big picture schools in california

One student at a time in a cOmmunity Of learners… small schools by design

Big Picture SchoolS in california

an analysis of outcomes using california Department of education “Data Quest” information retrieval service

18th July, 2010

commissioned by:Viv White, directorBig Picture Education Australia (BPEA)

PO Box 836, Williamstown, VIC 3016

Email: [email protected]: www.bigpicture.org.au

author:neil day, MA, Dip Data Analysis (Essex),

BA (Hons) Dip Ed (Melb.)

Honorary Senior Research FellowCentre for Program EvaluationMelbourne Graduate School of Education University of Melbourne,Victoria, 3010.

Email: [email protected]

ISBN: 978-0-9808434-0-8© Big Picture Education Australia 2010

contentS1 introduction 3

1.1 SummaryofResults 3

1.2 Benchmarks 3

1.3 Limitationsoftheanalysis 4

2 list of big Picture schools in california 5

3 “academic performance index” aPi results for big Picture schools 5

3.1 Caution 6

3.2 AppleswithApples:comparisonwith“similar”schools. 7

3.3 Conclusion 8

4 dropout rates adjusted grade 9-12 one year dropout rates 8

4.1 Conclusion 9

4.2 Appropriatecomparisonsfornonstandardschools 9

4.3 Methods 11

4.4 Conclusion 11

5 graduation Rates 2007-2008: two measures. 12

5.1 Method 12

5.1.1 NCESdefinitionofgraduation 12

5.1.2 Simplemeasureofgraduation. 13

5.2 AppleswithApples:graduationratesfromFridaKahlocontinuationschool 13

5.3 GraduationRates:conclusion 13

6 appendix one: big Picture school dropout: detailed comparative data. 13

7 appendix Two: a detailed calculation of the nces definition of graduation 15

AcknowledgementsThe assistance of

ms Viv White and Prof elliot Washor of the big Picture schools organization

is gratefully acknowledged.

Big Picture SchoolS in california an analysis of outcomes using california Department of education “Data Quest” information retrieval service. © Big Picture education australia 2010 P. 3

1. introDuctionThisdocumentreportsonresearchcommissionedandpaidforbyBigPictureSchools(Australia).ItanalysesoutcomemeasuresavailablefromtheCaliforniaDepartmentofEducation“DataQuest”informationretrievalservice,andcomparestheoutcomesfortheeightBigPictureschoolsinCaliforniawithselectedbenchmarks.

1.1 summary of ResultsThedatashowthattheBigPictureSchoolscompareverywellwiththeselectedcomparisonschools:withafewexceptions,dropoutratesaresubstantiallylower,graduationratesarehigherandacademicperformanceismarginallybetterforBigPictureSchoolsthanforthebenchmarkschools.GiventheproblematicprioreducationalhistoryofmanyBigPicturestudents,thisisaconsiderableachievement.

“AcademicPerformanceIndex”measuresthatcompareBigPictureresultswiththosefrom“similar”schoolsareavailableforonlyfouroftheeightBigPicturesSchools.Thisindexisasummarymeasureofacademicperformanceacrossawiderangeoflearningareasusingstandardizedtests.Inthreeofthefourcases,theBigPictureschoolsrankinthetopsixtypercentof“similar”schools,asdefinedbytheCaliforniaDepartmentofEducation.Twoareinthetop20%of“similar”schools.

ForsixBigPictureSchools,comparisonsareprovidedwithallCalifornianSchoolsofthesametype(e.g.HighSchool,ElementarySchooletc.).TwoofthesixBigPictureschoolsrankinthetophalfofallschools.

BigPictureSchoolshavesubstantiallylowerGrades9to12dropoutratesthanthebenchmarksinfiveofthesixschoolsforwhichdataareavailable.

Usingasimplemeasureofgraduation(proportionofGrade12initialenrolmentgraduating)twoofthefiveBigPictureSchoolsforwhichthemeasureisappropriatereportratesthataresubstantiallybetterthantheaverageforthebenchmark.Thedifferencesintheotherthreecasesaretrivial(withintwopercentagepoints)sointhesecasesthegraduationratesare,toallintentsandpurposes,thesameforBigPictureasforneighbouringschools.Inallbutonecase,theonlybenchmarkavailableisthemeanaveragegraduationrateacrossallschoolsinthedistrict.Comparingthegraduationratewithalldistrictschools,ratherthansimilarschools,almostcertainlyunderstatestheachievementsoftheBigPictureSchoolsgiventhebackgroundsofstudentsoninitialenrolment.

1.2 benchmarksThebenchmarksarederivedfromthreesources.Foracademicresults,theCaliforniaDepartmentofEducationprovidesrankinginformationcomparingtheBigPictureschoolwithallschools,and,secondly,theyarecomparedwith100schoolsthatare“similar”accordingtocriteriadevelopedbytheDepartment.Formostothercomparisons,thebenchmarkisthemeanaverageacrossallschoolsfromtheDistrictinwhichtheBigPictureSchoolislocated.However,oneoftheBigPictureSchoolsisa“ContinuationHighSchool”enrollingstudentswithahistoryofdisengagementfromeducation.Formostcomparisonsinvolvingthisschool,thebenchmarkisthemeanaverageperformanceacross12“bestpractice”ContinuationSchoolsnominatedbytheCaliforniaDepartmentofEducation.

Thebenchmarksshouldbeconsideredcarefully:inmanycasescomparisonswilldisadvantagetheBigPictureSchoolbecausetheygenerallyenrolstudentswhoencounterlearningproblemsthatarefargreaterthanthoseofotherstudentsintheSchoolDistrict.


1.3 limitations of the analysisThemostseriouslimitationsoftheanalysisderivefromtheinherentinadequacyofnumericdata,averagedacrossawiderangeofdiverseachievementsofindividualstudents,toaccuratelymeasureoutcomesofalearningenvironment.TheeffectsattributabletotheBigPicturemodelaredifficulttodistinguishfrommanyotherfactorsthatimpactonstudentperformanceandengagement(e.g.personal,cultural,demographicandsocio-economicfactors,nottomentionsystemicissuessuchasstaff,schoolresourcesandthelike).

Theseissuesareallthemoreconcerningwhentheschoolsunderreviewareverydifferentfromothers,anddealwithauniquelyproblematicstudentintakeusingahighlyinnovativelearningmodel.Insomeinstances,theapplicationofthemodelmaystillbeundergoingdevelopment.ItmaywellbedifficulttodifferentiatetheimpactoftheBigPicturemodeloflearningfromthoseeffectswhichareduetodifferingimplementationsofthemodelintheuniqueenvironmentofeachschool.

ThesecircumstancesuggestthatanyconclusionsabouttheefficacyoftheBigPicturemodeldrawnsoleyonthebasisofinformationreportedherewouldbehighlyrisky.Analysisprovidedinthisreportshouldbesupplementedwithnarrativeinformationthatdescribestheoperationofthemodelinspecificlocations,givedetailedinformationaboutthecontextsinwhichthelearningoccurs,andprovidedetailedaccountsoftheengagementofstudents,andtheirsubsequenteducationalandvocationalpathways.

Finally,thereistheeverpresentpossibilityoferrorsinbothdataandinterpretation.Theinformationreportedherewas“cutandpasted”fromWebpagesusingtheDataQuestanalysisandreportingpackageprovidedbytheCaliforniaDepartment.Alldownloadeddatawere“doubleentered”anderrorsfromthissourceshouldbetrivial.OtherdataentryerrorsmayhaveoccurredwhendatawereinputintotheEducationDepartment’ssystem,butnoindicationsofobviousmistakesofthisnaturewerenotedduringthework.SomefurtherprocessingofDataQuestdatawasundertakenusingtheMicrosoftExcelspreadsheetprogram,and,despitethoroughcrosschecks,somecomputationalerrorscouldhaveoccurred.

Whilethewriterisanexperienceddataanalyst,hehadlittlepriorknowledgeoftheCalifornianeducationsystem,somisinterpretationofinformationremainsapossibilitydespitetheassistanceofpeoplewithexpertiseinthisareawhoarethankedintheacknowledgements.


2. liSt of Big Picture SchoolS in californiaschool name grades county school

districtcharter school

school type cds code

MetWestHigh 9-12 Alameda OaklandUnified

no HighSchool(Public)

01612590100701

FridaKahloHigh 9-12 LosAngeles LosAngelesUnified

no ContinuationHigh

19647330110668

AnimoFilmandTheaterArtsCharterHigh

9-12 LosAngeles LosAngelesUnified

yes HighSchool(Public)

19647330111609

DanielWebsterMiddle 6-8 LosAngeles LosAngelesUnified***

no Intermediate/MiddleSchool(Public)

19647336058358

BigPictureHigh 7-12 Fresno FresnoCountyOfficeofEducation


10101080119628

SanDiegoMetroCareerandTech

9-11 SanDiego SanDiegoUnified

no AlternativeSchoolofChoice

37683380107482

ShenandoahHigh 9-12 ElDorado ElDoradoUnionHigh


09618530930214

TheMET 9-12 Sacramento SacramentoCityUnified


34674390101907

Notes

ListofBigPictureSchools:http://www.bigpicture.org/category/schools/

Locationinformationfromsearchesconductedathttp://www.cde.ca.gov/re/sd/index.asp

“AlternativeSchoolsofChoice”schooltypedescribedathttp://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/eo/as/

“ContinuationHighSchool”schooltypedescribedathttp://www.cde.ca.gov/nr/ne/yr10/yr10rel15.asp

3. “acaDemic Performance inDex” aPi reSultS for Big Picture SchoolS TheCaliforniaDepartmentofEducationcalculatestheAcademicPerformanceIndex:“…whichsummarizesaschool’sacademicperformanceandprogressonstatewideassessments”.(http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ap/glossary10b.asp#ga4).Themeasureisreportedasanumericscore(highscore=goodperformance)andasequallypopulatedranksfrom1to10(where1indicateslow,and10indicateshighperformance).Therankingisreportedintwoways.Firsttheschoolisrankedwithallotherschoolsofthesametype(highschool,middleschooletc).Secondly,therankingisreportedincomparisonwith100schoolschosensoastobesimilartothetargetschoolonvarioussocio-economic,demographic(andsomeother)indicators.(Seehttp://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ap/documents/infoguide09.pdffordetailedinformationabouttheAPIresults.)


TheperformanceofBigPictureSchoolsishighlyvaried,asshouldbeexpectedgiventhenatureofthedata.Overalltheacademicachievementsareimpressive,particularlywhentheeducationallydisadvantagedbackgroundofthepupilsisconsidered.

3.1 cautionTherearemanyreasonsforcautioninmakingjudgmentsaboutschooleffectivenessusingstandardisedtests.Inparticular,assumingthevalidityofacademicperformanceasanindicatoroftheeffectivenessofeducationalorganisationoverlookstheknownsignificanceofpersonal,cultural,demographicandsocio-economicfactorsindeterminingacademicachievement.Thedifficultiesareexacerbatedwhentheschoolpopulationsaresmall,whichleadstoaverageresultsbeingfarmoreaffectedbyatypicalindividualstudent’sachievements.Smallnumbersoftestparticipantswillmeangreaterinherentvariance,soscorescanbeexpectedtovarysubstantiallyfrommeasuretomeasureandfromtimetotime.(Thereareacoupleofexamplesofthisinthefollowingreport.)Finallystandardisedscoresinvariablyaremoreerrorproneattheextremesofanydistribution:andBigPictureSchoolsarehighlyatypicalinbothorganisationandinmethodsofeducationaldelivery.Evenmoresignificant,manyBigPicturepupilshaveunusuallydifficulthistoriesoffailedengagementwithlearninginmoreconventionaleducationalenvironments.

InthefollowingtablearereportedAPIresultsfortheBigPictureschoolsin2008-2009.

school name aPi score aPi rank all schools (10 = hi)

aPi rank 100 similar schools (10=hi)

n students

MetWestHigh 580 1 NA 91 smallenrolment(<99)toofewobservationstorank

FridaKahloHigh 616 NA NA 64 verysmallenrolment,ranksnotcalculated


705 4 9 121

DanielWebsterMiddle

645 1 5 772

BigPictureHigh NA NA NA Schoolappearstocommencein2009noreports.


766 7 10 133

ShenandoahHigh

742 6 NA 68

TheMET 657 3 1 109


3.2 apples with apples: comparison with “similar” schools.The“similarschools”usedinrankingsofAPIscoresareselectedonthebasisofthefollowingcharacteristics:

•Pupilmobility•Pupilethnicity(eightvariables)•Pupilsocioeconomicstatus(twovariables)•Percentageofteacherswhoarefullycredentialed•Percentageofteacherswhoholdemergencycredentials•PercentageofpupilswhoareEnglishlearners(ELs)•Averageclasssizepergradelevel•Whethertheschooloperatesamultitrackyear-roundeducationalprogram•Percentageofgradespanenrolments(gradestwo,threetofive,six,seventoeight,andnine

toeleven)•Percentageofstudentsingiftedandtalentededucationprogram•Percentageofstudentswithdisabilities•Percentageofreclassifiedfluent-English-proficient(RFEP)students•PercentageofmigranteducationstudentsSource:http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ap/glossary10b.asp#ga4

Wheretherearefewerthan100pupils,thesimilarschoolrankingsarenotcalculated.

The“similarschools”rankingsmightbeexpectedtobeappropriateforcomparingtheacademicachievementsofschoolsthatspecificallytargetproblematicstudentswhohavehistoriesofdifficultieswithmainstreameducation.Itisapparent,however,thatthemeasureisbynomeansinfallible.Manyoftheindicatorsusedtoselezct“similarschools”maynotalignparticularlywellwiththespecificdisadvantageoftheBigPicturepupils.Forexample,theteachercharacteristicsusedintheselectionof“similarschools”maybeinfluencedbytheattractivenesstogoodteachersofaradicallydifferentmodelofeducationaldelivery.Similarly,smallclasssizesareanunsatisfactoryindicatoriftheschoolorganisationisbasedonindividualtuition.Bothofthesefactorswouldprobablyresultinacomparisonwith“similarschools”whosepupilswereinactualfactfarlessproblematicthanthoseinBigPictureSchools.

Factorssuchasthesemightwellexplainsomecuriousinconsistenciesintherankingdata.ForexampleTheMETschoolrankslowerincomparisonwith“similarschools”thanwithmainstreamschools.Ifthe“similarschools”measuresaccuratelytookintoaccountthehighlevelofeducationaldisadvantageofallBigPicturepupils,wewouldexpectthe“similarschools”rankingsalwaystoexceedthe“allschools”rankings.ThisexpectedpatterndoesoccurfortheAnimo,WebsterandSanDiegoMetroschoolsbutthisishardlypersuasiveendorsementfortheargumentthatthe“similarschools”measuresprovideaccuratecomparisonsof“appleswithapples”.

Fairer“appletoapple”comparisonswouldbepossibleif“similarschools”couldbeselectedonthebasisofthecharacteristicsofeducationaldisadvantageknowntobeaddressedbytheBigPicturemodel.Aclassificationofschoolsbyfactorssuchasethnicity,pupilmobility,priorstudenthistoryofdisengagementfromschool,pastbehaviouralandacademicdifficultiesetc.couldresultinacomparisonbetweenschoolsthatreallyaresimilarintermsofthecharacteristicsthattrulytesttheextenttowhichBigPictureschoolshaveachievedtheirobjectivesoflongtermengagementwitheducation,andanenhancementofthelifechancesofotherwiseunderprivilegedpupils.ThedetailedandcomprehensivedataavailablefromtheCaliforniaDepartmentofEducationwouldpermittheidentificationofclustersofschoolswhichwouldmakefairandvalidcomparatorsforBigPictureSchools,butsuchanalysisisbeyondthescopeofthepresentstudy.


3.3 conclusionDespitetheobviouslimitationsoftheanalysis,andlikelihoodthattheAPImeasurewillunderestimatetheachievementsofBigPictureschools,thestandardAcademicPerformanceIndexsuggeststhat,overall,BigPictureSchoolsareachievingconsiderablesuccessinmainstreamacademicachievement,especiallytakingintoaccounttheprioreducationaldisadvantageofthestudentbodyoverall.Twooffourschoolsperformaswellas,orbetterthan60%ofallCaliforniaDepartmentschoolsofthesametype(SanDiegoMetroandShenandoahHigh).Whencomparedwithschoolsthatare(tosomeextentatleast)similar,onlyoneschoolisbelowtheperformancereportedforthetop60percentofschools(i.e.rankat5orbetter)Intwocases,theschoolshaveveryhighachievementsincomparisonwith“similarschools”:Animointhetop20percentandSanDiegoMetrointhetop10percent.

4. DroPout rateS aDjuSteD graDe 9-12 one year DroPout rateS Dataforanalysisofdropoutratesin2007-2008wereavailableforsixoftheeightCalifornianBigPictureschools.Oneofthemissingisamiddleschool,withnoenrolmentinyears9-12;theotherappearstohaveopenedonlyin2009.

GiventhemajorobjectivesoftheBigPictureSchoolshingeonincreasingthelevelsofengagementwithlearningofagroupofstudentsidentifiedashighrisk,dropoutratesare,primafacie,avalidindicationofthesuccessofthemodel.Dropoutratesaredifficulttomeasureastheyrelyonknowledgeofthedestinationofthedepartingstudent.Further,inmanyvocationallyorientatedschools,earlydepartureforpaidemploymentwillnotnecessarilyindicateafailure.Issuessuchasthesecloudthemeasurementandanalysisofdropoutratesinallsystems.Aseconddifficultyisthematterofselectionofappropriatebenchmarks,asdiscussedintheprevioussection.

Overall,withtheselimitationsinmind,thedatashowthatBigPictureSchools,withoneexception,havesubstantiallylowerlevelsofdropoutthantheaveragerateforappropriatelyselectedbenchmarkschools.


4.1 conclusionFigure1Dropoutrates(%):SchoolvsBenchmark

0

5

10

15

20

25School

Benchmark

MetWest

Frida KahloAnimo

SanDiego

Shenandoahthe MET

0.7

7.6

19.2

20.8

3.5

7.66.2

2.30.8 1.4

0.7

3.6

Notes:

1.Benchmarkismeanforallequivalentschoolsindistrict,or,forFridaKahlo,meanof12bestpracticeContinuationHighSchools.

2.AdjustedGrade9-12oneyearDropoutRate,seehttp://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/page2.asp?level=School&subject=Dropouts&submit1=Submit

Infiveofthesixschools,thedropoutratesareconsiderablylowerthantheaverageforthecomparisongroup:

metWest high Schoolrate=0.7%,District6.7%

Frida Kahlo Schoolrate=19.2%,9“bestpracticeContinuationSchools”=20.8%,(District=6.7%)

animo Schoolrate=3.5%,District6.6%

shenandoah high Schoolrate=0.8%,District1.4%

The meT Schoolrate=0.7%,District3.6%.

4.2 appropriate comparisons for non standard schoolsIntwoschoolsthedropoutratesarehigherthanthosereportedforthedistrictasawhole:theSanDiegoMetroschoolrateis6.2%comparedtoadistrictrate2.3%.ForFridaKahloHighSchoolanapparentlyhighdropoutrateisreported:19.2%incomparisonwith6.7%forthedistrict.Therearehowever,specialcircumstancesthatsuggestthatthedistrictmeandropoutrateisnotanappropriatebenchmarkforFridaKahlo.Theschoolisa“continuationschool”whereeverystudenthasexperiencedpreviousdiscontinuationofeducationforsomereason,andisidentifiedasbeingathighrisk.AccordingtothewebsiteoftheCaliforniaDepartmentofEducation:

Continuationhighschoolsservestudentsaged16yearsorolderwholacksufficientschoolcreditsandareatriskofnotgraduating.Theseschoolsfocusonschool-to-career


education,individualizedinstructionalstrategies,intensiveguidanceandcounseling,andflexibleschoolschedulestomeetstudentneeds.Morethan70,000studentsinthestateattended525continuationhighschoolsin2008-09,thelatestdataavailable.

source:http://www.cde.ca.gov/nr/ne/yr10/yr10rel15.asp(asat11/7/2010)

AmoreappropriatebenchmarkforestimatingtheeffectivenessoftheBigPicturemodelasimplementedinFridaKahloschoolwouldbetocomparethisschoolwithothersimilarspecialcontinuationschools.Ofthe525ContinuationschoolsreferencedontheWebsite,thereare12schoolswhichareidentifiedasmodelsofbestpracticebytheCaliforniaDepartment.Alistofthese12outstandingschools,togetherwiththeAdjustedOneyearGrade9-12dropoutrate,follows:

name of “best practice” school adj one year grade 9-12 dropout rate

% nces graduating

% grade 12 graduating

AlvordHighSchool. 29.2% 66.7% 66.7%

AmistadHighSchool 34.7% 50.0% 55.7%

AuroraHighSchool 6.3% 75.7% 89.8%

BackBayHighSchool 5.0%. 90.7% 72.2%

BoyntonHighSchool 19.0%. 62.4% 44.6%

CulverParkHighSchool 15.2% 56.5% 29.5%

ElCaminoHighSchoolWhittierNorwalkCDS:19648401936475

10.3% 66.1% 77.4%

JamisonHighSchool 38.6% 51.6% 63.5%

LopezHighSchool 29.5%. 58.1% 55.4%

SierraHighSchoolCDScode:36678763632809

19.7%. 52.0% 100.0%(a)

SomersetHighSchool 22.2%. 60.8% 56.6%

ValVerdeHighSchool 19.7% 54.%4 46.3%

average across 9 outstanding continuation schools (un-weighted)

20.8% 62.1% 63.1%

sourcehttp://www.cde.ca.gov/nr/ne/yr10/yr10rel15.asp(asat11/7/2010)

Notea.Thegraduationratewas>167.8%duetosomeunexplainedanomaly:setto100%.

Noteb.Figuresinthelasttwocolumnsofthetablearediscussedinsection5.2

Comparedtothe20.8%averagedropoutrateacrossnineof12similarschoolsrecognizedasoutstandingmodelsofbestpractice,the19.2%rateforFridaKahloschoolismorethansatisfactory.

TheonlyotherBigPictureschoolwithadropoutratehigherthanthatofotherschoolsinitsdistrictisSanDiegoMET.Againthisschoolisofaspecialtype,“AlternativeSchoolofChoice”,whichmayrenderinvidiousanycomparisonwithmainstreamschoolsfromitsdistrict.


TheCaliforniaDepartmentofEducationWebsitedescribes“AlternativeSchoolsofchoice”asfollows:

Alternativeschoolsandprogramsofchoicemustmeetthesamestandardsforcurriculum,instruction,andstudentperformanceastraditionalschools,buttheymeettheseobjectivesbyofferingadifferentstructure,learningphilosophy,oracademicemphasis.Thisenablesthemtoaccommodatedifferentstudentneeds,interestsandlearningstyles,andfosterstudentengagementandachievement.

Sourcehttp://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/eo/as/asprogramsummary.asp(asat11/7/2010)

MET(MetropolitanCareerandTechnical)HighschoolsareonecategorywithintheAlternativeschoolsofchoice:

“MET(MetropolitanCareerandTechnical)HighSchoolsfeatureastrongadvisoryprogram,smallschoolsize,andcommunity-basedlearning.”

Source:http://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/eo/as/aeoverview.asp(asat11/7/2010)

AgainthespecialcharacteristicsoftheSanDiegoMETschoolmaymakeitinappropriateforcomparisonwithmainstreamlocaldistrictschools.Frequentlyvocationallydirectedschoolsofferalternativepathwayssuchas“onthejobtraining”soearlycessationofschoolingmaynotalwaysindicatefailureofthemodel.

4.3 methodsThe“AdjustedGrade9-12oneyearDropoutRate”iscalculatedbydividingthenumberofexitingstudents,whodonotre-enrolelsewhere,bythetotalcumulativeenrolmentfromyears9-12.Cumulativeenrolmentincludesanystudentwhoenroledatanystageofthe2007-2008academicyear,thelatestyearforwhichfiguresareavailable.Thealgorithmsusedarediscussedatthefootofthepageonwhichdataisprovidedforaparticularschool.Toaccessthisinformation,gotohttp://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/page2.asp?level=School&subject=Dropouts&submit1=Submitandtypeinthenameofanyschool(e.g.FridaKahlo).

4.4 conclusion Foreachschool,dropoutratesareavailableandbrokendownbyethnicity:African-AmericanandHispanicarethetwolargestgroupsinBigPictureSchoolsinCalifornia.Inthemajorityofcases,thedropoutrateforthesegroups,whichusuallyincludemanypupilswhoseretentioninschoolisproblematic,isequaltoorlowerthantheratefortheschoolasawhole.ThisindicatesthatBigPictureschoolshaveconsiderablesuccessinmaintainingtheengagementofstudentsfromgroupshighlypronetodropout.

TheseresultsprovidepersuasiveevidenceofthesuccessoftheBigPictureschoolsinsustainingtheeducationalengagementofproblematicstudents.Theevidenceisallthemorecompellingwhenthevulnerabilityofthestudentpopulationonarrivalattheschoolisconsidered:theBigPictureschoolsusually,butnotinvariably,havegreatersuccessthanneighbouringschoolsinmaintainingtheengagementoftheirmostvulnerablepupils.Inthetwoexceptionalcases,thereisevidencethatalthough,higherthanneighbouringschools,theBigPictureschoolshavelowerdropoutratesthandosimilarspecialschoolstargetingstudentsathighriskofdisengagementfromschooling.


5. graDuation rateS 2007-2008: two meaSureS.

school name % nces graduating (school)

% nces graduating (benchmark)

% grade 12 graduating (school)

% grade 12 graduating (benchmark)

MetWestHigh 93.8 69.0 88.2 47.0

FridaKahloHigh 53.3 62.1* 61.5 63.1*


note1 note1 note1 note1

DanielWebsterMiddle note1 note1 note1 note1

BigPictureHigh note2 note2 note2 note2


98.1 84.3 94.4 77.0

ShenandoahHigh 88 92 88.0 88.6

TheMET 75 84.5 75.0 74.1

note1 nograde9-12dropoutsorgraduates

note2 datamissingfromwebsite(schoolappearstohaveopenedin2009)

note3 ForallschoolsexceptFridaKahlo,theBenchmarkistheequivalentmeanaverageforthedistrict.Benchmark

forFridaKahloContinuationHighSchoolismeanaveragefor12“BestPracticeContinuationHighSchools”

(DistrictmeansforFridaKahloare:72.4%NCES,and86.7%Grade12Only.)

5.1 methodTheCaliforniaDepartmentofEducationprovidesanalysisofgraduationrates,comparingtheratesforeachschoolwiththeratesforthedistrict,countyandstateasawhole.Therearetwomethodsforcalculatinggraduationrates.

5.1.1 nces definition of graduationThefirstmethodisbasedonthenumberofdropoutsfromthe2007cohort,calculatedbysummingthenumberofdropoutsfromthecurrentyearandeachofthepreviousthreeyears(i.e.dropoutsfromGrade12in2007,Grade11in2006,Grade10in2005andGrade9in2004).Theratequotedisthenumberofgraduatesasaproportionofthenumberofgraduatesplusthenumberofdropouts.TheCalifornianwebsitewarnsthatthiswidelycitedNCESdefinitionofgraduationisnotanactualgraduationfigure.Ratheritshowsthesuccessoftheschoolatretainingandgraduatingstudents,expressingthenumberofgraduatesasaratioofthetotalnumberofgraduatesplusdropouts.Asthenumberofdropoutsfallsrelativetothenumberofgraduates,thisratewillapproach100%.,AdetailedexampleofthecalculationoftheNCESdefinitionofGraduationisprovidedinAppendixTwo.

5.1.2 simple measure of graduation.ThesecondmethodofcalculatinggraduationsimplycalculatesthenumberofstudentssuccessfullygraduatingattheendoftheyearasapercentageoftheinitialYear12enrolmentin2007.ForMetWestHigh,theinitialenrolmentwas34,thenumberofgraduates30,sotheYear12graduationrateis30/34*100=88.2%


5.2 apples with apples: graduation rates from Frida Kahlo continuation schoolInsections3.2and4.2thespecialpositionoftheFridaKahloContinuationHighSchoolisdiscussedindetail.Thesameconsiderationsapplyhereinselectinganappropriatebenchmark:againthemeanaverageresultfor12“bestpractice”ContinuationHighSchoolsisusedasthebenchmark.

5.3 graduation Rates: conclusionUsingtheNCESmeasurethatincorporatesgraduationanddropoutfigures,twooffiveBigPictureSchoolsforwhichinformationisavailableshowsubstantiallyhigherratesofgraduationthanthebenchmark.Inonecasethedifferenceistrivial(88%cf.92%).

Thesimplermeasureofgraduation(graduatesasaproportionoftheGrade12initialenrolment)showsthatBigPictureSchoolsdobetterthanorequaltothebenchmarkinallfivecasesforwhichdataareavailable.Intwocases(MetWestandSanDiegoMetro)thesimplegraduationratesarefarhigherthantheaverageforallschoolsinthedistrict.Fortheremainingthreeschoolsresultsareessentiallythesameasthebenchmarkvalue:withintwopercentagepoints:theBigPictureschoolsareslightlylowerintwocases,andslightlyhigherinone.

6 aPPenDix one: Big Picture School

DroPout: DetaileD comParative Data.Thefollowinglistcitestheadjustedyear9-12oneyeardropoutrateforallBigPictureschools,forAfrican,Hispanicandallstudents,togetherwithbenchmarkratesfromthemeanfortheDistrict,or,inthecaseofFridaKahloContinuationSchools,for12outstandingContinuationschools.

metWest highAfricanN=42rate0.0%HispanicN=62rate0.0%WholeschoolN=142rate=0.7(district7.6%)

Frida Kahlo highAfricanN=27rate5.9%HispanicN=162rate21.5%Wholeschooladj1yrN=191rate=19.2%(district6.7%)Averagefor10of12similarContinuationHighSchools29.4%

animoAfricanN=16rate6.3%HispanicN=95rate3.2%WholeschoolN=176rate=3.5(district6.7%)


daniel WebsterNoresultsavailable:Schoolcoversyears6-8,noyear9-12enrolment.

big Picture highNoresultsavailable,schoolappearstohavecommencedoperationsin2009.

san diego metroAfricanN=430rate6.4%HispanicN=1026rate7.0%WholeschoolN=2595rate=6.2%(district2.3%)

shenandoah highAfricanN=1rate0%HispanicN=16rate0%WholeschoolN=155rate=0.8%(district1.4%)

The meTAfricanN=28rate3.6%HispanicN=41rate0%

WholeschoolN=153rate=0.7%(district3.6%)

school comparison

MetWest 0.7 7.6

FridaKahlo 19.2 29.4

Animo 3.5 7.6

SanDiego 6.2 2.3

Shenandoah 0.8 1.4

TheMET 0.7 3.6


7 aPPenDix two: a DetaileD calculation of the nceS Definition of graDuationPercentgraduatingiscalculatedbyexpressingasapercentagenumbergraduatingin2007(col.f)dividedbythesumofallstudentswhodroppedoutbetween2004and2007inclusive.

Thenumbereligibletograduateiscalculatedbysummingthefollowing:numbergraduatingin2007(col.f)numberofdropoutsinGrade9in2004(col.a)plus,numberofdropoutsinGrade10in2005(col.b)plusnumberofdropoutsinGrade11in2006(col.c)plusnumberofdropoutsinGrade12in2007(col.d)

AworkedexampleisprovidedfortheMetWestSchool.

a.DropoutsGr.9(04-05)

b.DropoutsGr.10(05-06)

c.DropoutsGr.11(06-07)

d.DropoutsGr.12(07-08)

e.DropoutsGr.9(04-05)throughGr.12(07-08)

f.Grade12Graduates(07-08)

Graduationrate*

METWESTHIGH

0 0 2 0 2 30 93.8

DISTRICTTOTAL:

126 198 282 287 893 1,992 69.0

COUNTYTOTAL:

361 322 640 1,506 2,829 13,620 82.8

STATETOTAL:

10,447 10,177 22,045 50,217 92,886 376,393 80.2

Graduationrate = colf/(colf+a+b+c+d)

= 30/(30+0+0+2+0)

= 0.938

Source:http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/page2.asp?level=School&subject=Graduates&submit1=Submit(typeMETWESTintheboxandclickSUBMIT)

address: BigPictureEducationAustraliaPOBox836WilliamstownVic3016

Phone: (02)95905341

Website: www.bigpicutre.org.au

big picture schools in california

Documents