Format: Cross-Case Report

This research brief outlines the major findings from NYKids’ latest study on the effects of the pandemic on the educator workforce. The full report, “Opportunities and Challenges to Adapt and Innovate: How Educators Confronted the COVID-19 Pandemic,” was published in December, 2022 and is available on our website. The brief succinctly describes the four drivers for adaptation and innovation found in positive outlier schools that participated in the study: Empowerment and Collective Responsibility; Responsiveness and Flexible Problem Solving ; A Relationship- and Connection-Centered Orientation; and Adaptive and Innovative Systems.

NYKids’ latest report, “Opportunities and Challenges to Adapt and Innovate: How Educators Confronted the COVID-19 Pandemic,” features data gathered among 88 educators from 6 schools across New York State. The study offers important findings related to adaptation and innovation in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and provides insight into the challenges faced by school districts as well as the promising adaptations and innovations such crises prompt.

This cross-case report is the second phase of our College and Career Readiness study. This report, entitled, Students’ Perspectives on Life After High School focuses on students’ voices from two of the positive outlier schools that participated in the first phase of this study. These two schools, Malverne Senior High School and Crown Point Central School, qualify as positive outliers because they are “atypical” in the sense that they have achieved a trend of above-predicted graduation rates among different populations of students consistently over time.

In 2017-18, research teams investigated 10 high schools regarding the preparation of critical needs students for college and career. Three of these schools were typically-performing (with graduation rates as predicted for the student population served) and the remainder were odds-beating schools (with graduation rates above predicted for the student population served). This cross-case report describes the four themes observed across all odds-beating secondary schools.

This case study is one of a series of studies conducted by Know Your Schools~for NY Kids since 2005. In 2015-16, research teams investigated 6 elementary schools. In comparison to schools serving similar populations at each grade level, these odds-beating schools are ones in which English Language Learners exceeded expected average performance on the 2012-13 and 2013-14 state mathematics and English language arts assessments across multiple grade levels and subjects. Comparisons were for grades three through six. Researchers used site-based interviews of teachers and administrators, as well as analyses of supportive documentation in all schools; in four of the schools student interviews and classroom observations were also conducted.

This case study is one of a series of studies conducted by Know Your Schools~for NY Kids since 2005. In 2015-16, research teams investigated 6 elementary schools. In comparison to schools serving similar populations at each grade level, these odds-beating schools are ones in which English Language Learners exceeded expected average performance on the 2012-13 and 2013-14 state mathematics and English language arts assessments across multiple grade levels and subjects. Comparisons were for grades three through six. Researchers used site-based interviews of teachers and administrators, as well as analyses of supportive documentation in all schools; in four of the schools student interviews and classroom observations were also conducted.

The Common Core Odds-Beating Studies were developed in collaboration between a team of researchers at the University at Albany and the New York State Education Department. The study began in the recognition that there was a need for research investigating the process and practices in schools with relatively better outcomes on the Common Core-aligned assessments first implemented in the state in the 2011-2012 school year. At the time of this study, there had been no systematic examinations of the ways a variety of schools have approached and responded to the Common Core Learning Standards (CCLS) and the Annual Professional Performance Review (APPR) systems, both part of the Race to the Top reform agenda.

The Common Core Odds-Beating Studies were developed in collaboration between a team of researchers at the University at Albany and the New York State Education Department. The study began in the recognition that there was a need for research investigating the process and practices in schools with relatively better outcomes on the Common Core-aligned assessments first implemented in the state in the 2011-2012 school year. At the time of this study, there had been no systematic examinations of the ways a variety of schools have approached and responded to the Common Core Learning Standards (CCLS) and the Annual Professional Performance Review (APPR) systems, both part of the Race to the Top reform agenda.

The Common Core Odds-Beating Studies were developed in collaboration between a team of researchers at the University at Albany and the New York State Education Department. The study began in the recognition that there was a need for research investigating the process and practices in schools with relatively better outcomes on the Common Core-aligned assessments first implemented in the state in the 2011-2012 school year. At the time of this study, there had been no systematic examinations of the ways a variety of schools have approached and responded to the Common Core Learning Standards (CCLS) and the Annual Professional Performance Review (APPR) systems, both part of the Race to the Top reform agenda.

The Common Core Odds-Beating Studies were developed in collaboration between a team of researchers at the University at Albany and the New York State Education Department. The study began in the recognition that there was a need for research investigating the process and practices in schools with relatively better outcomes on the Common Core-aligned assessments first implemented in the state in the 2011-2012 school year. At the time of this study, there had been no systematic examinations of the ways a variety of schools have approached and responded to the Common Core Learning Standards (CCLS) and the Annual Professional Performance Review (APPR) systems, both part of the Race to the Top reform agenda.

In 2012-13, research teams investigated 13 high schools; eight of these schools had consistently higher than predicted graduation rates among at least two critical needs groups and five consistently achieved average graduation rates, given their student demographics. Schools were selected based on the four-year graduation rates for cohorts of 2004, 2005, and 2006, as reported on their state report cards in 2009-11. Researchers used site-based interviews of teachers and administrators, as well as analyses of supportive documentation, to determine differences in practices between higher- and average-performing schools in the sample.

In 2012-13, research teams investigated 13 high schools; eight of these schools had consistently higher than predicted graduation rates among at least two critical needs groups and five consistently achieved average graduation rates, given their student demographics. Schools were selected based on the four-year graduation rates for cohorts of 2004, 2005, and 2006, as reported on their state report cards in 2009-11. Researchers used site-based interviews of teachers and administrators, as well as analyses of supportive documentation, to determine differences in practices between higher- and average-performing schools in the sample.

This case study is one of a series of studies conducted by Know Your Schools~for NY Kids since 2005. For the study of critical needs elementary schools, conducted during the 2010-11 school year, research teams investigated ten consistently higher-performing and five consistently average-performing elementary schools. Schools were selected based on the performance of critical needs subgroups – African American, Hispanic, English language learners, and special education students, and students living in poverty as measured by eligibility for free or reduced-price lunch – on New York State Assessments of English Language Arts and Mathematics for grades 3 through 4, 5, or 6 in 2007, 2008, and 2009.

This case study was conducted in spring 2009 as one of a series of studies conducted by Just for the Kids~New York since 2005. For the study of middle school science, research teams investigated seven consistently higher-performing and three average-performing schools based on student performance on the New York State Intermediate-Level Science Examination in 2006, 2007, and 2008. Researchers used site-based interviews of teachers and administrators, as well as classroom observations and analyses of supportive documentations, to determine differences in practices between higher- and average-performing schools in the sample.

This case study was conducted in spring 2009 as one of a series of studies conducted by Just for the Kids~New York since 2005. For the study of middle school science, research teams investigated seven consistently higher-performing and three average-performing schools based on student performance on the New York State Intermediate-Level Science Examination in 2006, 2007, and 2008. Researchers used site-based interviews of teachers and administrators, as well as classroom observations and analyses of supportive documentations, to determine differences in practices between higher- and average-performing schools in the sample.

This case study is one of 10 produced as part of a larger study of high schools conducted during the 2007-08 school year. Research teams investigated 10 consistently higher-performing and five average-performing high schools based on student performance on New York State Assessments of English, mathematics, science, and history. Researchers used site-based interviews of teachers and administrators, as well as analyses of supportive documentation, to determine differences in practices between higher-and average-performing schools in the sample.

This case study is one of 10 produced as part of a larger study of high schools conducted during the 2007-08 school year. Research teams investigated 10 consistently higher-performing and five average-performing high schools based on student performance on New York State Assessments of English, mathematics, science, and history. Researchers used site-based interviews of teachers and administrators, as well as analyses of supportive documentation, to determine differences in practices between higher-and average-performing schools in the sample.

Research teams investigated 10 consistently higher-performing and six average-performing middle schools on student performance in New York State Assessments of 8th grade English Language Arts and Mathematics. Researchers used site-based interviews of teachers and administrators, as well as the analysis of supportive documentation, to determine differences in practice between higher- and average-performing schools in the sample. In half the higher-performing schools, poverty levels meet or exceed the state average (as measured by the percent of students receiving free or reduced lunch). Average-performing schools were matched as closely as possible to the higher performers in terms of student poverty levels, geographic location, size, and student ethnicity. Results were organized along five broad themes that form the framework of the national Just for the Kids Study of which the New York study is part. The national study is sponsored by the National Center for Educational Accountability.

Research teams investigated 10 consistently higher-performing and six average-performing middle schools on student performance in New York State Assessments of 8th grade English Language Arts and Mathematics. Researchers used site-based interviews of teachers and administrators, as well as the analysis of supportive documentation, to determine differences in practice between higher- and average-performing schools in the sample. In half the higher-performing schools, poverty levels meet or exceed the state average (as measured by the percent of students receiving free or reduced lunch). Average-performing schools were matched as closely as possible to the higher performers in terms of student poverty levels, geographic location, size, and student ethnicity. Results were organized along five broad themes that form the framework of the national Just for the Kids Study of which the New York study is part. The national study is sponsored by the National Center for Educational Accountability.

Conducted in the 2004-2005 school year, research teams investigated 10 consistently higher performing and five average performing elementary schools to determine the differences in practices between higher and average performing elementary schools. Schools were identified through an in-depth analysis of academic achievement. Researchers used site-based interviews and observations, as well as the analysis of supportive documentation, to investigate the practices of each of the 15 schools in the study. District-, school-, and classroom-level practices were studied in the five themes of NCEA’s Best Practice Framework: Curriculum and Academic Goals; Staff Selection, Leadership, and Capacity Building; Instructional Programs, Practices, and Arrangements; Monitoring: Compilation, Analysis, and Use of Data; and Recognition, Intervention, and Adjustment.

Conducted in the 2004-2005 school year, research teams investigated 10 consistently higher performing and five average performing elementary schools to determine the differences in practices between higher and average performing elementary schools. Schools were identified through an in-depth analysis of academic achievement. Researchers used site-based interviews and observations, as well as the analysis of supportive documentation, to investigate the practices of each of the 15 schools in the study. District-, school-, and classroom-level practices were studied in the five themes of NCEA’s Best Practice Framework: Curriculum and Academic Goals; Staff Selection, Leadership, and Capacity Building; Instructional Programs, Practices, and Arrangements; Monitoring: Compilation, Analysis, and Use of Data; and Recognition, Intervention, and Adjustment.