii States like Illinois, Louisiana, and Georgia are also experimenting with implementing improved evaluation systems that include measures of student progress. Districts and state can do several things to improve ongoing principal development. First, more districts need to implement professional development programs to ensure principals receive relevant support and learning. These programs can be led by outside organizations, like School Leaders, or by the district itself, like in Gwinnett. Second, districts must collect and analyze data on how principals perform over time. Principals should know what expectations are for them and how they measure up. Third, districts and states must ensure that the standards used by administrators responsible for evaluating principals are aligned with and complement standards and competencies for principals. Districts must also ensure

that the positions with responsibility for overseeing and evaluating principals are staffed with highcapacity individuals who understand the districts vision and goals for effective school leadership.

3. Autonomy: for principals to fulfill their obligations to improve teaching and learning, hire and support an excellent teaching staff, and establish a health school culture, they must be in empowered to make the basic school-based decisions.
Currently, many principals lack the autonomy to make key decisions or to reallocate resources to improve student performance. In many districts principals are forced to hire teachers they dont want, are forbidden from using student achievement data in a formal teacher evaluation, and are basically unable to fire low performing teachers. Professional development programs are often run by the district, limiting principals ability to provide development opportunities matched to school goals and needs. All of these factors limit principals ability to be successful. It follows then, that the principals most committed to being successful are forced to be deviant and to break the rules to get the outcomes they want for their kids. The Charlotte Mecklenburg School district has taken steps to give principals greater support, flexibility, and autonomy. In 2008 the district implemented a strategic staffing initiatives in their lowest performing schools. They identified strong principals (who were eligible only if they had shown significant gains in student achievement in previous schools) and encouraged them to apply to lead one of the districts lowest-performing schools. Part of the offer included a raise, as well as autonomy over staffing and the flexibility to try new, instruction-related practices they think might work in their school. The principals were able to hire 2-3 fellow administrators and 5 proven teachers. They were supported by the district through informal principal mentoring programs as well as a formal training program to teach them turnaround strategies and to give them context about their new school. The superintendent met with the principals every other month, and the principals felt supported in their (often difficult) choices. Early data shows the schools within this strategic staffing initiative making significant improvements in student achievement. To improve school autonomy and to enable principals to be successful, districts and states need to make several key changes. On the most basic level, effective principals need the autonomy to hire, evaluate, train, and fire their teaching staff. Its difficult to hold principals accountable when they do not have control of who works in the schools they lead. Moving to a more autonomous principal model will require changes in many districts teachers contracts, including changes to hiring, transfer, and dismissal provisions, as well as shifting district-level human resources policy and practices to better support principals. Lastly, districts must invest in data collection and evaluation to build the knowledge base about how to ensure effective school leadership in all three of these key areas. The research is very clear about the importance of principals, but the overall body of research on the subjectparticularly related to policy

interventionshas many gaps. By collecting more data (such as data on variations in principal effectiveness across preparation programs and districts) districts and preparation programs can help to create a more robust knowledge base to support effective principal preparation and supervision to scale. Policy Recommendations: Stand recommends -the continuation of MCSs current partnership with New Leaders and the expansion of strategy four in the TEI work to ensure effective leaders in every school through the Leadership Effectiveness Initiative (LEI). -Actively recruit talented individuals and organizations nationwide to lead innovative new schools in the new district. (See the Denver Public Schools Call for New Quality Schools.) -Forge constructive relationships with the leaders of alternatively-led schools (e.g., charter schools, ASD schools, etc.), beginning with the establishing of a compact along the lines of those signed by cities like Nashville, New Orleans, Baltimore, Boston, etc. (Hopes, Fears & Reality, Chapter 2, Lake and Gross)

Effective Teachers
It is oft cited, that teachers are the most important in-school variable in student success and achievement. Yet the how, in terms of getting a great teacher in every classroom, every year, remains an elusive policy question nation-wide. What does the existing evidence suggest for individuals or groups wishing to know what are the right set of teacher policies to promote? Unfortunately, academic research rarely yields findings that are so definitive as to provide specific policy guidance, but does suggest some broad implications. First, it is clear that improvements to the quality of the teacher workforce have the potential to radically improve the performance of Americas schools. While we cannot easily predict which teachers will be successful with students based on teacher credentials, we do know that there is significant variation between teachers and that the differences in teacher effectiveness have educationally meaningful effects on students. Secondly, and closely related to the point above, state-regulated licensure systems do not, in general, appear to be an effective means of screening for teacher quality. There is definitive evidence that there is far greater variation in the effectiveness of teachers who hold similar pre-service credentials (e.g. the pathway into the classroom, the college from which teachers graduated, certifications held, etc.) than between the average teachers with different credentials. Third, existing research suggests that investments in changing incumbent teachers through better professional development, mentoring, or incentives, have not resulted in significant improvements in teacher effectiveness. But it is important to understand that this is not necessarily how things would play out in a radically different educational context. It is conceivable, for instance, that the effectiveness of a professional development program might be quite different if teachers had a more direct incentive (i.e. if rewarded for performance in some way) when making professional development decisions and receiving professional development training. Likewise, it is possible that incentives could make a difference if teachers were provided with higher quality professional development options. The bottom line here is that reforms are unlikely to produce big workforce productivity gains unless these reforms are based in a coherent theory of action around teacher evaluation, recruitment, support, and compensation.

We believe this coherent theory of change has begun in Memphis through the Teacher Effectiveness Initiative and must be continued as a critical component in the new district. The initiative should be expanded in a collaborative way that sustains progress to date and incorporates best practices and successes from current Shelby County Schools and Memphis City Schools practices. This expansion must be focused on the four key strategies to: 1. 2. 3. 4. Create a common, agreed-upon definition of effective teaching; Enable smarter decisions about who teaches students; Better support, utilize and compensate teachers; and, Improve the surrounding context for effective teaching

To accomplish this expansion the TPC should help ensure there is: A thorough Needs Assessment across the two school systems to determine the funding requirements as part of the new Proposal A separate document to be developed as an addendum to the current TEI strategy, addressing Vision, Strategy, Implementation and Milestones for the new work Identification of additional funding sources, including other local and national philanthropies and business organizations

Resources: All Teacher Effectiveness Initiative Resources, publications, and policies can be found here http://www.mcstei.com/resources

Rigorous Implementation of Standards

Rigorous Standards have the potential to improve the quality of instruction and outcomes for Shelby County studentsbut their impact will ultimately depend on the quality of state and local level implementation. We believe the consolidation provides us an opportunity to start afresh and to design significantly improved systems to support student achievement. The state of Tennessee has moved in the right direction through Race to The Top to assure that TN will offer the most rigorous standards. In March of 2010, Tennessee became one of two states to win the first round of the federal Race to the Top (RTTT) competitive grant program, receiving more than $500M over a four year period. The program required that states entering the program submit plans to address several core areas related to standards: Adopting standards and assessments that prepare students for college and workplace Building data systems to measure student academic growth and guide instructional improvement STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics)

The RTTT Assessment Program incorporates the vision of an integrated system of assessments adopted by a consortium of states. Summative, interim and formative assessments will be carefully and thoughtfully aligned to college- and career-readiness standards. Also, the reporting systems will be designed and implemented to provide students, parents and educators with a more complete picture of the progress to date, current needs and future trajectory of each student. However, even such systems of assessments cannot be optimized for all purposes. Districts will need to make clear, thoughtful choices with their constituencies about the priorities within the system. To ensure we have the best local level implementation of rigorous standards we believe we need a system designed by recommendation from the TPC to ensure rigorous implementation of standards that could be modeled after one of the following four Next Generation Assessment Models: An Internationally Comparable Balanced Assessment System that Supports High-Quality Learning This policy brief is based on a paper presented by Linda DarlingHammond and Ray Pecheone, Stanford University, with Ann Jacquith, Susan Schultz, Leah Walker, and Ruth Chung Wei, at the National Conference on Next Generation K 12 Assessment Systems, March 2010. http://www.k12center.org/publications.html. This model proposes a balanced assessment system that integrates curriculum and assessments, both formative and summative, and is designed to support higherquality, more coherent instruction. It would be implemented by consortia of states committed to developing curriculum frameworks based on the Common Core Standards and learning progressions. The components of the assessment systemall

designed to go beyond recall of facts and show students abilities to evaluate evidence, problem solve, and understand contextsinclude analytic selectedresponse items, short and extended constructed response items, and standardized performance tasks in each grade level tested. The results of on demand tests (which include the first two types of items) combined with weighted results of reliably scored curriculumembedded performance tasks would provide student achievement data that could be compared across schools, districts, and states (summative assessments). The system also would be able to show student growth along multiple dimensions. Technology would be used to deliver tests, collect student work for teacher/scorer use and for training scorers, manage the scoring/reporting processes, and eventually help teachers to manage classroom practice. Technology would also support computer adaptive testing and computer scoring of some openended items. This system, properly implemented, would provide a more performancebased and useful assessment system at potentially no more cost than the present less rich and less helpful systems in use. An Assessment System based on the National Center on Education and the Economys State Consortium for Board Examination Systems This policy brief is based on a paper presented by Marc Tucker, National Center on Education and the Economy, at the National Conference on Next Generation K 12 Assessment Systems, March 2010. http://www.k12center.org/publications.html. The model that underlies the National Center on Education and the Economys State Consortium for Board Examination Systems is based on exams in countries with the bestperforming education systems, the model consists of highschool programs of study covering the whole core curriculum. Each course has a wellconstructed syllabus with matching instructional materials, high quality examinations, and highquality training for the teachers of the courses. The National Center on Education and the Economy (NCEE) has identified the worlds best board examination systems available in English for use in the United States and negotiated the alignment with the Common Core Standards. The states in the consortium will pilot the use of these exams in their high schools. NCEE will set the pass points for the lower division exams to the level of literacy required to be successful in the initial credit bearing courses in open admissions colleges. Students who pass their lower division exams by the end of their sophomore year will be certified for a special diploma and enrollment in an open admissions college without having to take remedial courses. Or they can stay in high school to take an upper division program designed to get them into a selective college. Students who do not pass will receive help in those areas in which they did not do well on the exam. The aim is for virtually all students to be ready to pass their exams and therefore ready to succeed in programs leading to industry qualifications or in 4year colleges.

High-Level Model for an assessment of Common Standards This policy brief is based on a paper presented by Stephen Lazer, Educational Testing Service, at the National Conference on Next Generation K12 Assessment Systems, March 2010. http://www.k12center.org/publications.html. This model proposes an integrated assessment system, not a single test, and focuses on the technical details of a summative system for elementary and middle schools. Using the Common Core Standards, it calls for endofyear tests for Grades 38, which could be used to measure student growth if the standards cohere across grade levels. The summative/accountability components of the integrated assessment system might also include periodic classroom tests and collections of student work, which will be easier to implement if the common standards lead to a common sequence of learning objectives. Summative tests also could be used to provide information to subsequent diagnostic and formative assessments, particularly for students performing above or below grade level. The endofyear and periodic components of the assessment should be computerbased. An assessment system for high schools would contain some of the same elements as the K8 system. However, rather than choosing a specific approach, the paper offers policymakers two models: endofdomain assessment or endof course assessment. Educators generally agree on the need for improved assessment systems, but there is far less consensus on the priorities for uses of the new assessments. It is impossible for one assessment or even one assessment system to fulfill everyones goals, but there are some goals that are shared by various stakeholders. Other goals will require choices; an assessment system cannot do everything equally well. An American Examination System This policy brief is based on a paper presented by Lauren Resnick, University of Pittsburgh, and Larry Berger, Wireless Generation, with Brian Junker, Carnegie Mellon University, at the National Conference on Next Generation K 12 Assessment Systems, March 2010. http://www.k12center.org/publications.html. This model focuses on designing an assessment system that works to improve instruction. The model reflects key aspects of the substantive, cognitively demanding European systems, while maintaining standards of psychometric rigor necessary to support Americas accountability, comparability, and equity agendas. The model aligns standards, assessment, and curriculum through three principal innovations: distributed accountability exams that have a high degree of content and instructional validity; a system of mass personalized formative assessments that become an integral part of each teachers instructional routine; and a technology platform with broad uses, especially to help teachers manage the assessment

process and have ready access to insights from the assessment data. A major aspect of the technology is the creation of a honeycomb, or interactive map, that visually explains the instruction and assessment goals in each grade as well as across grades, tracking the progress of individual students, classes, schools, and districts. A substantial amount of work has already been done to develop the content and tools needed to implement the American Examination System. Policy Recommendations The work to ensure there is a rigorous implementation of quality standards will require the TPC to make recommendations that build a coherent system of assessment, support, and accountability linked to a set of common standards. Stand recommends that the TPC take advantage of the progress already made through RTTT and work with researchers to design a local system of implementation to fulfill the desired outcome of this guiding principle. Resources Linda Darling-Hammond and Ray Pecheone, Stanford University "Developing an Internationally Comparable Balanced Assessment System That Supports High-Quality Learning" http://www.k12center.org/rsc/pdf/Darling-HammondPechoneSystemModelBrief.pdf Marc Tucker, National Center on Education and the Economy "An Assessment System For the United States: Why Not Build on the Best?" http://www.k12center.org/rsc/pdf/TuckerSystemModelBrief.pdf Stephen Lazer, Educational Testing Service "High-Level Model for an Assessment of Common Standards" http://www.k12center.org/rsc/pdf/LazerSystemModelBrief.pdf Lauren Resnick, University of Pittsburgh, and Larry Berger, Wireless Generation "An American Examination System" http://www.k12center.org/rsc/pdf/ResnickBergerSystemModelBrief.pdf

Tailored Interventions and Supports

Though current policy debates on school reform and improvement focus primarily on academic standards, a broader focus on supporting student success is necessary to give all students an equal chance to succeed. This is particularly important for schools serving students living in poverty, a disproportionate number of whom are also students of color, English Language Learners (EELs), and students with disabilities. The impact of poverty and student characteristics on achievement has been well-documented. However, these are not insurmountable problems. Research on high-performing schools serving these children finds that these schools take direct action to support student success and proactively address barriers to student achievement. These interventions should be focused around promising strategies that work. EELs Tennessee has experienced a 200 percent ELL population growth rate in the last decade. As ELL students are increasingly common even in communities that have not traditionally been home to immigrant groups, it is clear that all schools need to be capable of effectively serving this population of students. The rate at which the ELL student population is growing within U.S. schools is reason enough for educators and policymakers to better understand the educational needs of such students. But a greater concern is the staggering achievement gap between ELL students and their English-proficient peers. As the number of ELL students grow, these gaps represent a tremendous missed opportunity that undermines both these students futures and American competitivenessand that education policy must address. Increasing opportunities to develop vocabulary and literacy skills, marrying English language development with content-area instruction, and expanded learning time are promising strategies for improving academic achievement among ELLs. Policy changes that encourage consistent ELL identification and reclassification practices among states and districts can help provide a more transparent picture of ELLs educational progress. Finally, high-quality academic assessments for ELLs are in high demand. Most states are not equipped to validly and reliably assess ELL students. Developing appropriate assessments for the diverse ELL population should be a priority as states move toward the Common Core standards. Students with disabilities Educating students with disabilities is more similar than dissimilar to educating all students; high quality instruction leads to student learning. But, effectively educating students with disabilities requires that practitioners have high expectations and a deep understanding of how to teach and support students with a diverse array of needs and that administrators and policy makers understand how to navigate the

complex web of rules and regulations crafted to protect students rights to public education. While challenging and resource intensive, our collective commitment to all students reflects our deep conviction regarding the meaning of civil rights and equal opportunity. Furthermore, investments in special education provide individual as well as broader social and economic benefits. Decades of research have provided us a solid understanding of how to best educate students with disabilities. Emerging brain research coupled with emerging technologies holds the promise to not only grow but hopefully dramatically accelerate our knowledge and ability to minimize the impact of disabilities on individuals choices. All children have academic, personal and developmental needs that must be addressed to enable them to succeed in and out of school. While the main purpose of a school is to provide academic enrichment, the reality is that some children need much more is order to be prepared for success in college, careers, and life. Strategies that implement positive behavior systems, support social and emotional learning and extend learning time can address critical student needs, and there are models with demonstrated effectiveness. An individual program may not be necessary or effective in all schools, so school and district leaders must carefully consider their students needs and identify the programs that best address those needs. Given overlap between these three areas, and the demonstrated effectiveness of comprehensive programs over fragmented efforts, schools may incorporate aspects of each of these three areas into an overall school system. Effective implementation and program evaluation is also critical to both assure students are appropriately served and that investments are well used. Policy Recommendations Stand recommends targeted interventions that meet the needs of individual students and schools, these should include: Promising strategies for teaching students to read Support readers effectively in the early grades, including: o o o Integrating literacy in prekindergarten programs, Identifying struggling readers early and provide additional, proven supports Spending additional time on reading in the early grades

Support readers effectively in adolescence, including: o Providing effective professional development for upper-grade teachers, including contentarea teachers on strategies to teach reading, Developing collaborative teacher teams to reinforce literacy strategies across the content,

Instructing students in explicit reading strategies on content-specific materials in upper grades, Supporting struggling readers in upper grades with supplemental instruction from a specialist, Ensuring engaging and motivating texts, discussion, and writing, and Coordination between teachers in different subject areas to reinforce key literacy concepts across subject areas

o o

Prepare teachers to teach key components of reading during teacher preparation programs Ensure access to high-quality formative and summative reading assessments and useful datasystems Invest adequately in developing and implementing comprehensive, systemic approaches to improving literacy

Promising strategies for encouraging science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) Adopt fewer, deeper, well-sequenced standards for mathematics education, aligned assessments, and professional development aligned to standards (like Common Core) Diversify participation in STEM coursework, with a special emphasis on students of color and girls Increase the number of students who complete Algebra II by high school graduation so they will be prepared for college-level math Teach direct instruction and problem solving strategies together Recruit and retain STEM teachers with college degrees in STEM subject areas Provide equity in access to teachers with college degrees in STEM for students of color and lowincome students

Promising strategies for students designated as Special Education Monitor and respond to over-representation of students of color in special education Increase federal reimbursements for IDEA costs Intervene early into the education of students with disabilities

Implement response to intervention programs to prevent students from falling behind and ending up in special education Implement Universal Design for Learning, an effective strategy for mainstreaming special education students while designing instruction that benefits the whole class Ensure special education students are included in state/federal accountability systems Integrate special education teachers with regular education teachers in colleges of education to develop a culture of working together and to learn from each other Use technology effectively to individualize instruction Provide adequate financial resources targeted at the most effective practices for improving learning for special education students

Promising strategies for students learning English Provide students learning English access to quality preschool, bilingual or English immersion Ensure education for students learning English is guided by teachers who have received specialized training to meet students unique needs Dedicate time explicitly to learning English vocabulary and time explicitly dedicated to learning academic content Implement sheltered English instructional strategies Assess and properly identify the academic levels of students learning English, including: o Native language assessments and plain English assessments to make sure assessment results are capturing actual knowledge, not language ability; Additional time for assessments; Allowed use of a dictionary or glossary; and Multiple sources of information about student abilities.

o o o

Track outcomes for students learning English after they have been reclassified to ensure students learning English as successful as native English speakers Provide additional learning time to students learning English

Implement technology in way that supports teaching and learning Create a task force that works to continually research and pilot cutting-edge instructional technology that can be used by schools (as they see fit) to allow for highly differentiated learning for every student.

Extend the School Day and Year Target extended day and year policies, and, these policies should follow the following best practices: o Making every minute count or maximizing added time; o Prioritizing increased hours that are tailored to the school and their students; o Individualizing the added time for each student based on diverse needs; o Building a positive school culture of high expectations and mutual accountability; o Providing new experiences for students that make their education more well-rounded; o Preparing students for the future by encouraging college readiness and career goals; o Strengthening instruction by providing increased time for teacher professional development; and o Evaluating how well goals are met by assessing and analyzing data. Funding for these interventions can be leveraged from funding streams for expanded learning time from local, state, and federal sources. Local examples like Campus School, KIPP, and Soulsville Academy and national examples like Massachusetts 2020, LAs BEST, and The Young Scholars Program all provide great examples of how these policies can be implemented.

Quality and Accessible Choices

Government agencies implementing choice programs whether they are districts overseeing intradistrict choice programs or innovation zones, charter school authorizers overseeing a collection of charter schools, or local agencies overseeing inter-district choice programs need to take responsibility for ensuring that students have access to a portfolio of high quality choices through high quality screens, rigorous accountability, and strategic efforts to build the supply of high quality schools. Successful choice programs require thoughtful public oversight. Agencies hoping to build high quality public school choice need to design the programs to target the students with the greatest need, build screens and accountability systems that allow for diverse school options but filter out low quality schools, actively build the supply of schools when needed, create the information and support systems that families need to make good choices, and invest in the transportation systems that allow them to access these choices. Finally, they need to be ever-vigilant to ensure that schools that receive public school students and public resources are playing by the rules, serving students equitably, and maintaining high quality standards for our students. Under the proposed multiple-pathways model approved by the TPC we believe that the system must be designed to ensure quality and allow both autonomy and accountability. The plan should include the following elements: 1. Universal High Standards: Every school, regardless of location or educational model, is held to the same high standards. 2. Site-Based Decisions: Schools have the autonomy to make decisions that best meet the needs of their students. 3. Equitable Access to Quality: All students have the opportunity to attend a high quality school, ideally in their own neighborhoods, but outside of them if their parents deem other options preferable. 4. Good Availability of Information: Data is collected from all schools and is used to allow both the central office and parents to critically assess a schools performance. 5. Continuous Improvement: The system is designed to measure success, close poor performers, and open promising ones. This includes both traditional district schools and alternatively-governed schools (e.g., charter schools, ASD schools, etc.). The same rewards and consequences for success or failure apply to every school. We also recommend that the plan take into consideration the 7 Components of a Portfolio Strategy highlighted by Center on Reinventing Public Education at the University of Washington:

The portfolio strategy is a performance management model for districts that aims to create dramatic student achievement gains at scale. It centers on creating more high-quality schools regardless of provider, giving schools autonomy over staff and funding, and holding all schools accountable for performance. The portfolio strategy is built on 7 key components. Good Options and Choices for all Families -Opening of new schools based on parent/student/neighborhood need -Opening of new schools with outside operators (e.g. charters) -School choice for all families -Coordination of enrollment and school information for families across sectors -Aggressive recruitment of new school providers -Equity and access to charter and non-traditional schools for special education students and English Language Learners School Autonomy (for those granted autonomy) -Universal autonomy: all schools control staff selection, pay, assignment, and budget -New models of teaching and organization (e.g. hybrid learning models) Pupil-Based Funding for All Schools -Pupil-based funding -Sharing of facilities and other select resources with non-district run schools Talent-Seeking Strategy -Recruitment of new principals and teachers to the district -Policies in place for using alternative pipelines to find/develop talent -Performance-based teacher retention -Performance-based teacher pay Sources of Support for Schools -Schools free to choose support from diverse independent providers

 Performance-Based Accountability for Schools -Data systems that allow measurement of annual student growth -Accountability systems that compare schools on student growth, climate and improvement -Rich information systems to guide school self-assessment and planning -Common student performance standards for all schools -Publication of a school report card -Closure of persistently low performing district and charter schools Extensive Public Engagement Additional policy Recommendations/concerns: -Communication plan to convey information about reform strategy and progress (including need for school closures) -Feedback loop for parents and community members to ensure that district administrators are empowered with the ability to measure success, close poor performing schools, and open promising ones. This includes both traditional district schools and alternatively-governed schools (e.g., charter schools, ASD schools, etc.). The same rewards and consequences for success or failure should apply to every school. -Create new magnet school options focused on various themes (e.g., STEM, performing arts, Montessori, etc.) to provide more diverse and innovative academic choices to a more racially and socioeconomically diverse student body. Seek input from the community on what themes are desired. (Reviving Magnet Schools: Strengthening a Successful Choice Option, Siegel-Hawley and Frankenburg, February 2012; See also Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools magnet program specs.) -Devise a fair enrollment system that ensures that all students have the opportunity to attend a high quality school, ideally in their own neighborhoods, but outside of them if their parents deem other options preferable. (Hopes, Fears & Reality, Chapter 3, Lake and Gross) -Critical attention should also be given to establishing a widely available, outstanding Career and Technical Education (CTE) program throughout the district. Many studies have shown that CTE programs are extremely effective in preparing high school students for success in post-secondary education and careers, especially in the context of an increasingly technology-driven, globalized marketplace (see, e.g., "Pathways to Prosperity: Meeting the Challenge of Preparing Young Americans for the 21st Century," http://www.gse.harvard.edu/news_events/features/2011/Pathways_to_Prosperity_Feb2011.pdf

Despite a sustained period of high unemployment, news stories still frequently report of U.S. employers being unable to fill highly skilled jobs because the supply of workers with the necessary training is simply too low (see, e.g., "Skilled workers needed to run high-tech CNC machines," http://www.marketplace.org/topics/tech/skilled-workers-needed-run-high-tech-cnc-machines ). For some students, high school CTE may lead to certification, to a 2 or 4 year college degree or beyond. For others, CTE may lead directly to a career or to a job after high school graduation that may finance and otherwise enable additional formal education. We believe the broad outline for an outstanding CTE program in the new district should include: 21st century CTE curriculums and programs that match our high-tech, globalized economy, as well as our local economy's needs; increased CTE funding to support these important, timely programs; wider availability throughout the district for high school students to participate in CTE; and cooperation and collaboration among educators, local government officials and locally-based employers and trades to find opportunities for mutually beneficial public-private CTE partnerships and programs (e.g., matching education and student experiences with area employer and trade needs; apprenticeships, internships and pathways to entry-level employment opportunities).

Engaged Parents and Students

Children whose families who are involved in their education are much more likely to succeed in school and life. Specifically, children from engaged families are more likely to earn higher grades and test scores, enroll in higher level programs, graduate high school and go onto college, and have better social skills. They are also less likely to have behavioral problems and more likely to easily adapt to school. The relationship between family involvement and improved achievement prevails across differences in family income or racial/ethnic background and appears to be particularly important for low income students and African American or Hispanic students. In light of this evidence, strategies that engage families to support their students learning are an important lever for improving student achievement. Unfortunately, efforts to strengthen family engagement that supports student achievement have been undermined by confusion about the definition of effective family engagement, a lack of high-quality evidence regarding effective parental engagement strategies, and the prevalence of scattershot and low-impact strategies, such as fundraisers and generic newsletters. Family engagement is often seen as a feel-good extra, not as a crucial piece of a larger initiative to close the achievement gap and improve student outcomes. To effectively leverage the power of parent engagement to improve student learning, educators and policymakers must prioritize family engagement as a core function of public schools, focus energy on the highestimpact forms of parent engagement, and demand evidence of results from parent engagement efforts. States, districts, schools, and nonprofits need to demand more from family engagement programs. The new Obama ESEA proposal plans to have districts set aside 2% of their Title 1 funding for proven family engagement programs, and districts need to leverage those funds. New programs should be based on best practice and an outcome-oriented definition of family engagement. Institutes that fund or implement engagement must have high expectations for these programs and commit to measuring their impacts, both through formal evaluation and by tracking student achievement data for children whose parents participate in these programs. Policymakers can aid in the process by ensuring data systems track the appropriate student data, so organizations can access data to assess their programs. Research on the benefits of Effective Family Engagement (Flamboyan Foundation) Students do better in school and in life when their families are engaged. A strong body of evidence is clear that family engagement, from birth through adolescence, contributes to a range of positive student outcomes: Family engagement is associated with reduced drop-out rates and higher graduation rates. In a study of high school dropouts, 71% of diverse teenagers interviewed said that more communication between parents and schools might have prevented them from dropping out of school.1 Another study found that students were more likely to stay in school when their families were more engaged in their education.2 Evaluations of the Parent Institute for Quality Education (PIQE), a nine-week program that

builds immigrant parents skills and knowledge about how to support their childs education, found that children of program participants were more likely to go on to college than similarly matched students. 3 Family engagement leads to increased student achievement. Meta-analyses of over 40 studies investigating the impact of family engagement have found that there is a significant and large association between family engagement and the academic achievement of urban elementary and middle school students. These findings also suggest that certain forms of family engagement, such as having high expectations and helping a child make real-world connections to their learning, are the strongest predictors of achievement. 4 In a study of Title I schools, growth in reading test scores was 50% higher for students whose teachers and schools reported high levels of parental outreach versus those that reported low levels. Family engagement can reduce absenteeism. Researchers examining family engagement practices at 18 schools found that communications with families and family workshops helped both chronically and occasionally absent students. Home visits, particularly those that can "humanize" school policies around absences, also improved chronic absence rates.5 Studies of schools instituting high-quality family engagement programs also show that these schools have higher attendance rates than similarly matched schools without such programs.6 Family engagement encourages students to have better attitudes towards learning. Research on the federal Head Start program shows that children with parents who were more involved at home or at school were more motivated and had higher attention and persistence. 7 A randomized study of lowincome, African American parents also demonstrated that children of parents receiving home-based family engagement programs displayed significantly more positive academic self-concept than students whose parents did not receive this additional support at home.8 Family engagement leads to better social skills and less conduct problems. A review of 13 empirically tested family-strengthening programs found that robust family engagement interventions can lead to improved socio-emotional competence in children.9 For example, evaluations from over ten randomized trials demonstrate that youth whose parents participated in the Families and Schools (FAST) program were less likely to be referred to special education services, had less anxiety, were less aggressive, had more social skills, and had more self-confidence than non-participating students. 10 Schools benefit from family engagement. Emerging evidence suggests that family engagement can have important benefits for the inner-functioning of schools: Family engagement is associated with higher expectations. Teachers expectations for students are affected by their beliefs about and interactions with families. A study of at-risk first-graders found that teachers self-reported relationship quality with parents impacts their perceptions of student ability, and that teachers report their relationship to be better with white (and, to a lesser extent, Hispanic) parents than they do with African American parents.11 A study of Latino middle and high-schoolers found that

parent-reported family engagement efforts were also associated with teacher perceptions of student aptitude.12 Family engagement can lead to better student-teacher relationships. A national longitudinal study found that school-based family involvement from kindergarten through fifth grade was associated with improved student-teacher relationships among low-income families and their children. When parents increased their involvement their child's relationships with their teacher improved and when they decreased their involvement this relationship decreased in quality.13 Family engagement helps improve trust in schools. When researchers studying the characteristics of high-performing schools in Chicago compared the 30 schools with the least amount of improvement to the 30 schools with the highest rate of improvement, they found that teachers in high-performing schools reported higher levels of trust and respect with one another and with parents.14 Family engagement leads to more cultural competence. Research on decentralized decision-making shows that teachers report more cultural and community awareness and more school-wide efforts to involve parents when their schools have governing bodies that include parents who are representative of the community. In turn, teacher awareness of the culture and community of their students translated into a 9.6 percentage point increase in reading scores and a 24.1 percentage point increase in math scores.15 Policy Recommendations -Create a Parent Coordinator position at every school to ensure that there is someone in each school who is directly responsible for supporting families. (See example in New York City school system.) -Provide training for Teachers and Principals to effectively improve Family Engagement -The new school district should enter into meaningful partnerships with outside organizations such as non-profits, churches and community associations organizations to reach parents who are otherwise difficult to engage. -Provide clear, easy-to-understand and accessible information about schools and enrollment procedures so that all parents are equipped to make good decisions for their children. Consider a collaboration with a third-party organization for the dissemination of information and educating parents on options. (Hopes, Fears & Reality, Chapter 7, Lake and Gross. See Indy School Chooser or New Orleans Parent Organizing Network as examples.) -View parents as partners in the education process and provide them opportunities for meaningful input into what is happening in their schools, such as positions on Site-Based Decision Making Councils that have legitimate decision-making authority. There should also be a system of checks and balances to see that the decided-upon structure and process for parent engagement is actually working

Culture and Climate of High Expectations

Every SCS employee, regardless of position, should strive to help make every student ready for college and career and should be held accountable for transparently striving toward fulfillment of the mission. Throughout the system, from the classroom, throughout the school and all supporting departments, there is an academic press for achievement, a safe and positive school environment, focus on social and emotional learning, a climate of high expectations, support for teacher influence and a well defined structure with clear student goals and strong classroom management. A safe and positive school environment Student academic success must begin with a physically and emotionally safe environment in which students can learn. Experts refer to this as school climate, which The National School Climate Center (NSCC) describes as the patterns of school life experiences and reflects norms, goals, values, interpersonal relationships, teaching, learning and leadership practices, and organizational structures. They conclude that A sustainable, positive school climate fosters youth development and learning necessary for a productive, contributing and satisfying life in a democratic society. Research has identified a strong relationship between a negative school climate and the academic and discipline problems that are all too prevalent in schools serving disadvantaged students. Thus, it is imperative that schools and districts with a high percentage of disadvantaged students take action to create positive school climates. While there are different programs implemented by schools to support a safe school environment, positive behavior systems are a holistic approach to create a positive school climate. Best practices of positive behavior systems Several key conditions can help support effective implementation of positive behavior systems. Schools start with a shared belief that the schools needs to be an environment in which all children thrive. Therefore the school must focus on creating and encouraging community, respect and care between all members of the school. Schools that successfully implement behavior systems clearly outline values and expectations to staff and students alike. Staff buy-in and leadership is also critical for success, and can be facilitated by engaging staff in identifying the key messages and outcomes the school will work towards by implementing the positive behavior system. Staff must also have training to implement the system and create a consistent message throughout the school. Once students and staff understand and internalize the messages, values, and goals of the school and the positive behavior system, specific strategies can then be implemented to handle issues among students. Positive behavior systems often involve students in active roles, including practicing conflict resolution and acting as peer mediators. All members of the school community have a role to play in building school climate: Teachers and lead students must model positive behaviors and values. Some schools

establish a leadership teamcomprised of staff members representing diverse roles throughout the schoolto lead the positive behavior system implementation by identifying the needs of the campus and messages that need to be established, defining tactics to deal with those issues, and continually reassessing implementation. Social and Emotional Learning (SEL) Supporting students social and emotional development requires both a safe and positive school environment and opportunities for learning and practicing social and emotional competencies. Thus, there is overlap between PBS and SEL programs. In practice, an effective SEL program explicitly teaches the key social emotional competencies via classroom-based instruction, and then provides ongoing opportunities for practice and reinforcement both in and out of the classroom. For example, SEL lessons focused on specific conflict resolution skills may be taught in the classroom, while a school-wide conflict resolution program supported by all staff members provides opportunities for students to apply their knowledge. As such, SEL programs are not simply a separate program that can be added on to an existing school environment. Rather, SEL is a way of teaching and organizing classrooms and schools that helps children learn a set of skills needed to successfully manage life tasks such as learning, forming relationships, communicating effectively, being sensitive to others needs, and getting along with others. SEL programs create safe, caring, well-managed, and participatory learning environments and provide instruction in social and emotional competencies. This increases student attachment to school, reduces students involvement in risky behaviors such as substance use and truancy, enhances the development of protective factors such as motivation to learn and high self-esteem, and promotes positive youth developmentultimately leading to improved academic performance, as well as positive outcomes in both school and life. Best practices in social and emotional learning programs Effective SEL programs are coordinated approaches guided by a clear conceptual framework. They focus on developing caring school environments in which children experience supportive relationships and develop social and emotional competencies, all of which provide the foundation for meaningful learning. Short-term, isolated approaches that are primarily didactic in nature are not as effective as long-term programs (i.e., taking place across multiple school years) that are coordinated across multiple domains. The most effective programs follow four recommended practices, described by the acronym SAFE: Sequenced: A connected and coordinated set of activities Active: Use of active forms of learning Focused: At least one component dedicated to personal and social skills Explicit: Targets specific SEL skills rather than general development

Future policy efforts towards the integration of SEL programs into public education should begin with the development of educational standards and benchmarks for SEL in pre-K through 12th grade. All but two states have SEL standards for pre-K education, and some states have expanded SEL standards to elementary education. However, only Illinois has enacted free-standing and comprehensive statewide SEL standards for grades pre-K through 12th grade. A culture of high expectations Tennessee Tell Survey The Teaching, Empowering, Leading and Learning (TELL) Tennessee Survey is an online, anonymous survey of all licensed public school educators in Tennessees public schools, designed to garner Tennessee's public school educators perception of their school environments. As part of Tennessee's First to the Top Initiative, the TELL Tennessee survey was administered February 14 - March 11, 2011. This was the first statewide opportunity for all educators in Tennessee to provide input on teaching conditions. The purpose of the survey is to support sound educational policies and practices based on the views of teachers, principals and other certificated educators in our public schools. This survey data should be used along with the corresponding materials from The New Teacher Center to improve climate and expectations. This process should benefit district policymakers, but the survey results will be available for every school that reaches a minimum of fifty percent response rate (and at least five respondents) and can be used at the school level. For the 1605 schools in Tennessee that have reached this minimum response threshold, this guide is intended to help school leaders interpret and use their own school data as part of their annual school improvement planning process. http://www.telltennessee.org/Using_Your_Data

Every student ready for success in college and career

Improving access to and success in higher educationparticularly for low-income and first generation college-going studentsis a multi-faceted task. The most promising efforts combine academic preparation, counseling, and financial assistance to provide students with all of the tools they need to enroll in and graduate from college, in order to address all of aspects of college readiness. High schools, by themselves, are unlikely to provide all of these supports and many of the most effective programs link high schools with external partners who can supplement their capacity. The need to increase access to college to greater numbers of young people is clear. Success in a global economy depends on higher levels of knowledge and skills, and more students need more education in order to secure a productive future. The increased levels of education will benefit the economy, and the nation, as well, as increasingly educated youths become taxpayers and citizens. There a number of promising efforts under way to improve access and success in higher education, particularly for low-income and minority students. The evidence about the effectiveness of particular programs is still emerging, but the most promising ones appear to combine some key elements: higher expectations for students, stronger academic preparation, counseling and other support for students, and financial assistance. Building and sustaining effective programs will be challenging in a difficult economic climate. But partnerships among public and private institutions can help. The need is great. Policy Recommendations Fulfilling the recommendation of the other guiding principles should result in a system that graduates more students prepared for and with access to a college education. Additional Recommendations -Align High School and College Expectations throughout curriculum and standards with multiple pathways to college, i.e. expansion of dual enrollment and early college programs (ex. Hollis Price at Lemoyne Owen and Middle College at Christian Brothers University) -Expand Access to College-Preparatory Curricula -Strengthen Counseling and Support for Students -Improve Access for Low-Income Students - With regard to CTE issues, in addition to counseling regarding admission to 4 year college programs, the new district should ensure that outstanding guidance counseling services are available for students

about their CTE opportunities and related certification and 2 year post-secondary programs. The district should also coordinate with area certification and post-secondary programs to facilitate seamless transitions from secondary schools to those post-secondary options.

Supportive community members and partners

The TPC should recommend a Cradle to Career framework that aligns community support with student outcomes. A potential framework is the Strive initiative, which has begun work in Memphis: Strive has designed a strategic assistance framework that helps communities build on opportunities, solve issues and overcome challenges and hurdles impacting the systems of learning in their communities. Using an appreciative inquiry process to build on the communitys individual strengths, our approach is to act not as consultants, but as partners with communities to expand or create cradle to career education partnerships. Strive brings to the table experienced, hands-on, solution oriented staff, armed with our framework, curriculum, tools, lessons learned, progress, key challenges along with a healthy dose of commitment and a few battle scars to work with communities. The process for each community begins with an assessment of the communitys assets across the Cradle to Career Civic Infrastructure, which is used to determine where the community is in building its partnership and map out where it needs to go. A customized strategic assistance plan is developed in collaboration with the community and strategic assistance is delivered based upon an individual communitys needs.

Cradle to Career Civic Infrastructure: Building upon lessons learned in five national demonstration sites, Strive has developed a framework for building what is called the Cradle to Career Civic Infrastructure. The Cradle to Career Civic Infrastructure is the organizational system that is formed within a community to use existing resources to target the

needs of every individual child so they have the support they need to succeed along their learning journey. There are four core pillars to the framework. Each pillar has three specific components that are critical for building the civic infrastructure so it can lead to sustained improvements in student outcomes. The reason to establish civic infrastructure using this framework is simple. Most importantly, it will result in student outcomes consistently trending in the right direction over the long-term. Additionally, there are three core outcomes that signal the system is changing: 1. collaborative action is implemented to ensure existing and new resources are focused on what gets results, 2. time, talent, and treasure in a community is repurposed to focus on work that does get results, and 3. a community as a whole begins to take ownership for education results as opposed to assuming it is the role of a few core institutions Strive http://www.strivetogether.org/

Resources
Early Childhood Child Development Jack Shonkoff and Deborah A. Phillips, eds. Neurons to Neighborhoods (Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences. 2000) http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309069882 Childrens Participation in Early Learning Experiences and Skills and Kindergarten Entry W. Steven Barnett and Daniel J. Yarosz, Who Goes to Preschool and Why Does It Matter? (New Brunswick, NJ: National Institute for Early Education Research, 2007). http://nieer.org/docs/?DocID=190 David T. Burkam and Valerie Lee, Inequality at the Starting Gate (Washington, D.C.: Economic Policy Institute. 2002); http://www.epi.org/publication/books_starting_gate/ U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Entering Kindergarten: A Portrait of American Children When They Begin School: Findings from The Condition of Education 2000, Nicholas Zill and Jerry West, NCES 2001035, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2001. http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2001/2001035.pdf Evaluations of Pre-k Programs High-quality Model Programs High/Scope Perry Preschool: http://www.highscope.org/content.asp?contentid=219 Abecedarian: Craig T. Ramey and others, Persistent effects of early intervention on high-risk children and their mothers. Applied Developmental Science 4 (2000): 214; Chicago CPC, Chicago Longitudinal Study: http://www.waisman.wisc.edu/cls/PUBLICATION.HTM State Pre-K Programs CROCUS, Georgetown University: Oklahoma Project http://www.crocus.georgetown.edu/publications.html New Jersey Abbot Pre-K Evaluation: http://nieer.org/pdf/apples_second_grade_results.pdf New Mexico Pre-K Evaluation: http://nieer.org/pdf/new-mexico-initial-4-years.pdf Louisiana Pre-K Evaluation: http://www.picardcenter.org/Publications/Lists/Publications2/DispForm.aspx?ID=50

Tennessee Pre-K Evaluation: http://peabody.vanderbilt.edu/Documents/pdf/PRI/Initial%20Results%20of%20the%20Evaluation%20of %20TN_VPK.pdf SWEEP and Multi-State Studies (surveyed quality and impacts across pre-k programs in 11 states): http://www.fpg.unc.edu/~ncedl/pages/sweep.cfm Costs and Benefits of Pre-K The Heckman Equation: http://www.heckmanequation.org/ Arthur J. Reynolds and Judy Temple, Cost-Effective Early Childhood Development Programs for Preschool Through Third Grade, Annual Review of Clinical Psychology 4: 109-139 (April 2008) http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.3.022806.091411 Clive R. Belfield, An Economic Analysis of Pre-K in Louisiana, (Washington, D.C.: Pre-K Now. 2005) http://www.preknow.org/documents/LAEconAnalysisReport_June2005.pdf Data about Pre-K In Your State NIEER State Pre-K Yearbook: http://nieer.org/yearbook/ Pre-K Funding W. Steven Barnett and Jason T. Hustedt, Improving Public Financing for Early Learning Programs, NIEER Policy Brief (Issue 23, April 2011) http://nieer.org/docs/?DocID=328 Stacy Golin, Anne Mitchell, and Barbara Gault, The Price of School Readiness: A Tool for Estimating the Cost of Universal Preschool in the States, (Washington, D.C.: Institute for Womens Policy Research. 2004). http://www.iwpr.org/publications/pubs/the-price-of-school-readiness-a-tool-for-estimating-thecost-of-universal-preschool-in-the-states Defining Pre-k Quality Barbara T. Bowman, M. Suzanne Donovan, and M. Susan Burns, eds., Eager to Learn: Educating Our Preschoolers (Washington: National Research Council, 2001) http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309068363 Andrew J. Mashburn and others, Measures of Classroom Quality in Prekindergarten and Childrens Development of Academic, Language, and Social Skills. Child Development, 79 (3)(2008): 73249 http://www.srcd.org/journals/cdev/0-0/Mashburn.pdf Robert C. Pianta, Preschool is School, Sometimes. Education Next 7 (1)(2007): 4449 http://educationnext.org/preschool-is-school-sometimes/

Pre-K Teachers Pamela Kelley and Gregory Camili, The Impact of Teacher Education on Outcomes in Center-Based Early Childhood Education Programs: A Meta-Analysis (New Brunswick, NJ: National Institute for Early Education Research, 2007). http://nieer.org/resources/research/TeacherEd.pdf Diane M. Early and others, Teachers Education, Classroom Quality, and Young Childrens Academic Skills: Results from Seven Studies of Preschool Programs. Child Development 78 (2) (2007) (Summary Powerpoint: http://www.fpg.unc.edu/~handouts/7%20study%20teache%20ed-summit%202009.pdf; Abstract: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17381790) Bruce Fuller, John W. Gasko, and Rebecca Anguiano, Lifting Pre-K Quality, (Institute of Human Development, University of California Berkeley 2010) http://www.childinst.org/images/stories/resource_center_docs/cbu-cli-final-highquality.pdf Assessing Early Learning Outcomes Catherine E. Snow and Susan B. Van Hemel, Early Childhood Assessment: Why, What, and How? (Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press. 2008) http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12446 Kindergarten Entry Assessment Applied Survey Research, School Readiness and Student Achievement: A Longitudinal Analysis of San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties, (San Jose, Calif: Applied Survey Research. 2010) http://www.appliedsurveyresearch.org/projects/KSRA_2008/reports/Report_ALongitudinalAnalysis.pdf Getting Ready: The 2010-11 Maryland School Readiness Report, Maryland State Department of Education http://www.marylandpublicschools.org/msde/newsroom/publications/school_readiness Full-Day Kindergarten Kristie Kauerz, PreK-3rd: Putting Full-Day Kindergarten in the Middle (New York: Foundation for Child Development. 2010) http://fcd-us.org/sites/default/files/FINAL%20Kindergarten%20Brief.pdf Walston, J. & West, J. (2004). Full-day and half-day kindergarten in the United States: Findings from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 1998-99 (No. NCES 2004-078). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics; http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2004/2004078.pdf Lee, V. E., Burkam, D. T., Honigman, J., Ready, D. D., & Meisels, S. J. (2006). Full-day vs. half-day kindergarten: In which program do children learn more? American Journal of Education, 112, 163-208 (Summary available here: http://www.strategiesforchildren.org/eea/6research_summaries/06_FDKvsHDK.pdf)

Home Visiting and Parenting Programs Home Visiting Evidence of Effectiveness http://homvee.acf.hhs.gov/Default.aspx Home Visiting: Recent Program Evaluations, The Future of Children. Volume 9, No. 1 (Spring/Summer 1999) http://futureofchildren.org/publications/journals/journal_details/index.xml?journalid=49 Effective Instructional leaders Frederick Hess and Andrew Kelly, Learning to Lead: What Gets Taught in Principal-Preparation Programs. (Teacher College Record. Volume 109 Number 1, 2007). Available at http://www.aei.org/docLib/20061221_LearningtoLeadTCR.pdf Gretchen Rhines Cheney and Jacquelyn Davis, Gateway to the Principalship: state power to Improve the Quality of School Leaders. (DC: Center for American Progress, 2011). Available at http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/10/pdf/principalship_execsumm.pdf Gretchen Rhines Cheney, Jacquelyn Davis, Kelly Garett, Jennifer Holleran, A New Approach to Principal Preparation: Innovative Programs Share their Practices and Lessons Learned. (Fort Worth: Rainwater Leadership Alliance, 2010). Available at http://www.anewapproach.org/docs/a_new_approach.pdf Kenneth Leithwood, Karen Louis, Stephen Anderson and Kyla Wahlstrom, How Leadership Influences Student Learning. (Minneapolis and Toronto: University of Minnesota and University of Toronto and Wallace Foundation, 2004). Available at http://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-center/schoolleadership/key-research/Documents/How-Leadership-Influences-Student-Learning.pdf New Leaders, Evaluating Principals: Balancing Accountability with professional Growth (New York: New Leaders, 2010). Available at http://www.nlns.org/evaluating-principals.jsp New Leaders, New Leaders Urban Excellence Framework (New York: New Leaders, 2011). Available at http://www.newleaders.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/UEF-ConceptMaps1.pdf New Leaders, Principal Effectiveness: A New Principalship to Drive Student Achievement, Teacher Effectiveness and School Turnarounds. (New York: New Leaders, 2009). Available at http://www.newleaders.org/wpcontent/uploads/2011/08/princpal_effectiveness_executive_summary_nlns.pdf Sarah Shelton, Strong Leaders Strong Schools: 2010 School Leadership Laws. (DC: Wallace Foundation, 2011). Available at http://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-center/school-leadership/statepolicy/Pages/Strong-Leaders-Strong-Schools-2010-School-Leadership-Laws-.aspx School Leaders Network, http://connectleadsucceed.org/

Steven Adamowski, Susan Bowles Therriault, Anthony P. Cavanna, The Autonomy Gap, Barriers to Effective School Leadership. (DC: Thomas b. Fordham Institute, 2007). Available at http://www.edexcellencemedia.net/publications/2007/200704_theautonomygap/041107AutonomyGa p.pdf Susan Gates, Laura Hamilton, Paul Heaton, and Francisco Martorell, Preliminary Findings from the New Leaders for New Schools Evaluation. Rand Corporation, 2010. Available at http://www.rand.org/pubs/working_papers/2010/RAND_WR739.pdf Vanderbilt Assessment of Leadership in Education: http://www.valed.com/research.html Implementation of Rigorous Standards Linda Darling-Hammond and Ray Pecheone, Stanford University "Developing an Internationally Comparable Balanced Assessment System That Supports High-Quality Learning" http://www.k12center.org/rsc/pdf/Darling-HammondPechoneSystemModelBrief.pdf Marc Tucker, National Center on Education and the Economy "An Assessment System For the United States: Why Not Build on the Best?" http://www.k12center.org/rsc/pdf/TuckerSystemModelBrief.pdf Stephen Lazer, Educational Testing Service "High-Level Model for an Assessment of Common Standards" http://www.k12center.org/rsc/pdf/LazerSystemModelBrief.pdf Lauren Resnick, University of Pittsburgh, and Larry Berger, Wireless Generation "An American Examination System" http://www.k12center.org/rsc/pdf/ResnickBergerSystemModelBrief.pdf Interventions Parsad Basmat and Laurie Lewis, After-School Programs in Public Elementary Schools, National Center for Education Statistics (2009), accessed December 1, 2011,http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2009/2009043.pdf and Schools and staffing survey, 1999-2000. Overview of the data for public, private, public charter, and Bureau of Indian Affairs elementary and secondary schools, National Center for Education Statistics (2002), accessed December 1, 2011, http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2002/2002313.pdf. Time Well Spent: Eight Powerful Practices of Successful, Expanded-Time Schools, accessed December 20, 2011, http://issuu.com/nationalcenterontimelearning/docs/timewellspent/5, 4-5. David Farbman and Claire Kaplan, Time for a Change: The Promise of Extended-Time Schools for Promoting Student Achievement, (2005) accessed December 20, 2011, http://www.mass2020.org/files/file/Time-for-a-change(1).pdf, 5.

Jennifer Birmingham, Elizabeth R. Reisner, Richard N. White, and Christina A. Russell. Building Quality, Scale, and Effectiveness in After-School Programs. Accessed December 1, 2011. http://www.policystudies.com/_policystudies.com/files/TASC_Summary_Report_Final.pdf, 30, 35. Motoko Akiba, Patricia A. Lauer, Stephanie B. Wilkerson, Helen S. Apthorp, David Snow, and Mya L. Martin-Glenn. Out-of-School-Time Programs: A Meta-Analysis of Effects for At-Risk Students. Review of Educational Research, 76 (2006), 303. Mandy Cheung , Denise Huang, David Silver, Nikki Duong, Alice Gualpa, Cheri Hodson, Deborah La Torre Matrundola, Nora Obregon, Jordan Rickles, Gwendelyn Rivera, Yulin Sun, Larry Thomas, and Vanessa Vazquez, Independent Statewide Evaluation of After School Programs ASES and 21st CCLC, CRESST Report 789, Accessed on December 5, 2011: http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED520524.pdf, 78. When Schools Stay Open Late: The National Evaluation of the 21st Century Community Learning Centers Program Final Report, (2005) accessed December 13, 2011, http://www.mathematicampr.com/publications/pdfs/21stfinal.pdf, 25-26 John Deke, Susanne James-Burdumy, Mark Dynarski, Mary Moore, and Wendy Mansfield, When Schools Stay Open Late: The National Evaluation of the 21st Century Community Learning Centers Program, National Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, (2005), accessed on December 1, 2011, http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED485162.pdf Family Engagement Bridgeland, J., DiIulio, J., & Morison, K. (2006). The Silent Epidemic: Perspectives of High School Dropouts. Washington, DC: Civic Enterprises. Barnard, W. (2004). Parent involvement in elementary school and educational attainment. Children and Youth Services Review, 2: pp. 39-62. 3 National Family, School, and Community Engagement Working Group. (2010). Taking Leadership, Innovating Change: Profiles in Family, School, and Community Engagement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Family Research Project. Jeynes, W. (2005). A Meta-analysis of the relation of parental involvement to urban elementary school student academic achievement. Urban Education, 40(3): pgs. 237-269. Hill, N. & Tyson, D. (2009). Parental involvement in middle school: A meta-analytic assessment of the strategies that promote achievement. Developmental Psychology, 45(3): pgs. 730-763 5 Epstein, J., & Sheldon, S. (2002). Present and Accounted For: Improving Student Attendance Through Family and Community Involvement. The Journal of Educational Research, 95(2): pgs. 308-318. 6

Sheldon, S. (2007). Improving student attendance with school, family, and community partnerships. Journal of Educational Research, 100: pgs. 267-275. 7 Fantuzzo, J., McWayne, C., Perry, M., & Childs, S. (2004). Multiple dimensions of family involvement and their relations to behavioral and learning competencies for urban, low-income children. School Psychology Review, 33(4): pgs. 467-480. 8 Fantuzzo, J., Davis, G., & Ginsburg, M. (1995). Effects of Parent Involvement in Isolation or in Combination With Peer Tutoring on Student Self-Concept and Mathematics Achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(2): pgs. 272-281. 9 Caspe, M. & Lopez, W. (2006). Lessons from family-strengthening interventions: Learning from evidencebased practice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Family Research Project. Hernandez, L. (2000). Families and Schools Together: Building Organizational Capacity for Family-School Partnerships. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Family Research Project. Hughes, J., Gleason, K., & Zhang, D. (2005). Relationship influences on teachers' perceptions of academic competence in academically at-risk minority and majority first grade students. Journal of School Psychology, 43: pgs. 303-320. Kuperminc, G., Darnell, A., & Alvarez-Jimenez, A. (2008). Parent involvement in the academic adjustment of Latino middle and high school youth: Teacher expectations and school belonging as mediators. Journal of Adolescence, 31: pgs. 469-483. Dearing E., Kreider, H., & Weiss, H. (2008). Increased family involvement in school predicts improved child-teacher relationships and feelings about school for low-income children. Marriage and Family Review, 43(3/4): pgs. 226-254. Payne, C. & Kaba, M. (2001). So much reform, so little change: Building-level obstacles to urban school reform. Northwestern Univertsity, 2. Marschall, M. (2006). Parent involvement and educational outcomes for Latino students. Review of Policy Research, 23(5): pgs. 1053-1076