Individual school report protocol with citywide and quartile benchmarks¶

Element · All elements
Evidence · 6 claims (6 for) · 3 studies (3 associational), q2 · 0 of 3 report an effect size · 6 claims rest on one study

Description¶

The report protocol presents Part I with ten profile graphs, each displaying three to six teacher or student scales, and Part II with two pages of detail per scale: item-level response charts and frequency distributions comparing the school to bottom-quartile and top-quartile schools. The report explains that "A bold arrowhead shows your school in relation to high schools citywide," alerting schools to possible strengths and weaknesses. Four negatively worded scales are clearly identified so that a low score signals a strength. Bar graphs order questions from fewest to most positive responses citywide, with spacing reflecting relative differences in endorsement rates.

Design Implications¶

Context¶

Requirements¶

• Confidentiality is guaranteed: the report is the property of the school and the Consortium will not share it unless the school explicitly requests it.

Constraints¶

• If only one group responded, only the relevant set of scales is provided; about 15 percent of schools lack the Support for New Students scale because very few new students completed the survey.

Target Learners¶

• Chicago Public Schools school improvement teams, teachers, and principals

Target Learning Goals¶

• School self-analysis and development of the School Improvement Plan for Advancing Academic Achievement

Claims¶

• Instructional leadership ratings are high even in bottom-quartile Chicago high schools: 85 percent of top-quartile teachers give strong or very strong ratings, and half of bottom-quartile teachers do so as well [+W]
• Joint problem solving distinguishes top- from bottom-quartile Chicago high schools: half of top-quartile teachers describe strong processes plus 13 percent very strong, while bottom-quartile teachers most often describe weak processes (46 percent) [+W]
• Program coherence varies widely within quartiles: more than half of top-quartile teachers report moderate coherence and 32 percent report little or none, while 44 percent of bottom-quartile teachers report strong or very strong coherence [+W]
• Two-thirds of teachers in bottom-quartile schools describe no or minimal teacher-parent trust [+W]
• More than half of teachers in bottom-quartile schools describe little or no program coherence [+W]
• Student-reported safety and classroom behavior are more positive in top-quartile schools, and students feel less safe outside school than inside [+W]

Related Elements¶

• 1997 Improving Chicago's Schools Individual School Report (survey-based school report instrument)
• Consortium school survey report system with 53 measures, demographic comparison groups, and time trends
• Improving Chicago Schools 1997 student and teacher surveys
• Charting Reform student and teacher surveys with individualized school reports

Examples¶

-

Key Sources¶

• Anthony Bryk, Stuart Luppescu, Diane King Bilcer, Gudelia Lopez, Jenny Nagaoka, John Q. Easton. (1997). Improving Chicago's Schools: John Tyler High School. Consortium on Chicago School Research, 1313 E. 60th Street, Chicago IL 60637. https://consortium.uchicago.edu/publications/improving-chicagos-schools-john-tyler-high-school