Level of Schooling: Elementary

This report details the lessons learned through the Research-Practice Partnership between NYKids, Tech Valley High School (TVHS), Chatham Central School District (CSD), and the American Institutes for Research (AIR). The report, co-written by members of the collaborative, reflects on positive outcomes from the RPP, challenges team members faced, and future goals for improvement.

Dr. Aaron Leo presented research from NYKids’ latest study of Adaptation and Innovation during the COVID-19 pandemic at the American Anthropological Association’s annual conference held in Toronto, Canada in November, 2023. The paper, co-written with Dr. Kristen C. Wilcox was entitled “Educators’ stress and emotional labor during the COVID-19 pandemic” and drew on data gathered among 88 educators across New York State. Dr. Leo delivered the paper alongside other researchers on a panel focusing on teacher and student agency during the pandemic.

This presentation, entitled “Advancing Educational Equity Research, Policy, and Practice,” was delivered by NYKids Director Kristen C. Wilcox and longtime collaborator Hal A. Lawson at the Educational Leaders without Borders conference held in Athens, Greece in April, 2023. The presentation discusses the importance of equity-focused research and recounts over two decades of NYKids scholarship.

NYKids Assistant Director Aaron Leo and Director Kristen C. Wilcox attended participated in a roundtable at the 2023 AERA Annual Conference held in April, 2023. The presentation was titled “Family Engagement during the Pandemic: Challenges and Opportunities” and drew on data from NYKids’ latest study of pandemic-related adaptations among six schools throughout New York State.

NYKids team members Kristen C. Wilcox, Maria I. Khan, and Jessie Tobin presented this poster at the 2023 Carnegie Summit held in San Diego. The poster, titled “Addressing Differential Impacts of COVID via a National Research-Practice Partnership Network” outlines research improvement work NYKids has connected as part of a collaboration with Tech Valley High School, Chatham City School District, and American Institutes for Research.

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.

In this presentation, Maria I. Khan and Kristen C. Wilcox discuss findings from an research conducted at an urban, diverse elementary school with high rates of poverty. The presentation “Remote Schooling during the COVID-10 Pandemic: A Case Study of Impacts on Children in a High Poverty, High Diversity School” was presented at the Comparative and International Education Society’s Annual Conference.

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 case study report, “Opportunities and Challenges for Adaptation and Innovation: A Study of Educators’ Experiences during the COVID-19 Pandemic” is part of NYKids’ research project investigating the impacts on educators during the COVID-19 pandemic. This report focuses on the experiences, adaptations, and innovations of educators at Shaker Road Elementary School in Colonie, New York.

This case study report, “Opportunities and Challenges for Adaptation and Innovation: A Study of Educators’ Experiences during the COVID-19 Pandemic” is part of NYKids’ research project investigating the impacts on educators during the COVID-19 pandemic. This report focuses on the experiences, adaptations, and innovations of educators at Lake George Elementary School in Lake George, New York.

This case study report, “Opportunities and Challenges for Adaptation and Innovation: A Study of Educators’ Experiences during the COVID-19 Pandemic” is part of NYKids’ research project investigating the impacts on educators during the COVID-19 pandemic. This report focuses on the experiences, adaptations, and innovations of educators at Deerfield Elementary School in Whitesboro, New York.

This Engaged Researchers Meeting discussed findings from an ongoing study conducted by researchers in the School of Public Health, Public Administration and Policy, and the School of Education. The purpose of this study is to examine the effects of remote schooling on the occurrence of adverse childhood events among children in New York State. Researchers also seek to uncover the experiences of caregivers and educators during the pandemic and develop community-informed recommendations to develop trauma informed interventions in schools.

This report details the methods used in NYKids study “Discovering Impacts of the COVID-19 Pandemic on the Education Workforce.” The document includes the study overview, research literature, theoretical framework and research questions as well as the methods used for participant recruitment, data collection and analysis. The survey instrument and school leader interview protocol are attached as separate appendices.

Workshop participants learned how they can model the work of Improvement Science (IS) and engage others in using IS strategies and tools for continuous improvement.

This presentation provides insight into how Improvement Science can guide school improvement by helping schools and districts to “see the system” when developing goals, plans, and processes to effect changes to improve student outcomes. An overview of NYKids COMPASS is shown as a process for using improvement science to guide school teams for continuous improvement, along with a case example of how COMPASS was applied within a research to practice partnership and information about NYKids resources designed to support school improvement work.

Drawing from lessons learned in other sectors, educators are increasingly looking for ways to address longstanding outcome disparities for children and youth growing up in poverty and from diverse ethnic, cultural, and linguistic backgrounds. When seeking to improve student outcomes, the Six Principles of Improvement Science can guide educators to develop strategies for continuous improvement. The NYKids’ COMPASS-AIM process melds the principles of improvement science with research on odds-beating schools to help schools and districts tackle complex problems effecting student success.

This presentation identifies the school practices and polices found in elementary and middle schools whose students exceeded performance expectations on the 2012-13 New York State assessments, which were the first aligned with the Common Core Standards.

This presentation identifies the school practices and polices found in elementary and middle schools whose students exceeded performance expectations on the 2012-13 New York State assessments, which were the first aligned with the Common Core Standards.

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 mixed-method multiple case study investigated nine elementary schools. Six “odds-beating schools,” which serve relatively high numbers of economically disadvantaged children, achieved higher than predicted performance on state assessments when compared with three typically performing schools. The overarching research question guiding this study was: What forces, factors, and actors account for odds-beating schools’ better outcomes? The trust-communication connection provided one answer. Relational trust in odds-beating schools is an intraorganizational phenomenon, and it is accompanied by interorganizational trust (reciprocal trust). These two kinds of trust are accompanied by intraschool and district office-school communication mechanisms. Trust and communications are mutually constitutive as innovations are implemented. This connection is also an implementation outcome. When today’s innovation implementation initiatives reinforce this trust-communication connection, it becomes an organizational resource for future innovation implementation.

This multiple case study investigated characteristics of six elementary schools in New York State with statistically significant better performance outcomes among their English language learner (ELL) students. Through documentary evidence, classroom observations, and interviews with students, teachers, and administrators, a system-wide approach to adaptations that benefit ELL students was identified. These adaptations were evident in: (a) school cultures that embrace ideals of equity of opportunity and celebrate diversity; (b) school climates that evoke a sense of safety and welcome; and (c) processes and practices that support advocacy for ELLs and their families. While the schools shared these common characteristics, educators employed some unique approaches in rural, suburban, and urban schools, holding implications for policies that take into account contextual variances in schools and communities.

This article reports on findings from a multiple case study investigating the nature of educators’ approaches toward monitoring English language learners’ (ELL) performance and using data to improve instruction and apply appropriate interventions. Six New York elementary schools where ELLs’ performance was better than predicted (i.e. odds-beating) based on student assessment data were studied. The analysis revealed that several strategies were common among the schools studied and were associated with the schools’ better ELL performance outcomes. These include: (1) connecting instruction and interventions to “real time” data based on multiple measures of student performance including benchmark and formative assessments; (2) communicating performance via technology among teachers and with family members and legal guardians; (3) collaborating through routines among teaching and support staff as well as school and district leaders. Implications for district and school leaders and teachers are discussed. Implications for district and school leaders as well as teachers and other instructional specialists are offered.

Motivated by the mission as catalysts, conveners, community developers and capacity builders, CASDA faculty have collaborated with researchers and faculty at the University at Albany’s School of Education on two successful programs designed to share research and encourage sharing evidence-based practices. The NYKids Project in the School of Education and the Teacher Leadership Quality Partnership Grant Program represent eight years of direct work with school teams using research and best practices for school teams to ensure continuous school improvement.

The goals of the COMPASS (Compare, Assess priorities, Select levers for improvement, Set SMART goals and develop action plans) is to engage school teams, led by the principal. In reflective, collaborative inquiry that looks holistically at how to impact student performance.

School improvement practices to support youth experiencing poverty. The presentation explores how teacher describe their experiences implementing the Common Core State Standards, with Annual Professional Performance Review system, and supports for their adjustments to the Common Core, Annual Professional Performance, and Data-Driven Instruction innovations.

Multiple case study investigating the nature of educators’ adaptations to meet Els’ needs and specific adaptations that prepared them for policy changes for English learner (EL) education in New York (NY) state. These policy changes require the use of co-teaching models and mandate enhanced classroom teacher preparation in ESL methods.

The presentation describes the association between trust and communication during policy innovation and implementation.

The primary purpose for the proposed research was to identify the school practices and policies found in elementary and middle schools whose students exceeded performance expectations on New York State Common Core assessments (as well as those that were used prior to Common Core).

This research identifies the school practices and policies found in odds-beating elementary and middle schools whose students exceeded performance expectations on New York State assessments aligned with the Common Core State Standards.

The ELL population in New York State has grown over 20% in the last year, and ELLs now make up over 8% of the New York State student population. Odds-beating schools have systems in place to carefully monitor the progress of their ELLs, connected to systems of interventions for students who need more support. State English Language Arts and Math assessment data and language proficiency assessment data do not tell the whole story: formative and benchmark assessment are more informative. Systematic reporting and communication/dissemination of multiple measures of student performance allows educators and families to meet the needs of all students.

The English Language Learner (ELL) population in New York State has grown over 20% in the last year, and English Language Learners make up over 8% of the New York State student population. Four elements found to be key to serving ELL population: (1) culture & climate; (2) instruction; (3) leadership and capacity; and (4) communications and collaborations.

The recent reauthorization of the federal Elementary and Secondary Education Action, known as ESSA – Every Student Succeeds Act – acknowledges that past attempts (e.g. Race to the Top) by government to tell educators how to improve their schools have fallen short. Studies suggest that’s not surprising. While we commend the attention and efforts the federal government has shown for the nation’s school performance, we applaud the shift to localized, statewide accountability. A great deal of research, including our own, has found that what works in improving performance in schools is allowing educators to use evidence to guide locally determined, continuous improvement efforts that take into account every child’s well-being.

The English Language Learner population in New York State has grown over 20%, and English Language Learners make up over 8% of the New York State student population. Four components are important to educating the ELL population including: (1) climate and culture; (2) instruction; (3) leadership & capacity; and (4) communication and collaboration.

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.

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.

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.

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 study identifies the school practices and policies found in elementary and middle schools whose students exceeded performance expectations on the 2012-13 New York State assessments. This presentation considers how educators approach data-driven instruction, the types of data used and for what purposes, and practices or processes to support data-driven instruction.

This presentation describes the COMPASS process: (1) COMPare practices to higher performers; (2) Assess priorities; (3) Select potential levers to improve; (4) Set SMART goals. And then AIM process: (1) Action planning; (2) Implementation; and (3) Monitoring progress.

This article discusses important organizational features of districts and schools whose early results on the Common Core Assessments are better than their peer schools. The Common Core State Standards, Annual Professional Performance Review system and Data-Driven Instruction can be thought of as transplants to the school organizational “garden.” Findings suggest particular garden-like features in the schools and district offices where the transplants have taken hold and students are performing above predicted levels.

This qualitative multiple case study contributes to the growing body of translational research that
seeks to better understand what is needed to develop capacities for evidence-guided continuous
improvement in P-12 settings. The study investigated school leadership team participants’
perceptions of an intervention called COMPASS. COMPASS engages teams from different
schools and districts in activities to identify strengths, weaknesses, and priorities then engage in
an inquiry cycle of implementing action plans, gathering data and interpreting evidence in order
to reach targeted goals. Two-hundred and twenty-eight district and school leaders and
instructional staff from 36 school teams provided reflections on the intervention revealing the
majority reported increases in competence in all dimensions of evidence-guided decision
making, from priority and goal setting to identifying potential research-based levers to
improvement as well as increased capacities for school- and district-wide action planning and
progress monitoring. Observation field notes, documentary evidence, and interviews with school
leaders also indicate that the process fundamentally shifts educators’ focus on systemic changes
to achieve system-wide targeted goals. Implications for theory, future research, and
considerations for those interested in university/P-12 partnerships for continuous improvement
are discussed.

Presentation of the findings from a comparative study of New York State schools designed to investigate implementation of Common Core Learning Standards (CCLS) and the Annual Professional Performance Review (APPR) as they relate to student performance outcomes on CCLS-aligned assessments.

Presentation of the findings from a comparative study of New York State schools designed to investigate implementation of Common Core Learning Standards (CCLS) and the Annual Professional Performance Review (APPR) as they relate to student performance outcomes on CCLS-aligned assessments.

Presentation of the findings from a comparative study of New York State schools designed to investigate implementation of Common Core Learning Standards (CCLS) and the Annual Professional Performance Review (APPR) as they relate to student performance outcomes on CCLS-aligned assessments.

Presentation of the findings from a comparative study of New York State schools designed to investigate implementation of Common Core Learning Standards (CCLS) and the Annual Professional Performance Review (APPR) as they relate to student performance outcomes on CCLS-aligned assessments.

Presentation of the findings from a comparative study of New York State schools designed to investigate implementation of Common Core Learning Standards (CCLS) and the Annual Professional Performance Review (APPR) as they relate to student performance outcomes on CCLS-aligned assessments.

Presentation of the findings from a comparative study of New York State schools designed to investigate implementation of Common Core Learning Standards (CCLS) and the Annual Professional Performance Review (APPR) as they relate to student performance outcomes on CCLS-aligned assessments.

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.

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.

This presentation presents the findings of “beating the odds” schools. Selection of the schools is based on 3 years of NYS Assessment results. Researchers conduct two-day site visits, and analyze the data looking for differences in practice.

This presentation discusses the best practices of elementary schools that outperform others among populations of critical needs students, such as those living in poverty.

This article describes the work of the NYKids project to identify factors explaining higher performance among critical needs elementary students. Critical needs students include those with special needs and English Language Learners, as well as those living in poverty and students from traditionally disadvantaged racial backgrounds. Results of study suggest factors include: (1) close engagement with and understanding of students; (2) literacy- and technology-enriched instruction; (3) an evidence-based approach to curriculum and performance; and (4) fluid adaption and deployment of resources.

This presentation presents findings from the NYKids project on higher-performing secondary schools as measured by the school’s record of educating vulnerable young people such as those living in poverty. Across all levels- elementary, middle, high – higher-performing students come from schools with the capacity for continuous improvement. These schools do this through: (1) distributed leadership; (2) collaborative culture and practices; (3) evidence-based decision making; and (4) shared vision and goal setting.

This presentation describes the COMPASS process. The process involves harnessing the research generated through the NYKids project for the purpose of school improvement. Schools participate in COMPASS Institutes and utilize COMPASS tools. COMPASS stands for: (1) COMPare practices to higher performance; (20 Assess priorities; (3) Select potential levers to improve; and (4) Set Smart goals.

Evidence indicates that collaboration is one of the keys to a school’s success in improving student performance and closing achievement gaps, though policymakers at the national and state levels, including New York, are moving toward teacher evaluation systems that attempt to attribute student progress to the efforts of individual teachers.

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

2009 Redefining Evidence of Success - Best Practices in NY

This presentation offers best practices across higher performing schools (elementary, middle and high). Key findings include that higher performing schools embrace a variety of data and culture of continuous improvement.