RESEARCH REPORT
BAKER

EVALUATION

RESEARCH

CONSULTING
NOVEMBER 2013
College Readiness Initiative: AVID
and Navigation 101
INTERIM REPORT: 2010-2011 THROUGH 2012-2013
PREPARED FOR COLLEGE SPARK WASHINGTON
DUANE B. BAKER, Ed.D.
CANDACE A. GRATAMA, Ed.D.
SARAH C. BRENNER, M.Ed.
LISA M. LAW, M.Ed.
KARI M. PETERSON, Ph.D.
HEATHER ELLIOT, M.A.
RACHEL GREMILLION, M.Ed.
BRITTANY LONG, B.S.
Duane Baker is the founder and president of Baker Evaluation, Research, and Consulting, Inc. (The
BERC Group). Dr. Baker has a broad spectrum of public school educational and program experience,
including serving as a high school classroom teacher, high school assistant principal, middle school
principal, executive director for curriculum and instruction, and assistant superintendent. In addition,
he has served as an adjunct instructor in the School of Education at Seattle Pacific University since
1996, where his emphasis has been Educational Measurement and Evaluation and Classroom
Assessment.
Dr. Baker also serves as the Director of Research for the Washington School Research Center at
Seattle Pacific University. He also serves as an evaluator for several organizations including the Bill &
Melinda Gates Foundation, Washington Education Foundation, Washington State Office of
Superintendent of Public Instruction, and others.
Members of The BERC Group have K–20 experiences as teachers, counselors, psychologists, building
administrators, district administrators, and college professors. The team is currently working on
research and evaluation projects at the national, state, regional, district, school, classroom, and
student levels in over 1000 schools in Washington State and nationally.
COPYRIGHT © 2013 BY THE BERC GROUP INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
ADDITIONAL COPIES OF THIS REPORT MAY BE OBTAINED THROUGH THE BERC GROUP (www.bercgroup.com).
THE BERC GROUP
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 1
LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................................... 1
Current Research on College and Career Readiness ................................................................................... 1
Context of AVID and Navigation 101 in the College and Career Readiness Agenda ..................................... 5
Background of AVID and Navigation 101 Programs ..................................................................................... 6
EVALUATION DESIGN ........................................................................................................... 8
Evaluation Questions .................................................................................................................................. 8
Participants ................................................................................................................................................ 9
Data Sources ............................................................................................................................................ 13
EVALUATION FINDINGS...................................................................................................... 13
PROCESS STRAND: EVIDENCE OF IMPLEMENTATION ....................................................... 13
Evaluation Question #1: To what extent was AVID implemented as intended? ........................................ 13
Evaluation Question #2: To what extent was Navigation 101 implemented as intended? ........................ 28
Evaluation Question #3: What are the barriers/challenges to implementing these programs? ................. 36
Evaluation Question #4: What are the strengths and weaknesses of the programs? ............................... 42
Evaluation Question #5: What is the impact of technical assistance? ..................................................... 48
EVIDENCE OF IMPACT ....................................................................................................... 51
Evaluation Question #6: To what extent did course-taking patterns change over time? .......................... 51
Evaluation Question #7: To what extent did student achievement change over time? ............................. 59
Evaluation Question #8: To what extent did college attendance and persistence change over time? ....... 70
Evaluation Question #9: To what extent did other quantifiable measures change over time? .................. 92
Evaluation Question #10: What is the impact of the AVID elective upon students who have participated in
AVID for at least three of the six initiative years? .................................................................................... 104
INTERACTION BETWEEN NAVIGATION 101, AVID, AND OTHER COLLEGE READINESS
PROGRAMS ...................................................................................................................... 107
LESSONS LEARNED ......................................................................................................... 108
RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................................................... 110
AVID Program Recommendations ........................................................................................................... 110
Navigation 101 Program Recommendations ........................................................................................... 112
THE
BERC
GROUP
Table of Contents
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................... 114
APPENDIX A: CRI SCHOOL NAVIGATION 101 IMPLEMENTATION SURVEY ...................... 119
APPENDIX B: AVID STUDENT PERSPECTIVES QUESTIONNAIRE ..................................... 141
APPENDIX C: NAVIGATION 101 STUDENT PERSPECTIVES QUESTIONNAIRE .................. 157
APPENDIX D: AVID TEACHER PERSPECTIVES QUESTIONNAIRE ..................................... 170
APPENDIX E: NAVIGATION 101 TEACHER PERSPECTIVES QUESTIONNAIRE .................. 183
APPENDIX F: POWERFUL TEACHING AND LEARNINGTM ................................................... 197
Instructional Theory ................................................................................................................................ 198
Learning Theory ...................................................................................................................................... 199
THE
BERC
GROUP
ii
Executive Summary
The purpose of this report is to provide summative feedback to personnel at the Office of
Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) and the College Spark Washington regarding evidence
of implementation and impact of the Advancement via Individual Determination (AVID) and
Navigation 101 programs in schools funded by the College Readiness Initiative (CRI) in
Washington State. The report, while addressing the effects of both programs, is also designed to
provide formative feedback to assist in ongoing program development.
The AVID program focuses on creating a school-wide college readiness culture through increased
learning and performance. Its mission is to “close the achievement gap by preparing all students for
college readiness and success in a global society” (AVID, 2013a). AVID embraces an instructional
methodology based on the WICR strategy: Writing as a tool for learning, emphasis on Inquiry,
Collaborative approach, and Reading to learn. Based on the philosophy that, with proper academic
and social support, even struggling students can be held accountable to the highest standards and
succeed, the AVID elective focuses on reaching the least-served students identified as part of the
academic middle. Although only some students at a school take part in the AVID elective, the
strategies are to be used school wide in all classrooms, preparing all students with the academic
skills required to succeed in a post-secondary academic environment.
Navigation 101, in contrast, is a post-secondary planning program, in which all students at a school
participate, focused on both college and career. The program consists of five elements, the
foundational one being advisory, a class in which a guiding curriculum and activities aid each
student in creating a post-secondary plan. Navigation 101 provides every student with an educatoradvisor within their school and operates on the premise that “every student deserves help and
attention, not just those who are high risk or high achieving” (OSPI, 2013a). Navigation 101 lessons
specifically cover goal setting, academic improvement, community involvement, money
management, and the development of a post-secondary plan. The program can help students meet
the Washington State graduation requirements and includes the development of a High School &
Beyond Plan (OSPI, 2013b).
When asked to discuss the interaction between Navigation 101, AVID, and/or other programs,
focus group participants had diverse views. Some participants reported little or no interaction
between Navigation 101 and other programs. Many focus group participants, however, discussed
an implicit interaction due to the common goal of programs such as AVID, Navigation 101, and
GEAR UP. Though executed differently, these programs all share the same objective of preparing
students for higher education. Overall, the level of interaction across programs varies.
Evidence of Implementation
AVID. The AVID program has a system for ensuring program quality and implementation fidelity
(AVID, 2013c). The Eleven Essentials and Certification Self-Study (CSS) were developed to assist
AVID schools in the implementation of AVID and to provide the AVID Center with information
necessary to monitor the quality, consistency, and implementation fidelity of AVID programs. As a
result, AVID schools must employ the 11 AVID Essentials (AVID, 2013c). One important element
spelled out in the AVID 11 Essentials is that the school and/or district must identify resources for
program costs, agree to implement all AVID essentials, and participate in AVID certification. Two
i
THE
BERC
GROUP
Executive Summary
other essential elements of the AVID program are that both students and staff must choose to
participate in the program, and that the school must commit to full implementation. At the schools
in this study, many teachers have attended various types of professional development and/or
Summer Institute. Efforts are in place to implement the WICR strategies school-wide.
While most feedback from staff members involved with the AVID program was positive, some staff
members noted a few barriers in the way of effective implementation. Staff members at rural
schools frequently said the remoteness of their community brought about some unique challenges
when implementing AVID. Finding the necessary tutors and scheduling necessary classes is also
challenging because of the small size of the schools and the limited number of certified staff.
Furthermore, staff members reported a lack of support from various levels, including the
administration of the district. Another challenge to successful implementation of AVID is
communicating the goals and purpose of the AVID program to staff, students, and the community.
Finally, staff members also reported some struggles with training logistics and issues that arise with
staff turnover. The constant need to train new staff can lead to inconsistent professional
development opportunities.
Stakeholders identified many strengths of the AVID program. Similar to last year, educators
expressed satisfaction with the AVID’s structure, its focus on goal setting and college readiness, and
its promotion of personal relationships and connectedness between staff members and students.
Many stakeholders also spoke of the AVID program as a helpful tool for a school’s overall college
readiness goal regarding academics. Many teachers, administrators, and students praised strategies
such as Socratic Seminars, Cornell notes, and Costa’s levels of inquiry as contributors to students’
increased success and self-esteem. Stakeholders shared that the implementation of the AVID
program in their schools has generated a college-bound and career readiness culture. This culture is
not only found in AVID classrooms, but also is also extended into the school building and homes of
students. Parents who attended the focus groups also spoke positively about the effects of AVID,
addressing the program’s impact on their children.
Stakeholders also identified a few weaknesses, as well. Some students found the program
expectations a challenge and felt pressure to keep their AVID grade up to maintain their overall
GPA. Parents also noted the added stress if their child was struggling in AVID. In addition, parents
requested that more information on AVID be provided to parents and the general student
population.
CRI grantees believe that grant support is crucial to effective implementation of AVID. Specific
grant amounts vary based on the degree to which a district is currently implementing AVID. Many
educators report very positive experiences with training opportunities provided by grant funds.
However, stakeholders raised concern about the capacity to sustain the program and the training
when grant funding ends.
Navigation 101. The intent of the Navigation 101 initiative is to provide schools and districts with
a means to increase the number of college and career ready students graduating from high school.
In addition to advisory, there are four other elements of the program. Portfolios helps students
reflect on their progress and make plans to improve their academic achievements. Student-led
THE
BERC
GROUP
ii
Executive Summary
conferences (SLCs) occur at least once a year and are a time for students to share their
achievements and goals with their advisor and families at a conference led by the students. Studentinformed scheduling encourages students to take advanced, dual credit, or Career & Technical
Education (CTE) courses in high school. Finally, data collection helps schools to reflect on a
number of different indicators to measure student success.
To determine the level of implementation, grantees representing each of the 19 Navigation 101
CRI-funded schools participated in an online implementation survey in which they rated their level
of implementation of the five elements of Navigation 101. Navigation 101 CRI grantees rated high
levels of implementation around advisories, portfolios, and student-led conferences; moderately
high levels of implementation around data collection; and moderate levels of implementation
around student-driven scheduling. Results have improved in student led conferences, studentdriven scheduling, and data collection since Year 1. There were small declines in advisories and
portfolios, but these areas continue to score in the high range. Student-informed scheduling and
data collection remain areas in need of continued improvement.
Researchers identified barriers and challenges to implementing Navigation 101. As with all
programs in a school, a lack of resources such as time and money can prove to be barriers and both
of these things are affecting the success of the program. However, many difficulties with
implementation of Navigation 101 stem from the need for stronger leadership, shared
responsibility, and increased accountability. Lack of buy-in, lack of consistency between advisories,
and a lack of communication with parents are also challenges.
Stakeholder identified some strengths of the Navigation 101 program. Nearly all focus group
respondents believed SLCs were worthwhile, encouraged parental involvement, highlighted
student success, and helped to build confidence in students. SLCs help to develop relationships, as
does the advisory program itself. The program is successfully helping to provide students with a
relationship with someone at the school invested in their future. In addition, the guidance provided
by the program has a positive effect on students’ plans for the future. Researchers found the
Navigation 101 program provides schools with structures to provide guidance about future
decisions and next steps after high school. Counselors and administrators alike agreed the program
facilitated a larger amount of information about career and college choices reaching more students
than they would otherwise.
Researchers found the weaknesses of the Navigation 101 program to be generally consistent with
previous findings. The curriculum continues to be an issue. Focus group participants reported that
the curriculum was dry, hard to navigate, and mismatched to the needs of students. Additionally,
the structures necessary to implement some of the elements, such as student-driven scheduling and
data collection, are lacking at many schools. Perhaps related to this lack of resource to implement
all aspects of the program, students and parents alike mentioned the need for increased assistance
with practical aspects of post-secondary planning, such as college and job applications.
Grantees reported that support and funds from the grant help support effective implementation of
Navigation 101. Researchers found that the support provided by OSPI was often one of the most
positive aspects revealed during a school visit. Access to curriculum from OSPI and Envictus was
iii
THE
BERC
GROUP
Executive Summary
the primary resource used by the schools. Teachers were generally unaware of any other support
provided from Envictus, but administrators identified it as a resource referencing frequent emails
and phone calls, as well as site visits. Many school coordinators, counselors, and administrators
reported they felt supported by webinars from Envictus and regional meetings through OSPI. The
monetary support from College Spark also played a role in the success of the program. School
representatives in focus groups, however, said some aspects of Navigation 101 would be able to
continue without the funding provided by the grants because they had already established the
program and would continue to have access to the curriculum from OSPI. Results from the
implementation survey support this finding; in Year 4, 79% of grantees believe they can sustain
Navigation 101 after grant funding ends, whereas 63% believed it was sustainable in Year 1.
Evidence of Impact
To assess evidence of impact, researchers analyzed transcripts; student assessment results;
graduation rates; College Bound application rates; college attendance, persistence, and graduation
data; pre-college course taking patterns; student and staff surveys, and student-led conference
attendance and perception data. When available, researchers compared findings to a Comparison
Group for both the AVID CRI and Navigation 101 CRI schools. This helps to determine program
impact by comparing similar groups of schools. However, it is possible that the Comparison
Schools also are implementing programs with similar goals and intent as AVID and Navigation 101,
and this should be taken into consideration.
There were some positive trends in the data. A greater percentage of parents attend student-led
conferences compared to traditional conferences, and perception data from parents, students and
advisors were positive about the experience. In addition, there appears to be an increase in the
number of students signing up for the College Bound scholarship at the middle school level for both
programs. This suggests that students have an increased awareness about the opportunities available
to them and an increased interest in signing up for these opportunities.
The results of a transcript analysis show that the percentage of students meeting minimum course
taking requirement for a four-year college has increased, and the 2013 rate was significantly higher
than the rates for all other years except for 2009. Furthermore, the percentage of students taking
algebra in middle school, advanced math in high school, and chemistry in high school within the
AVID CRI schools increased substantially. Within the Navigation 101 CRI schools, there has been
an increase in students taking middle school algebra, advanced math in high school, chemistry, and
physics. The gains are substantial. It is notable that the 2013 graduates are the first Cohort of
students who have been in the high school all four years of the grant, and some of these increases
may be related to the focus of the grant.
In general, analysis of achievement data and college attendance data suggest AVID CRI and
Navigation 101 CRI grantees appear to be following a similar pattern as the Comparison Schools.
While there were some small differences by year, they were not consistent across years.
Analyses of graduation data show AVID CRI and Navigation 101 CRI schools graduation rates are
consistent with their Comparison Schools. However, the difference between the Navigation 101
CRI schools and the Comparison Schools is substantial, and this is an important finding. The small
THE
BERC
GROUP
iv
Executive Summary
sample size of each of the groups may have limited the ability to find statistically significant results
for this analysis.
Analysis of college direct rates show that there is no differences between AVID CRI and Navigation
101 CRI schools and the respective Comparison Schools. However, when analyzing persistence
results for students entering high school as a freshmen and persisting through college, there are
differences between the Navigation 101 CRI schools and the Comparison Schools. More students
persist through their fourth year of college at the Navigation 101 CRI schools, and this is because of
the higher graduation rates.
Perception data from students and teachers suggest there is room for improvement in most areas
assessed. On the student survey, for both programs, the results have improved somewhat since
2010; however, the improvements are not statistically different between groups or over time. The
teacher survey demonstrates some small increases over time as well. When comparing outcome
measures between the AVID CRI and Navigation 101 CRI schools, there are no significant
differences in outcomes, when controlling for free and reduced lunch. Therefore, the results do not
favor one program over the other.
To learn more about the impact of the AVID elective on students, we analyzed student survey
results comparing students who are taking the AVID elective to students who are not taking the
AVID elective. In all cases, the factor mean scores for AVID participants were higher than for nonparticipants, indicating that AVID participants have more positive perceptions regarding their
schools than non-participants. Follow-up analyses showed statistically significant differences on
every survey factor. In addition, the Future Focus, High Expectations, Satisfaction 1 and Satisfaction 2
factors were in the high range, suggesting students who take the AVID elective believe the school
has a college going focus, are satisfied with their education, and believe teacher have high
expectations. Preliminary analyses of middle school transcripts show a greater percentage of
students who took the AVID elective in their seventh and eighth grade year enrolled in algebra or
above in eighth grade, compared to students who did not take the AVID elective or students who
only took the elective for one year. We will continue to track this group of students through high
school. Collectively, these results suggest that students who take the AVID elective tend to
perceive their school more positively and take more rigorous courses.
Finally, researchers conducted classroom observation studies at AVID schools visited. The goal of
this data collection was to determine the extent to which general instructional practices throughout
AVID schools align with Powerful Teaching and Learning™. While one goal of AVID program
implementation is to incorporate AVID strategies school-wide, analysis of STAR classroom
observation data shows no improvement in Powerful Teaching and Learning from Year 1 to Year 4.
Overall, Powerful Teaching and Learning was observed in 45% of AVID CRI School’s classrooms
in Year 4, and this is similar to previous years and is consistent with the STAR average. In focus
groups, however, students and teachers did describe an increased use of AVID strategies even in
regular classes, as well as a perceived benefit on teaching and learning. Follow-up analyses,
however, showed that while school-wide results were similar to the STAR Average, a higher
percentage of AVID classrooms align with Powerful Teaching and Learning. Depending on year,
alignment to Powerful Teaching and Learning ranged from 60% to 77%. Furthermore, teachers
who received AVID training had greater alignment to Powerful Teaching and Learning compared
iii
THE
BERC
GROUP
Executive Summary
to teachers who did not receive AVID training. Follow-up tests showed that the AVID Trainees had
significantly higher scores on the Thinking and Relationships Components compared to NonTrainees.
Overall, the qualitative and quantitative data show promise. To further improve implementation,
we offer the following recommendations to expand and improve the programs. For AVID,
stakeholders may benefit from increased school-wide communication of the goals and purpose of
AVID; increased local training opportunities; support of tutor recruitment, training, and retention;
and intentional focus on scheduling issues and limitations. For Navigation 101, implementation
could be improved by clarifying student-informed scheduling requirements, providing support and
training around data collection requirements, and focusing on the high school and beyond plan.
THE
BERC
GROUP
vi
The College Spark Washington
College Readiness Initiative
Program Evaluation
INTERIM REPORT: Year 1 to Year 4
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this report is to provide summative feedback to personnel at the College Spark
Washington regarding evidence of implementation and impact of the College Readiness Initiative
(CRI) in Washington State. The report, while addressing the effects of both the Advancement Via
Individual determination (AVID) and Navigation 101 programs, is also designed to provide
formative feedback to assist in ongoing program development. This report covers Year 1 to 4 of the
initiative, and the next report will cover Years 1 to 6. The report includes a description of the
evaluation design, evaluation findings, and conclusions and recommendations.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Current Research on College and Career Readiness
No Child Left Behind and ESEA Waivers. College and career readiness has been a political focus
and priority in education for a number of years now. Educators, academics, and policy makers
agree that the importance of a college degree is increasing due to a heighted expectation of the skills
required for the American workforce (Achieve, 2013; Blandford, 2012; Conley, 2012; Gooden,
2013; McGaughy, 2012; U.S. Department of Education, 2013). During the Bush administration,
Congress amended the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) and reauthorized it as the
No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), changing the landscape for schools across the country (Barnes
and Slate, 2013) by introducing new federal requirements for schools intended to “close the
achievement gap” (U.S. Department of Education, 2013). President Obama remains focused on
raising expectations for career and college readiness and changes to accountability systems (Klein,
2012). He addressed college and career readiness in his state of the union speech in 2009, saying,
“By 2020, America will once again have the highest proportion of college graduates in the world”
(The White House, 2009).
Currently stalled in Congress, the NCLB Act is awaiting reauthorization. In regards to its
requirements, the U.S. Department of Education has invited states to apply for an ESEA flexibility
waiver, allowing states an exemption from some of the requirements of NCLB, such as the 2013-14
deadlines for 100% proficiency on state tests and the NCLB’s teacher-quality requirements
(McNeil, 2013). In exchange for the waiver, the U.S. Department of Education is requiring,
“rigorous and comprehensive State-developed plans designed to improve educational outcomes for
all students, close achievement gaps, increase equity, and improve the quality of instruction” (U.S.
Department of Education, 2013). As of August 2013, 42 states have been granted ESEA flexibility
1
THE
BERC
GROUP
for 2013-2014. Emphasizing again the importance of college and career readiness, in order to
receive the waiver, each State Education Agency (SEA) must demonstrate that it has college and
career ready expectations for all students in the state by adopting college and career ready standards
(US Department of Education, 2013). Adoption of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) and
one of the federally funded consortia devising Common-Core-aligned tests is considered by most
states to be the most direct route for meeting this requirement and 46 States have adopted
Common Core. If a state wants to change its plans, it must go through a federal amendment
process, especially any amendment to the CCSS (McNeil, 2013).
Common Core State Standards. Based on the expectation that all students graduate college and
career ready, the Common Core State Standards are more “cognitively demanding” (Achieve,
2013). ACT test scores in 2011 indicated only 25% of high school students nationally were
considered college ready on all four college-readiness benchmarks (Barnes and Slate, 2013). The
CCSS expect students to demonstrate proficiency in being able to read and analyze a wide variety of
informational and literary texts and to be able to not only use high level mathematical skills but to
be able to apply those skills to solving problems in the real world. In 2012, the ACT reported that
among ACT-tested 2012 graduates, more than 80% who aspire to complete a bachelor’s degree are
not ready, specifically 33% in English composition, 54% in college algebra, 48% in social science,
and 69% in biology were not prepared (ACT, 2013). There is a need for increased academic rigor
and high expectations for students, elevated graduation rates, and higher college-readiness rates
(Barnes, and Slate 2013). It has been argued that the Common Core has successfully elevated the
expectations for students so that, “all, not just some students should be on the pathway for college
and career readiness” (Achieve, 2013).
Colleges, universities, and employers want students to be able to conduct research and apply that
research to solve problems, identify areas of research, apply skills and knowledge across the content
areas, and model real world situations (Achieve, 2013). In order to be college and career ready,
students require new “instructional rigor” (Gooden, 2013). In some schools, the introduction of the
Common Core has been stressful for teachers. Researchers suggest the new standards should be
embraced as an exciting shift towards ensuring that American students are held to the same
expectations in mathematics and literacy as their global peers, “regardless of state or zip code”
(Achieve, 2013). Researchers also suggest the expectations of students who want to be prepared for
college are changing and the rigor of Common Core will help to meet those expectations.
“[Students] do not want to sit in classrooms where rigor is minimal, engagement is limited, and
nothing of substance is discussed or learned. They have a vested interest in the rigor associated with
secondary education” (Brunner, 2013). College eligible does not equal college ready (Achieve,
2013) and introduction of the CCSS are moving schools in the direction towards graduating
students that will succeed in a college environment.
College versus Career Readiness. There is some contention around the definitions of college and
career readiness, and if readiness for both can really be contained in one definition or phrase. One
definition of college and career readiness is that a student who is ready for college and career can
qualify for and succeed in entry-level, credit-bearing college courses leading to a baccalaureate or
certificate or career pathway-oriented training programs without the need for remedial or
developmental coursework (Conley, 2012). This definition clearly covers both college and career.
In 2006, ACT published research suggesting college and career readiness are the same, which many
THE
BERC
GROUP
2
welcomed because it seemed to solve the problem of how to educate students with a wide range of
interests and goals (Conley and McGaughy, 2012). The general argument is that all students aspire
to work eventually, whether after college or immediately after high school, and that they will need
a similar set of foundational thinking skills, content knowledge, and learning strategies (Conley,
2012). Arne Duncan, the U.S. Education Secretary, has voiced concern that career readiness is an
“afterthought” in terms of college and career readiness and that career-readiness has not been
properly defined and can be underestimated (DeWitt, 2012). Explaining this, Secretary Duncan
stated, “The bar for a career-ready student is just as high [as a college-ready student].” He went on
to explain that while career-ready students need college-ready academic skills, they must also “have
the knowledge and skills that employers need from day one. That means having critical thinking and
problem-solving skills, an ability to synthesize information, solid communication skills, and the
ability to work well on a team” (The White House, 2011).
Some researchers share the concern that the career reference is not properly addressed and is a
“deference to those who may not be willing or able to pursue college” (Gooden, B. 2013) but for
different reasons. It has been argued that high schools are not structured to prepare all students
because expectations for college and for occupation certificates are the same as those for a four-year
university, and that contrary to Secretary Duncan’s thoughts, the academic expectations might be
set too high. Some researchers have said that a “one-size-fits-all” curriculum and college readiness
agenda is “stultifying” to students who have aspirations beyond high school, and due to increased
academic requirements placed on them, they can even fail to graduate (Barnes and Slate, 2013). It
can be argued that the skills required in the new economy are fundamentally different from those
previously required and that a high school education must be a combination of academics with
communication, technical proficiency, and vocational skills as well as study skills, timemanagement skills, persistence, and “ownership of learning” (Conley and McGaughy, 2012).
Conley (2012) also specifies, however, that career readiness equals readiness for courses specific to a
career, bringing up the question again of whether college and career readiness are indeed the same.
Most would agree that career readiness includes academic as well as employability and technical
skills (DeWitt, 2012) but it also seems clear that some personalization is required and that not all
students will benefit from an identical set of expectations or course path.
With the introduction of the CCSS, academics are heavily emphasized, but vocational skills are not
to be overlooked. In addition to academics, students need to develop a work ethic, communication
skills, and the ability to work on a team. This is especially important for students not intending to
go on to college (Adams, 2013). Work experience during high school can be critical for students
not intending to go to college and can help students to decide on or change their minds about a
career choice before the stakes are higher post high school (Adams, C. 2013). In addition, work
experience obviously helps students to gain skills. A recent report by the Gates Foundation states
that skills-based hiring is five times more predictive of success on the job than hiring by degree
alone (Cobb, 2013). Although most jobs will require some postsecondary training, a college degree
does not guarantee skills or employment. It is important not to underestimate the power of an
occupational certificate, and that in many cases compensation and prestige in these fields are on par
or above what many college graduates receive (Gooden, B. 2013). A significant number of students
have interests and talents that are valuable, but they do not have the desire to enter a traditional
postsecondary program. It is important to provide rigorous coursework that is relevant to them.
Gooden (2013) makes a strong point when he states, “When we take our $50,000 automobiles to
3
THE
BERC
GROUP
the dealership for repair, our first question is not ‘What was your ACT/SAT score?’ or ‘Did you
take calculus and AP history?’ We want high-level technical skills, and we are willing to pay for
them.”
Closing the Achievement Gap. One driving force behind the move for college and career
readiness is the effort to close the income and/or ethnic/racial gaps in educational achievement.
Most researchers agree poverty can affect educational attainment, but we need to be careful such
remarks do not promote a dangerous complacency (Schmoker, 2012). Students from all income
percentiles need to be included in the college and career readiness challenge. Evidence from
economists clearly demonstrates that the lack of a postsecondary education will increasingly lock
citizens out of the middle class (Theokas and Saaris, 2013). Other researchers point out that getting
a bachelor’s degree is still seen as the main mechanism for “upward social mobility” (Barnes and
Slate, 2013) and will help students out of poverty, oftentimes being the first generation to go to
college. In order to meet the “moral and economic challenges” facing our country, there must be
intense attention paid to the education of all students, especially low-income, underrepresented,
and first-generation college-goers (McGriff, 2012).
One facet of this concentration needs to be a focus on including all students in challenging courses
and ensuring that all students are taking advantage of the opportunities available to them at their
school. Advanced Placement (AP) and International Baccalaureate (IB) classes increase students’
chances of success in college, plus it earns college credit, helping those at an economic
disadvantage. Middle-income students are three times more likely to enroll in AP than low-income
students. Different ethnic/racial groups are disproportionately represented in AP classes as well,
with Asian students representing twice the national average and Black/American Indian students
only half of the national average (Theokas and Saaris, 2013). The Raikes Foundation and the
Chicago Consortium on School Research present an interesting perspective, saying educators need
to “dispel the notion that intelligence is static and to learn how to help students develop a mindset
of ‘mastery’ and ‘growth’ so that they do not give up when learning is challenging” (McGriff,
2012).
The importance of developing partnerships between parents/families and school counselors is key
to increasing the number of students who are college ready, particularly in high-poverty and highminority schools (Holcomb-McCoy, 2010). Parents who did not go to college will not have the
same background information or ability to advise their students as those who have college
experience. For example, low-income and parents of color overestimate cost of college by up to
228% and lack information on financial aid (Holcomb-McCoy, 2010). Information regarding
college is important for both parents and students, and even academically-prepared students drop
out when they do not have the college knowledge, attitudes, or financial resources needed for
persistence (McGriff, D. 2012). Research also shows that students’ perceptions of their school
counselors’ postsecondary expectations influence the likelihood that they will seek out the
counselor for more information (Holcomb-McCoy, 2010). Students who do not perceive
themselves as candidates for college might not put forth the effort to seek out the necessary
information to apply, so, considering that school counseling facilities are stretched for resources
and time, “ironically, the students who need help most get the least” (Bardwell, 2012).
THE
BERC
GROUP
4
Are we on track? President Obama has set a goal to have the highest proportion of college
graduates in the world by 2020. ACT supports the need for such a goal, saying that the majority of
jobs in the next decade will require some form of postsecondary education (ACT, 2013).
According to Achieve, most states now have college and career readiness standards in place for
secondary students. They typically include four years of English, three years of math, three years of
science, three years of social studies, half a year of computer science, and two years foreign
language (Barnes and Slate, 2013). Still, many students fail in college because they are “ill-prepared
and require remedial coursework” (ACT, 2013). Researchers agree on many factors for success,
including implementing Common Core State Standards, helping students understand how their K12 years are critical to accomplishing their future goals, and providing useful information and
resources about admissions processes and financial aid to students, especially to low income,
underrepresented or first generation college families (ACT, 2013; McGriff, 2012).
High school graduation statistics are considered a leading indicator of the success of schools, and
they are currently at their highest level since 1974. According to the U.S. Department of
Education, 78% of high school students graduated on time in 2011-2012 compared to 73.4% in
2005-2006. Within that time, graduation rates have improved for all ethnic groups, and by almost
10% amongst Hispanic students, in particular (National High School Center, 2012). However, the
college persistence rate is a concern. Only 58% of full time, first-time students who started their
studies in the fall of 2004 completed their degree in six years. This is only up by three percentage
points since 1996 (55%). The persistence rates also varied widely by ethnicity, ranging from 69%
for Asian/Pacific Islander students to 39% of Black and American Indian/Alaska Native students
(U.S. Department of Education, 2012).
Context of AVID and Navigation 101 in the College and Career Readiness Agenda
This report will specifically address the AVID program and the Navigation 101 program. Both of
these programs support the need for students to have individualized attention during their academic
careers. The AVID program uses tutors and the Navigation 101 program uses advisors to provide
students with an adult in their school invested in their plans for the future. This leads to regular
performance reflection and goal setting in academic and social aspects of school. Students are
increasingly required to use their “different abilities and intelligences” to choose their paths for the
future (Tolley, 2012). Through an advisor or other teacher at school, this can be achieved,
“inspiring the student to think about education from different perspectives, and even serving as a
liaison between the school and the student’s family” (Chaffee, Landa, and Marchesi, 2012).
AVID and Navigation 101 include other parts of best practice in terms of school advisory programs.
DiMartino and Clarke (2008) have published a list of best practices in their article “Personalizing
the High School Experience for Each Student.” Many elements of both programs are included in
this list, such as guiding students in course selection, connecting families to student learning,
connecting students with a caring adult, supporting identity formation, exploring career choices,
and identifying a personal pathway (DiMartino and Clarke, 2008, OSPI 2013). Both AVID and
Navigation 101 are also inclusive of grades six-eight, and researchers note that one of the aspects of
a successful advisory program is that it begins in middle school. As Shulkind and Foote (2009) state,
“It is particularly urgent for middle school educators to improve school connectedness, because the
roots of alienation take hold during early adolescence” (Shulkind, S. and Foote, J., 2009).
5
THE
BERC
GROUP
Background of AVID and Navigation 101 Programs
Brief descriptions of the AVID and Navigation 101 programs are included below.
AVID. The AVID program was initiated by Mary Catherine Swanson, who was head of the English
department, at Sand Diego’s Clairmont High School in 1980. The federal courts had recently
ordered desegregation of the San Diego schools, bringing inner city students to suburban schools.
Swanson was concerned about the success of some of these students at the academically rigorous
Clairmont High School. The creation of AVID was a means of support for students who might have
difficulty The philosophy of AVID is that, with proper academic and social support, even struggling
students can be held accountable to the highest standards and succeed (2013a). AVID aims to serve
all students, with a specific focus on the least-served students in the academic middle. The
methodology of AVID is based on the WICR instructional strategy: Writing as a tool for learning,
emphasis on Inquiry, Collaborative approach, and Reading to learn. Within these four areas are
several strategies, including Socratic seminars, Costa’s levels of inquiry, group tutorials, KWL
(what I know, what I want to learn, what I learned), and Cornell notes (AVID, 2013b).
In addition to the AVID elective, other key program components include professional development
for educators, a library of resource materials, leadership training, and a certification system. As
AVID grew, it became increasingly clear that a system for ensuring program quality and
implementation fidelity was needed. The Eleven Essentials and Certification Self-Study (CSS) were
developed to assist AVID schools in the implementation of AVID and to provide the AVID Center
with information necessary to monitor the quality, consistency, and implementation fidelity of
AVID programs. (AVID, 2013c) As a result, AVID schools must employ the following 11 AVID
Essentials:
1. AVID student selection must focus on students in the middle with academic potential.
2. AVID program participants (students and staff) must choose to participate in AVID.
3. The school must be committed to full implementation of the AVID program, with students
enrolled in the AVID year-long elective classes offered within the regular school day.
4. AVID students must be enrolled in a rigorous course of study that will enable them to meet
requirements for university enrollment.
5. A strong, relevant writing and reading curriculum provide a basis for instruction.
6. Inquiry is used as a basis for instruction in the AVID classroom to promote critical thinking.
7. Collaboration is used as a basis for instruction in the AVID classroom.
8. A sufficient number of tutors must be available in the AVID elective class. Tutors should be
students from colleges and universities and be trained to implement AVID methodologies .
9. AVID program implementation and student progress must be monitored through the AVID
Center Data System and results must be analyzed to ensure success.
10. The school or district has identified resources for program costs, has agreed to participate
in AVID Certification, and has committed to ongoing participation in AVID staff
development.
THE
BERC
GROUP
6
11. An active interdisciplinary AVID site team collaborates on issues of student access to and
success in rigorous college preparatory courses.
Since its beginning, the program has expanded to nearly every state in the country. Policymakers
and school administrators consider it an essential strategy for closing the achievement gap and
making college accessible to all students (AVID, 2013a).
Navigation 101. Navigation 101 originated in the Franklin Pierce School District in Washington
State. Due to its success there, hundreds of schools around Washington State have adopted it and
the Washington State Legislature has supported funding. Navigation 101 is a statewide guidance
and life-planning program for students in grades six through 12. However, some elementary
schools have also adapted Navigation 101. The program is designed to help students develop postsecondary plans and to learn what they need to accomplish, while still in school, to reach their
goals. Navigation 101 provides every student with an educator-advisor within their school and
operates on the premise that “every student deserves help and attention, not just those who are high
risk or high achieving.” Through five interconnected key elements, Navigation 101 aims to engage
the entire school community to help students make “clear, careful, and creative plans” for life
beyond high school (State of Washington Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction,
2013a). The five key elements include:





Student Advisory is a time where students in grades 6-12 meet together with an educatoradvisor to cover curriculum developed by OSPI as well as school-developed lessons in
some cases. OSPI had a contract partnership with the Envictus Corporation and some
schools supplement the curriculum with their lessons.
Student Portfolios are designed to help students reflect on their progress and make plans
to improve. The Student Portfolio is part of their High School and Beyond Plan.
Student-Led Conferences (SLCs) occur at least once a year and are a time for students to
share their achievements and goals with their advisor and families at a conference led by the
students. SLCs are tied to course registration, involving families in students’ academic
plans.
Student-Informed Scheduling encourages students to take advanced, dual credit, or
Career & Technical Education (CTE) courses in high school. The process of studentinformed scheduling encourages schools to accommodate the provision of these and other
gatekeeper courses to facilitate students graduating college ready.
Data Collection helps schools to reflect on a number of different indicators to measure
student success. Early results show that Navigation students take more advanced courses,
graduate at higher rates, and are more likely to pursue a college degree or industry
certification (OSPI, 2013).
Navigation 101 curriculum is based on both academic and guidance standards. Lesson plans are
based on Washington State Essential Academic Learning Requirements (EALRs), American School
Counselor Association (ASCA) National Model Standards in the areas of personal and social, career,
and/or academic development, and Common Core State Standards for career and college
readiness. The program helps students meet the Washington State graduation requirements for
7
THE
BERC
GROUP
graduation and includes the development of a High School & Beyond Plan (HSBP) (OSPI, 2013b).
This plan is a Washington State requirement to graduate from high school.
Navigation 101 lessons specifically cover goal setting, academic improvement, community
involvement, money management, and the development of a post-secondary plan. The program
also includes a career element, which helps students set up job shadows or learn about Career and
Technical Education (CTE) courses and programs available at their school or within their district.
OSPI has added additional curriculum to the career element this year, Career Guidance
Washington, specifically designed to address resources for educational and career planning. It has
also continued to develop a curriculum called Sparking the Future, designed for students who are
the first in their family to attend college.
EVALUATION DESIGN
The evaluation utilized a multiple measures, mixed methodology approach. The collection of both
quantitative and qualitative data adds scope and breadth to the study in addition to providing the
ability to triangulate findings. Researchers also plan to use interrupted time-series analysis to assess
the impact of the grant. This can be done by analyzing data prior to the grant and then comparing
results after the grant. Finally, we will also use an outcomes-based case study approach to identify
best practices from high performing districts and schools. A description of the evaluation questions,
participants, and data sources is provided below.
Evaluation Questions
Evaluation activities followed the existing framework as stated in the original Request for Proposal
(RFP). Specifically, five questions related to the evaluation of implementation efforts and five
questions related to impact around the CRI initiative were posed:
Implementation Evaluation Questions.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
To what extent was AVID implemented as intended?
To what extent was Navigation 101 implemented as intended?
What are the barriers/challenges to implementing the programs?
What are the strengths and weaknesses of the programs?
What is the impact of technical assistance?
Impact/Outcome Evaluation Questions.
6. To what extent did course-taking patterns change over time?
7. To what extent did student achievement change over time?
8. To what extent did college attendance and college persistence change over time?
9. To what extent did other quantifiable measures change over time?
10. What is the impact of the AVID elective upon students who have participated in AVID
for at least three of the six initiative years?
THE
BERC
GROUP
8
To answer these questions, researchers gathered a variety of qualitative and quantitative data. The
following sections outline data sources and provide a description of data collection procedures.
Participants
Table 1 details the schools receiving the College Readiness Initiative AVID Grants and schools
receiving the CRI 101 Grants. Some schools received both the AVID CRI and Navigation 101 CRI
Grant, some schools received an AVID CRI grant and an OSPI funded Navigation 101, and some
schools are implementing AVID or Navigation 101 separate from College Spark or OSPI Funding.
Because a number of schools are implementing both programs, it is difficult to isolate the unique
contribution of each program. For the purposes of this evaluation, we will analyze the results from
the AVID CRI Grantees and Navigation 101 CRI Grantees separately.
Table 1.
AVID CRI and Navigation 101 Grantees
AVID CRI Grantees
District
School
Aberdeen SD
Bridgeport SD
Burlington-Edison SD
Curlew SD
Cusick SD
Evergreen SD
Ferndale SD
Grandview SD
Inchelium SD
Mary Walker SD
Mount Vernon SD
Republic SD
Spokane SD
Navigation 101 CRI Grantees
District
Schools
Miller JH**
Weatherwax HS**
Bridgeport MS**
Bridgeport HS**
Lucille Umbarger K-8
Burlington-Edison HS
Curlew ES/HS**
Cusick Jr./Sr. HS
Covington MS
Frontier MS
Heritage HS
Vista MS
Ferndale HS
Grandview MS*
Compass HS*
Grandview HS*
Inchelium MS
Inchelium HS
Springdale MS
Mary Walker HS**
La Venture MS
Mount Baker MS**
Mount Vernon HS**
Republic JHS**
Republic HS**
Garry MS*
Rogers HS*
9
THE
BERC
Bremerton SD
Franklin-Pierce SD
Grandview SD
Spokane SD
Tacoma SD
Toppenish SD
Tukwila SD
GROUP
Mountain View MS
Bremerton HS
Keithley MS
Washington HS
Grandview MS*
Compass HS*
Grandview HS*
Garry MS*
Shaw MS
Rogers HS*
First Creek MS
Angelo Giaudrone MS
Stewart MS*
Lincoln HS*
Toppenish MS
Eagle ES
Toppenish HS
Showalter MS
Foster HS
Tacoma SD
Jason Lee MS
Stewart MS*
Foss HS
Lincoln HS*
Wellpinit SD
Wellpinit MS
Wellpinit HS
*These schools received both the AVID CRI Grant and the Navigation 101 CRI Grant.
**These schools received an OSPI Funded Grant at some point through the grant.
Table 2 details the demographics of all schools receiving the AVID CRI and Navigation 101 CRI
grants compared to the Washington State public school population. Comparing student
demographics from the 2012 – 2013 school year of these two groups compared to the Washington
State population reveals substantial differences. Schools receiving the CRI grants tend to have a
larger mean enrollment compared to the Washington State population. This, however, is likely
because secondary schools receive the grant, in comparison to the Washington State population,
which includes elementary schools. CRI grantees tend to have greater diversity compared to
Washington State and greater rates of students receiving free/reduced lunch (FRL).
Table 2.
Demographics of Schools in Sample
Enrollment
Washington
State Population
Mean =403
AVID CRI
Grantees
Mean = 646
Navigation 101
CRI Grantees
Mean = 785
46.1%
1.6%
7.1%
.9%
4.6%
20.4%
59.1%
6.3%
69.9%
10.1%
3.1%
1.0%
4.6%
29.6%
47.1%
4.5%
80.5%
3.4%
7.8%
2.8%
10.7%
39.8%
29.9%
5.5%
Free/Reduced Lunch
American Indian/Alaska Native
Asian
Pacific Islander
Black
Hispanic
White
Two or More Races
Because the demographics of the CRI schools differ greatly from the state, researchers created two
comparison groups for this study: one for AVID-CRI schools (n = 33) and one for Navigation 101CRI schools (n = 19). Researchers selected schools for the comparison groups by matching as
closely as possible the student enrollment range, the percent of students qualifying for free and/or
reduced-price meals (FRL), the percent of non-white students, and the percent of female students.
Additionally, the school level (ex. K-12, K-8, 6-8, 9-12, etc.) was matched as closely as possible in
the comparison databases. Finally, researchers removed all schools that had received a grant from
the College Spark Washington or OSPI. Table 3 displays the demographic comparison between the
schools receiving treatment and the schools making up the comparison groups. These demographics
differ from Table 1 because the Comparison Schools were selected in Year 1 of the CRI grant from
OSPI’s 2009-2010 demographic database. Tables 4 and 5 list the schools in each of the comparison
groups.
THE
BERC
GROUP
10
Table 3.
Treatment School and Comparison School Demographics
AVID
Treatment Schools
Comparison Schools
(n = 33)
(n = 41)
Enrollment Range
55 - 2116
51 - 2082
% Students Qualifying for FRL
61%
57%
% Non-White Students
50%
48%
% Female Students
48%
48%
NAVIGATION 101
Treatment Schools
Comparison Schools
(n = 19)
(n = 39)
Enrollment Range
104 - 1709
131 – 1401
% Students Qualifying for FRL
75%
71%
% Non-White Students
65%
61%
% Female Students
47%
49%
Table 4.
AVID-CRI Comparison Schools
District Name
Auburn School District
Brewster School District
Cape Flattery School District
Centralia School District
Clover Park School District
College Place School District
Dayton School District
Easton School District
Endicott School District
Evergreen School District (Clark)
Federal Way School District
Ferndale School District
Highline School District
School Name
Auburn Senior High School
Brewster High School
Clallam Bay High & Elementary
Centralia High School
Hudtloff Middle School
John Sager Middle School
Dayton Middle School
Easton School
Endicott/St John Elem and Middle
Evergreen High School
Nautilus Elementary School
Horizon Middle School
Academy of Citizenship and
Empowerment
Health Sciences & Human Services
Hoquiam High School
Hoquiam Middle School
Kent-Meridian High School
Mill Creek Middle School
Klickitat Elem & High
Lind Jr Sr High
Heritage School
Mariner High School
Highline School District
Hoquiam School District
Hoquiam School District
Kent School District
Kent School District
Klickitat School District
Lind School District
Marysville School District
Mukilteo School District
11
THE
BERC
GROUP
North Beach School District
North Thurston Public Schools
Okanogan School District
Pasco School District
Port Angeles School District
Quillayute Valley School District
Rainier School District
Renton School District
Royal School District
Seattle Public Schools
Seattle Public Schools
Seattle Public Schools
Spokane School District
Stevenson-Carson School District
Tacoma School District
Taholah School District
Toutle Lake School District
Waterville School District
Wilson Creek School District
North Beach Senior High School
Chinook Middle School
Okanogan Middle School
Pasco Senior High School
Stevens Middle School
Forks High School
Rainier Senior High School
Renton Senior High School
Royal High School
Cleveland High School
Ingraham High School
Middle College High School
Salk Middle School
Wind River Middle School
Mt Tahoma
Taholah High School
Toutle Lake High School
Waterville High School
Wilson Creek High
Table 5.
NAV-CRI Comparison Schools
District Name
Aberdeen School District
Auburn School District
Central Valley School District
Clover Park School District
Clover Park School District
Clover Park School District
East Valley School District (Spokane)
Evergreen School District (Clark)
Federal Way School District
Finley School District
Highline School District
Hoquiam School District
Kennewick School District
Kennewick School District
Kent School District
Longview School District
Moses Lake School District
Mukilteo School District
Mukilteo School District
Othello School District
Pasco School District
School Name
Harbor High School
Olympic Middle School
North Pines Middle School
Clover Park High School
Hudtloff Middle School
Lochburn Middle School
East Valley Middle School
Cascade Middle School
Totem Middle School
River View High School
Chinook Middle School
Hoquiam Middle School
Highlands Middle School
Park Middle School
Mill Creek Middle School
Monticello Middle School
Frontier Middle School
ACES High School
Voyager Middle School
McFarland Middle School
Ellen Ochoa Middle School
THE
BERC
GROUP
12
Prosser School District
Quincy School District
Seattle Public Schools
Seattle Public Schools
Seattle Public Schools
Seattle Public Schools
Seattle Public Schools
Sunnyside School District
Tacoma School District
Vancouver School District
Vancouver School District
Vancouver School District
Wapato School District
Wenatchee School District
Wenatchee School District
Yakima School District
Yakima School District
Yakima School District
Housel Middle School
Quincy Junior High
Aki Kurose Middle School
Cleveland High School
Franklin High School
Interagency Programs
Mercer Middle School
Harrison Middle School
Baker
Discovery Middle School
Fort Vancouver High School
Mcloughlin Middle School
Wapato High School
Orchard Middle School
Westside High School
Franklin Middle School
Stanton Alternative School
Wilson Middle School
Data Sources
To address the research questions, researchers gathered data from multiple sources for each year of
the evaluation. The BERC Group, Inc. has completed the following evaluation activities in Year 3
and Year 4:




Interviews and Focus Groups with College Spark and OSPI personnel, Envictus
personnel, and over 600 school and district personnel in Year 3 and Year 4
General Data Collection, including initiative documents, online implementation
survey, teacher and students surveys, transcripts, college tracking data services, and
additional data provided by OSPI, State Board of Community and Technical Colleges
(SBCTC), Higher Education Coordinating Board (HEC Board) and Envictus.
College Spark AVID Evaluation Report (Watt, 2011 and 2013).
STAR Classroom Observations in 23 CRI schools
EVALUATION FINDINGS
PROCESS STRAND: EVIDENCE OF IMPLEMENTATION
Evaluation Question #1: To what extent was AVID implemented as intended?
AVID is a postsecondary college readiness system designed to increase school-wide learning and
performance by accelerating student learning using research-based methods of instruction
and providing meaningful and motivational professional development to educators. Students in the
13
THE
BERC
GROUP
academic middle are meant to be the focus of AVID, though the program intends to serve all
students. Evaluators collected quantitative data in the form of classroom observations to assess the
extent to which Powerful Teaching and Learning occurs within the classroom. In this section,
evaluators combine qualitative data with the results of classroom observations.
Qualitative Findings. One important element spelled out in the AVID 11 Essentials is that the
school and/or district must identify resources for program costs, agree to implement all AVID
essentials, and participate in AVID certification. “AVID requires dedication and perseverance to
make sure that it works. You can’t have a program like AVID as an afterthought, it needs focus and
attention,” remarked one district AVID representative. Many teachers have attended various types
of professional development and/or Summer Institute. However, 100% participation has not
occurred across the AVID CRI schools. “Summer institutes are really powerful and strong.
Everybody who has come back from that is usually a strong supporter, comes back, and implements
the strategies in their classroom,” one district AVID coordinator stated. “But we don’t have
everyone at the high school going to them.” One reason for this might be the accessibility of
training in terms of geographical proximity. In addition, the logistics of training a large school
posed some difficulties. “We wanted to bring in one of the AVID presenters,” explained one
district AVID coordinator. “If we could get one of the dynamic trainers for AVID, we’d pay for it,
we would bring them here, and we can’t get them. AVID won’t let us have them for a day or two.”
Two other essential elements of the AVID program are that both students and staff must choose to
participate in the program, and the school must commit to full implementation. Teacher buy-in
affects the strength of the program. Relationships between instructors and students also vary
depending on how invested instructors are in the program, and in the majority of the cases, the
relationships are strong. “[My instructor is] actually the reason why I stayed in AVID all three years
so far. It doesn’t feel like he’s really a teacher; he’s more of a mentor,” explained one student,
adding, “I go to him after school for help with work, but also if I need help with something else. I
think he’s a really good fit for an AVID teacher because he knows how to carry himself and support
us. He knows what the program really is.” However, there were some reports of teachers not fully
invested in the AVID program, partly because they did not elect to be part of the program.
Researchers observed that organizational and leadership issues in some schools have stood in the
way of successful implementation of the program. Teachers misunderstanding what the AVID
program is about may have contributed to this. One school AVID coordinator explained, “We had a
lot of trouble teaching our staff what AVID is. They thought it was a class for kids with ‘issues,’ but
it’s not. It’s meant to help all kids.” Teachers’ understanding of the program can affect the amount
of effort they put into it. Oftentimes, teachers who are not as involved in the program do not use
the program as intended, according to one AVID coordinator. “A lot of people who are supposed to
be doing [AVID strategies] don’t know about [the AVID strategies],” commented one teacher.
Some students find the presentation of the AVID curriculum to be confusing. One student
remarked, “The teacher explains for maybe five minutes and then tells us to go. She’s always busy
so I don’t want to bother her with questions.” Ultimately, implementation of the program depends
upon all teachers having a clear understanding of the intent of the program. Teachers across the
school also need to know how they should be using AVID strategies in their classroom. This likely
is not occurring because schools do not have 100% of teachers trained in the AVID strategies.
THE
BERC
GROUP
14
Classroom Observation Study. The goal of this data collection is to determine the extent to which
general instructional practices throughout AVID schools align with Powerful Teaching and
Learning™. These findings highlight STAR classroom observation results in comparison to the
STAR average. Researchers conducted 361 classroom observations in 2009-10, 392 in 2010-11,
328 in 2011-12, and 515 in 2012-13, spanning 23 CRI schools. Researchers observed teachers in
both core and AVID classrooms.
While one goal of AVID program implementation is to incorporate AVID strategies school-wide,
which would presumably make a positive impact on teaching and learning, analysis of STAR
classroom observation data shows no improvement in Powerful Teaching and Learning from Year 1
to Year 4 (See Figure 1). In focus groups, however, students and teachers did describe an increased
use of AVID strategies even in regular classes, as well as a perceived benefit on teaching and
learning. “Now teachers are sharing more with teachers, and the strategies are used in general
education classrooms too,” commented one teacher. Another teacher mentioned, “The AVID skills
have also rubbed off on the other students, from the AVID students.” Examples of strategies that
teachers are implementing at the school wide level include Socratic Seminars, Cornell notes, and
binder checks.
Overall, Powerful Teaching and Learning was observed in 45% of AVID CRI School’s classrooms
in Year 4 (see Figure 1). This is a little lower than Year 3 results, but is similar to results from Year
1 and Year 2, and is consistent with the STAR average. Figures 2 through 6 display results for each
of the Essential Components of the STAR Protocol. On the Essential Components, AVID CRI
schools demonstrated strengths in the areas of Skills and Relationships, and this holds true throughout
the four grant years. Table 6 details the results by Indicator for the 2013 observations.
How well was this lesson aligned with Powerful Teaching and
Learning?
AVID Schools 2009-2010 (n = 361)
AVID Schools 2011-2012 (n = 328)
AVID Schools 2010-2011 (n = 392)
AVID Schools 2012-2013 (n = 515)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
54%
56%
55%
55%
48%
50%
46%
52%
44%
45%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Not at All/Very Little
Somewhat/Very
Figure 1. Overall Results
15
THE
BERC
GROUP
45%
Did students actively read, write, and/or communicate?
AVID Schools 2009-2010 (n = 361)
AVID Schools 2011-2012 (n = 328)
STAR Average
AVID Schools 2010-2011 (n = 392)
AVID Schools 2012-2013 (n = 515)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40% 40%
40%
30%
20%
26%
21%
43%
46%
33%
30%
22% 20%
23%
30%
20%
23%
19%
14% 15%
7%
10%
23%
5%
0%
1=Not Observable
2
3
4=Clearly Observable
Figure 2. Skills: Essential Component Results
Did students demonstrate depth of conceptual understanding?
AVID Schools 2009-2010 (n = 361)
AVID Schools 2011-2012 (n = 328)
STAR Average
AVID Schools 2010-2011 (n = 392)
AVID Schools 2012-2013 (n = 515)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
42%
40%
33%
30%
20%
10%
19%
34%
31% 30%
35% 35%
40% 39%
28%
28%
22%
19%
12%
11% 12%
8%
11% 12%
0%
1=Not Observable
2
3
Figure 3. Knowledge: Essential Component Results
THE
BERC
GROUP
16
4=Clearly Observable
Did students demonstrate thinking through reflection or
metacognition?
100%
AVID Schools 2009-2010 (n = 361)
AVID Schools 2011-2012 (n = 328)
STAR Average
AVID Schools 2010-2011 (n = 392)
AVID Schools 2012-2013 (n = 515)
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
43%
38%
40%
30%
36%
31%
30% 30%
25%
33%
26%
29% 27%
32%
29%
23%
21%
20%
10%
10%
7%
10%
13%
7%
0%
1=Not Observable
2
3
4=Clearly Observable
Figure 4. Thinking: Essential Component Results
Did students extend their learning into relevant contexts?
AVID Schools 2009-2010 (n = 361)
AVID Schools 2011-2012 (n = 328)
STAR Average
AVID Schools 2010-2011 (n = 392)
AVID Schools 2012-2013 (n = 515)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
51%
44% 45%
41% 43%
40%
30%
24% 23%
28%
30%
19%
20%
22% 20% 20% 20%
10%
16%
10% 12% 10%
15%
7%
0%
1=Not Observable
2
3
Figure 5. Application: Essential Component Results
17
THE
BERC
GROUP
4=Clearly Observable
Do interpersonal interactions reflect a supportive learning
environment?
AVID Schools 2009-2010 (n = 361)
AVID Schools 2011-2012 (n = 328)
STAR Average
AVID Schools 2010-2011 (n = 392)
AVID Schools 2012-2013 (n = 515)
100%
90%
80%
68%
70%
60%
60%
60%
54%
50%
43%
40%
31%
30%
18%
20%
10%
0%
22%
20% 22%
18% 19%
22% 21%
9%
8%
2% 2% 0% 1%
1=Not Observable
2
3
4=Clearly Observable
Figure 6. Relationships: Essential Component Results
How well was this lesson aligned with Powerful Teaching and
Learning?
100%
AVID Schools 2009-2010 (n = 361)
AVID Schools 2011-2012 (n = 328)
STAR Average
AVID Schools 2010-2011 (n = 392)
AVID Schools 2012-2013 (n = 515)
90%
80%
70%
60%
48%
50%
36%
40%
30%
20%
10%
41%
40% 40%
34%
34% 34%
38%
30%
22%
18% 16%
12% 11% 11%
9% 7%
0%
Not at All
Very Little
Somewhat
Figure 7. Overall (scales 1-4)
THE
BERC
GROUP
18
Very
15%
8%
Table 6.
STAR Indicators from 2013 Observations
Skills Indicators
1. Teacher provides an opportunity for students to develop and/or
demonstrate skills through elaborate reading, writing, speaking,
modeling, diagramming, displaying, solving and/or demonstrating.
2. Students’ skills are used to demonstrate conceptual
understanding, not just recall.
3. Students demonstrate appropriate methods and/or use
appropriate tools within the subject area to acquire and/or
represent information.
Knowledge Indicators
4. Teacher assures the focus of the lesson is clear to all students.
1
3%
2
21%
3
50%
8%
36%
40%
12%
32%
2
23%
5. Students construct knowledge and/or manipulate information
and ideas to build on prior learning, to discover new meaning, and
to develop conceptual understanding, not just recall.
6. Students engage in significant communication, which could
include speaking/writing, that builds and/or demonstrates
conceptual knowledge and understanding.
Thinking Indicators
7. Teacher uses a variety of questioning strategies to encourage
students’ development of critical thinking, problem solving,
and/or communication skills.
8. Students develop and/or demonstrate effective thinking
processes either verbally or in writing.
9. Students demonstrate verbally or in writing that they are
intentionally reflecting on their own learning.
Application Indicators
10. Teacher relates lesson content to other subject areas, personal
experiences and contexts.
11. Students demonstrate a meaningful personal connection by
extending learning activities in the classroom and/or beyond the
classroom.
12. Students produce a product and/or performance for an
audience beyond the class.
12%
39%
Relationships Indicators
13. Teacher assures the classroom is a positive, inspirational, safe,
and challenging academic environment.
14. Students work collaboratively to share knowledge, complete
projects, and/or critique their work.
1
1%
2
10%
31%
25%
17%
28%
19
THE
BERC
GROUP
77%
17%
56%
38%
18%
56%
1
5%
15. Students experience instructional approaches that are adapted
to meet the needs of diverse learners (differentiated learning).
4
26%
3
47%
4
25%
72%
37%
12%
49%
18%
39%
32%
11%
43%
1
20%
2
42%
3
26%
4
11%
37%
26%
37%
29%
34%
36%
23%
8%
37%
7%
30%
1
36%
2
32%
3
24%
44%
27%
22%
4
7%
32%
7%
29%
90%
4%
4%
2%
6%
3
54%
4
35%
89%
27%
16%
43%
39%
16%
55%
Researchers disaggregated the results to look specifically at AVID classrooms (see Figures 8 through
14). While school-wide results were similar to the STAR Average, the results of observations
conducted in the AVID classrooms shows that a higher percentage of AVID classrooms align with
Powerful Teaching and Learning. Overall, Powerful Teaching and Learning was observed in 63%,
65%, 77%, and 60% of AVID classrooms in Years 1 through 4, respectively (see Figure 8). In
addition, all Essential Components scored in the moderate to high level of implementation. Results
for the Essential Components are displayed in Figures 9 through 13. The difference in n-sizes
between the different years should be taken into consideration when interpreting the results.
Further statistical analyses were not conducted due to small and inconsistent sample sizes from year
to year.
How well was this lesson aligned with Powerful Teaching and
Learning?
AVID Classrooms 2009-2010 (n = 19)
AVID Classrooms 2011-2012 (n = 13)
STAR Average
AVID Classrooms 2010-2011 (n = 17)
AVID Classrooms 2012-2013 (n = 20)
100%
90%
77%
80%
70%
63%
60%
55%
65%
60%
50%
40%
37%
45%
40%
35%
30%
23%
20%
10%
0%
Not at All/Very Little
Somewhat/Very
Figure 8. Overall Results
THE
BERC
GROUP
20
Did students actively read, write, and/or communicate?
AVID Classrooms 2009-2010 (n = 19)
AVID Classrooms 2011-2012 (n = 13)
STAR Average
AVID Classrooms 2010-2011 (n = 17)
AVID Classrooms 2012-2013 (n = 20)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
47%
50%
42%
39% 40%
40%
30%
21%
20%
10%
39%
33%
21%
24% 23%
20%
32%
30%
29%
23%
23%
10%
5%
0% 0%
0%
1=Not Observable
2
3
4=Clearly Observable
Figure 9. Skills: Essential Component Results
Did students demonstrate depth of conceptual understanding?
AVID Classrooms 2009-2010 (n = 19)
AVID Classrooms 2011-2012 (n = 13)
STAR Average
AVID Classrooms 2010-2011 (n = 17)
AVID Classrooms 2012-2013 (n = 20)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
47% 46%
50%
40%
33%
32%
30% 28%
30%
18%
20%
10%
12%
5%
8%
40%
37%
28%
15%
31%
26% 24%
25%
12%
5%
0%
1=Not Observable
2
3
Figure 10. Knowledge: Essential Component Results
21
THE
BERC
GROUP
4=Clearly Observable
Did students demonstrate depth of conceptual understanding?
AVID Classrooms 2009-2010 (n = 19)
AVID Classrooms 2011-2012 (n = 13)
STAR Average
AVID Classrooms 2010-2011 (n = 17)
AVID Classrooms 2012-2013 (n = 20)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
47% 46%
50%
40%
33%
32%
30% 28%
30%
18%
20%
10%
12%
5%
8%
40%
37%
28%
31%
26% 24%
25%
15%
12%
5%
0%
1=Not Observable
2
3
4=Clearly Observable
Figure 11. Thinking: Essential Component Results
Did students extend their learning into relevant contexts?
AVID Classrooms 2009-2010 (n = 19)
AVID Classrooms 2011-2012 (n = 13)
STAR Average
AVID Classrooms 2010-2011 (n = 17)
AVID Classrooms 2012-2013 (n = 20)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
51%
46%
50%
42% 41%
40%
30%
20%
41%
40%
31%
27%
12%
15%
20%
21%
20% 19%
11%
15%
8%
6%
10%
20%
16%
0%
1=Not Observable
2
3
Figure 12. Application: Essential Component Results
THE
BERC
GROUP
22
4=Clearly Observable
Do interpersonal interactions reflect a supportive learning
environment?
AVID Classrooms 2009-2010 (n = 19)
AVID Classrooms 2011-2012 (n = 13)
STAR Average
AVID Classrooms 2010-2011 (n = 17)
AVID Classrooms 2012-2013 (n = 20)
100%
90%
80%
71%
70%
63%
62%
60%
50%
50%
43%
40%
31%
35%
32%
30%
20%
10%
0%
15%
8%
0% 0% 0% 0%
31%
29%
19%
8%
5%
0%
1=Not Observable
2
3
4=Clearly Observable
Figure 13. Relationships: Essential Component Results
How well was this lesson aligned with Powerful Teaching and
Learning?
100%
AVID Classrooms 2009-2010 (n = 19)
AVID Classrooms 2011-2012 (n = 13)
STAR Average
AVID Classrooms 2010-2011 (n = 17)
AVID Classrooms 2012-2013 (n = 20)
90%
80%
69%
70%
60%
47%
50%
40%
40%
32%
30%
35%
34%
40%
37%
30%
23%
22%
0%
20%
18%
20%
10%
26%
15%
8%
5%
0% 0% 0%
Not at All
Very Little
Somewhat
Figure 14. Overall (scales 1-4)
23
THE
BERC
GROUP
Very
Researchers further analyzed the data to determine if there are differences in classroom observation
results among AVID Trainees and Non-Trainees. For these analyses, we combined data from four
school years (2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, and 2012-13), and we designated teachers as receiving
training if they had the training anytime during the four-year period. The results show greater
alignment of Powerful Teaching and Learning in classrooms of AVID Trainees (51%
Somewhat/Very) compared to classrooms of non-Trainees (45% Somewhat/Very) (see Figure 15).
Results from the Essential Component show teachers who participated in the AVID training scored
higher on all of the Essential Components, except Skills and Application, compared to teachers who
did not participate in AVID training and compared to the STAR average. The Skills and Application
Components are similar across groups.
Researchers also analyzed overall Powerful Teaching and Learning results for AVID Trainees and
for Non-Trainees. Researchers preformed a MANOVA to determine if differences exist between
groups (AVID Trainees and Non-Trainers) across the Overall Component and each of the Essential
Components. The MANOVA results revealed a statistically significant difference for group (F =
3.80, p < .01). Follow-up tests showed that the AVID Trainees had significantly higher scores on
the Thinking and Relationships Components compared to Non-Trainees.
How well was this lesson aligned with Powerful Teaching and
Learning?
AVID Trainees 2009-2013 (n = 487)
Non Trainees 2009-2013 (n = 1108)
STAR Average
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
55%
55%
51%
49%
45%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Not at All/Very Little
Somewhat/Very
Figure 15. Overall Results
THE
BERC
GROUP
24
45%
Did students actively read, write, and/or communicate?
AVID Trainees 2009-2013 (n = 487)
Non Trainees 2009-2013 (n = 1108)
STAR Average
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
42% 43%
40%
33%
30%
21%
20%
24% 26% 23%
23% 22% 23%
11% 10%
10%
0%
1=Not Observable
2
3
4=Clearly Observable
Figure 16. Skills: Essential Component Results
Did students demonstrate depth of conceptual understanding?
AVID Trainees 2009-2013 (n = 487)
Non Trainees 2009-2013 (n = 1108)
STAR Average
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
33%
28%
30%
20%
37% 37%
36%
31%
28%
16%
15% 15%
12% 12%
10%
0%
1=Not Observable
2
3
Figure 17. Knowledge: Essential Component Results
25
THE
BERC
GROUP
4=Clearly Observable
Did students demonstrate thinking through reflection or
metacognition?
AVID Trainees 2009-2013 (n = 487)
Non Trainees 2009-2013 (n = 1108)
STAR Average
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
38%
40%
30%
37% 37%
28%
26%
22%
30%
28%
23%
20%
11%
10%
13%
7%
0%
1=Not Observable
2
3
4=Clearly Observable
Figure 18.Thinking: Essential Component Results
Did students extend their learning into relevant contexts?
AVID Trainees 2009-2013 (n = 487)
Non Trainees 2009-2013 (n = 1108)
STAR Average
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
51%
43% 43%
40%
28% 26%
30%
19%
20%
21% 21%
16%
8%
10%
10%
15%
0%
1=Not Observable
2
3
Figure 19. Application: Essential Component Result
THE
BERC
GROUP
26
4=Clearly Observable
Do interpersonal interactions reflect a supportive learning
environment?
AVID Trainees 2009-2013 (n = 487)
Non Trainees 2009-2013 (n = 1108)
STAR Average
100%
90%
80%
70%
58%
60%
61%
50%
43%
40%
31%
30%
26%
20%
10%
0%
16%
20%
18% 19%
8%
1%
2%
1=Not Observable
2
3
4=Clearly Observable
Figure 20. Relationships: Essential Component Results
How well was this lesson aligned with Powerful Teaching and
Learning?
AVID Trainees 2009-2013 (n = 487)
Non Trainees 2009-2013 (n = 1108)
STAR Average
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
43%
38%
40%
30%
20%
40%
34%
35%
30%
22%
11% 12%
11% 10%
10%
0%
Not at All
Very Little
Somewhat
Figure 21. Overall (scales 1-4)
27
THE
BERC
GROUP
Very
15%
Evaluation Question #2: To what extent was Navigation 101 implemented as intended?
The intent of the Navigation 101 initiative is to provide schools and districts with a means to
increase the number of college and career ready students graduating from high school. According to
OSPI (2013a), “Navigation 101 is part of a comprehensive school guidance and counseling program
in Washington state that helps students make clear, careful, and creative choices for college and
career readiness in the areas of course selection, goal setting, career planning, and postsecondary
options, including financial aid.” Navigation 101 consists of different elements designed to work
together to engage students in preparing for life after high school. These elements are student
advisory, student portfolio, student-led conferences (SLCs), student-informed scheduling, and data
collection.
To determine the level of implementation, grantees representing each of the 19 Navigation 101
CRI funded schools participated in an online implementation survey in which they rated their level
of implementation of the five elements of Navigation 101. Scores above 4.0 represent a high level
of implementation, while scores below 3.0 represent a low level of implementation. Navigation
101 CRI grantees rated high levels of implementation around advisories, portfolios, and student-led
conferences, moderately high levels of implementation around data collection, and moderate levels
of implementation around student-driven scheduling (see Figure 22). Results have improved in
student led conferences, student-driven scheduling, and data collection since Year 1. There were
small declines in advisories and portfolios, but these areas continue to score in the high range.
An analysis of individual items on the Online Implementation Survey (see Appendix A) indicated
changes between 2010 and 2013 implementation practices in a few specific areas. For example, in
Year 4, 57% of participants reported awarding credit for Navigation 101 advisories and/or
activities, compared to only 42% in 2010. The number of respondents reporting that parents are
required to attend student-led conferences increased from 40% in Year 1 to 79% in Year 4.
Similarly, in Year 1, only 46% of respondents agreed students had information about course needs,
and in Year 4, 75% of respondents agreed students had this information. In addition, in Year 4,
79% of grantees believe they can sustain Navigation 101 after grant funding ends, whereas 63%
believed it was sustainable in Year 1. Despite these improvements, communication continues to be
an issue. In Year 1, 62% reported distributing Navigation News to staff members; in Year 4 this has
dropped to 47%. All individual item responses to the Online Implementation Survey are provided
in Appendix A.
Below is a comparison of implementation ratings between Navigation 101 CRI schools and OSPI
schools (see Table 7). Across both groups, implementation ratings peaked in Year 3 with a decline
in Year 4 across most key areas. In Year 4, Navigation CRI Schools had higher implementation
rating in evaluation; similar ratings in advisories, portfolios, and student-led conferences; and fell
below OSPI schools in advisories, portfolios, and student-driven scheduling. The reason for the
finding is unknown, given that the Navigation 101 CRI schools have more support. However,
findings around the Indicators and qualitative data may provide more insight.
THE
BERC
GROUP
28
CRI Schools: Navigation 101
Implementation Self-Report Ratings
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Advisories
Portfolio
Student Led
Conferences
Student Informed
Scheduling
Data Collection
Figure 22. CRI Schools: Implementation Self-Report Ratings
Table 7.
Key Element Comparison Ratings between CRI Schools and OSPI Schools, 2010-2013
Key Elements
Year
CRI Schools
OSPI Schools
Advisories
Year 1
4.33
3.94
Year 2
4.37
4.16
Year 3
4.26
4.09
Year 4
4.04
4.08
Portfolio
Year 1
4.33
4.05
Year 2
4.22
4.21
Year 3
4.41
4.31
Year 4
4.09
4.06
Student-Led Conferences
Year 1
4.07
4.28
Year 2
4.26
4.50
Year 3
4.58
4.53
Year 4
4.47
4.46
Student-Driven Scheduling
Year 1
2.83
3.24
Year 2
3.25
3.44
Year 3
3.57
3.41
Year 4
3.12
3.52
Evaluation
2010
3.40
3.42
2011
3.42
3.63
2012
3.94
3.42
2013
3.74
3.55
29
THE
BERC
GROUP
To quantify the extent to which each element is being implemented as intended, researchers
identified and implementation survey data for each subcomponent. Individual item responses to the
Online Implementation Survey are provided in Appendix A.
Advisory Implementation. Student advisories refer to a group of students who regularly meet
with an educator-advisor to work on curriculum designed to help them prepare for college or
career. In visits to the schools, researchers observed that advisory session schedules varied from
once a month to every day, lasting anywhere from 20 minutes to one hour. Implementation survey
results reported in Table 15 (Appendix A) show that the most common schedule for advisory
includes more than two meetings per month. Schools use a combination of the Navigation 101
curriculum provided by OSPI and the online curriculum provided by Envictus Corporation. Some
schools had difficulty with the online component of the curriculum due to the lack of computers.
Overall, researchers observed advisory sessions implemented in many ways at varying levels of
effectiveness. In most advisories, students were engaged in either a lesson or activity. Site visits
were conducted towards the end of the school year and many students were preparing for their
spring SLCs. Researchers observed one student practicing for their senior presentation and another
presenting a career board,in which the student had researched several different career paths. Other
advisories were less structured and students were using the time to catch up with work for other
classes or talking with friends.
To quantify the extent to which each element is being implemented as intended, researchers also
identified and collected survey data for each subcomponent. The five subcomponents of the
advisory element include participation in advisory, staff members serve as advisors, frequency of
advisory meetings, curriculum addresses three domains, and advisor training . Figure 23 displays
advisory implementation levels of CRI schools from Year 1 to Year 4. Year 1 results indicate most
areas are implemented to a high degree (above a 4 rating), and all schools rated participation in an
advisory and staff serving as an advisor at the highest level. However, advisor training has continued
to decline since Year 1. This is a surprising finding as Navigation CRI Schools have focused on this
area in Year 3, and it is likely that the increased focused may have contributed to staff members
recognizing the need. In addition, while overall scores have decreased, school personnel cited some
contextual factors. For example, one school is restructuring the advisory program, which school
personnel cited for the reason for the decrease, while personnel at another school reported that
advisory had been inconsistent because of other initiatives.
THE
BERC
GROUP
30
Advisory Implementation
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Participation in
Advisory
Staff Serve as
Advisors
Frequency of
Advisory Meetings
Curriculum
Addresses 3
Domains
Advisor Training
Overall Advisory
Implementation
Figure 23. CRI School Survey Results of Advisory Implementation
Student Portfolios. Student portfolios offer students a place to organize examples of their
schoolwork and information for their career or college plans after high school. The creation of a
portfolio meets the HSBP graduation requirement of Washington State. This plan is to help
students think regularly about their future and select coursework that will best prepare them for
their post high school goals.
Portfolios can be electronic or paper-based, and researchers observed that most schools have paperbased portfolios. Like advisories, schools had a large range of formats. Most schools used binders
categorized into several sections, such as personal, academic, conferences, and other. The work
that goes into each section varied from best examples of student work to every project completed.
One staff member said, “It gives them more responsibility. They’re in charge of their portfolio and
they have to keep it organized.” Portfolios are supposed to help students reflect on their progress
and make plans to improve. In nearly all advisories observed, students regularly updated the
portfolios, though in several schools, students in focus groups commented there was no real
consequence for not completing them or keeping them up to date. At one school, administration
commented on the inconsistency, saying, “We do portfolios but we’ve fallen behind on those being
produced. Every kid has a binder. What is in the binder? That depends.”
Like advisory findings above, researchers identified and collected survey data for each
subcomponent of portfolios to help quantify levels of implementation (see Appendix A for
individual item responses). The five subcomponents of the portfolio element are Portfolio
31
THE
BERC
GROUP
Organization, Who Keeps a Portfolio, What is Stored in Portfolios, Do Students Assess Work, and
Do Portfolios Guide Conferences.
Most indicators of portfolio implementation are reported to a high degree (see Figure 24).
However, in Year 4, results decreased in Portfolio Organization to the moderate levels, which
likely contributed to a lower Overall Implementation score. On the survey, several respondents
indicated the difficulty transitioning from paper portfolios to electronic portfolios contributed to
the decline. While other areas remain in the high range, there was a decrease on what is stored in
the portfolios and whether portfolios guide student-led conferences. It is possible that the some of
the issues with the transition also contributed to these issues.
Portfolio Implementation
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Portfolio
Organization
Who keeps a What is stored
portfolio
in portfolios
Do students
assess their
work
Do portfolios
Overall
guide
implementation
conferences
Figure 24. CRI School Survey Results of Portfolio Implementation
Student-Led Conferences. SLCs culminate in an oral presentation led by each student in which the
student shares achievements, dreams, and plans with their family and advisor. This element
achieves the goal of including families in their students’ academic plans. Researchers found that
SLCs took place either once or twice a year through senior year.
Some schools implemented student conferences before becoming part of Navigation 101, but the
level of formality surrounding the conferences has increased since becoming a Navigation 101 CRI
grantee. Almost all stakeholders stated they liked SLCs for various reasons. Administrators
appreciate the level of participation from families and parents appreciate their children sharing their
THE
BERC
GROUP
32
plans for the future. Teachers like that students are required to focus on their academic goals and
students like being able to monitor their academic progress and share their progress with their
families. Overall, researchers found that these conferences were beneficial and well attended.
Researchers identified and collected survey data for each subcomponent of SLCs to help quantify
levels of implementation (see Appendix A for individual item responses). The five subcomponents
of the SLC element include Are Student-Led Conferences Held, Who Attends Conferences, How
Conferences are Organized, Conferences Integrated with Registration, and Tally Satisfaction with
Conferences.
Schools held and implemented SLCs to a high degree in all years (see Figure 25). Across the four
years, there has been a steady increase in SLC attendance. One person shared, “This has been one of
our most successful endeavors. This fall, we reached an all-time high in conference attendance
(over 90%).” However, except for Year 3, participants have rated conferences integrated with
registration in the moderate range, and participants continue to identify a need to link conference
activities with student-driven scheduling.
Student Led Conference Implementation
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
5.00
4.50
4.00
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
Are student-led
conferences held
Who attends
conferences
How are
conferences
organized
Conferences
integrated with
registration
Tally satisfaction Overall conference
with conferences implementation
Figure 25. CRI School Survey Results of Student-Led Conference Implementation
Student-Informed Scheduling. Navigation 101 encourages students to take challenging courses
they need for their postsecondary plans and offers the resources to help them succeed. The
program ensures that students receive the education they need to pursue their post-high school
goals and that schools are aware of the courses they need to offer their students. Student-informed
scheduling helps schools anticipate the courses that students will require for the next school year.
33
THE
BERC
GROUP
The student-informed scheduling element is implemented in conjunction with SLCs, which
requires coordination and resources.
Researchers observed that, in regards to student-informed scheduling, the most successful schools
were ones at which the students registered for their classes online at their SLC, with their advisor
and parent as partners in the process. At those schools, students’ choices directly impact the
courses that are offered the following year. Overall, smaller schools face challenges in terms of
capacity to offer higher-level and gatekeeper courses, and larger schools struggle with the amount
of organization required to develop a coordinated master schedule.
Researchers identified and collected survey data for each subcomponent of SLCs to help quantify
levels of implementation (see Appendix A for individual item responses). The subcomponents of
the student-informed scheduling element include Students Know about Course Needs, Students
Develop Four-Year Plan, Students Have a Say in their Schedule, Master Schedule is Based on
Students’ Choices, Students are Encouraged to Enroll In Gate Keeper Courses, and Students
Receive Support in Gate Keeper Courses.
CRI Navigation 101 grantees demonstrated increases on implementation of student-driven
scheduling from Year 1 to Year 3; however, in Year 4, many of the areas declined (see Figure 26).
While students knowing about course needs and receiving support for gate-keeper courses scored
in the high range, the other areas fell in the moderate range. School personnel reported that special
programs, such as the IB Program or the designation of being an alternative school limited the
extent to which they attend to this component. Others reported that school size and staff made it
difficult to have flexibility in course offerings. One person shared, “We are a rural K-8 school, so
students do not have options about core classes. They do, however, get some choices in electives
and PE.” Another said, “Staffing is tight at our school and offers little flexibility in being able to
meet the needs of a student-driven schedule.”
THE
BERC
GROUP
34
Student Informed Scheduling Implementation
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
5.00
4.50
4.00
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
Know about
course needs
Develop fouryear plans
Have a say in Master schedule Encouraged to Receive support
Overall
their schedule
is based on
enroll in gate
to succeed in implementation
students'
keeper courses gate keeper
of scheduling
choices
courses
Figure 26. CRI School Survey Results of Student Informed Scheduling
Implementation
Data Collection. Data collection refers to the collection of data from Navigation 101 schools to
measure student success. Fully participating in Navigation 101 data collection requirements and
using the results to strengthen implementation are essential to inform program success and plans
for improvement and growth. Best Practice for data collection is that all schools have identified a
point person, such as a data coordinator, who is in charge of organizing and analyzing data.
Researchers observed that schools are far from best practice. Many of the schools either do not
collect data or do not effectively communicate data collection or its impact on the program to the
staff. One administrator said, “We do a little bit. With the time constraint, it is hard. [It] has fallen
by the wayside.” Staff members at one school reflected that they had been seeing more collegeready transcripts and that they were looking closely at AP test scores. The theme throughout the
schools, however, was that although they recognized more should be done more around data, the
systems for collection and analysis were not there. As one staff member said, “In order to do more
data analysis, a system needs to be put in place to collect and analyze it and determine specific
purpose.”
Researchers identified and collected survey data for each subcomponent of data collection to help
quantify levels of implementation. The three subcomponents of data collection are Information is
Collected about Nav 101, School Collects other Information, and Information is Shared with
Stakeholders.
35
THE
BERC
GROUP
Survey results indicate stakeholders are implementing the collection of Navigation 101 information
to a moderately high degree, with Year 3 and 4 demonstrating an increase from previous years (see
Figure 27, above). Staff members report they collect information about Navigation 101 at high
levels; however, fewer collect other data or share this data with stakeholders. One person shared,
“We need more time and support from administrators to report program data to important
stakeholders.”
Data Collection Implementation
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
5.00
4.50
4.00
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
Information is collected
about Nav 101
The school collects
other information
Information is shared Overall implementation
with stakeholders
of data collection
Figure 27. CRI School Survey Results of Data Collection Implementation
Evaluation Question #3: What are the barriers/challenges to implementing these programs?
Barriers to AVID Implementation
While most feedback from staff members involved with the AVID program was positive, some staff
members noted a few barriers in the way of effective implementation.
Rural Roadblocks and Restrictions. Staff members at rural schools frequently mentioned how
the remoteness of the community brought about some unique challenges when implementing
AVID. As one staff member stated, “AVID is a good program and can be made to work for rural
schools, but needs to be creatively modified.” One challenge is the difficulty of finding qualified and
available tutors, a necessary component of AVID, due to the distance of universities or colleges and
the small population densities of the towns. As one administrator commented, “Finding tutors is
difficult. You need to get creative.” Staff members also talked about the need to be creative in
THE
BERC
GROUP
36
conducting college visits and creating professional development opportunities due to the
remoteness of their locations. One district coordinator shared:
We need ongoing support for training for teachers, and one of our challenges is that AVID
does not come to this area for training. So one thing that we have done is to partner with [a
neighboring district] to form a whole cohort of instructors and district leaders to say, ‘let’s
bring some training up here.’
Scheduling the AVID elective classes and the advanced classes is also challenging because of the
small size of the schools and the limited numbers of certified staff. Often, class offerings are
limited, which causes conflicts with core courses or the ability for students to take the AVID
elective and/or AP classes. One administrator explained the situation:
The problem with a rural school is we have one teacher for each subject—one for language
arts, one for math, and so on. This makes it really difficult to find a place to put an elective
such as AVID, where it doesn’t affect one or more than one content area class.
Another administrator stated, “There is a lack of resources in a small school. You have to give up
stuff. For example, we dropped AP US History to have a teacher teach AVID classes.”
Course Offering Conflicts and Compromises. Scheduling is a challenge for more than just the
small rural schools. A commonly reported criticism surrounding the program is the logistical
barrier of scheduling limitations. One student commented, “Every year, AVID takes up one of my
electives, so I don’t get to pick as many of the other electives like non-AVID students do.” Other
students also expressed regret that they were unable to take electives like art or music. A parent
reiterated the difficult decision to choose AVID at the expense of something else, sharing, “It does
take one period a day, so [students] lose that opportunity to take another elective course, and the
rest of their schedule is pretty aggressive.” One administrator reported, “The high school is in a sixperiod school day and not seven, so it was challenging for students to elect to be in AVID when
there were other classes they needed or wanted to take.”
Administrators also commented on the drop in the number of AVID students between grade levels
due to these scheduling conflicts. One administrator stated, “They typically have a huge drop in
numbers between ninth and 10th grade.” Another shared, “While we have a solid cohort of
approximately 50 in the ninth-grade class, the graduating class this year has about 10.”
Staff Turnover and Training. Staff members reported some struggles with training logistics and
issues that arise with staff turnover. As one site coordinator explained, “With a continually
changing staff, we are always looking for how we can provide training in AVID. Staff members get
trained and then go into administration within the district or find jobs in another district.” Another
coordinator stated, “Getting new staff trained in a timely manner is a constant challenge.” One site
team member mentioned the issue of inconsistent professional development opportunities in AVID
strategies for all staff, stating, “Some of the people who are new aren’t coming to professional
development.” Focus groups participants reported that it is a struggle for administrators to justify
37
THE
BERC
GROUP
sending staff to trainings that are far away when other cuts are being made to other programs. One
administrator stated:
It is hard when we can’t do trainings locally and we have had to fly people out to Texas or
San Diego. It’s hard for teachers to have training when this is the only way. Communities
get frustrated when teachers are getting ‘riffed’ [reduction in force] and people are being
flown around for these trainings. It’s a requirement for us to send them, and we’ve had the
money, but it doesn’t look good.
System Support. When asked to name any major challenges in implementing AVID, staff members
reported a lack of support from various levels. One site team member shared that AVID
coordinators do not feel supported by the administration. One administrator said, “Sometimes I
don’t think there’s as much support for AVID coordinators as maybe there could be. I think the
AVID coordinator is a big piece of the success of the program, and I think if anything was
important, it would be to offer this support.” Another site team member reported, “School-wide
strategies are not being used, and there is no real intention from administration to roll them out,
although they are recognized as helpful.” Other AVID stakeholders reported feeling unsupported by
the district and were worried about future funding. One administrator shared:
The mantra from the district is, it is a great program for a small group of kids, but it’s too
expensive for impacting such a small group of kids, even with the argument that if you go
school wide with the strategies, it can be really effective for a larger group of kids.
Another stakeholder stated, “The district has never supported AVID, so it is fully funded by other
grants. The intention was that as the grants tapered away, the district would come on board, but
that isn’t happening.” Some AVID members also felt unsupported by non-AVID staff, as one AVID
staff member shared, “The stakeholders are very supportive of AVID development for teachers, and
many have been to Summer Institute… but other than the stakeholders, I don’t feel there’s much
support. If you’re not involved, it’s not critical.” Other staff members reported a lack of buy-in
from AVID teachers and students, as one coordinator stated, “I selected [a staff member] to run the
[AVID] class but they didn’t really want to do it and it was hard finding students who would even
take it… now the class isn’t super successful.”
Misperceptions. Another challenge to successful implementation of AVID is communicating the
goals and purpose of the AVID program to staff, students, and the community. At some schools,
teachers and students think AVID is a remediation class. Students in focus groups reported that the
reason for being an AVID student is sometimes misunderstood. One AVID student stated, “People
make fun of you for being in AVID. They say AVID is for stupid people or for losers… they think
you have bad grades and you’re not going anywhere in life.” At another school, an AVID student
explained how her classmates had an opposite perspective: “A lot of students don’t want to join
AVID because they’re afraid or they think it’s for smart people.” At some schools, there is also very
little parent involvement, which leads to further misunderstanding. One site team member
commented, “A challenge for us has been recruiting parents and answering why [students] need
[AVID].” A parent suggested, “[The school] needs to make the community more aware of AVID.
Unless your kids are in AVID, you probably do not know what it is.”
THE
BERC
GROUP
38
Barriers to Navigation 101 Implementation
Researchers also identified barriers and challenges to implementing Navigation 101. As with all
programs in a school, a lack of resources such as time and money can prove to be barriers and both
of these things are affecting the success of the program. However, many difficulties with
implementation of Navigation 101 stem from the need for stronger leadership, shared
responsibility, and increased accountability. Lack of buy-in, lack of consistency between advisories
and a lack of communication with parents are also challenges.
Resources. A lack of money for computers was a theme at nearly every school visited. Although
the OSPI curriculum is available for download and lessons printed, teachers commented that they
found the online lessons to be more valuable. One staff member said, “We felt like we were set up
for failure since the lessons were online. There is no way, at this school, with the technology we
have, to get all the students on computers more than once a month.” Many schools have limited
facilities to get advisory classes’ access to computer labs and did not have computers available in the
classrooms. Several schools also expressed a desire to make a transition from paper based to
electronic portfolios for a variety of reasons. Electronic portfolios would increase the relevance of
the project to students and aid with practical barriers such as students switching from one school to
another and portfolios getting lost. This switch was not an option at many schools visited due to
lack of resources in terms of technology.
Along with a lack of funding, lack of time is always a challenge in a school. There are several ways
in which time is proving challenging in terms of Navigation 101, the first of which is the effort
required to prepare for advisory when teachers are not allocated additional prep time. This has an
effect on the quality of the content of the class. One administrator explained that teachers “feel they
don’t have enough time in the day to do the lessons and therefore the fidelity by which the lessons
are being taught is variable.” Although a concern, this did not necessarily color teachers’
perceptions of the program itself. As one site coordinator explained, “It isn’t that the teachers don’t
think it’s a good program or that they don’t want to participate, it’s that they don’t physically have
enough time in the day.”
At some of the schools with shorter advisory periods, both teachers and students expressed
frustration in terms of fitting things into each class period. One advisor said, “We put a lot into our
advisory class periods and we have a lot going on within 20 minutes, so we don’t have enough time
to really get into what we need to do with our students.” Another teacher said, “It’s hard to be
enthusiastic about it. The way it’s been managed, it’s very difficult to have a meaningful lesson
come out of 15 minutes.” In other schools, the time set aside for Navigation 101 is getting used for
other things such as other curriculum, study hall, grade checks, or general school catch up around
news, events etc. One staff member commented, “Advisory can be a catchall. So many things can
come into play and it’s tempting to take over that time, so being very intentional about keeping
that time and seeing it as a priority is important.” In focus groups, students commented that lack of
class time was proving to be a barrier to the effectiveness of advisory, “Overall, there is not enough
time to finish things so no one is engaged because they can’t discuss things in detail.” Several
students commented that they did not understand why advisory was not the same length as a
39
THE
BERC
GROUP
regular class, and that with such a short space of time, “All there’s time for is instruction and a
handout and then we [don’t] get to actually work on it [until] two days later.” Some of the students
suggested that advisory would be more effective if it was either every day of the week for a shorter
period or twice a week for an hour.
Leadership and Accountability. A lack of strong leadership in combination with a lack of
accountability and shared responsibility is a significant barrier to implementation. One teacher
explained the effect of the administration’s belief in Navigation 101, “It’s an expectation [at our
school]. It’s what we do. The administration supports it and expects teachers to do it. It has
become a culture here. We speak Nav.” In this school, and others like it, the administration’s
support is having a huge effect on the program’s ability to evolve from a mere curriculum used in
advisory to a part of the school culture itself. Although strong leadership is an important factor,
shared responsibility and collaboration are also important aspects of the implementation of the
program.
At schools that are using collaborative methods, buy-in from teachers is improving and the amount
of time spent by any one staff member is decreasing. Researchers found that the more staff
members feel like they are working in partnership, the more successful the program. The most
successful schools are ones where the coordinators are involved in the workings of the school and
have close relationships with the counselors and administration. When this is the case, they are
helping each other achieve similar goals, while sharing the burden of the time it takes. One staff
member said, “The Nav program helps us reach a lot of the students we may not be able to reach on
our own. We have partners [advisors], and students are getting more directed information.” There
is one district in particular that has made a concerted effort to re-work their curriculum in
partnership with a committee of Nav grade level reps from all their schools and has found that the
final product has increased fidelity to the curriculum, success of the lessons, and buy-in from the
staff. A district representative stated, “All curriculum was developed in district in partnership with
teachers.” A teacher at one school added:
The collaboration was something new and it made the final product consistent. The
support of the district and buy in from administration has been vital in the success of
Nav at this school. Also, the willingness to consider feedback and adjust curriculum
and structure accordingly.
At another school, staff members made a point of explaining that all grade-level leaders, the school
coordinator, the administration, and the district coordinator always attend all the Nav academies in
order to implement their learning as a team. At this school, one grade level leader said, “Nav is just
what we do.”
Many focus group participants shared that increased accountability would also improve the success
of the program. Teachers had ideas about how the administration could aid the success of the
program. One teacher suggested, “Just conducting walkthroughs on the timeframe to make sure
everyone is on target [would be helpful].” Holding advisors to different levels of standard without
consequence is creating frustration at many schools. One staff member said, “There are different
levels of teacher buy-in and follow-through, about which the leadership is aware.” Focus group
THE
BERC
GROUP
40
participants expressed the need to have everyone supporting the program instead of just one
person. “We want it to be like, ‘we are a Nav school’ not just relying on one person.” This level of
buy-in and shared responsibility is difficult without accountability.
Buy-in. There is a clear connection between buy-in from teachers and buy-in from students.
Students in several focus groups attributed their low enthusiasm for the program, in large part, to a
lack of buy-in from their advisor. Lack of buy-in from the teachers affects the quality of the class
and therefore the engagement of the students. One student explained, “I think they should push the
teachers to get more involved in it. If they aren’t involved, how do you expect the students to get
involved?” The engagement and enthusiasm of staff and students about the impact and relevance
Navigation 101 it can have on students’ futures affects the success of the program. As one
administrator pointed out, “We need 100% buy in from the kids.” It was a consistent theme that
lack of investment in the concept of Navigation 101 on the part of teachers, students, or other staff
members greatly hinders its success. A focus on shared responsibility may increase buy-in at
schools. As one administrator explained:
Giving the responsibility [of coordinator] to different people is important. I wanted each
counselor to have a chance to oversee the grant. I want more fidelity throughout our staff
including counselors and administration, so we can all speak to it and people aren’t in the
dark. The more knowledge around the program, the more fidelity, the more buy-in for
students and teachers, the more fidelity among students and staff.
Inconsistency in Advisories. Researchers found inconsistency from one advisory to another within
the same school was a common issue. One staff member said, “We need to make it the same from
class to class. Right now, the content is the same, but the way that teachers get there is very
different.” An administrator at another school felt expectations should be evaluated in terms of
what is required during the advisory period, explaining, “The requirements should be reviewed.
They should not differ from teacher to teacher. There is also quite a difference in grading between
teachers too.” A teacher reflected why accountability and inconsistency were such common
problems, saying, “It is not what is measured for improvement, so it’s hard to do PD (professional
development) for all teachers.” Though this was not a theme throughout focus groups, researchers
believe that it is something to consider, especially with the increased amount of measured
expectations of teachers in terms of the new teacher evaluation system.
Communication with Parents. At several schools, parents in focus groups were unfamiliar with
Navigation 101. One parent said, “The goals of Nav were not communicated to us.” Parents were
usually aware that their student had an advisory period and almost all of the parents interviewed
had taken part in their students SLC. Most parents interviewed were aware of the content of the
SLC, but had not had the goals of Navigation of 101 explained to them. Therefore, they did not see
the greater relevance of the process. Of the parents who were aware of the purpose of the
program, many felt like there should be more time devoted to college applications, financial aid,
and scholarships. One parent said, “We’re definitely behind. I would have liked to have known
these things earlier in terms of where to find stuff. We found a lot of our stuff outside of school.”
41
THE
BERC
GROUP
Evaluation Question #4: What are the strengths and weaknesses of the programs?
The following sections describe the strengths and weaknesses of the AVID and Navigation 101
initiatives based upon participant interviews and focus groups.
Strengths of the AVID Program
Participants of this year’s focus groups continued to praise the AVID program and its components.
Similar to last year’s focus groups, educators expressed satisfaction with the structure of AVID, its
focus on goal setting and college readiness, and the way it encourages and promotes personal
relationships and connectedness between staff members and students and between students. Many
stakeholders also spoke of the AVID program as a helpful tool for a school’s overall college
readiness goal.
AVID Strategies. Many teachers, administrators, and students praised strategies such as Socratic
Seminars, Cornell notes, and Costa’s levels of inquiry as contributors to students’ increased success
and self-esteem in high school. When asked what they most enjoyed about AVID classes, students
in focus groups identified the ways certain strategies help them to be more organized and feel more
confident about going to college. An AVID student explained, “I think the goals of AVID are to
help you improve your organizational skills and to prepare you for real life and college. It helps it to
not be a shock for you when you get there.” In particular, students identified Cornell note taking,
Socratic Seminar techniques, and goal setting as important aspects of AVID. “Knowing how to take
Cornell notes has helped me take better notes in other classes too. In social studies, I used to not
get down helpful information, and now I can do better in those classes because of my notes,”
commented one AVID student. Another student commented on the impact of goal setting in
AVID, saying, “AVID helps you set goals for yourself—present, long-term, and short-term. AVID
expects you to accomplish those goals. I used to not care about school, but once I got into AVID, it
taught me that there’s a lot after high school.”
Administrators and teachers also recognized the effectiveness of certain strategies, advocating for
practices such as Cornell note taking, Costa’s levels of inquiry, and tutorial strategies to be adopted
school wide. One teacher commented:
At first, AVID strategies were more in the background, then I heard a lot from students
and then from staff, and now it has made it more school wide. Now teachers are sharing
more with each other, and the AVID strategies are used in general education classrooms
too, not just in AVID classrooms.
Another staff member shared, “I teach language arts, and AVID strategies have helped me change
my outlook and helped me to push students to push themselves to their highest level.”
There also has been a connection made between AVID strategies and the up and coming changes in
education, such as the Teacher/Principal Evaluation Project (TPEP) and Common Core. According
to one administrator:
THE
BERC
GROUP
42
We’re training teachers on the inquiry of learning for TPEP, and AVID supports that. It’s a
good marriage. We’re training both teachers and students at the same time to work on
communication, evidence for thinking, and going back to the text.
Support of Personal Connections. Strong personal relationships between students and teachers
are linked to a more positive and effective learning experience within the school setting. This has
been praised as a strength of the AVID program, as the small classroom settings, along with the
looping of students from year to year, influences the learning environment within these classrooms.
“A goal that we are absolutely achieving is creating that sense of community and family in the AVID
class. I see how students are helping each other more, and they often talk about how the AVID
classroom is their safe place where they can be themselves,” shared an AVID teacher.
Students also praised the program, reflecting on the difference a smaller, more intimate class makes
on their education. An AVID student shared, “Our AVID teacher makes it like a family; you’re not
only close to him but you’re close to your other classmates too.” Another AVID student shared,
“We’re not afraid to speak out if we disagree with something. We’re not afraid to say what we
think and how we feel and how we think we should do something in our AVID class.” Focus group
participants shared that many AVID students have made huge leaps in their ability, as well as in
their beliefs about their abilities, which are visible to teachers and other students alike. One teacher
praised AVID students, saying, “AVID students are role models in their classrooms. You can usually
tell right away who’s in AVID, which is really cool!”
College and Career Readiness Culture Creation. Stakeholders shared that they thought the
implementation of the AVID program in their schools has generated a college-bound and career
readiness culture. This culture is not only found in AVID classrooms, but also is also extended into
the school building and homes of students One administrator shared, “Some students haven’t given
college a second thought, and now that conversation is about going and that they can go is much
more widely heard.” Even with the continued pressure to cut programs and to tighten budgets,
stakeholders continually describe AVID as a central part of school improvement planning. “There’s
a district-wide emphasis on helping teachers understand instructional frameworks and that there’s a
need in our system to help students be more involved in their learning,” explained one stakeholder,
“Looking at AVID, there’s a continuity among the system for wide-spread teaching practices.”
Teachers spoke about the impact the program has made on their students as well, noting, “There is
a cultural change, as kids progress from year to year. [I see] how much more powerful their own
self-image has become, their debating skills, and expectations change as they get older.” Another
staff member shared, “We’re seeing the change not only in students’ ability to handle academics,
but how to advocate for themselves, set goals, and track their progress. It’s amazing! We’ve seen a
huge change in where they started and where they are now.”
Parents who attended the focus groups spoke positively about the effects of AVID program,
addressing the program’s impact on their children. One parent reflected, “AVID has helped my son
out a lot, helping him to be more organized and to be prepared for later on in life. AVID prepares
students for the cruel, cruel world yet to come.” Another parent expressed, “AVID enhances life
skills, time-management, priorities, and builds their confidence and self-esteem when they’re
presenting their senior projects. It’s bringing students out of their cocoons.” Parents spoke about
43
THE
BERC
GROUP
AVID’s effect on their students’ academic aspirations in particular. “ I think [AVID] gets them really
thinking about academics. I just think it’s really great they bring college into their minds at such an
early age,” stated one parent. Another caregiver shared, “Students talk among themselves, saying,
‘I’m going to college.’ That speaks louder than anything else; it’s powerful when kids talk about
goals, dream big.” Another parent summed up their child’s experience, reporting, “AVID has
pushed my son to be a better student, to want and expect more from himself.”
Weaknesses of the AVID Program
While stakeholders identified a variety of barriers and challenges related to implementing the AVID
program, when speaking about the program itself, most feedback was positive. However, a few
weaknesses were reported. Some students found the program expectations a challenge and felt
pressure to keep their AVID grade up to maintain their overall GPA. Parents also noted the added
stress if their child was struggling in AVID. As one parent stated, “It can be overwhelming to think
[AVID students] can get kicked out if their grade drops.” One AVID instructor explained, “They
have to do more work, be more organized, and take harder classes. Coming in from middle school,
where there is no expectation regarding attendance and grades can be difficult.” Parents
additionally stated they would like to see a continuation of assistance as their children transition to
college, and wanted AVID students to receive more recognition for their work. They also
requested that more information on AVID be provided to parents and the general student
population. One parent asked, “How are they selected to be in AVID? What’s the process?” and
another admitted, “I don’t even know who the teacher is.” Other common critiques for the
program among AVID coordinators and superintendents include the lack of information on how to
implement AVID in a rural community and few opportunities for training in their district during
the school year.
Strengths of the Navigation 101 Program
Throughout focus groups, a few strengths of the Navigation 101 program were present throughout
most schools. SLCs continue to be effective and well received. SLCs help to develop relationships,
as does the advisory program itself. It was also a theme in focus groups that the guidance provided
by the program has a positive effect on students’ plans for the future.
SLCs. By far, the most positive and consistent feedback about Navigation 101 throughout focus
groups was regarding SLCs. Nearly all focus group respondents felt they were worthwhile,
encouraged parental involvement, highlighted student success, and helped to build confidence in
students. An administrator, when asked about the strengths of the program, said, “The SLCs are
huge. That’s number one for student buy-in. It also opens the parents up to seeing their child in a
different way.” Researchers found that, in schools successfully implementing SLCs, there is more
parent involvement and buy-in from students in setting goals and being engaged in those goals. One
advisor explained:
The students really reflect on their work. They get that we are all there to explain to their
parents how they are doing and what their goals are. They are being trained to understand
that the onus is on them.
THE
BERC
GROUP
44
Staff, students, and parents alike all reported enjoying the process of the SLCs. One teacher said, “I
think the best part is watching the kids during conferences. They [the students] really like it because
it’s positive; they show what they have done that is good.” For the most part, students in focus
groups gave positive feedback and shared that they liked showing their work. Many students
pointed out that while they themselves have active communication with their parents about their
schoolwork regardless, they saw how it could help a family that did not discuss school on a regular
basis. The SLCs are one of the biggest factors in terms of buy-in with the students, “They [the
students] see the value in it. It’s about them,” said one staff member.
Relationships. When asked about the goal of Navigation 101, one staff member said, “[The] main
goal of Nav is building relationships.” The program is successfully helping to provide students with
a relationship with someone at the school invested in their future. It was a theme in focus groups
with teachers, administration, and district representatives that this aspect of Navigation 101 is a
primary goal. One district representative said, “Our goal is for students to have an adult
relationship with someone that they can count on who will help mentor them to make decisions to
become career and college ready.” By establishing a relationship with an advisor, students are more
able to consider different options for their future. As one administrator said, “Statistics say if
students can establish relationships with faculty, they’re more adept to go on to extend education.”
Staff members frequently described the program as providing the student with an advocate. One
staff member described, “Although we have two counselors, the Nav 101 program is the
intermediary that advocates for the right classes and a college-career path.” The existence of
Navigation 101 and the relationships it forms create a space for students to stretch themselves to
consider things that they might not have otherwise. One advisor commented, “The kids don’t really
want to think about their future. But they are learning about things they probably wouldn’t have
experienced in school or at home. They know their future can be anything they want.”
The relationship with an advisor provides students with someone who knows them personally. As
one advisor explained, “I know where they’re at, what they need to do. I stay with them for four
years so they’re on track for all four years.” An administrator described the personal support that
students can receive from their advisor as well, saying, “The student-advisor relationship helps
encourage students to speak about their problems. They have a hand for help if they need it.”
Future Plans. Many staff members in focus groups agreed one of Navigation 101’s strengths was
its focus on helping students consider their future choices. OSPI describes Navigation 101 as a
“program that helps students make clear, careful, and creative choices for college and career
readiness.” (OSPI, 2013a).Researchers found the Navigation 101 program provides schools with
structures to provide guidance about future decisions and next steps after high school. Counselors
and administrators alike agreed the program facilitated a larger amount of information about career
and college choices reaching more students than they would otherwise receive. One site
coordinator said, “The amount of resources in our community is so limited that this may be only
source of education for college information.” Researchers observed the program to be having a
positive impact on the culture of the school, contributing to both the ideal and the structure of
students to having a post-secondary plan.
45
THE
BERC
GROUP
Weaknesses of the Navigation 101 Program
Researchers found the weaknesses of the Navigation 101 program to be generally consistent with
previous findings. The curriculum continues to be an issue. Focus group participants reported that
the curriculum was dry, hard to navigate, and mismatched to the needs of students. Additionally,
the structures necessary to implement several of the elements, such as student-driven scheduling
and data collection, are lacking at many schools, due to their capacity to provide the necessary
support. Perhaps related to this lack of resource to implement all aspects of the program, students
and parents both mentioned the need for increased assistance with practical aspects of postsecondary planning, such as college and job applications.
Curriculum. The most predominant weakness of Navigation 101 reported was the curriculum.
Many staff members found the lessons repetitive, impersonal, and lacking in interactive teaching
methods. One teacher said, “The students have done the same assignment three times already by
eighth grade.” The fact that the curriculum is repetitive is not necessarily preventing Navigation
101 from achieving its goal, however. As one student said, “It’s kind of the same stuff from year to
year, but it got me thinking about college and financial aid.”
Researchers found that teachers generally agreed that the curriculum was not tailored towards
interactive learning, and that the use of paper-based lessons was not ideal. “We need to get rid of
the worksheets. We know that’s not how kids learn,” one staff member said. When asked directly
about how to improve the curriculum, one advisor suggested:
I think we need to cut down on the busy work. We need to get down to what is important
to keep and focus on that. We need to focus on what you want them [the students] to take
away from the program.
Similar to the comments about the repetitive nature of the lessons, teachers, students, and parents
all commented that the program was not focused on differences between individual students. One
teacher said, “Nav could be more personalized. Kids can have their own voice. The more we can
personalize it, the more ownership students will have. Our goal is to incorporate that.” Parents also
expressed frustration about the lack of individualization at SLCs:
The portfolio when they talked about what they learned, it was very scripted, they had to
stay in between the lines… you can’t give the same speech to the same 25 kids and expect
the same thing. It’s the same script, the same structure of portfolio. There’s no room for
them to change it to fit their own needs or own path.
Another concern regarding the curriculum was that it was too advanced for students. One teacher
described it as “over their heads.” A student shared similar concerns about the age-appropriateness
of the curriculum, saying, “I’m only in eighth grade, so I don’t know what I want to do. They don’t
have to put so much pressure on us to make quick decisions about it.” However, one teacher shared
a different perspective:
THE
BERC
GROUP
46
I think, before the program, they [the students] didn’t look that far ahead. Before, sixth
graders wouldn’t look into what they want to do in the future. They get exposed so much
earlier. It’s huge. When I was in sixth grade, I wasn’t thinking about what college I wanted
to go to.
Teachers in focus groups said the career component of the curriculum was weaker than the college
component. Several staff members shared that they thought there is a lack of curriculum for their
“work” strand. However, some schools had accessed the new career pieces provided by OSPI and
found them to help bridge this gap. One staff member said, “I think in a lot of ways the focus on
career has been the biggest change and the biggest success.” One school has now split their
advisories into four strands in 11th grade, including two-year college, four-year college, career, and
military. Staff members reported that allowing teachers to focus on relevant content was helping to
focus the advisories and provide stronger curriculum, but some did raise concern that this also
pigeonholes students into a certain track.
Organization and Structure. Most schools are experiencing a lack of uptake in student-informed
scheduling and data collection. The understanding of who has ultimate responsibility for these is
often unclear. At one school, when asked whether the Navigation 101 advisory program supported
student-driven scheduling, the district Navigation 101 coordinator said, “Hopefully their counselor
is talking to them about what they need.” When asked whether the school looked at data, one
administrator said, “We do a little bit. With the time constraint, it is hard.”
In terms of structural support, the organization required is lacking in many schools. The element of
student-driven scheduling requires coordination and resources that many schools are not providing.
This element is often not present prior to the implementation of the program. Smaller schools tend
to face challenges in terms of their ability to offer higher-level and gatekeeper courses. Larger
schools struggle with the amount of organization required to develop a coordinated master
schedule. Although schools are coming up with different strategies, they most often involve
students registering electronically for their classes for the next year at the end of their Spring SLC.
At other schools, they are still trying to learn how to build a master schedule that accommodates
the needs of all their students. At one school, students get to put in a request for certain classes and
that determines how many of each subject they offer. At another, a staff member said, “We have
updated our offerings based on student request. This year we are really involved in getting those
numbers ahead of time as far as what students are going to want to take.”
Data collection is another element that requires structural support. One staff member said, “In
order to do more data analysis, a system needs to be put in place to collect and analyze it and
determine specific purpose.” A common thread in focus groups was that there was a lack of
available data or training around how to use it. Many focus group participants also mentioned that
any data relating to Navigation 101 was competing with many other data collection requirements
with all of the expectations of schools to be evaluating and tracking student test scores.
College and Career Applications. Students in many different focus groups were frustrated that
their advisor was not able to provide them with the information that they needed to pursue their
goals. One student said, “The advisors really frustrate me because they don’t have the answers
47
THE
BERC
GROUP
about the things I need.” Lack of time or perhaps a lack of knowledge is preventing advisors from
providing students with the concrete assistance that the Navigation 101 program should provide.
When asked about their next steps one student said, “I’d have to figure out how to do it [apply and
get scholarships] myself so I’m not going to college.” Some students felt that the reason for this was
a combination between the advisors being uniformed and a lack of buy-in on the part of the teacher.
One said, “I feel like they should educate the teacher about what the purpose is of the class,
sometimes they resent the class as much as the students.” At several schools, researchers observed
disconnect between counselors and Navigation 101 coordinators in terms of ultimate responsibility
for helping students with college applications and financial aid. The students wanted more of that to
occur in their advisory and counselors freely admitted that they could not get to everyone.
However, it was a persistent complaint from the students that they were not receiving this
assistance from their advisory, often leading to students in the middle, who might not pursue the
help of their counselor as vigorously, being left out.
Evaluation Question #5: What is the impact of technical assistance?
Support provided to AVID schools
AVID grant funding ranges from $12,000 to $35,000 per year and is almost exclusively used to
cover AVID membership and professional development fees. Specific grant amounts vary based on
the degree to which a district is currently implementing AVID. For example, some districts have
AVID in middle school, but not in high school. In one such district, College Spark funding is used
to implement AVID in the high school, and funding will be contingent on the district maintaining
its current middle school AVID program. Other districts are implementing new AVID programs in
both middle and high schools, or expanding AVID sections at schools that already have a limited
number of AVID electives, which comes at a lower cost. Grants to these districts will be contingent
upon the district maintaining the current AVID program and including the existing AVID program
in the initiative evaluation.
One of the key program elements of AVID is professional development for educators. The
opportunities for professional development include but are not limited to (AVID, 2011b):



Summer Institute is an intensive, multi-day program that trains AVID elective teachers,
content area teachers, counselors, and administrators in how to implement AVID and
apply methodologies in content areas and with specific populations. The school site team
also works to develop annual strategic AVID implementation plans and to build leadership
capacity, as well as to set quantifiable goals for school improvement based on school data.
AVID Path Training focuses on how to use AVID WICR strategies school-wide and in
content areas, including improving the college readiness of English Language Learners and
on culturally relevant teaching. This training can be contracted for a specific school or
district and is also offered by AVID on a regular schedule in cities throughout the country.
Data Analysis Training focuses on the interpretation and use of data to inform
instruction and program improvement practices and to shape school culture.
THE
BERC
GROUP
48



AVID National Conference includes dialogue, presentations, and sessions from
practitioners currently engaged in college and career-readiness efforts.
Web-based seminars and online training offered as part of membership providing
information and resources on AVID principles and implementation.
Regular site team meetings reinforce AVID training and develop the team’s learning
community.
In addition, AVID supports educators by providing specific leadership training for district-level
leaders, college readiness administrators, and principals, as well as hosting the AVID National
Conference which helps educators create a plan to close the achievement gap.
Role of the Grant, Professional Development Opportunities, and Perceptions of AVID
Technical Support. Many educators report positive experiences with training opportunities
provided by grant funds. “Building leadership really makes a difference. The principal went to
summer institute, came back, and was a proponent. This year, he’s really supported AVID
strategies, and helped to get AVID strategies into every classroom,” explained one AVID
coordinator. Another coordinator shared, “Summer institutes are really powerful and strong, and
everybody who has come back from that is usually a strong supporter [who] comes back and
implements the strategies in their classroom.” In regards to the professional development provided
by College Spark, one administrator commented, “I really appreciated the time for collaboration
and clarity.” Staff members at many schools report the benefits of going to trainings to learn
strategies such as Cornell notes, philosophical chairs, inquiry process, tutorials, and binder checks.
“The principal is doing learning walks and in the learning walks he wanted to look just for Cornell
notes. One of the things that I suggested to him is that AVID is about more than Cornell notes, so I
suggested he look at the WICR strategies,” one coordinator commented.
With such beneficial experiences on account of the grant, staff members worry about the effects on
the program as funds disappear. Some schools do not receive support from their district for AVID
and are dependent on grant money. “[The] district has never supported AVID, so it is fully funded
by other grants,” stated one teacher, “The intention was that, as grants tapered away, the district
would come on board.” Furthermore, at many schools, the expense of traveling across the state and
beyond to attend trainings would be cost prohibitive without grant funds, and will become more
difficult as increasing budget cuts meet with dwindling grant money. This issue is exacerbated in
schools with high teacher turnover because resources are spent on training teachers who do not
stay, and there is not a quick and easy way of bringing new teachers up to speed. At one school,
administration encountered difficulty in bringing an AVID trainer to the school to avoid traveling
costs. In short, most educators are very satisfied with the level of support they receive from AVID
and are concerned about the impact it will have if taken away. “The big question that keeps coming
up is we have two more years on our College Sparks grant,” remarked one coordinator, “If there
are no more funds how will we sustain AVID?”
49
THE
BERC
GROUP
Support provided to Navigation 101 schools
The following section addresses Navigation 101 schools who receive College Spark funding.
OSPI . Researchers found that the support provided by OSPI was often one of the most positive
aspects revealed during a school visit. When asked about any weakness in support, a district
coordinator said, “About the time I think there’s a weakness I feel they [OSPI] realize and plug that
hole.” The majority of school representatives interviewed that the support they received from OSPI
was valuable and reliable. One participant said, “They come here, they know us, they’ve been
really supportive, and not one penny comes out of our grant for support, any training you need
they’ll be right there.”
Envictus. Access to curriculum from OSPI and Envictus was the primary resource used by the
schools. Teachers were generally unaware of any other support provided from Envictus, but
administrators identified them as a resource, referencing frequent emails and phone calls as well as
site visits. At one school, the district personnel said, “Evictus is a great network of support and can
be used to trade ideas.” Another focus group respondent spoke highly of the support received from
both Envictus and OSPI, saying,
I think the people at the high end of the Nav food chain – Envictus, OSPI – truly believe in
the value of the program. So, if I have ideas about what I’d like to put something in the
grant, ideas about what I’d like to do, they not only believe in the program, they truly
support it all the way up to the state level.
Trainings. Many school coordinators, counselors, and administrators reported that they felt
supported by webinars from Envictus and regional meetings through OSPI. At regional meetings,
improvements revolving around certain aspects of the program were addressed. Regarding the
regional meetings, school personnel reported the most valuable part of the regional trainings was
the opportunity to discuss and share best practice with one another. Speaking about one of the
regional meetings, a staff member said, “I’ve appreciated that they’ve supported the uniqueness of
the schools, rather than making everything look the same. I like how they bring in other schools to
talk about what they have been doing. That’s positive feedback for us. That’s awesome.” However,
a staff member at a different school felt that they no longer needed the support and it should go
more exclusively to schools at which the program was new, “We have been doing it for so long, it
has become a machine. It’s an expectation now. I think the support [training] should be centered
more around upstart schools.”
Grant funding . The monetary support from College Spark played a role in the success of the
program at schools, one coordinator said:
I think the grant is very pertinent to the program running successfully. They [the teachers]
will come to me and tell me we need supplies. I have made it a priority to make sure the
students have everything they need and for teachers to feel successful with it.
THE
BERC
GROUP
50
Several schools reported that additional resources were what allowed committees to meet,
provided money for substitutes, and subsidized aspects of the program that without the grant would
not be possible. An administrator stated, “With the grant, we have additional resources to meet on
a regular basis. There is a, [Advisory] committee group. There’s time to get lessons organized and
published out to [advisory] teachers.” School representatives said that some aspects of Navigation
101 would be able to continue without the funding provided by the grants because they had already
established the program and would continue to have access to the curriculum from OSPI.
However, the monetary support definitely helped the program to succeed. Results from the
implementation survey, presented at the start of this report, support this finding; in Year 4, 79% of
grantees believe they can sustain Navigation 101 after grant funding ends, whereas 63% believed it
was sustainable in Year 1.
EVIDENCE OF IMPACT
To assess evidence of impact, researchers analyzed transcripts; student assessment results;
graduation rates; College Bound application rates; college attendance, persistence, and graduation
data, pre-college course taking patterns; student and staff surveys, and student-led conference
attendance and perception data. Where available, researchers compared outcomes from the
grantees to a Comparison Group with similar demographics. Please note that in many areas, the
assessments changed (e.g. WASL to MSP/HSPE) or the college admission requirements changed
(e.g. Washington Student Achievement Council (WSAC) requirements). These changes must be
taking into consideration while analyzing the data. This information is presented below.
Evaluation Question #6: To what extent did course-taking patterns change over time?
To assess changes in course-taking patterns, researchers collected transcripts for all graduating
students in the 2008 through 2013 school years from all high schools, along with course catalogs
describing the schools’ classes. A trained team of researchers, college admissions specialists, and
school counselors analyzed a sample of transcripts each year (n = 1500 to 1884) to determine if the
courses taken met the Washington State four-year college and university admission standards
identified by the Washington Student Achievement Council (WSAC).
Although there was some variation among colleges, the general requirements include:






4 years of English, which must include three years of literature
3 years of mathematics, which must include an introduction to trigonometry
3 years of social studies
2 years of science, which must include at least one year of laboratory science (20082009). In 2010, requirements increased to include one algebra-based science (biology,
chemistry, or physics) in addition to a second laboratory science.
2 years of foreign language
1 year of fine arts (required by some colleges)
51
THE
BERC
GROUP
The percentage of AVID CRI and Navigation 101 CRI graduates meeting WSAC requirements
increased from 2008 to 2009, decreased in 2010, and then have increased substantially in 2013 (see
Figure 28). The decrease between the graduating classes of 2009 and 2010 likely occurred because
WSAC minimum requirements increased in the area of science. In 2013, both the AVID CRI and
Navigation 101 CRI schools had greater than 50% of students meeting minimum WSAC
requirements. However, these results still show that many students graduating from these schools
cannot be admitted to college because of course deficiencies. It also shows that the graduation
requirements at these schools, while meeting the state’s minimum requirements for a high school
diploma, are not aligned with colleges’ admission expectations. In addition, it appears schools did
not make the necessarily advising adjustments when requirements changed, suggesting a need for
preplanning when requirements are changing.
Researchers analyzed college eligibility results for Navigation 101 CRI schools and for AVID CRI
schools for six school years: 2008 through 2013. Researchers performed a mixed between-within
subjects ANOVA to analyze this data. The between subjects variable for this analysis is treatment
group (NAV 101 versus AVID) and the within subjects variable is year (2008, 2009, 2010, 2011,
2012, 2013). This analysis allows researchers to determine if significant differences exist between
treatment groups, between the years, and whether the change in college eligibility results over the
years is different between the two groups. The ANOVA results revealed a statistically significant
difference for year (F = 6.19, p < .01), but no significant difference was found between the groups
or between the groups over time. Follow-up tests showed that the 2008 rate was significantly
lower than 2009, 2012, and 2013 rates. Additionally, the 2009 rate was significantly higher than
the 2010 rate. Finally, the 2013 rate was significantly higher than the rates for all other years except
for 2009.
THE
BERC
GROUP
52
% of Graduates Meeting High School Course Requirements
for Admission to a Washington 4-Year College
AVID CRI Schools
Navigation 101 CRI Schools
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
52.1%
46.7%
38.0%
37.8%
40.2%
40.4%
36.0%
36.1%
2010
2011
43.5%
43.5%
51.4%
39.1%
20%
10%
0%
2008
2009
2012
2013
Figure 28. Percent of 2008 through 2011 CRI Graduates Meeting High School Course
Requirements for Admissions to a Washington Four-Year College
The data also show that a lower percentage of males than females met the course requirements for
admission to college for all for the AVID CRI and Navigation 101 CRI schools (see Figures 29 and
30).1 Asian and White students typically met college eligibility requirements at a greater rate than
African American, Hispanic, and Native American students (see Figures 31 and 32). Finally,
students at both the AVID CRI and the Navigation 101 CRI high schools who failed to meet college
admission requirements were most likely to lack the advanced math and/or foreign language
requisites (see Figures 33 and 34). However, there has been an increase in the percentage of
students meeting math requirements over time. Figure 34 also shows the large decrease in the
percentage of students meeting science requirements from 2009 to 2010. However, this has since
returned to rates prior to the requirement change.
1
Several schools did not provide gender and ethnicity data in 2010 and 2011. The data for these years may not be
accurate.
53
THE
BERC
GROUP
AVID CRI: % of Males and Females Meeting High School
Course Requirements for Admission to a 4-Year College
Males
Females
100%
90%
80%
70%
61%
54%
60%
50%
53%
44%
39%
40%
30%
36%
38%
45%
40%
36%
30%
20%
35%
10%
0%
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Figure 29. AVID CRI Percent of Males and Females Meeting Four-Year College
Course Requirements
Nav 101 CRI: % of Males and Females Meeting High School
Course Requirements for Admission to a 4-Year College
Males
Females
100%
90%
80%
70%
50%
48%
42%
41%
40%
30%
58%
54%
60%
42%
46%
45%
38%
32%
20%
37%
32%
10%
0%
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Figure 30. Navigation 101 CRI Percent of Males and Females Meeting Four-Year
College Course Requirements
THE
BERC
GROUP
54
AVID CRI: % of Ethnic Groups Meeting High School Course
Requirements for Admission to a 4-Year College
African American
Hispanic
White
100%
Asian American
Native American/Alaskan Native
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Figure 31. AVID CRI Percent Meeting Four-Year College Course Requirements by
Ethnicity
NAV 101 CRI: % of Ethnic Groups Meeting High School
Course Requirements for Admission to a 4-Year College
African American
Hispanic
White
100%
Asian American
Native American/Alaskan Native
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Figure 32. Nav 101 CRI Percent Meeting Four-Year College Course Requirements by
Ethnicity
55
THE
BERC
GROUP
AVID CRI: Course Taking Patterns of Students NOT Meeting
High School Course Requirements for Admission to a 4-Year
College
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Met # of
English
Credits
Met Both # of Met Both # of
Math Credits
Science
and Passed Credits and
Advanced
Passed Lab
Math
Course
Met # of
Foreign
Language
Credits
Met # of Met Fine Arts
Social Studies
Credit
Credits
Figure 33. AVID CRI Course Taking Patterns of Students NOT Meeting Four-Year
College Eligibility Requirements
Navigation 101 CRI: Course Taking Patterns of Students NOT
Meeting High School Course Requirements for Admission to a
4-Year College
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2008
2009
2010
2011
Met # of
Met Both # of Met Both # of
English Credits Math Credits
Science
and Passed
Credits and
Advanced
Passed Lab
Math
Course
2012
Met # of
Foreign
Language
Credits
2013
Met # of
Met Fine Arts
Social Studies
Credit
Credits
Figure 34. Navigation 101 CRI Course Taking Patterns of Students NOT Meeting FourYear College Eligibility Requirements
THE
BERC
GROUP
56
Table 8 shows an analysis of students’ participation in a number of Gatekeeper courses in math and
science for AVID CRI and Navigation 101 CRI Schools. Overall, the results show mild fluctuations
year by year. However, there are some interesting patterns. Within the AVID CRI schools, the
percentage of students taking algebra in middle school, advanced math in high school, and
Chemistry has increased by 14.1 percentage points, 16.0 percentage points, and 15.1 percentage
points, respectively. Within the Navigation 101 CRI schools, there has been an increase in students
taking math and science. The percentage of students taking algebra or beyond in middle school
increased by 4.8 percentage points, taking advanced math increased by 14.2 percentage points,
taking Chemistry increased by 25 percentage points, and taking Physics increased by 6.8 percentage
points. The gains are substantial. It is notable that the 2013 graduates are the first Cohort of
students who have been in the high school all four years of the grant.
Table 8.
Analysis of Gatekeeper Courses
Course
2008
AVID CRI Schools
Took Algebra or
18.0%
Higher in MS
Took Advanced Math
61.0%
in HS
Took Chemistry in HS
44.9%
Took Physics in HS
23.8%
Navigation CRI Schools
Took Algebra or
22.1%
Higher in MS
Took Advanced Math
60.7%
in HS
Took Chemistry in HS
32.8%
Took Physics in HS
10.8%
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
19.7%
24.2%
26.0%
27.1%
32.1%
66.4%
66.6%
64.2%
68.1%
77.0%
41.9%
22.1%
52.9%
20.7%
52.2%
21.2%
45.8%
27.4%
60%
22.1%
24.1%
20.3%
20.5%
19.8%
26.9%
68.0%
63.5%
63.3%
61.9%
74.9%
36.9%
10.7%
40.8%
13.4%
44.5%
17.0%
40.6%
20.2%
57.8%
17.6%
Figure 35 details the mean grade point average (GPA) of high school graduates from the AVID CRI
and Navigation 101 CRI schools. Overall, there is very little difference between the two groups
and very little difference over time.
57
THE
BERC
GROUP
% of Graduates Meeting High School Course Requirements
for Admission to a Washington 4-Year College
AVID CRI Schools
Navigation 101 CRI Schools
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.80
2.84
2.81
2.79
2.79
2.83
2.5
2.73
2.74
2.68
2.66
2.62
2.69
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
Figure 35. Mean GPA of High School Graduates
We also wanted to assess course-taking patterns of graduating students who completed at least one
AVID course during their high school career. Table 9 shows the total number of students who
completed an AVID as well as the percentage of met all WSAC requirements. Since 2008, the
number of students who took at AVID class and the percentage of those students who met all
requirements have increased substantially.
Table 9.
Number of Students Completing an AVID Class and Percentage Meeting WSAC
Requirements
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Number of Students Taking
an AVID Class
% Meeting College
Eligibility Requirements
2013
16
70
94
162
301
367
25.0%
54.3%
35.1%
41.4%
40.2%
54.8%
Finally, we wanted to assess the enrollment levels and number of students participating in dual
enrollment classes. OSPI only reports the number of enrollments and number of students enrolled
rather than percentages, and therefore the differences between the AVID and Navigation 101
schools cannot be interpreted due to the differences in the number of schools participating in the
initiative and enrollments. In addition, increases in 2010-2012 to 2011-2012 should be interpreted
cautiously, as OSPI did not report enrollments in the International Baccalaureate program or
THE
BERC
GROUP
58
Cambridge program in 2010-2011. Furthermore, a number of small schools were not included in
the first year of reporting.
Overall, results show that a greater proportion of students take Tech Prep, followed by Advance
Placement dual credit programs compared to other programs (see Table 10). The number of
students taking International Baccalaureate and College in High School should be interpreted
cautiously, as very few schools offer these programs. For example, for College in High School, over
90% of the enrollments are attributed to one high school.
Table 10.
Number of Course Enrollments and Students in Dual Credits
Year
Dual Credit
2010-11
2010-11
2010-11
2010-11
2010-11
2010-11
All Dual Credits
Advanced Placement
International Baccalaureate
Running Start
College in High School
Tech Prep
2011-12
2011-12
2011-12
2011-12
2011-12
2011-12
All Dual Credits
Advanced Placement
International Baccalaureate
Running Start
College in High School
Tech Prep
AVID - CRI
Total Course
Total
Enrollments
Students
14290
6775
5201
2202
Not Reported
2108
512
856
289
7548
4728
17146
4978
1173
2407
952
8444
Navigation 101 - CRI
Total Course
Total
Enrollments
Students
6192
2877
2131
791
Not Reported
754
180
898
324
3297
2128
7111
2058
283
585
332
4942
6438
2463
58
764
929
2688
2956
961
30
184
331
1710
Evaluation Question #7: To what extent did student achievement change over time?
To determine changes in student achievement, researchers analyzed Washington Assessment of
Student Learning (WASL), Measurement of Student Progress (MSP), the High School Proficiency
Exam (HSPE), and End of Course results. In addition, researchers assessed changes in graduation
rates. These results are presented below.
Middle School Achievement. Researchers analyzed middle school achievement scores for reading
and math for Navigation 101 CRI schools and their comparison schools, and AVID CRI schools and
their comparison schools for eight school years from 2006 to 2013. Since multiple grade levels take
the achievement test each year researchers took the average of the scores. Researchers performed a
mixed between-within subjects ANOVA to analyze this data. The between subjects variable for this
analysis is group (treatment versus comparison) and the within subjects variable is year (2006,
2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013). Free and Reduced-Price Meals (FRL) was used as a
covariate in this analysis. This analysis allows researchers to determine if significant differences exist
between groups, between the years, and whether the change in achievement scores over the years
is different between the two groups all while controlling for FRL.
59
THE
BERC
GROUP
The ANOVA results for Navigation 101 versus their comparison group revealed no significant
difference between the two groups in reading or math achievement and no difference between the
two groups in the change in either reading or math achievement over time (see Figures 36 and 37).
The ANOVA results for AVID versus their comparison group revealed a significant difference
between the two groups on math achievement (F = 5.53, p < .05), with the comparison group
outperforming the AVID group, particularly in 2012. No differences existed between the two
groups in the change in either reading or math over time (see Figures 38 and 39).
Achievement - Middle School Reading
Navigation 101 CRI Schools
Comparison Schools
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
School Year
Figure 36. Middle School Reading – Navigation 101 CRI Schools Compared to
Comparison Schools
THE
BERC
GROUP
60
Achievement - Middle School Math
Navigation 101 CRI Schools
Comparison Schools
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
School Year
Figure 37. Middle School Math – Navigation 101 CRI Schools Compared to
Comparison Schools
Achievement - Middle School Reading
AVID CRI Schools
Comparison Schools
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
School Year
Figure 38. Middle School Reading – AVID CRI Schools Compared to Comparison
Schools
61
THE
BERC
GROUP
Achievement - Middle School Math
AVID CRI Schools
Comparison Schools
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
School Year
Figure 39. Middle School Math – AVID CRI Schools Compared to Comparison
Schools
Researchers analyzed middle school achievement scores for reading and math for Navigation 101
CRI schools and for AVID CRI schools for eight school years from 2006 to 2013. Since multiple
grade levels take the achievement test each year researchers took the average of the scores.
Researchers performed a mixed between-within subjects ANOVA to analyze this data. The
between subjects variable for this analysis is treatment group (NAV 101 versus AVID) and the
within subjects variable is year (2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013). Free and
Reduced-Price Meals (FRL) was used as a covariate in this analysis. This analysis allows researchers
to determine if significant differences exist between treatment groups, between the years, and
whether the change in achievement over the years is different between the two groups all while
controlling for FRL. The ANOVA results for AVID versus Navigation 101 revealed no significant
difference between the two groups and no difference between the two groups in the change in
achievement scores over time (see Figures 40 and 41).
THE
BERC
GROUP
62
Achievement - Middle School Reading
AVID CRI Schools
Navigation 101 CRI Schools
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
School Year
Figure 40. Middle School Reading – AVID CRI Schools Compared to Navigation 101
CRI Schools
Achievement - Middle School Math
AVID CRI Schools
Navigation 101 CRI Schools
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
School Year
Figure 41. Middle School Math – AVID CRI Schools Compared to Navigation 101 CRI
Schools
63
THE
BERC
GROUP
High School Achievement. Researchers analyzed high school achievement scores for reading and
math for Navigation 101 CRI schools and their comparison schools, and AVID CRI schools and
their comparison schools for eight school years from 2006 to 2013. Researchers performed a mixed
between-within subjects ANOVA to analyze this data. The between subjects variable for this
analysis is group (treatment versus comparison) and the within subjects variable is year (2006,
2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013). Free and Reduced-Price Meals (FRL) was used as a
covariate in this analysis. This analysis allows researchers to determine if significant differences exist
between groups, between the years, and whether the change in achievement scores over the years
is different between the two groups all while controlling for FRL.
The ANOVA results for Navigation 101 versus their comparison group revealed no significant
difference between the two groups in reading or math achievement and no difference between the
two groups in the change in either reading or math achievement over time (see Figures 42 and 43).
Similarly, the ANOVA results for AVID versus their comparison group revealed no significant
difference between the two groups and no difference between the two groups in the change in
either reading or math over time (see Figures 44 and 45).
Achievement - High School Reading
Navigation 101 CRI Schools
Comparison Schools
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
School Year
Figure 42. High School Reading – Navigation 101 CRI Schools Compared to
Comparison Schools
THE
BERC
GROUP
64
2013
Achievement - High School Math
Navigation 101 CRI Schools
Comparison Schools
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
School Year
Figure 43. High School Math – Navigation 101 CRI Schools Compared to Comparison
Schools
Achievement - High School Reading
AVID CRI Schools
Comparison Schools
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
School Year
Figure 44. High School Reading – AVID CRI Schools Compared to Comparison
Schools
65
THE
BERC
GROUP
Achievement - High School Math
AVID CRI Schools
Comparison Schools
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
School Year
Figure 45. High School Math – AVID CRI Schools Compared to Comparison Schools
Researchers analyzed high school achievement scores for reading and math for Navigation 101 CRI
schools and for AVID CRI schools for eight school years from 2006 to 2013. Researchers
performed a mixed between-within subjects ANOVA to analyze this data. The between subjects
variable for this analysis is treatment group (NAV 101 versus AVID) and the within subjects
variable is year (2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013). Free and Reduced-Price Meals
(FRL) was used as a covariate in this analysis. This analysis allows researchers to determine if
significant differences exist between treatment groups, between the years, and whether the change
in achievement over the years is different between the two groups all while controlling for FRL.
The ANOVA results for AVID versus Navigation 101 revealed no significant difference between the
two groups and no difference between the two groups in the change in achievement scores over
time (see Figures 46 and 47).
THE
BERC
GROUP
66
Achievement - High School Reading
AVID CRI Schools
Navigation 101 CRI Schools
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
School Year
Figure 46. High School Reading – AVID CRI Schools Compared to Navigation 101 CRI
Schools
Achievement - High School Math
AVID CRI Schools
Navigation 101 CRI Schools
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
School Year
Figure 47. High School Math – AVID CRI Schools Compared to Navigation 101 CRI
Schools
67
THE
BERC
GROUP
Graduation Rates. Researchers analyzed graduation rates for Navigation 101 CRI schools and
their comparison schools, and AVID CRI schools and their comparison schools for seven school
years from 2006 to 2012. Researchers performed a mixed between-within subjects ANOVA to
analyze this data. The between subjects variable for this analysis is group (treatment versus
comparison) and the within subjects variable is year (2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012).
Free and Reduced-Price Meals (FRL) was used as a covariate in this analysis. This analysis allows
researchers to determine if significant differences exist between groups, between the years, and
whether the change in graduation rates over the years is different between the two groups all while
controlling for FRL.
The ANOVA results for Navigation 101 versus their comparison group revealed no significant
difference between the two groups and no difference between the two groups in the change in
graduation rates over time. However, as can be seen in Figure 48, the difference between the
Navigation 101 CRI schools and the comparison schools appears substantial. The small sample size
of each of the groups may have limited the ability to find statistically significant results for this
analysis. The ANOVA results for AVID versus their comparison group revealed no significant
difference between the two groups and no difference between the two groups in the change in
graduation rates over time (see Figure 49).
Graduation Rates
Navigation 101 CRI Schools
Comparison Schools
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
School Year
Figure 48. Graduation Rates – Navigation 101 CRI Schools Compared to Comparison
Schools
THE
BERC
GROUP
68
Graduation Rates
AVID CRI Schools
Comparison Schools
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
School Year
Figure 49. Graduation Rates – AVID CRI Schools Compared to Comparison Schools
Researchers analyzed graduation rates for Navigation 101 CRI schools and for AVID CRI schools
for seven school years from 2006 to 2012. Researchers performed a mixed between-within subjects
ANOVA to analyze this data. The between subjects variable for this analysis is treatment group
(NAV 101 versus AVID) and the within subjects variable is year (2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010,
2011, 2012). Free and Reduced-Price Meals (FRL) was used as a covariate in this analysis. This
analysis allows researchers to determine if significant differences exist between treatment groups,
between the years, and whether the change in graduation rates over the years is different between
the two groups all while controlling for FRL. The ANOVA results for AVID versus Navigation 101
revealed no significant difference between the two groups and no difference between the two
groups in the change in graduation rates over time (see Figure 50).
69
THE
BERC
GROUP
Graduation Rates
AVID CRI Schools
Navigation 101 CRI Schools
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
School Year
Figure 50. Graduation Rates for AVID CRI and Navigation 101 CRI Schools
Evaluation Question #8: To what extent did college attendance and persistence change over time?
Researchers assessed this question by analyzing three different sources of data: College Bound
application rates; students’ attendance, persistence, and college graduation rates; and remediation
rates. The data are presented below.
College Bound Scholarship Sign Ups. To determine if there is increased interest in college,
researchers collected information on the number of students signing up for the College Bound
Scholarship from the Washington Student Achievement Council. The results show there has been
an increase in the number of students signing up for the College Bound Scholarship since its
inception in the 2007 – 2008 school year for both the AVID CRI and Navigation 101 CRI grantees
(see Figure 51). The percentage of students signing up for the College Bound Scholarship by
student cohort increased by 21 percentage points for the AVID CRI Schools and by 22 percentage
points for the Navigation 101 CRI Schools.
THE
BERC
GROUP
70
Percent of Middle School Students Who Signed Up for the
College Bound Scholarship
AVID CRI Schools
NAVIGATION 101 CRI Schools
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
46% 47%
50%
36% 38%
40%
30%
25% 25%
35% 36%
35% 37%
24% 25%
20%
10%
0%
07-08 Percent08-09 Percent 09-10 Percent 10-11 Percent 11-12 Percent 12-13 Percent
Complete
Complete
Complete
Complete
Complete
Complete*
Figure 51. Percentage of Middle School Students Who Signed Up for the College
Bound Scholarship
College Attendance, Persistence, and Graduation Rates. The National Student Clearinghouse
(NSC) was established in 1993 by colleges and universities to serve as a national repository for
comprehensive enrollment, degree, and certificate records. Since its beginnings, it has grown to
contain more than 65 million student records from over 2,800 colleges and universities in the
United States. As of 2011, these institutions enrolled approximately 93% of the nation’s college
students.
Researchers obtained college enrollment and persistence data from the National Student
Clearinghouse for students attending AVID CRI or Navigation 101 funded schools and the
comparison schools. Researchers collected information from the graduating classes of 2004, 2005,
2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012. Researchers submitted lists of the names, birth
dates, and year of graduation, among other data, to NSC to be matched with the college reported
enrollments from 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012. We then compiled
and analyzed these yearly enrollment records to determine college enrollment persistence and
college graduation rates.
“College direct” students are defined as high school graduates who attended either a two- or fouryear college any time in the academic year immediately following their high school graduation. The
college direct rates for the high school graduates from AVID CRI and Navigation 101 CRI schools
and the comparison schools for 2004 through 2012 are presented in Figures 52 and 53,
respectively. The percentage of college direct students in the AVID CRI schools and the
71
THE
BERC
GROUP
comparison schools increased from 2004 to 2012 by 2.9 and .3 percentage points, respectively.
The percentage of college direct students in the Navigation 101 CRI schools and the comparison
schools increased from 2004 to 2010 by .9 and .3 percentage points, respectively.
College Direct
AVID Schools
100
Comparison Schools
90
80
70
Percent
60
50.3
50.6
48
48.2
2004
2005
50
40
50.8
51.8
52
50.2
2006
2007
52.9
53.1
53.8
47.3
50.9
53.9
51.8
51.1
49.9
50.6
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
30
20
10
0
High School Graduation Year
Figure 52. AVID-CRI: Percent “College Direct” – 2004-2012
THE
BERC
GROUP
72
College Direct
NAV 101 Schools
100
Comparison Schools
90
80
70
Percent
60
50
40
45.7
44.5
42.8
41.8
44.3
42.1
39.8
41
2004
2005
2006
2007
30
46.8
44.6
44
44.2
44.3
2008
2009
2010
43.7
45.1
41.6
45.3
44.6
20
10
0
2011
2012
High School Graduation Year
Figure 53. Navigation 101-CRI: Percent “College Direct” – 2004-2012
Researchers further analyzed College Directs rates for AVID CRI schools and their comparison
schools and for Navigation 101 CRI schools and their comparison schools for nine school years from
2004 to 2012. Researchers performed a mixed between-within subjects ANOVA to analyze this
data. The between subjects variable for this analysis is group (treatment versus comparison) and the
within subjects variable is year (2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012). This
analysis allows researchers to determine if significant differences exist between groups and between
the years and whether the change in College Direct rates over the years is different between the
two groups. The ANOVA results for AVID versus their comparison group revealed no significant
difference between the two groups and no difference between the two groups in the change in
College Direct rates over time. Similarly, the ANOVA results for Navigation 101 versus their
comparison group revealed no significant difference between the two groups and no difference
between the two groups in the change in College Direct rates over time.
In addition, researchers analyzed College Directs rates for AVID CRI schools and for Navigation
101 CRI schools for nine school years from 2004 to 2012. Researchers performed a mixed
between-within subjects ANOVA to analyze this data. The between subjects variable for this
analysis is treatment group (NAV 101 versus AVID) and the within subjects variable is year (2004,
2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012). Free and Reduced-Price Meals (FRL) was used
as a covariate in this analysis. This analysis allows researchers to determine if significant differences
exist between treatment groups, between the years, and whether the change in College Direct rates
over the years is different between the two groups all while controlling for FRL. These mean
differences appear to be substantial, however, after controlling for FRL the ANOVA results
73
THE
BERC
GROUP
revealed no significant difference between the two groups and no difference between the two
groups in the change in College Direct rates over time. These results should be interpreted
cautiously due to the small sample size of the groups.
The 2004 through 2012 college direct rates disaggregated by gender AVID CRI and Navigation 101
CRI grantees and the comparison schools are presented in Figures 54 through 57. The results
between AVID CRI and the Comparison Schools and Navigation 101 CRI and the Comparison
Schools are remarkably similar. Across all years, more females attended college the year after
graduating from high school compared to males.
College Direct by Gender: Male
AVID Schools
Comparison Schools
100
90
80
70
Percent
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
High School Graduation Year
2010
2011
Figure 54. AVID CRI Grantees Percent “College Direct” for Males – 2004-2012
THE
BERC
GROUP
74
2012
College Direct by Gender: Male
NAV 101 Schools
Comparison Schools
100
90
80
70
Percent
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
High School Graduation Year
2010
2011
2012
Figure 55. Navigation 101 CRI Grantees Percent “College Direct” for Males – 20042012
College Direct by Gender: Female
AVID Schools
Comparison Schools
100
90
80
70
Percent
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
High School Graduation Year
2010
2011
2012
Figure 56. AVID CRI Grantees Percent “College Direct” for Females – 2004-2012
75
THE
BERC
GROUP
College Direct by Gender: Female
NAV 101 Schools
Comparison Schools
100
90
80
70
Percent
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
High School Graduation Year
2010
2011
2012
Figure 57. Navigation 101 CRI Grantees Percent “College Direct” for Females – 20042012
The 2004 through 2012 college direct rates disaggregated by ethnicity for AVID CRI and
Navigation 101 CRI grantees and the comparison schools are presented in Figures 58 through 67.
Similar to the gender results, the results between AVID CRI and the Comparison Schools and
Navigation 101 CRI and the Comparison Schools follow a similar pattern with small fluctuations
year to year. Across all years, fewer Hispanic and Native American/Alaskan Native students enroll
in college the year after graduating from high school compared to other ethnic groups.
THE
BERC
GROUP
76
College Direct by Ethnicity: American Indian/Alaskan Native
AVID Schools
Comparison Schools
100
90
80
70
Percent
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
High School Graduation Year
2010
2011
2012
Figure 58. AVID CRI Percent “College Direct” for American Indian/Alaskan Native –
2004-2012
College Direct by Ethnicity: American Indian/Alaskan Native
NAV 101 Schools
Comparison Schools
100
90
80
70
Percent
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
High School Graduation Year
2010
2011
2012
Figure 59. AVID CRI Percent “College Direct” for American Indian/Alaskan Native –
2004-2012
77
THE
BERC
GROUP
College Direct by Ethnicity: Asian
AVID Schools
Comparison Schools
100
90
80
70
Percent
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
High School Graduation Year
2010
2011
2012
2011
2012
Figure 60. AVID CRI Percent “College Direct” for Asian – 2004-2012
College Direct by Ethnicity: Asian
NAV 101 Schools
Comparison Schools
100
90
80
70
Percent
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
High School Graduation Year
2010
Figure 61. Navigation 101 CRI Percent “College Direct” for Asian – 2004-2012
THE
BERC
GROUP
78
College Direct by Ethnicity: Black
AVID Schools
Comparison Schools
100
90
80
70
Percent
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
High School Graduation Year
2010
2011
2012
2011
2012
Figure 62. AVID CRI Percent “College Direct” for Black – 2004-2012
College Direct by Ethnicity: Black
NAV 101 Schools
Comparison Schools
100
90
80
70
Percent
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
High School Graduation Year
2010
Figure 63. Navigation 101 CRI Percent “College Direct” for Black – 2004-2012
79
THE
BERC
GROUP
College Direct by Ethnicity: Hispanic
AVID Schools
Comparison Schools
100
90
80
70
Percent
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
High School Graduation Year
2010
2011
2012
Figure 64. AVID CRI Percent “College Direct” for Hispanic – 2004-2012
College Direct by Ethnicity: Hispanic
NAV 101 Schools
Comparison Schools
100
90
80
70
Percent
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
High School Graduation Year
2010
2011
2012
Figure 65. Navigation 101 CRI Percent “College Direct” for Hispanic – 2004-2012
THE
BERC
GROUP
80
College Direct by Ethnicity: White
AVID Schools
Comparison Schools
100
90
80
70
Percent
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
High School Graduation Year
2010
2011
2012
2011
2012
Figure 66. AVID CRI Percent “College Direct” for White – 2004-2012
College Direct by Ethnicity: White
NAV 101 Schools
Comparison Schools
100
90
80
70
Percent
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
High School Graduation Year
2010
Figure 67. Navigation 101 CRI Percent “College Direct” for White – 2004-2012
81
THE
BERC
GROUP
Figures 68 through 71 show the percentages of graduates attending two- and four-year colleges the
first year after graduating high school for AVID CRI and Navigation 101 CRI schools and their
Comparison Schools. These data indicate more students attend two-year colleges compared to
four-year colleges. Across most years, slightly more students from the AVID CRI and Navigation
101 CRI schools attended a four-year college compared to students from the Comparison Schools.
However, by 2012 the AVID CRI and Navigation 102 CRI schools had a similar percentage of
students attending four-year colleges as the Comparison Schools.
College Direct by College Type: 2-Year College
AVID Schools
Comparison Schools
100
90
80
70
Percent
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
High School Graduation Year
2010
2011
2012
Figure 68. AVID CRI Percentage of “College Direct” Graduates Attending 2-year
Colleges after Graduating High School – 2004-2012
THE
BERC
GROUP
82
College Direct by College Type: 2-Year College
NAV 101 Schools
Comparison Schools
100
90
80
70
Percent
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
High School Graduation Year
2010
2011
2012
Figure 69. Navigation 101 CRI Percentage of “College Direct” Graduates Attending 2year Colleges after Graduating High School – 2004-2012
College Direct by College Type: 4-Year College
AVID Schools
Comparison Schools
100
90
80
70
Percent
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
High School Graduation Year
2010
2011
2012
Figure 70. AVID CRI Percentage of “College Direct” Graduates Attending 4-year
Colleges after Graduating High School – 2004-2012
83
THE
BERC
GROUP
College Direct by College Type: 4-Year College
NAV 101 Schools
Comparison Schools
100
90
80
70
Percent
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
High School Graduation Year
2010
2011
2012
Figure 71. Navigation 101 CRI Percentage of “College Direct” Graduates Attending 4year Colleges after Graduating High School – 2004-2012
The college persistence rate of college direct students from AVID CRI and Navigation 101 CRI
grantees are presented in Figures 72 and 73. We defined “persisting in college” for college direct
students as being enrolled anytime in a given year following high school graduation or having
received a four-year college degree. Figures 72 and 73 illustrate the percent of 2004, 2005, 2006,
2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011 high school graduates that were college direct and persisting
into a second, third, or fourth year of college for both sets of grantees.2 For 2004 high school
graduates from AVID CRI grantees, approximately 48% were enrolled in college during the 20042005 academic year, the first year after graduation. In the second year after graduation,
approximately 38% of the high school graduates were still enrolled in college. By the ninth year
after graduation, about 25% of the 2004 high school graduates had attended college the first year
after graduating high school and were still enrolled in college or had received their degree. For
2004 high school graduates from Navigation CRI grantees, approximately 43% were enrolled in
college during the 2004-2005 academic year, the first year after graduation. In the second year after
graduation, approximately 35% of the high school graduates were still enrolled in college. By the
fifth year after graduation, about 21% of the 2004 high school graduates had attended college the
first year after graduating high school and were still enrolled in college or had received their
degree. In general, the pattern for all graduates is a dip in college enrollment the first year after
graduating from high school.
2
Our definition of “Persistence” also includes students who had graduated from a four-year college.
THE
BERC
GROUP
84
Once again, persistence rates for the Comparison schools are very similar to persistence rates for
AVID CRI and Navigation 101 CRI grantees. AVID CRI grantees persistence rates decrease by a
mean of 10.5 percentage points from Year 1 to Year 2, and the Comparison Schools decrease by a
mean of 10.2 percentage points from Year 1 to Year 2. Similarly, Navigation 101 CRI grantees
persistence rates decrease by a mean of 9.9 percentage points, while the Comparison Schools
decrease by a mean of 9.7 percentage points.
College Persistence: AVID Schools
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
100
90
80
70
60
Percent
50
40
30
20
10
0
College
Direct
Attended Attended Attended Attended Attended Attended Attended Attended
Y1 and Y2 Y1 and Y3 Y1 and Y4 Y1 and Y5 Y1 and Y6 Y1 and Y7 Y1 and Y8 Y1 and Y9
Figure 72. AVID CRI Percentage of “College Direct” Students Persisting in College
Note. “College Direct”=% of students enrolled first year after graduating high school.
“Attended Y1 and Y2”=% of students attending college first year and have graduated from a four-year college or are
still attending college second year after graduating high school.
85
THE
BERC
GROUP
College Persistence: NAV 101 Schools
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
100
90
80
70
60
Percent
50
40
30
20
10
0
College
Direct
Attended Attended Attended Attended Attended Attended Attended Attended
Y1 and Y2 Y1 and Y3 Y1 and Y4 Y1 and Y5 Y1 and Y6 Y1 and Y7 Y1 and Y8 Y1 and Y9
Figure 73. Navigation 101 CRI Percentage of “College Direct” Students Persisting in
College
Note. “College Direct”=% of students enrolled first year after graduating high school.
“Attended Y1 and Y2”=% of students attending college first year and have graduated from a four-year college or are
still attending college second year after graduating high school.
Figures 74 and 75 shows a theoretical model that depicts the percentage of the students who enter
high school as a freshmen in high school, graduate from high school, and enroll and persist into the
second and fourth years of college for the AVID CRI and Navigation 101 CRI schools. For
example, out of 100 entering freshmen in the AVID CRI schools for the class of 2006,
approximately, 71 graduated from high school, 36 attended college the first year after graduating
from high school, 29 persisted into a second year of college or received a four-year degree, and 24
persisted into a fourth year of college or received a four-year degree. These results are very similar
for the comparison schools as well, in which 72 graduated from high school, 37 attended college
the first year after graduating from high school, 30 persisted into a second year of college or
received a four-year degree, and 23 persisted into a fourth year of college or received a four-year
degree (see Figure 74).
For the Navigation 101 CRI Schools, there are some differences between the Navigation 101 CRI
Schools and the comparison schools. For example, out of 100 entering freshmen in the Navigation
101 CRI schools for the class of 2006, approximately, 71 graduated from high school, 30 attended
college the first year after graduating from high school, 22 persisted into a second year of college
or received a four-year degree, and 17 persisted into a fourth year of college or received a four-year
degree. These results are very similar for the comparison schools as well, in which 48 graduated
THE
BERC
GROUP
86
from high school, 19 attended college the first year after graduating from high school, 14 persisted
into a second year of college or received a four-year degree, and 12 persisted into a fourth year of
college or received a four-year degree. The differences in these results are because of the increased
high school graduation rates at the Navigation 101 CRI Schools (see Figure 75).
AVID CRI: Percent of Entering High School Freshmen Who
Graduate and Attend College
% HS Freshmen
% Graduating from High School
% Attending College
% Persisting into Second Year of College
% Persisting into Fourth Year of College or Receiving a 4-Year Degree
100
90
80
Percent
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
AVID Schools
Comparison Schools
Figure 74. AVID CRI Percentage of High School Freshmen Students Persisting in
College
87
THE
BERC
GROUP
Navigation 101: Percent of Entering High School Freshmen Who
Graduate and Attend College
100
% HS Freshmen
% Graduating from High School
% Attending College
% Persisting into Second Year of College
% Persisting into Fourth Year of College or Receiving a 4-Year Degree
90
80
Percent
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
NAV 101 Schools
Comparison Schools
Figure 75. Navigation 101 CRI Percentage of High School Freshmen Students
Persisting in College
The percentage of students attending college anytime after graduating from high school is depicted
in Figures 76 and 77 for the AVID CRI and Navigation 101 CRI grantees and their Comparison
Schools. Within the AVID CRI grantees’ 2004 graduating class, approximately 63% attended
college at some point after graduating from high school. This is a 15 percentage-point increase from
the college direct rates shown in Figure 52. For Navigation 101 CRI grantees’ 2004 graduating
class, 59% attended college any time after graduating from high school, representing a 14
percentage-point increase from the college direct rates shown in Figure 53. The results for the
Comparison Schools are very similar to the AVID CRI and Navigation 101 CRI grantees.
THE
BERC
GROUP
88
% of Students Attending College Anytime After Graduating High
School
AVID Schools
Comparison Schools
100
90
80
Percent
70
60
50
63.9
65.1
65.4
66.8
67.3
63
63.6
65.3
65.5
66.5
64.5
63.1
56.7
63.1
60.6
54.4
40
51.5
51.3
30
20
10
0
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
High School Graduation Year
2010
2011
2012
Figure 76. AVID CRI Percent of Students Who Attend College Anytime After
Graduating from High School
% of Students Attending College Anytime After Graduating High
School
NAV 101 Schools
Comparison Schools
100
90
80
Percent
70
60.1
60.2
59.4
62.2
60.7
59.9
60
50
59.4
57.9
58.7
58.8
59.7
57.2
56.2
54.3
40
53.3
45.4
48.7
45.7
30
20
10
0
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
High School Graduation Year
2010
2011
2012
Figure 77. Navigation 101 CRI Percent of Students Who Attend College Anytime After
Graduating from High School
89
THE
BERC
GROUP
Tables 11 and 12 shows the two- and four-year college graduation rates for AVID CRI and
Navigation 101 CRI grantees and the comparison schools. This details the percent of students from
the class of 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010 who received a college degree.
Table 11.
Percent of AVID CRI Students Receiving a Two or Four-Year Degree
Graduating Class
Group
% Receiving a Two % Receiving a Four
– Year Degree
– Year Degree
2004
AVID CRI
14.5%
20.7%
Comparison Schools
16.4%
20.5%
2005
AVID CRI
14.9%
20.5%
Comparison Schools
14.5%
19.5%
2006
AVID CRI
12.2%
20.0%
Comparison Schools
13.1%
17.6%
2007
AVID CRI
13.0%
16.4%
Comparison Schools
12.3%
15.6%
2008
AVID CRI
12.8%
13.3%
Comparison Schools
11.5%
13.1%
2009
AVID CRI
10.4%
Comparison Schools
9.5%
2010
AVID CRI
7.8%
Comparison Schools
7.9%
Table 12.
Percent of Navigation 101 CRI Students Receiving a Two or Four-Year Degree
Graduating Class
Group
% Receiving a Two % Receiving a Four
– Year Degree
– Year Degree
2004
Navigation 101 CRI
13.7%
17.5%
Comparison Schools
13.3%
16.8%
2005
Navigation 101 CRI
13.9%
14.2%
Comparison Schools
12.5%
15.8%
2006
Navigation 101 CRI
12.2%
12.6%
Comparison Schools
8.7%
11.7%
2007
Navigation 101 CRI
11.7%
12.4%
Comparison Schools
9.4%
11.2%
2008
Navigation 101 CRI
11.3%
9.3%
Comparison Schools
8.8%
9.5%
2009
Navigation 101 CRI
10.4%
Comparison Schools
7.7%
2010
Navigation 101 CRI
7.0%
Comparison Schools
5.9%
Remediation Rates. Finally, researchers analyzed the percentage of students within AVID CRI and
Navigation 101 CRI schools who took pre-college classes (math, English, math and English, and any
THE
BERC
GROUP
90
pre-college) in college compared to Washington State averages. These data represent students who
attended a technical or two-year community college in Washington State. Students who attended a
four-year college or out-of-state college are not included in these analyses. The calculations for
remediation rates have changed in Washington State. The pre-college math and any pre-college
results represent actual figures for the 2007-2008 to 2009-2010 school years. In 2010-2011, ranges
were provided, and we choose to use the mid-point of those ranges. For small schools, the ranges
were 20 percentage points. The pre-college English definition change substantially making it
impossible to compare previous data. Therefore, we reanalyzed all this data using the new
methodology with the ranges and mid-points. Because of the differences in data and because of the
ranges provided, this data should be interpreted cautiously.
Figure 78 shows the percentage of students taking a pre-college course in college. More students
take pre-college math compared to pre-college English. The pattern of students taking pre-college
courses is similar for both AVID CRI and Navigation 101 CRI grantees compared to Washington
State students. Across all years and subjects, AVID CRI and Navigation 101 CRI students take more
pre-college classes compared to the Washington State mean. This is expected given the differences
in demographics across these groups. However, the gap between AVID CRI and Navigation 101
CRI schools compared to Washington State appears to be closing in math.
Percentage of Students Taking Pre-College Courses
AVID CRI Grantees
Navigation 101 CRI Grantees
Washington State
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
Pre-College Math
Pre-College English
Pre-College Math
and English
Figure 78. Percentage of Students Taking Pre-College Courses
91
THE
BERC
GROUP
2010-2011
2009-2010
2008-2009
2007-2008
2010-2011
2009-2010
2008-2009
2007-2008
2010-2011
2009-2010
2008-2009
2007-2008
2010-2011
2009-2010
2008-2009
2007-2008
0%
Any Pre-College
Course
Evaluation Question #9: To what extent did other quantifiable measures change over time?
In addition to the outcomes listed above, researchers also collected perceptual data through teacher
and student surveys for both the AVID CRI and Navigation 101 CRI grantees. In addition, we
collected data about student-led conference participation rates and perceptions for the Navigation
101 CRI program only. These findings are described below.
Student Perceptual Data. Students in the 7th, 9th, and 11th grades from schools receiving an AVID
CRI or Navigation 101 CRI grant completed a survey in 2010 (n = 7,985), 2011 (n = 7,542), 2012
(8,822) and 2013 (9,580). The survey is organized around ten factors. Figures 79 and 82 show the
school factors: Personalized, Future Focus, and Navigation 101 Beliefs; Figures 80 and 83 show the
satisfaction factors: Sense of Belonging, High Expectations, Satisfaction 1, and Satisfaction 2; and Figures
81 and 84 show the learning factors: Active Inquiry, In-Depth Learning, and Performance Assessment.
Students responded to questions on a five point Likert scale. The results are organized around
factors, and scores of 4.0 or above represent positive response on most factors. The exceptions are
Sense of Belonging and High Expectations in which a score of 3.0 or above is a positive response, and
Satisfaction 1 and Satisfaction 2 in which a score of 2.0 or above is a positive response.
The school, satisfaction, and learning factors for the AVID CRI (see Figures 79 through 81) and the
Navigation 101 CRI (see Figures 82 through 84) schools are shown below. For both programs,
students appear to be satisfied with their school, as these factors (High Expectations, Satisfaction 1,
and Satisfaction 2) are above the cut-off value. However, the school and learning factors are below a
4.0, indicating these are areas of improvement in need of improvement. It is notable that the
Navigation 101 CRI schools have improved on the Navigation 101 Beliefs factor score. In addition,
the Navigation 101 CRI schools have substantially higher results on this factor in comparison to the
statewide Navigation 101 grantees.
Researchers analyzed student survey results for Navigation 101 CRI schools and for AVID CRI
schools for four school years: 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013. Researchers performed a mixed
between-within subjects MANOVA to analyze this data. The between subjects variable for this
analysis is treatment group (NAV 101 versus AVID) and the within subjects variable is year (2010,
2011, 2012, 2013). The dependent variables for this analysis are the 10 different survey factors.
This analysis allows researchers to determine if significant differences exist between treatment
groups, between the years, and whether the change in survey results over the years is different
between the two groups. The MANOVA results revealed no statistically significant differences
between the groups, between the time, or between the groups over time.
THE
BERC
GROUP
92
AVID CRI Student Perspectives Questionnaire:
School Factor Scores
2009 - 2010
2010 - 2011
2011 - 2012
2012 - 2013
5
4.5
3.89
4
3.5
3.29
3.37
3.88
3.85
3.86
3.32
3.28
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Personalized
Future Focus
Figure 79. AVID CRI Student Perspectives Questionnaire: School Factor Scores
AVID CRI Student Perspectives Questionnaire:
Satisfaction Factor Scores
2009 - 2010
4
2010 - 2011
3.5
3
2.75 2.79 2.75 2.75
2.93
3.01 2.97 3.01
2.5
2.28 2.34 2.31 2.33
2.24 2.29 2.26 2.26
Satisfaction 1
Satisfaction 2
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Sense of Belonging
High Expectations
4-Point Scale
3-Point Scale
Figure 80. AVID CRI Student Perspectives Questionnaire: Satisfaction Factor Scores
93
THE
BERC
GROUP
AVID CRI Student Perspectives Questionnaire:
Teaching and Learning Factor Scores
2009 - 2010
5
2010 - 2011
2011 - 2012
2012 - 2013
4.5
4
3.56 3.64 3.55 3.63
3.5
3
2.86
3.19 3.11 3.17
2.86 2.94 2.85 2.90
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Active Inquiry
In-Depth Learning
Performance Assessment
Figure 81. AVID CRI Student Perspectives Questionnaire: Teaching and Learning
Factor Scores
Navigation 101 CRI Student Perspectives Questionnaire:
School Factor Scores
2009 - 2010
2010 - 2011
2011 - 2012
2012 - 2013
5
4.5
3.83 3.87 3.85 3.85
4
3.5
3.25 3.33 3.3 3.36
3.24 3.31 3.33 3.33
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Personalized
Future Focus
Navigation 101 Beliefs
Figure 82. Navigation 101 CRI Student Perspectives Questionnaire: School Factor
Scores
THE
BERC
GROUP
94
Navigation 101 CRI Student Perspectives Questionnaire:
Satisfaction Factor Scores
2009 - 2010
2010 - 2011
2011 - 2012
2012 - 2013
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.953.003.003.01
2.732.782.762.75
2.5
2.252.302.302.33
2.232.262.262.31
Satisfaction 1
Satisfaction 2
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Sense of Belonging
High Expectations
4-Point Scale
3-Point Scale
Figure 83. Navigation 101 CRI Student Perspectives Questionnaire: Satisfaction Factor
Scores
Navigation 101 CRI Student Perspectives Questionnaire:
Teaching and Learning Factor Scores
2009 - 2010
2010 - 2011
2011 - 2012
2012 - 2013
5
4.5
4
3.5
3.52 3.63 3.58 3.64
3.13 3.2 3.15 3.21
2.81 2.91 2.90 2.92
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Active Inquiry
In-Depth Learning
Performance Assessment
Figure 84. Navigation 101 CRI Student Perspectives Questionnaire: Teaching and
Learning Factor Scores
95
THE
BERC
GROUP
The individual items related to these factors reveal some interesting trends and yield more context
to the findings. As shown in Figures 85 and 87, in both the AVID CRI and Navigation 101 CRI
schools, the majority of students plan to attend a two- or four-year college, and they understand
the importance of college. However, fewer students believe their high school has prepared them
for college or that they know the necessary courses required for college. Students report that the
most helpful way they learn about college is through their teachers, followed by parent (see Figures
86 and 88). This pattern of results has been consistent since 2010. However, this pattern differs
from the Navigation 101 statewide grantee schools. In those school parents play a bigger role in
providing students information about college. This suggests that in the CRI schools, teachers
provide students more college information. For additional items, please see Appendix B and C.
AVID CRI Student Perspectives Questionnaire:
College Perceptions
2009 - 2010
2010-2011
2011-2012
2012-2013
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Student plans to
College is
go to college
important for a
successful job
Future career
depends on
college
High school has Student knows
prepared student the high school
for college
courses
necessary for
college
Figure 85. AVID CRI Student Perspectives Questionnaire: College Perceptions
THE
BERC
GROUP
96
AVID CRI Student Perspectives Questionnaire: Learning
About College
100%
2009 - 2010
2010-2011
2011-2012
2012-2013
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Parents or Other
Teachers
School
Friends
Guardians Relatives
Counselors
The
Internet
TV and
Movies
Other
Figure 86. AVID CRI Student Perspectives Questionnaire: Learning About College
Navigation 101 CRI Student Perspectives
Questionnaire: College Perceptions
2009 - 2010
2010-2011
2011-2012
2012-2013
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Student plans to
College is
go to college
important for a
successful job
Future career
depends on
college
High school has Student knows
prepared student the high school
for college
courses
necessary for
college
Figure 87. Navigation 101 CRI Student Perspectives Questionnaire: College
Perceptions
97
THE
BERC
GROUP
Navigation 101 CRI Student Perspectives Questionnaire:
Learning About College
100%
2009 - 2010
2010-2011
2011-2012
2012-2013
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Parents or Other
Teachers
School
Friends
Guardians Relatives
Counselors
The
Internet
TV and
Movies
Other
Figure 88. AVID CRI Student Perspectives Questionnaire: Learning About College
Teacher Perceptual Data. Teachers in 2010 (n = 775), 2011 (n = 1,248), 2012 (n = 1,282), and
2013 (n = 892) from schools receiving an AVID CRI or Navigation 101 CRI grant completed a
survey, which is organized around nine factors: Quality of Education, Partnerships, Standards-Based
Teaching, Personalization, Constructivist Teaching, Environment, Technology, Future Focus, and Navigation
101. Individual survey items were scored on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 2 =
disagree, 3 = neutral/undecided, 4 = agree, and 5 = strongly agree). Researchers consider a “4” or
“5” response on an individual survey item a positive response. Likewise, an overall factor score of
4.0 and above is a positive response.
Results for all AVID CRI (see Figure 89) and Navigation 101 CRI (see Figure 90) grantees
combined show that all scores are below a 4.0, with one exception. For the AVID and Navigation
101 CRI grantees the Technology factor is approaching a 4.0, this indicates a high level of
implementation. All other factors continue to school below 4.0, suggesting that these factors do
not exist to a high degree. For both groups, the results have improved on each factor, with one
exception. For the Navigation 101 CRI schools, the Navigation 101 Beliefs factor decreased
substantially in 2011, but it has since increase to levels that approach baseline results.
Researchers analyzed teacher survey results for Navigation 101 CRI schools and for AVID CRI
schools for four school years: 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013. Researchers performed a mixed
between-within subjects MANOVA to analyze this data. The between subjects variable for this
analysis is treatment group (NAV 101 versus AVID) and the within subjects variable is year (2010,
2011, 2012, 2013). The dependent variables for this analysis are the nine different survey factors.
This analysis allows researchers to determine if significant differences exist between treatment
THE
BERC
GROUP
98
groups, between the years, and whether the change in survey results over the years is different
between the two groups. The MANOVA results revealed no statistically significant difference for
year (F = 1.02, p = NS) or between the groups (F = .48, p = NS) or between the groups over time
(F = .59, p = NS); however, the means for the AVID group were higher than the NAV group for
every factor.
Individual item results provide some context for the findings. See Appendices D and E for all
individual survey items.
AVID CRI
Teacher Perspectives Questionnaire: Factor Scores
Figure 89. AVID CRI Teacher Perspectives Questionnaire: Factor Scores
99
THE
BERC
GROUP
Future Focus
Technology
2012-2013
Environment
Personalization
2011-2012
Constructivist Teaching
2010 - 2011
Standards-Based Teaching
Partnerships
2009 - 2010
Quality of Education
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Navigation 101 CRI
Teacher Perspectives Questionnaire: Factor Scores
Navigation 101 Beliefs
Future Focus
2012-2013
Technology
Environment
Personalization
2011-2012
Constructivist Teaching
2010 - 2011
Standards-Based Teaching
Partnerships
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Quality of Education
2009 - 2010
Figure 90. Navigation 101 Teacher Perspectives Questionnaire: Factor Scores
Student-Led Conference Data. Figure 91 shows the percentage of parents attending conferences
at the Navigation 101 CRI schools since the 2006-2007 school year. Data from 2006-2007 to 20092010 is for traditional and student-led conferences combined. Since the 2010-2011 school year,
Navigation 101 CRI schools have shifted to only having student-led conferences. The results show a
greater percentage of parents are attending student-led conferences in comparison to the traditional
and student-led conference. Results from 2012-2013 are slightly below the 2010-2011 and 20112012 school years.
THE
BERC
GROUP
100
Percentage of Parents Attending Conferences
Traditional and Student-Led Conferences Combined
Student-Led Conferences Only
100%
90%
80%
74%
70%
60%
65%
58%
63%
75%
72%
64%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2006 - 20072007 - 20082008 - 20092009 - 2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013
Figure 91. Percentage of Parents Attending Conferences
Perception data collected during the student-led conferences show the majority of students,
parents, and advisors agree the student-led conference was worthwhile (see Figure 92). Responses
from all three groups increased from the 2009-2010 to 2011-2012 school years. However, in the
2012-2013 school year responses decreased and are similar to baseline results. Despite the
decrease, responses continue to be quite high, and it is apparent that students, parents, and advisors
believe student-led conferences are worthwhile. Detailed below is an analysis of the comments
from students, teachers, and advisors.
Overall, students, parents, and advisors reported that student-led conferences are informative and
benefit students. Many stated that the conferences help students take ownership for their progress
and learning and develop leadership and public speaking skills. A student commented, “I think [the
school] should keep doing conferences because it gives the students responsibility and lets them tell
their parents how they have been doing rather than someone else.” Another student shared, “I think
that it was worthwhile. It felt good to show my own conference. I’m glad that I could show my
mom my learning and grades.” A parent remarked, “It was impressive to hear my daughter talk
about her goals and what she feels she has achieved and what she feels she needs to work on.”
Another shared, “I think this process allows the child to become comfortable speaking to others,
presenting various subjects and setting good fundamental skills of presentation.” An advisor
summarized:
101
THE
BERC
GROUP
I like the fact that they communicate what they have been successful in throughout the
year. Also, they let the parents know that their grades are low in some subjects because
they have not put the effort in to keep a passing grade. It helps put the responsibility on
them and hold the student accountable.
Negative comments tended to focus on the format and logistics of the conferences. In many cases,
parents and students suggested that SLCs are only necessary for students who are struggling
academically. A parent commented, “It seems like student-led conferences for all students is
unnecessary. Maybe they should only be done based on need.” A student stated, “I do not believe
student-led conferences are made for me, only for the students who are failing or need help on
their classes.” In addition, some parents wanted to hear from their child’s core teachers and not
from the advisor or student. One parent stated, “I prefer conferences with my son's teachers to
hear their direct input about what my student is doing well on and what he needs to work on.”
Some advisors found that the structure for the two annual conferences was too similar. One advisor
stated, “We need to distinguish the fall conference from the spring in some significant way. The
conferences seemed a bit redundant.” Other negative comments centered on the scheduling of the
conferences. Parents, students, and advisors requested more flexibility to conduct them after
school hours. One advisor shared, “My [students’] parents work and cannot take time off during the
school day.” Some suggested phone or email conferences as alternative methods. In addition,
several parents and advisors requested more time for each conference stating that there was not
enough time to address questions or concerns. One last negative comment about SLCs from
parents and advisors was regarding availability of the students’ current grades. One parent said, “I
like to review my child’s grades with someone who can help and grades were not available. The
information that was read to me was [what] we talk about at home. I feel like this was unnecessary.”
One advisor said, “Parents don’t get a full picture of what the student is doing. There are no grade
reports and a lot of unanswered questions.”
THE
BERC
GROUP
102
Was the Student-Led Conference Worthwhile?
2010
2011
96% 96%
100%
90%
2012
86% 84%
88% 86%
88%
2013
90%
88%
92%
95%
88%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Students
Parents
Advisors
Figure 92. Percentage of Students, Parents, and Advisors Reporting the Student-Led
Conference was Worthwhile
Attendance
We collected attendance data for the individual schools for the 2009-2010, 2010-2011, and 20112012 school years. Attendance data were collected from records from OSPI to ensure more
consistency across reports. Previously, we reported self-report data, which included various
definitions. This analysis includes only unexcused absence rates.
Table 13 shows the results for the 2010-2011 school year for both AVID CRI and Navigation 101
CRI schools. AVID 101 CRI schools have greater unexcused absence rates compared to Navigation
101 CRI schools. These data will continue to be collected for future years.
Table 13.
Attendance Data
Group
AVID CRI
Navigation 101 CRI
2009-2010
2010-2011
2011-2012
2.72%
1.95%
2.53%
1.92%
3.12%
2.41%
103
THE
BERC
GROUP
Evaluation Question #10: What is the impact of the AVID elective upon students who have
participated in AVID for at least three of the six initiative years?
To answer this question, researchers are tracking students who have been in the AVID elective,
starting with the 7th grade cohort. In some cases, we are looking at different cohorts, and in other
cases, we are analyzing longitudinal data. We have analyzed student surveys, comparing
perceptions of students participating in the AVID elective. In addition, we have analyzed
preliminary transcripts to determine the percentage of students taking Algebra or above by eighth
grade.
Researchers analyzed student surveys for the AVID CRI schools, disaggregating the results by
students who participate in the AVID elective and students who do not (see Figures 93 through 95).
Overall, results are higher for AVID participants. Similar to the program results, both AVID
participants and AVID non-participants rated most satisfaction factors (High Expectations, Satisfaction
1, and Satisfaction 2) above the cut-off values, suggesting they are satisfied with their school. In
addition, AVID participants rated the Future Focus factor above a 4.0, indicating that students
perceive they are being prepared for college and career. This finding is unique to students
participating in the AVID elective.
Researchers utilized a MANOVA to investigate the difference between AVID participants
compared to non-participants on the 2013 student survey data. The dependent variables for this
analysis were the 10 survey factors and the independent variable was group (AVID participant or
non-participant). The results of the overall MANOVA were statistically significant, F = 13.72, p <
.001. Follow-up tests revealed that the groups differed on every survey factor. In all cases, the
factor mean scores for AVID participants were higher than non-participants, indicating that AVID
participants have more positive perceptions regarding their schools than non-participants.
Individual items for AVID students provide more context and are located in Appendix B. The item
results show a greater proportion of AVID students report that they plan to attend college in their
future (86% in 2010 versus 92% in 2013). Furthermore, while 51% wanted to attend a four-year
college in 2010, by 2013, 67% planned to attend a four-year college.
THE
BERC
GROUP
104
AVID CRI Student Perspectives Questionnaire:
School Factor Scores
AVID Participants
5
Non-AVID Participants
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013
Personalized
Future Focus
Figure 93. AVID CRI (Participants and Non-Participants) Student Perspectives
Questionnaire: School Factor Scores
Student Perspectives Questionnaire: Satisfaction Factor
Scores
4
AVID Participants
Non-AVID Participants
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
Sense of Belonging
High Expectations
Satisfaction 1
4-Point Scale
Satisfaction 2
3-Point Scale
Figure 94. AVID CRI (Participants and Non-Participants) Student Perspectives
Questionnaire: Satisfaction Factor Scores
105
THE
BERC
GROUP
2012-2013
2011-2012
2010-2011
2009-2010
2012-2013
2011-2012
2010-2011
2009-2010
2012-2013
2011-2012
2010-2011
2009-2010
2012-2013
2011-2012
2010-2011
2009-2010
0
Student Perspectives Questionnaire: Teaching and Learning
Factor Scores
AVID Participants
5
Non-AVID Participants
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
Active Inquiry
In-Depth Learning
2012-2013
2011-2012
2010-2011
2009-2010
2012-2013
2011-2012
2010-2011
2009-2010
2012-2013
2011-2012
2010-2011
2009-2010
0
Performance Assessment
Figure 95. AVID CRI (Participants and Non-Participants) Student Perspectives
Questionnaire: Teaching and Learning Factor Scores
To understand the differences in course taking patterns among students who take the AVID elective
and students who did not, researchers analyzed middle school transcripts from the seventh grade
cohort in Year 1 (2009-2010) and their eighth grade transcripts in Year 2 (2010-2011). We placed
students in to three groups, including students who did not take an AVID elective, students who
took the elective for one year, and students who took the elective for two years (see Figure 96).
The results show students who took the AVID elective for two years had a greater percentage of
students also enrolling in algebra or above in the eighth grade compared to students who did not
take the AVID elective or students who took only one year.
Researchers have also collected the transcripts from students who were in the ninth grade in Year 3
(2011 and 2012) and who were in the 10th grade in Year 4 (2012-2013), and we will continue to
collect this information to look at the differences in course taking patterns throughout students high
school career. The results will be presented in the Year 6 report, showing the patterns of course
taking for this cohort of students. As presented earlier in the report, students who have graduated
and have taken even one AVID elective did take more rigorous courses compared to other students
within the same schools.
THE
BERC
GROUP
106
Percentage of Students Taking Algebra or Above in Middle School
by Number of Years Taking AVID
Students Taking Algebra or Above in Middle School
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
40.40%
28.50%
20%
12.60%
10%
0%
No AVID Elective
1 Year
2 Years
Figure 90. Percentage of Students Talking Algebra or Above in Middle School by
Number of Years Taking AVID
INTERACTION BETWEEN NAVIGATION 101, AVID, AND OTHER COLLEGE READINESS
PROGRAMS
When asked to discuss the interaction between Navigation 101, AVID, and/or other programs,
focus group participants had diverse views. Some participants saw little or no interaction between
Navigation 101 and other programs. As one staff member said, “I don’t really see much interaction.
I don’t think too many people are that excited about the Navigation program.” A possible
explanation for this lack of interaction is a general lack of knowledge on just how to merge
Navigation 101 with other college-readiness programs. As one participant explained, “The district
has worked with [OSPI] to find out more about how [AVID and Nav 101] could work together and
more cohesively towards the same goal.” Another participant shared similar thoughts, stating, “I
think the only disadvantage there could potentially be is a need for clarity around how [AVID and
Navigation 101] mesh and marry together and how the system that is the AVID site team can work
with the system that is advisory.” Among focus group participants who did perceive an interaction
between Navigation 101, AVID, and other college-readiness programs, some discussed schools
combining AVID strategies with the college and career readiness elements from Navigation 101.
Other staff members discussed using Navigation 101 lesson plans in their AVID classrooms.
Many focus group participants discussed an implicit interaction due to the common goal of
programs such as AVID, Navigation 101, and GEAR UP, which though executed differently, all
share the same objective of preparing students for higher education. As one participant stated,
107
THE
BERC
GROUP
“How AVID and Nav interact is certainly that they have the same outcomes and goals: college and
career readiness, rigorous coursework, taking tests that propel you towards college.” Another staff
member reflected:
I think GEAR UP is a great opportunity for us to see what college is like and Nav helps us
think about it and set goals for it. GEAR UP gives us the hands on and Nav gives us the
mindset to think about it.
Team members at another school explained how they are able to share funding between programs,
which benefits all programs involved. As one coordinator described, “We’ve gotten permission to
cross-fund a little bit and [this] has given us the chance to foster the connection between [AVID and
Nav 101].” Overall, the level of interaction across programs varies. Some schools combine
curriculum from each program or share funding, while others do not. Researchers note that despite
sharing a similar objective, the actual integration of lessons and activities differs.
LESSONS LEARNED
The following vignette displays a school with a high level of implementation and buy-in around the
AVID and Navigation 101 programs. The hypothetical “Birch Lake High School” utilizes many
promising practices based on actual schools with a high level of implementation. The vignette
builds upon the practices identified that lead to even more effective, embedded programs within
the school culture.
Birch Lake High School
Birch Lake High School has been running the AVID program for several years, but is just finishing
its first year of implementing the Navigation 101 program. In the school’s improvement plan, there
are two goals related to college and career readiness. One is to improve the college and career
ready culture at the school, emphasizing the accessibility of college for all students. The second,
added this year, is for all students to graduate with a postsecondary plan that meets their own
unique set of needs. The intent is that the addition of Navigation 101 will fulfill this goal.
At the start of the year, all teachers were required to attend a full day of professional development
devoted to Navigation 101. The goal of the day was not only to train all teachers in the structure
and content of hands-on elements such as advisory, SLCs, and portfolios, but also for teachers to
learn about the importance of the other two elements of Navigation 101: student-informed
scheduling and data collection. One session focused on current college entrance requirements and
how to help students create a four-year plan. The school changed its master schedule to allow for
30-minute advisory periods two times a week. In order to aid in the fidelity of the advisory
program and the curriculum used, a committee of voluntary staff members was created to set up a
pacing guide, distribute weekly lesson plans, and answer questions from teacher-advisors. One of
four monthly PLC meetings was set aside for grade level planning for advisory in order to address
the amount of time required to prep for another class. When surveyed throughout the year,
advisors reported that both the aid of the committee and the PLC time are contributing to
successful buy-in of the program.
THE
BERC
GROUP
108
In addition to focusing on improving the college going culture at the school, staff members at Birch
Lake are also planning for upcoming implementation of the CCSS and recognize the need to
increase academic rigor. The instructional framework for the building includes the use of AVID
strategies, and the school conducts regular professional development sessions, which include them,
as well. All staff members at Birch Lake have attended Summer Institute and administrators are
finding evidence of this during classroom observations. Teachers regularly use strategies such as
Cornell notes, Socratic Seminars, and Philosophical Chairs in classrooms to strengthen teaching and
learning. The school has implemented the AVID program in all four grade levels and has continued
to see an increased participation in the program. There is a successful program at the feeder middle
school, and most AVID students at the middle school continue to participate in high school. AVID
students enjoy the opportunity to get to know their cohort of classmates throughout the years, and
report feeling like a family with their AVID teachers and peers. Tutors from a local college come
for each semester of the school year, and receive college credit for their participation. The school
continues to offer AVID students before or afterschool electives such as art, band, and foreign
language in order to give them the opportunity to explore other interests. The AVID elective is
helping to produce students who are not only eager to go to college, but are also ready to succeed
there.
Successfully shared responsibility and partnership are essential parts of the success of both programs
at Birch Lake. The AVID building coordinator regularly meets with the Navigation 101 building
coordinator to monitor the success of building a college-ready culture in the school. Teachers also
take time during the school year to observe each other’s classrooms, to get new ideas, and to
observe the utilization and effectiveness of AVID strategies. When there are new teachers or
advisors, the school pairs them with veteran advisors for the first year. Birch Lake has found it most
effective to make some changes to the Navigation 101 curriculum in order to make it a better fit for
its student population’s specific needs. Teachers found that student engagement increased when
they focused on using AVID strategies during Navigation 101 lessons. Advisors believe Navigation
101 is important and ensure all students receive the program including students who participate in
the special education and ELL programs. All advisors are accountable for 100% participation from
their students in both SLCs and the creation of a four-year plan.
The “Nav team” at the school, created at the start of the year, meets monthly with other district
teams to discuss strategies and to share supplemental curricular materials. Throughout the year,
staff members found it helpful to share examples of high quality portfolios in their PLCs in order to
create a common standard. The Nav team also attended Nav academies and regional conferences
hosted by Envictus and OSPI at several points during the school year, and staff members reflect that
peer collaboration with other schools has been especially effective. Administration attached onequarter credit per year to the class for the upcoming year in order to enhance student buy-in, after
hearing about the effectiveness of this practice at other schools.
Students at Birch Lake are excited about the college and career awareness programs available at the
school. Data collected from a mid-year survey reported that students believe that both programs
prompt students to talk about the classes they need to take in high school, encourage students to
challenge themselves with the classes they choose to take, and learn about college admission
109
THE
BERC
GROUP
requirements. Parents, when surveyed, also reported that they have learned about the college and
career plans their children are making because of the Navigation 101 program. In addition to
student led conferences, the school-hosted AVID Awareness Evening, Navigation 101 Night,
College Nights, and Career Fairs. The school includes updates regarding Navigation 101 and AVID
in their newsletters, hosts informational meetings to discuss upcoming college application dates,
and invites parents to volunteer as tutors in AVID classes and to present career experiences during
assemblies.
Staff members at Birch Lake are aware of the need for continued professional development,
accommodation for other school priorities, and monitoring of the fidelity of both programs.
Although the college and career readiness components continue to be a part of the school’s
improvement plan, administrators acknowledge that the school is implementing other necessary
changes such as the Common Core State Standards and the new TPEP evaluation system. Both
AVID and Navigation 101 continue to be priorities, as the positive effects of these programs on the
students of Birch Lake are considered, not only beneficial, but necessary to achieving the goals of
the school.
RECOMMENDATIONS
AVID Program Recommendations
During interviews, many stakeholders praised the AVID program, stating that AVID is an effective
vehicle to teach study skill strategies and prepare students for college. Additionally, students and
educators alike find the learning strategies to be integral to student academic success. Beyond the
need to retain consistent volunteers to host valuable tutoring sessions, most of the challenges
surrounding AVID relate to implementation issues and less with programmatic concerns.
Recommendations are similar to the previous report :
School-wide Communication Goals and Purpose of AVID. To address concerns by AVID
stakeholders in rural and urban school communities concerning misconceptions about AVID from
parents and the general school population, we recommend stakeholders brainstorm ways to
communicate the goals, purpose, and strategies of AVID to all members of the school system.
Doing so will increase understanding of the program, which in turn can increase buy in and system
wide support. Some stakeholders have had upperclassmen in AVID visit freshmen classrooms (i.e.
advisory classes) or orientation and introduce AVID to the newcomers, including having a
discussion on the qualifications to join AVID. AVID students have also created and placed
informational posters in the school hallways. At some schools, AVID coordinators and teachers
presented information on AVID at staff meetings and picked an AVID strategy to promote at each
meeting, highlighting the impact such strategies can make on student learning school-wide. Some
AVID teachers also sent emails and letters to parents and caregivers of AVID students with updates
on what students are achieving in AVID classrooms. Parents of students in the general school
population can also receive information about AVID through newsletters or the school’s website.
Taking into account a school’s community and culture, we suggest stakeholders devise other ways
to increase school-wide understanding of the AVID program.
THE
BERC
GROUP
110
Increase Training Opportunities for AVID Staff Members. Providing local professional
development opportunities during the school year could increase teacher confidence and lead to
consistent implementation of AVID strategies. Inadequately trained teachers can result in poorly
implemented strategies and frustrated educators, which can impede on the outcomes of the AVID
program and lead to a lack of conviction in the program itself. OSPI and College Spark could
support local teachers by providing webcasts, meetings among AVID site teams from neighboring
districts, or other means for AVID instructors to learn from each other. Those in rural schools
could benefit from access to training videos or by partnering with nearby districts to develop
training opportunities that are close by if travel is a challenge. Stakeholders could also use training
videos or PowerPoint’s to prepare teachers assigned to an AVID class midyear. These teachers can
also observe other AVID classrooms to learn AVID expectations and strategies that can help them
teach in an effective, unified manner until they are able to attend the AVID-based workshops.
Finally, the entire school staff may benefit from additional professional development on how to
implement AVID strategies in every classroom, which can promote buy-in into the program.
Support of Tutor Recruitment, Retention, and Training Similar to findings last year, one
barrier to successful implementation is the school’s ability to recruit and to retain active and
consistent tutors. While some schools collaborate with local colleges and universities to aid in
recruitment efforts, other schools may rely on community organizations to obtain AVID
volunteers. However, for AVID schools in smaller communities, such resources may not be as
readily available. One possible way for schools in these types of communities to recruit trainers is
to train upper classmen to tutor younger AVID students.
Large school districts may benefit from having a Tutor Coordinator, as they would be responsible
for recruiting and training new tutors for multiple schools within one district. Similarly, smaller
districts could benefit from identifying a regional Volunteer Coordinator who recruits and trains
new tutors for schools in multiple districts to share. Furthermore, creating a database of local and
neighboring tutors can allow school staff members to have an increased pool of volunteers from
which to choose. Finally, increased communication efforts from the school to the community (i.e.:
newsletters, website postings, sporting event announcements) paired with a visitation of AVID
students to various community organizations (including, but not limited to churches, senior
centers, work out facilities, and Clubs) may aid in tutor recruitment.
Since all districts are unable to offer financial compensation to their tutors, retention efforts may
take some creativity. Some ways schools can show appreciation to their volunteers may include
tutor appreciation luncheons, the writing of recommendation letters by AVID teachers, and
student thank you cards. These small, but meaningful acts may help with the retention of tutors.
While researchers were unclear on the level of training tutors currently receive, they noted that
adequately trained, confident tutors who are comfortable with program expectations can help to
make stronger commitments. We recommend for OSPI and College Spark to collaborate with
AVID to increase tutor training opportunities and retention efforts.
Scheduling Sense and Sensitivity Stakeholders continue to mention comments from students
about the downside of having to give up an elective or having to choose between a rigorous core
course and the AVID elective itself. We recommend stakeholders of the program cater to students’
111
THE
BERC
GROUP
“stuck” feeling by conscientiously creating the master schedule and offering supplemental elective
activities. Specifically, schools should ensure the master schedule avoids conflicts between the
AVID elective and any single section courses such as higher-level, AP, or other gatekeeper courses
students need to achieve college-ready status. Some schools have addressed the loss of a fine art or
CTE-type “fun” elective by switching their six period school days to seven or offering after school
versions of these classes so students do not feel they are missing out on these opportunities.
Furthermore, providing transportation to before or after school electives may lessen the burden on
families and provide students with a comprehensive educational experience. By taking away the
feeling of compromise in order to participate in AVID, schools and program supporters can
increase student buy in, which may help promote the longevity of the program and reduce the drop
in AVID students between grade levels.
Navigation 101 Program Recommendations
Fully implemented, all of the elements of Navigation 101 provide a comprehensive foundation to
aid all students in the exploration of postsecondary options and graduate with a focused plan for the
future. This report has addressed barriers and challenges that hinder the success of some of these
elements and researchers recommend that the following issues are a focus for the coming year.
Clarification of student-informed scheduling. Throughout focus groups, staff members said the
implementation of student-driven scheduling was difficult. This element relies on significant
structural change within the school. Researchers found that there was often some misunderstanding
of this element by staff members, that it is merely the involvement of students selecting their own
schedule for the next year, by choosing their classes on a computer in the spring, for instance, or
putting in requests for the fall. However, according to OSPI, student-informed scheduling also
involves schools actively encouraging students to enroll in rigorous classes that are relevant to their
postsecondary plan. These classes include gatekeeper courses such as lab sciences and higher-level
math courses as well as AP and relevant CTE courses. An important aspect of this is for schools to
accommodate the provision of these classes. When asked whether the school was successfully
implementing this element, staff members at several schools included a description of how the
school was trying to develop a wider offering of courses. However, staff members often qualified
this with the observation that the school did not feel it had the resources to provide all of the
courses that their students required. This element is difficult to implement and it might be the case
that schools are doing all they can to include it in the program. Misunderstandings regarding this
element indicate that schools would benefit from further guidance from OSPI.
Support and training around data collection. When asked about data collection, many focus
group participants were unclear about what it was in reference to and were unaware of any data
collection occurring at the school. This was the case even with administration and coordinators,
who should be aware of data collection and its influence on the practice of the program. Research
revealed that staff members at most schools are not aware of actively collecting any sort of data to
track things such as graduation rates, course taking patterns, or college persistence. Most schools
administered feedback forms after SLCs and understood this to be the extent of their data
collection. As each school in this study is provided with a comprehensive report every year
regarding things such as graduation rates, the lack of knowledge regarding this element might just
THE
BERC
GROUP
112
be a miscommunication between district representatives, administration, and/or counselors.
However, the responses were consistent in focus groups that staff did not feel that data collection
was an element implemented as part of the Navigation 101 program. Again, schools would benefit
from further information or clarification from OSPI regarding why this element is important and
how to implement.
Focus on High School and Beyond Plan. OSPI states that one of the goals of Navigation 101 is for
all students to have a four-year plan developed with their future goals in mind and to continually
revise this plan as the student goes through high school depending on shifts in their interests and
plans after high school. This HSBP is a state requirement for graduation. Having a four-year plan for
intended coursework and credits is a crucial part of having a successful postsecondary experience,
as students’ high school transcripts greatly affect their choices for the future. Although the
Navigation 101 curriculum provided by OSPI includes a lesson that addresses the creation of the
HSBP, researchers found that this is a piece of the Navigation 101 program that lacks structure and
should be more closely monitored. An HSBP covers more than which courses a student will take, it
is meant to reflect each student’s learning style, personal story, and goals for the future. [OSPI,
2013b]. A compounding problem is that, at a number of high schools in Washington State,
graduation requirements do not align to college entrance requirements, leading to underprepared
students and misunderstandings about whether the student is indeed on a college-ready path.
Advisors need to be familiar with college entrance requirements, which requires school counselors
and administration to be actively aware of any changes and to communicate them clearly.
113
THE
BERC
GROUP
REFERENCES
Abbott, M. L. & Fouts, J. T. (2003). Constructivist teaching and student achievement: The results of a
school-level classroom observation study in Washington. Lynnwood, WA: Washington School
Research Center, Seattle Pacific University. Available at:
http://www.spu.edu/orgs/research/currentresearch.html
Achieve (2013). Implementing the Common Core State Standards: The Role of the School Counselor.
ACT Research and Policy (2013). Readiness Matters: The Impact of College Readiness on College
Persistence and Degree Completion. Iowa City, IA: Author.
Adams, C. (2013). Internships Help Students Prepare for the Workplace. Education Week. 32 (19) pp 8.
AVID (2013a). What is AVID? Available at: http://www.avid.org/abo_whatisavid.html
AVID (2013b). About AVID Available at: http://www.avid.org/dl/resources/about_avid.pdf
AVID (2013c). Validation of the AVID Certification Self Study (CSS): A Measure of AVID
Secondary Program Implementation Fidelity Available at:
http://www.avid.org/dl/res_research/research_validationoftheavidcss.pdf
AVID (2013d). AVID Overview 2013, rev June 25, 2013. Available at:
http://www.avid.org/dl/starting/avid_overview2013.pdf
Baker, D. B. (1998). The implementation of alterative assessment procedures and Washington State reform.
Seattle Pacific University.
Baker, D. B., Gratama, C. A., & Bachtler, S. D. (2002). Mathematics Helping Corp: Interim report.
Olympia, WA: Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction.
Baker, D. B., Gratama, C. A., & Bachtler, S. D. (2003). Mathematics Helping Corp: Final report.
Olympia, WA: Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction.
Bardwell, R. (2012). Improving College Counseling Alexandria, VA: Association Supervision
Curriculum Development. In College, Careers, Citizenship. 7 (69).
Barnes, W and Slate, J. R. (2013).College-Readiness Is Not One-Size-Fits-All. Current Issues in
Education. 16 (1) pp1-12.
Blandford, A. (2012). College and Career Readiness in DC: A Snapshot of CTE Integration. Techniques:
Connecting Education and Careers, 87 (5) pp30-35.
THE
BERC
GROUP
114
Bransford, J. & Vye, N. (1989). A perspective on cognitive research and its implications in instruction. In
L. B. Resnick and L. E. Klopfer (Eds.) Toward the thinking curriculum: Current cognitive
research. Alexandria, VA: Association Supervision Curriculum and Development.
Brown, C. J. & Fouts, J. T. (2003). Classroom instruction in Achievers grantee high schools: A baseline
report. Seattle, WA: The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Available at:
http://www.gatesfoundation.org/education/researchandevaluation
Brunner, J. (2013). Academic Rigor: The Core of the Core. Principal Leadership, 13 (6) pp24-28.
Caine, R. N. & Caine, G. (1991). Making connections: Teaching the human brain. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Chaffee, R., Landa, J. and Marchesi S. (August, 2012). Is Advisory the New “Superman”? Alexandria,
VA: Association Supervision Curriculum Development. In: Who’s Afraid of Student
Advisory?. 7 (22).
Clark, S. N., & Clark, D. C. (1997, Fall). Implementation of authentic assessment programs: Issues,
concerns, and guidelines. The Middle Level Educator, 6 (1) pp10-13.
Cobb, A. (2013). Solving the Hiring Disconnect: Focus on Skills. Seattle, WA: The Bill and Melinda
Gates Foundation. Available at:
http://www.gatesfoundation.org/education/researchandevaluation
Conley, David T. (2012). A Complete Definition of College and Career Readiness. Educational Policy
Improvement Center.
Conley, D. and McGaughy, C. (2012). College and Career Readiness: Same or Different?
Educational Leadership. 69 (7) pp28-34.
Davis, R. & Maher, C. (1990). Constructivist view on the teaching of mathematics. Journal for Research
in Mathematics Education. Reston, VA: NCTM.
Dietel, R. J., Herman, J. L. & Knuth, R. A. (1991). What does the research say about assessment?
Oakbrook, IL: NCREL.
DiMartino, J. and Clark, J. H. (2008). Personalizing the High School Experience for Each Student.
Alexandria, VA: Association Supervision Curriculum Development.
DeWitt, S. (2012). Career Readiness: Has it’s time finally come? Techniques: Connecting Education
and Careers, 87 (3) pp16-19.
Elkind, D. (1997). Schooling and family in the post-modern world. In Andy Hargreaves (Ed.), 1997
ASCD year book: Rethinking educational change with heart and mind, (pp. 27-42).
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
115
THE
BERC
GROUP
Fouts, J. T., Brown, C. J., & Thieman, G. Y. (2002). Classroom instruction in Gates grantee schools: A
baseline report. Seattle, WA: The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Available at:
http://www.gatesfoundation.org/education/researchandevaluation
Gardner, H. (1985). The mind’s new science. A history of the cognitive revolution. New York, NY: Basic
Books.
Gooden, B. (2013). College and Career Readiness: Synonymous or Separate? School Administrator 70 (5)
pp.47
Holcomb-McCoy, C (2010). Involving Low-Income Parents of Color in College Readiness
Activities: An Exploratory Study. Professional School Counseling. 14 (1) pp115-124 In
Collaboration and partnerships with families and communities: The school counselor's role
Hyerle, D. (1996). Visual tools for constructing knowledge. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Klein, A. (2012). Waivers Continue Chipping Away at NCLB. Education Week. 31 (36) pp23-23
Lu, C. & Suen, H.K. (1995). Assessment approaches and cognitive styles. Journal of Educational
Measurements, 32 (1) 1-17.
Marzano, R.T., Brandt, R.S., Hughes, C.S., Jones, B.F., Presseisen, B.Z., Rankin, S.C., & Suhor,
C. (1988). Dimensions of thinking: A framework for curriculum and instruction. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Marzano, R. J., Pickering D., & McTighe J. (1993). Assessing student outcomes: Performance assessment
using the dimensions of learning model. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
Marzano, R. J., Pickering D., & Pollack, J. (2001). Classroom instruction that works: Research-based
strategies for increasing student achievement. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
McGriff, D. (2012). Are We Ready for College-Ready?. Policy Innovators in Education. New Schools
Venture Fund. Available at: www.pie-network.org
McNeil, M. (2012). States Punch Reset Button Under NCLB. Education Week, 32 (8) pp1
McNeil, Michele (2013). Impact Mulled on Waivers, Grants. Education Week. 32 (31). pp 19
McTighe, J., & Ferrara, S. (1995, December). Assessing learning in the classroom. Journal of Quality
Learning.
THE
BERC
GROUP
116
Michaels, K. (1988). Caution: Second-wave reform taking place. Educational Leadership, 45 (5), 3.
Mitchell, C. (2013). College Completion: What If the Focus Was on the Student? Seattle, WA: The Bill &
Melinda Gates Foundation. Available at:
http://www.gatesfoundation.org/education/researchandevaluation
National High School Center (2012). College and Career Development Organizer. Washington
DC: American Institutes for Research.
National Research Council (1999a). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Committee
on Developments in the Science of Learning. J.D. Bransford, A.L. Brown, and R.R.
Cocking (Eds.). Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washing,
DC: National Academy Press.
National Research Council (1999b). How people learn: Bridging research and practice. Committee on
Developments in the Science of Learning. M.S. Donnovan, J.D. Bransford, and W.
Pellegrino (Eds.). Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education.
Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Schaefer, M and Lourdes, R. M. (2012). College and Career Readiness in the Middle Grades. Middle
Grades Research Journal. 7 (3) pp51-66.
Schmoker, M. (2012). Can Schools Close the Gap? Phi Delta Kappan. 93 (7) pp70-71
Shepard, L.A. (1995). Using assessment to improve learning. Educational Leadership, 52 (5), 38-43.
Shulkind, S. B., and Foote, J.(2009). Creating a Culture of Connectedness through Middle School
Advisory Programs. Middle School Journal. 41 (1). pp20-27 In Fostering Good Decisions
Simpson, M. L., (2001). The art and science of professional teaching: A developmental model for
demonstrating positive impact on student learning. Educational Resource Network: Kenmore,
WA
State of Washington Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction. (2013a). Career Guidance
Washington - Career and College Readiness. Available at:
http://www.k12.wa.us/secondaryeducation/careercollegereadiness/
State of Washington Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction. (2013b). Complete a High School
and Beyond Plan.Available at
http://www.k12.wa.us/GraduationRequirements/Requirement-HighSchoolBeyond.aspx
Stiggins, R.J. (1988). Revitalizing classroom assessment: The highest instructional priority. Phi Delta
Kappan, 69 (5), 363-68.
117
THE
BERC
GROUP
Stiggins, R.J. (1995). Professional development: The key to a total quality assessment environment. NASSP
Bulletin, 79 (573), 11-19.
Stiggins, R.J. (1996). Opening doors to excellence in assessment: A guide for using quality assessment to
promote effective instruction and student success. Assessment Training Institutes, Inc. Portland:
OR (paper).
Sutherland, P. (1992). Cognitive development today: Piaget and his critics. London: Paul Chapman
Publishing Ltd.
Theokas, C. and Saaris, R. (2013). Finding America’s Missing AP and IB Students. The Education Trust.
In Shattering Expectations Series.
The White House. (2009). Remarks of President Barack Obama – As Prepared for Delivery
Address to Joint Session of Congress Available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov
The White House. (2011). Fact Sheet: Bringing Flexibility and Focus to Education Law. Available at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov
Tolley, W. Student Advisory: A Model for the 21st Century. Alexandria, VA: Association Supervision
Curriculum Development. In: Who’s Afraid of Student Advisory?. 7 (22).
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2012). The Condition of
Education 2011 (NCES 2012-045), Indicator 45. Available at: www.ed.gov
U.S. Department of Education. (2013). Elementary and Secondary Education: ESEA Flexibility.
Available at: www.ed.gov
Wiggins, G.P. (1990). The case for authentic assessment. American Institutes for Research,
Washington: D.C. ERIC Clearinghouse on Tests, Measurement, and Evaluation,
Washington, D.C. p. 4.
Wiggins, G.P. (1993). Assessment to improve performance, not just monitor it: Assessment reform in the
social studies. Social Science Record, 30 (2), 5-12.
THE
BERC
GROUP
118
APPENDIX A: CRI SCHOOL NAVIGATION 101 IMPLEMENTATION SURVEY
119
THE
BERC
GROUP
Table 1.
Online Implementation Survey Question 1
Please indicate your school setting:
2010
2011
2012
2013
Urban
Suburban
13%
16%
11%
11%
56%
53%
58%
58%
Rural
31%
31%
32%
32%
Table 2.
Online Implementation Survey Question 4
Has your school formally established staff consensus to adopt the Navigation 101 program in
your school?
2010
2011
2012
2013
Other
0%
0%
0%
0%
Yes
No
88%
90%
95%
95%
12%
10%
5%
5%
Table 3.
Online Implementation Survey Question 5
Please indicate your estimate of the level of
positive staff support for the Navigation 101
initiative in your school:
Very High
(90%-100%)
High
(80%-89%)
Moderate
(70%-79%)
Moderately
Low
(50%-69%)
Low
(<50%)
2010
31%
37%
25%
0%
6%
2011
21%
37%
32%
10%
0%
2012
16%
37%
32%
16%
0%
2013
26%
32%
32%
10%
0%
THE
BERC
GROUP
120
Table 4.
Online Implementation Survey Question 6
If you are currently in your 2nd year of grant
funding, please indicate your level of confidence
that Navigation 101 will be sustained in your
school during 2010-11 without a state Navigation
grant:
2010
Not
Applicable*
Very
High
High
Moderate
Moderately
Low
Low
25%
38%
25%
6%
0%
6%
2011
0%
32%
37%
26%
0%
5%
2012
0%
47%
42%
5%
5%
0%
0%
53%
26%
11%
11%
0%
2013
*Not Applicable (1st year Grantee)
Table 5.
Online Implementation Survey Question 7
Please indicate the program
coordination structure that best
describes your school:
2010
Administrator
Teacher
Counselor
Collaborative/
Shared
Other
6%
31%
44%
13%
6%
2011
0%
26%
47%
16%
11%
2012
5%
32%
47%
16%
0%
2013
5%
21%
42%
21%
11%
121
THE
BERC
GROUP
Table 6.
Online Implementation Survey Question 8
Please indicate the program
management structure that best
describes your school:
Representative
Implementation
Implementation
Team
Team
Teacher
Counselor Administrator
Other
2010
44%
44%
6%
0%
0%
6%
2011
32%
58%
5%
5%
0%
0%
2012
37%
32%
16%
5%
11%
0%
2013
16%
42%
5%
21%
11%
5%
Administrator
Teacher
Table 7.
Online Implementation Survey Question 9
Who initiated the Navigation 101
effort in your school?
Counselor
2010
50%
13%
2011
42%
11%
2012
55%
21%
2013
63%
26%
*The total does not equal 100% because some responders selected more than one answer.
THE
BERC
GROUP
122
25%
16%
21%
21%
Parent/
Community
Member
0%
0%
0%
0%
Other
12%
31%
21%
12%
Table 8.
Online Implementation Survey Question 10
Does your school award credit for Navigation 101 advisories and or
activities (high school only)?
2010
2011
2012
2013
Table 9.
Online Implementation Survey Question 11
Please indicate the level of distribution of the Navigation News in
your school:
Yes
No
42%
50%
50%
58%
50%
50%
57%
43%
Email or copy to
most/all staff
Email or copy to
select staff
Not currently
distributed
2010
25%
37%
38%
2011
32%
21%
47%
2012
21%
26%
53%
2013
16%
32%
53%
123
THE
BERC
GROUP
Table 10.
Online Implementation Survey Question 12
Email or copy
to most/all
parents
Please indicate the level of distribution of the
Navigation 101 Navigator in your school:
Email or copy to Email or copy to
most/all
all Navigation
students
advisors
Not currently
distributed
2010
--
--
12%
88%
2011*
11%
11%
32%
58%
2012*
5%
11%
37%
53%
0%
10%
90%
2013
0%
*The total does not equal 100% because respondents could select more than one answer.
Table 11.
Online Implementation Survey Question 13
Is your school developing or implementing a comprehensive school guidance and
counseling program based on the ASCA National Model?
2010
Yes
No
Don't Know
56%
13%
31%
2011
58%
26%
16%
2012
58%
11%
32%
2013
63%
21%
16%
THE
BERC
GROUP
124
Table 12.
Online Implementation Survey Question 14
Is your school's preferred future to embed Navigation 101
within a comprehensive school guidance and counseling
program?
2010
Yes
No
Not Determined
44%
6%
50%
2011
68%
5%
26%
2012
57%
0%
43%
2013
63%
11%
26%
Table 13.
Online Implementation Survey Question 15
Which grades participate in advisory?
One Grade
Some Grades
All Students,
All Grades
2010
0%
20%
2011
0%
0%
2012
0%
0%
2013
0%
0%
*One grade (low level of implementation), Some grades (moderate level of implementation), All students/all grades (high level of
implementation)
125
THE
BERC
GROUP
80%
100%
100%
100%
Table 14.
Online Implementation Survey Question 16
Which staff members function as advisors?
Staff Volunteers
Some Certified Staff
2010
13%
2011
0%
2012
0%
2013
0%
*Staff volunteers (low level), Some certified staff (moderate level), Most certified staff (high level)
7%
0%
0%
0%
Most Certified Staff
80%
100%
100%
100%
Table 15.
Online Implementation Survey Question 17
Less than once a
month
6%
0%
0%
0%
How often do advisories meet?
2010
2011
2012
2013
THE
BERC
GROUP
126
Twice a month
21%
16%
10%
21%
More than twice a
month
73%
84%
90%
79%
Table 16.
Online Implementation Survey Question 18
Customized
curriculum addressing
1 domain
Customized
curriculum
addressing 2 domains
Navigation/
state/customized
curriculum
addressing 3 domains
2010
0%
20%
80%
2011
5%
11%
84%
2012
0%
32%
68%
2013
5%
11%
*Addressing 1 domain (low level), addressing 2 domains (moderate level), addressing 3 domains (high level)
Table 17.
Online Implementation Survey Question 19
84%
Does the curriculum address all 3 developmental
domains (academic, personal/social, and career)?
Are advisors trained in the
curriculum?
No organized training
At least once a year
At least one formal training a
year plus regular briefings
2010
13%
7%
80%
2011
5%
58%
37%
2012
0%
61%
39%
2013
21%
47%
32%
*No organized training (low level), at least once a year (moderate level), at least one formal training plus briefings (high level)
127
THE
BERC
GROUP
Table 18.
Online Implementation Survey Question 20
Indicate your school's overall level of implementation of CurriculumDelivered Advisories
Low
Moderate
High
2010
7%
20%
73%
2011
0%
32%
68%
2012
0%
37%
63%
2013
11%
36%
53%
Table 19.
Online Implementation Survey Question 22
How are portfolios organized?
Nominal
Organization
Not Organized
2010
7%
13%
2011
0%
61%
2012
0%
39%
2013
5%
58%
*Not organized (low level), Nominal organization (moderate level), ASCA/other system (high level)
THE
BERC
GROUP
128
ASCA or other system
addressing 3 domains
80%
39%
61%
37%
Table 20.
Online Implementation Survey Question 23
Who keeps a portfolio?
Some Students
2010
0%
2011
0%
2012
0%
2013
0%
*Some students (low level), most students (moderate level), all students (high level)
Most students
0%
6%
0%
0%
All students
100%
94%
100%
100%
Table 21.
Online Implementation Survey Question 24
What do students store in their
portfolios?
No articulated
standards
State graduation
requirement artifacts only
2010
0%
7%
2011
0%
6%
2012
0%
6%
2013
11%
5%
*No articulated standards (low level), state required artifacts (moderate level), work samples, etc. (high level)
129
THE
BERC
GROUP
Work samples, academic
inventories, financial,
individual planning
93%
94%
94%
84%
Table 22.
Online Implementation Survey Question 25
Do students assess their own work?
No
Minimal student selfassessment
Yes, students selfassess
2010
2011
7%
6%
33%
33%
60%
61%
0%
5%
37%
32%
63%
63%
2012
2013
*No (low level), minimal (moderate level), yes (high level)
Table 23.
Online Implementation Survey Question 26
Do portfolios guide conferences and senior
presentations?
2010
2011
2012
2013
*No (low level), students may refer (moderate level), yes (high level)
THE
BERC
No
Students may refer
to portfolio during
conference
Yes, portfolio
evidence utilized
during conference
0%
0%
0%
5%
7%
17%
6%
21%
93%
83%
94%
74%
GROUP
130
Table 24.
Online Implementation Survey Question 27
Please indicate your school's overall level of implementation of
Planning Portfolios:
2010
2011
2012
2013
Table 25.
Online Implementation Survey Question 28
Please indicate your student planning portfolio format:
2010
2011
2012
2013
Low
Moderate
High
0%
0%
0%
33%
39%
29%
67%
61%
71%
6%
44%
50%
Paper
93%
84%
63%
79%
Combined
7%
16%
37%
16%
0%
Some students have
student-led
conference
once/year
27%
All students have a
student-led
conference
once/year
73%
0%
0%
0%
16%
5%
21%
84%
95%
79%
Electronic
0%
0%
0%
5%
Table 26.
Online Implementation Survey Question 30
How many students conduct student-led conferences?
No student-led
conferences
2010
2011
2012
2013
*No (low level), some student (moderate level), all students (high levels)
131
THE
BERC
GROUP
Table 27.
Online Implementation Survey Question 31
No attendance
expectation for parents
Who attends student-led conferences?
2010
0%
2011
0%
2012
0%
2013
0%
*No attendance (low level), parents invited (moderate level), parents required (high level)
Parents invited
Parents required
60%
42%
32%
21%
40%
58%
68%
79%
Table 28.
Online Implementation Survey Question 32
No written conference
standards
How are conferences organized?
Written conference
standards adopted,
not enforced
2010
0%
2011
0%
2012
0%
2013
5%
*No standards (low level), standards adopted (moderate level), standards enforced (high level)
THE
BERC
GROUP
132
47%
47%
42%
47%
Written conference
standards enforced
53%
53%
58%
47%
Table 29.
Online Implementation Survey Question 33
No integration
Some integration,
but not required
Registration is part of
all student-led
conferences
2010
33%
47%
20%
2011
37%
42%
21%
2012
0%
44%
56%
Are conferences integrated with course
registration/selection?
2013
32%
37%
*No integration (low level), some integration (moderate level), registration a part of conference (high level)
32%
Table 30.
Online Implementation Survey Question 34
Is satisfaction with conferences tallied?
No
2010
7%
2011
5%
2012
0%
2013
5%
*No (low level), yes (moderate level), data informs future planning (high level)
133
THE
BERC
GROUP
Yes
Yes, data informs future
conference planning
20%
32%
31%
26%
73%
63%
69%
68%
Table 31.
Online Implementation Survey Question 35
Do students assess their student-led conference
performance?
No
Yes, but not
required
Yes, required by all
students
2010
7%
60%
33%
2011
16%
47%
37%
2012
0%
72%
28%
2013
11%
47%
42%
*No (low level), yes, but not required (moderate), yes, required (high level)
Table 32.
Online Implementation Survey Question 36
Indicate your school's overall level of implementation of student-led
conferences
Low
Moderate
High
2010
13%
20%
67%
2011
0%
37%
63%
2012
0%
21%
79%
2013
0%
26%
74%
THE
BERC
GROUP
134
Table 33.
Online Implementation Survey Question 38
Printed credit
checks only
Yes, based on
graduation needs
Yes, based on
graduation needs and
chosen career path
2010
15%
39%
46%
2011
0%
47%
53%
2012
0%
21%
79%
2013
6%
19%
75%
Do students have information about their course needs?
*Printed checks only (low level); yes, based on graduation needs (moderate level); yes, based on graduation needs and career path (high level)
135
THE
BERC
GROUP
Table 34.
Online Implementation Survey Question 39
No requirement
Yes, one time
activity
Yes, four year plan
revisited and refined
annually
2010
31%
31%
38%
2011
7%
29%
64%
2012
0%
46%
54%
2013
28%
17%
56%
Do students develop four-year course plans in high
school?
*No requirement (low level), yes, one time activity (moderate level), yes, four year plan revisited annually (high level)
Table 35.
Online Implementation Survey Question 40
Do students have a say in their
schedule?
No, assigned by others
Yes, students select
classes
2010
20%
60%
2011
15%
53%
2012
0%
62%
2013
21%
53%
*No (low level), yes, students select classes (moderate level), yes, students select class choices (high level)
THE
BERC
GROUP
136
Yes, students select class
choices utilizing portfolio
or conference data
20%
32%
38%
26%
Table 36.
Online Implementation Survey Question 41
Is the master schedule built based on
students' choices?
Master schedule based
on graduation
requirements
Master schedule based
on student requests, not
linked to course data
Yes, master schedule
based on student data
21%
36%
43%
2010
2011
12%
41%
2012
0%
42%
2013
28%
44%
*Based on graduation requirements (low level), based on student requests (moderate level), based on student data (high level)
47%
58%
28%
Table 37.
Online Implementation Survey Question 42
No specific guidance
provided
Yes, printed
recommendations
Yes, and their
importance is
explained in advisory
2010
39%
23%
38%
2011
7%
53%
40%
2012
0%
53%
47%
2013
28%
39%
33%
Are students encouraged to enroll in
gatekeeper courses?
*No (low level); yes, printed recommendations (moderate level); yes, and importance is explained (high level)
137
THE
BERC
GROUP
Table 38.
Online Implementation Survey Question 43
No additional
interventions and
support available
Yes, additional
interventions and
support for some
gatekeeper courses
Yes, additional
interventions and
support for all
gatekeeper courses
2010
36%
43%
21%
2011
6%
50%
44%
2012
0%
35%
65%
0%
44%
56%
Do students receive additional interventions and
support to succeed in these courses?
2013
* No (low level), yes, for some (moderate level), yes, for all (high level)
Table 39.
Online Implementation Survey Question 44
Indicate your school's overall level of implementation of student-driven
scheduling:
2010
Low
Moderate
High
25%
58%
17%
2011
12%
63%
25%
2012
0%
71%
29%
2103
24%
47%
29%
THE
BERC
GROUP
138
Table 40.
Online Implementation Survey Question 46
What information is collected?
Some required data
partially or not
submitted to OSPI
Most required data
completed and
submitted
All required data
completed and
submitted
0%
0%
0%
0%
27%
16%
6%
5%
73%
84%
94%
95%
2010
2011
2012
2013
* Some (low level), most (moderate level), all (high level)
Table 41.
Online Implementation Survey Question 47
What else does the school
collect?
Data is only collected to meet
grant requirements
Data is collected beyond
requirements to measure
locally determined outcomes
State required and local
data is used for
improvement
2010
20%
20%
2011
5%
37%
2012
0%
35%
2013
21%
21%
* To meet grant requirements (low level), beyond requirements (moderate level), data is used for improvement (high level)
139
THE
BERC
GROUP
60%
58%
65%
58%
Table 42.
Online Implementation Survey Question 48
Data shared within
the program
Is data shared with stakeholders?
Data shared
district-wide
2010
36%
50%
2011
18%
53%
2012
0%
71%
2013
37%
37%
* Shared within the program (low level), shared district-wide (moderate level), shared with stakeholders (high level)
Table 43.
Online Implementation Survey Question 49
Indicate your school's overall level of implementation of data
collection
2010
2011
2012
2013
THE
BERC
GROUP
Data shared with all
stakeholders
14%
29%
29%
26%
Low
Moderate
High
0%
10%
0%
0%
80%
58%
53%
63%
20%
32%
47%
37%
140
APPENDIX B: AVID STUDENT PERSPECTIVES QUESTIONNAIRE
141
THE
BERC
GROUP
Table 44.
Student Survey: Personalized
Personalized
How many adults in your school would be willing to give you extra help with
your school work if you needed it?
How many adults in your school would be willing to help you with a personal
problem?
How many adults in your school really care about how well you are doing in
school?
How many adults in your school have helped you think about whether you are
meeting the requirements for graduation?
How many adults in your school have helped you think about what you need to
do to prepare for college or for a career?
THE
BERC
GROUP
142
Year
No
Adults
One
Adult
2 or 3
Adults
4 or 5
Adults
2010
2011
2012
2013
2010
2011
2012
2013
2010
2011
2012
2013
2010
2011
2012
2013
2010
2011
2012
2013
5%
4%
4%
4%
10%
10%
10%
10%
7%
6%
6%
6%
13%
11%
11%
11%
13%
11%
11%
11%
11%
11%
12%
11%
19%
20%
23%
20%
12%
11%
14%
13%
18%
18%
21%
19%
19%
19%
21%
20%
33%
32%
34%
33%
39%
37%
36%
37%
29%
27%
29%
28%
33%
31%
30%
32%
32%
31%
33%
34%
22%
22%
21%
22%
15%
16%
15%
16%
22%
21%
20%
22%
19%
20%
20%
19%
18%
19%
18%
18%
6 or
More
Adults
29%
31%
29%
30%
17%
17%
16%
17%
30%
35%
30%
31%
17%
20%
18%
18%
18%
20%
17%
18%
Table 45
Student Survey: Future Focus
Future Focus
A college degree is important for me to obtain a successful job.
My future career depends a lot on going to college.
I think my high school has prepared me to succeed in college.
I know what high school courses I need to prepare me for college.
143
THE
BERC
Year
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly
Agree
2010
2%
2%
9%
30%
57%
2011
2%
2%
9%
31%
56%
2012
2%
3%
10%
31%
56%
2013
2%
2%
10%
33%
54%
2010
2%
5%
16%
31%
46%
2011
2%
4%
16%
33%
45%
2012
2%
4%
17%
33%
44%
2013
2%
4%
17%
33%
44%
2010
3%
5%
34%
41%
18%
2011
3%
4%
32%
43%
18%
2012
3%
5%
35%
42%
15%
2013
2%
5%
31%
43%
17%
2010
3%
10%
29%
39%
20%
2011
3%
10%
31%
38%
18%
2012
3%
10%
31%
38%
17%
2013
3%
10%
31%
39%
17%
GROUP
I have a good understanding of my personal interests and skills.
I know what courses and requirements I must complete to graduate from high
school.
I know what courses and requirements I must complete in high school to
pursue my post-secondary plan.
I understand the importance of how work and performance, effort, and
decisions directly affect future career and educational opportunities.
I have a specific step-by-step plan for getting into the post-secondary program
of my dreams.
THE
BERC
GROUP
2010
1%
3%
15%
43%
38%
2011
1%
3%
17%
43%
36%
2012
2%
3%
15%
43%
37%
2013
1%
3%
16%
44%
36%
2010
1%
5%
17%
40%
37%
2011
2%
6%
20%
40%
32%
2012
2%
6%
19%
39%
34%
2013
2%
6%
21%
40%
32%
2010
2%
10%
32%
38%
18%
2011
3%
10%
34%
36%
17%
2012
3%
10%
35%
36%
17%
2013
3%
10%
36%
37%
15%
2010
1%
2%
15%
42%
40%
2011
1%
2%
15%
42%
40%
2012
2%
2%
15%
41%
40%
2013
1%
2%
15%
42%
40%
2010
6%
18%
38%
25%
13%
2011
6%
17%
38%
27%
12%
2012
6%
17%
39%
26%
13%
2013
5%
17%
40%
26%
12%
144
Table 46
Student Survey: College Aspirations (AVID STUDENTS ONLY)
College Aspirations
Year
Yes
No
Have you thought about education
beyond high school?
2010
2011
2012
2013
93%
95%
96%
96%
Technical
School
Certificate
7%
5%
4%
4%
How much education do you want to get?
As things stand now (realistically), how much
education do you think you will get?
What is the minimum level of education with
which you would be satisfied?
Associates
Degree
Bachelor’s
Degree
Graduate or
professional
school
5%
14%
54%
20%
3%
3%
13%
57%
24%
2012
3%
3%
13%
59%
22%
2014
3%
2%
10%
64%
22%
2010
12%
8%
27%
45%
9%
2011
7%
5%
24%
52%
12%
2012
6%
6%
31%
48%
9%
2013
6%
4%
27%
54%
10%
2010
10%
9%
39%
35%
7%
2011
8%
8%
38%
40%
6%
2012
7%
8%
39%
39%
8%
2013
7%
7%
40%
41%
5%
Year
High School
Only
2010
7%
2011
145
THE
BERC
GROUP
What activity most likely will take the largest
share of your time in the year after you leave
high school?
Do you plan to go to college at some time in
the future?
If yes, to what college do you intend to apply?
Year
I don’t know
Working
Both college and
work
College
2010
9%
11%
62%
18%
2011
6%
8%
66%
20%
2012
7%
6%
69%
19%
2013
5%
6%
68%
21%
Year
No
I don’t know
Yes, but after a
delay of time
Yes, immediately
after high school
2010
4%
10%
26%
60%
2011
1%
6%
25%
68%
2012
1%
4%
28%
67%
2013
1%
7%
24%
68%
Year
2-year college
4-year college
2010
28%
72%
2011
23%
77%
2012
24%
76%
2013
17%
83%
THE
BERC
GROUP
146
How sure are you that you will graduate from
college?
Will you be disappointed if you don’t
graduate from college?
Year
Definitely won’t
Probably won’t
Probably will
Definitely will
2010
2%
6%
50%
42%
2011
1%
3%
45%
51%
2012
1%
3%
53%
43%
2013
1%
3%
50%
45%
Year
Yes
No
2010
88%
12%
2011
92%
8%
2012
93%
7%
2013
93%
7%
147
THE
BERC
GROUP
What do you plan to do the year after you
graduate from high school?
What do you think most of your teachers
expect you to do in the year after you
graduate from high school?
What has been the
most helpful in
learning about
college?
Attend a 2- Attend a 4year college year college
Career/
Tech Ed
Enlist in the
Other/
Military
Don’t Know
Year
Get a job
2010
11%
18%
51%
3%
6%
11%
2011
9%
17%
53%
3%
7%
11%
2012
5%
13%
65%
4%
5%
8%
2013
6%
12%
67%
2%
4%
10%
2010
6%
17%
58%
2%
2%
15%
2011
6%
18%
60%
2%
1%
12%
2012
5%
14%
68%
1%
1%
8%
2013
4%
14%
69%
2%
2%
10%
Year
Parent/
Guardian
Other
Relatives
School
Counselor
Teachers
Friends
Internet
TV/
Movies
Other/
Don’t
Know
2010
25%
6%
9%
33%
6%
7%
3%
11%
2011
28%
5%
6%
38%
4%
7%
2%
10%
2012
21%
4%
5%
55%
2%
5%
1%
7%
2013
19%
4%
5%
54%
3%
7%
1%
9%
THE
BERC
GROUP
148
Table 47
Student Survey: Sense of Belonging
Sense of Belonging
Many students in this school don’t respect one another.
There are groups of students in this school who don’t get along.
I feel like I'm a real part of this school.
I don't fit in with most other students.
I participate in a lot of activities in this school.
149
THE
BERC
GROUP
Year
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
2010
4%
29%
49%
18%
2011
4%
31%
48%
17%
2012
4%
31%
47%
18%
2013
5$
32%
47%
17%
2010
2%
10%
57%
31%
2011
2012
2%
2%
9%
11%
61%
58%
28%
29%
2013
2010
2011
2012
2013
2010
2011
2012
2013
2010
2011
2012
2013
2%
7%
6%
7%
6%
23%
24%
22%
19%
13%
12%
12%
13%
12%
27%
24%
27%
27%
50%
51%
50%
52%
37%
37%
38%
39%
60%
53%
56%
54%
54%
20%
19%
22%
22%
35%
35%
37%
35%
27%
13%
14%
13%
13%
7%
6%
7%
7%
15%
16%
14%
13%
2010
2011
2012
2013
2010
2011
2012
2013
People at this school are like family to me.
I feel like an outsider at this school.
THE
BERC
GROUP
150
15%
13%
13%
12%
36%
37%
34%
32%
33%
32%
32%
33%
45%
45%
47%
47%
42%
42%
43%
43%
13%
13%
14%
16%
10%
13%
12%
13%
6%
5%
5%
5%
Table 48
Student Survey: High Expectations
High Expectations
Teachers at school believe all students can do well.
Teachers at school have given up on some students.
Teachers at school care only about smart students.
Teachers at school expect very little from students.
Teachers at school make sure all students are learning.
151
THE
BERC
GROUP
Year
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
2010
2011
6%
5%
20%
17%
49%
49%
25%
29%
2012
2013
2010
2011
2012
2013
2010
5%
5%
15%
18%
17%
19%
25%
18%
16%
41%
42%
42%
44%
51%
50%
51%
36%
32%
33%
31%
18%
28%
28%
8%
8%
8%
6%
6%
2011
2012
2013
2010
2011
2012
2013
2010
28%
26%
28%
30%
35%
33%
33%
5%
50%
50%
50%
53%
51%
51%
52%
17%
16%
18%
17%
13%
10%
13%
12%
49%
6%
6%
6%
4%
4%
4%
4%
29%
2011
2012
2013
4%
5%
4%
13%
15%
14%
50%
48%
50%
33%
32%
33%
Table 49
Student Survey: Satisfaction-1
Satisfaction-1
How well has your school taught you to be a good reader?
How well has your school taught you to speak clearly and effectively?
How well has your school taught you to write clearly and effectively?
How well has your school taught you to analyze and solve math problems?
How well has your school taught you to learn effectively on your own with little help from
others?
THE
BERC
GROUP
152
Year
Poor Job
OK Job
Excellent
Job
2010
2011
2012
2013
2010
2011
2012
2013
2010
2011
2012
2013
2010
2011
2012
2013
2010
2011
2012
2013
10%
8%
8%
7%
10%
8%
9%
8%
10%
12%
10%
9%
12%
9%
10%
9%
12%
12%
11%
9%
52%
49%
52%
52%
51%
48%
50%
49%
48%
44%
49%
48%
45%
39%
45%
44%
56%
52%
56%
57%
38%
43%
40%
41%
39%
44%
41%
42%
42%
44%
41%
44%
43%
52%
45%
46%
32%
36%
34%
34%
Table 50
Student Survey: Satisfaction-2
Satisfaction-2
How well has your school taught you to be a responsible member of your community?
How well has your school taught you to understand the rights and responsibilities of people
living in the United States?
How well has your school taught you to respect the opinions of people from different
backgrounds?
How well has your school taught you to prepare for the work world or attending college?
How well has your school taught you to think critically about ideas, problems, and current
events?
153
THE
BERC
GROUP
Year
Poor Job
OK Job
2010
2011
2012
2013
2010
2011
2012
2013
2010
2011
2012
2013
2010
2011
2012
2013
2010
2011
2012
2013
18%
18%
15%
14%
17%
17%
15%
14%
10%
10%
10%
7%
11%
13%
11%
10%
10%
11%
9%
8%
51%
45%
51%
50%
51%
45%
50%
50%
44%
38%
45%
41%
49%
44%
49%
47%
53%
47%
56%
52%
Excellent
Job
31%
37%
34%
36%
32%
38%
35%
36%
45%
52%
46%
52%
40%
43%
40%
43%
37%
42%
36%
40%
Table 51
Student Survey: Active Inquiry
Active Inquiry
This school year my teachers have encouraged us to find multiple solutions
to problems rather than just one.
This school year my teachers have let students decide on the projects or
research topics they will work on.
This school year my teachers have let students decide how to work on their
assignments or projects.
THE
BERC
Year
Never
Once in a
While
Half of
the Time
Most of
the Time
All of the
Time
2010
5%
17%
26%
34%
18%
2011
4%
15%
25%
36%
20%
2012
4%
16%
25%
36%
18%
2013
4%
15%
26%
36%
20%
2010
10%
28%
28%
25%
9%
2011
12%
30%
27%
23%
8%
2012
12%
30%
27%
23%
8%
2013
10%
29%
28%
25%
8%
2010
10%
25%
27%
27%
11%
2011
9%
25%
27%
28%
11%
2012
12%
30%
27%
23%
8%
2013
10%
29%
28%
25%
8%
GROUP
154
Table 52
Student Survey: In-Depth Learning
In-Depth Learning
When I work on a topic at school, I am able to spend enough time on it to
understand it really well.
My teachers expect me to learn some topics well enough to be able to
teach others about them.
This school year I have written a report of more than 5 pages about a topic
I researched.
This school year I have solved problems based on real life.
This school year I have written an essay.
155
THE
BERC
Year
Never
2010
2011
2012
2013
2010
2011
2012
2013
4%
3%
4%
3%
6%
5%
5%
5%
Year
Never
2010
2011
2012
2013
2010
2011
2012
2013
2010
2011
2012
2013
41%
41%
47%
47%
12%
11%
14%
13%
3%
3%
5%
5%
GROUP
Once in a
While
17%
15%
17%
16%
16%
14%
15%
14%
A Few
Times
This Year
42%
41%
37%
36%
32%
30%
32%
30%
29%
30%
32%
33%
Half of
the Time
28%
28%
28%
30%
24%
22%
24%
22%
Once or
Twice a
Month
12%
12%
11%
12%
24%
24%
23%
24%
40%
40%
40%
38%
Most of
the Time
42%
45%
44%
44%
39%
40%
40%
42%
Once or
Twice a
Week
3%
4%
4%
4%
18%
20%
20%
21%
20%
20%
17%
18%
All of the
Time
8%
9%
7%
8%
15%
19%
17%
18%
Almost
Every
Day
2%
2%
2%
1%
14%
15%
11%
13%
8%
7%
6%
6%
Table 53
Student Survey: Performance Assessment
Performance Assessment
This school year my teachers have shown students examples of student
work that they consider to be good or poor.
This school year my teachers have made clear to us what we should know
and be able to do.
This school year my teachers have assigned projects or presentations that
let us show what we have learned.
THE
BERC
Year
Never
Once in a
While
Half of
the Time
Most of
the Time
All of the
Time
2010
6%
22%
25%
33%
14%
2011
5%
20%
25%
34%
16%
2012
6%
22%
26%
32%
14%
2013
5%
21%
26%
32%
16%
2010
2%
10%
21%
43%
24%
2011
2%
7%
19%
42%
30%
2012
2%
8%
20%
43%
27%
2013
2%
8%
18%
43%
29%
2010
4%
13%
21%
40%
22%
2011
3%
12%
23%
40%
22%
2012
3%
15%
24%
38%
20%
2013
2%
13%
23%
41%
21%
GROUP
156
APPENDIX C: NAVIGATION 101 STUDENT PERSPECTIVES QUESTIONNAIRE
157
THE
BERC
GROUP
Table 54.
Student Survey: Personalized
Personalized
How many adults in your school would be willing to give you extra help with
your school work if you needed it?
How many adults in your school would be willing to help you with a personal
problem?
How many adults in your school really care about how well you are doing in
school?
How many adults in your school have helped you think about whether you are
meeting the requirements for graduation?
How many adults in your school have helped you think about what you need to
do to prepare for college or for a career?
THE
BERC
GROUP
158
Year
No
Adults
One
Adult
2 or 3
Adults
4 or 5
Adults
2010
2011
2012
2013
2010
2011
2012
2013
2010
2011
2012
2013
2010
2011
2012
2013
2010
2011
2012
2013
8%
6%
4%
3%
12%
11%
10%
9%
8%
6%
6%
5%
13%
10%
10%
9%
11%
9%
9%
8%
13%
12%
13%
12%
23%
22%
24%
22%
13%
12%
13%
13%
18%
19%
20%
18%
21%
20%
20%
20%
28%
29%
35%
34%
37%
36%
35%
37%
28%
30%
29%
29%
32%
31%
30%
32%
32%
32%
33%
33%
21%
20%
20%
21%
14%
16%
16%
16%
21%
20%
21%
21%
19%
20%
21%
21%
18%
18%
19%
19%
6 or
More
Adults
30%
33%
27%
29%
15%
14%
15%
16%
30%
32%
30%
32%
18%
20%
19%
19%
18%
21%
19%
20%
Table 55
Student Survey: Future Focus
Future Focus
A college degree is important for me to obtain a successful job.
My future career depends a lot on going to college.
I think my high school has prepared me to succeed in college.
I know what high school courses I need to prepare me for college.
159
THE
BERC
Year
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly
Agree
2010
2%
2%
9%
31%
56%
2011
2%
2%
9%
31%
56%
2012
2%
3%
9%
31%
56%
2013
1%
2%
9%
32%
55%
2010
2%
5%
16%
33%
44%
2011
2%
5%
16%
32%
45%
2012
2%
5%
16%
37%
44%
2013
2%
4%
16%
35%
44%
2010
3%
6%
35%
38%
18%
2011
3%
5%
32%
42%
18%
2012
3%
5%
36%
40%
17%
2013
2%
4%
35%
41%
17%
2010
3%
12%
31%
36%
18%
2011
3%
10%
31%
39%
17%
2012
3%
9%
32%
38%
17%
2013
3%
10%
34%
36%
16%
GROUP
I have a good understanding of my personal interests and skills.
I know what courses and requirements I must complete to graduate from high
school.
I know what courses and requirements I must complete in high school to
pursue my post-secondary plan.
I understand the importance of how work and performance, effort, and
decisions directly affect future career and educational opportunities.
I have a specific step-by-step plan for getting into the post-secondary program
of my dreams.
THE
BERC
GROUP
2010
2%
3%
18%
42%
36%
2011
1%
3%
16%
44%
36%
2012
1%
3%
18%
43%
35%
2013
1%
3%
17%
45%
35%
2010
2%
7%
22%
38%
30%
2011
2%
6%
21%
40%
31%
2012
2%
6%
22%
41%
29%
2013
2%
7%
23%
39%
28%
2010
3%
11%
35%
35%
16%
2011
3%
9%
33%
38%
17%
2012
3%
10%
35%
35%
17%
2013
3%
10%
37%
34%
16%
2010
2%
4%
17%
42%
35%
2011
1%
3%
17%
43%
36%
2012
1%
3%
17%
43%
36%
2013
1%
2%
18%
43%
36%
2010
7%
17%
39%
25%
12%
2011
5%
15%
38%
29%
13%
2012
5%
16%
39%
26%
15%
2013
4%
15%
40%
28%
13%
160
Table 56
Student Survey: Navigation 101 Beliefs
Navigation 101 Beliefs
I am more likely to graduate, and to do so on time, as a result of the
Navigation 101 program.
My involvement in the Navigation 101 program has inspired me to set and
achieve my future goals.
I am more likely to attend a postsecondary program because of my
involvement in the Navigation 101 program.
161
THE
BERC
Year
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly
Agree
2010
11%
11%
39%
27%
12%
2011
10%
10%
37%
29%
14%
2012
10%
10%
37%
29%
15%
2013
10%
9%
37%
30%
15%
2010
8%
11%
37%
30%
14%
2011
9%
10%
34%
32%
15%
2012
8%
11%
32%
33%
16%
2013
8%
10%
32%
35%
15%
2010
10%
12%
39%
26%
14%
2011
10%
11%
36%
27%
10%
2012
9%
11%
37%
27%
17%
2013
10%
10%
37%
27%
16%
GROUP
Table 57
Student Survey: Sense of Belonging
Sense of Belonging
Year
2010
2011
2012
2013
2010
2011
2012
2013
2010
2011
2012
2013
2010
2011
2012
2013
2010
2011
2012
2013
Many students in this school don’t respect one another.
There are groups of students in this school who don’t get along.
I feel like I'm a real part of this school.
I don't fit in with most other students.
I participate in a lot of activities in this school.
THE
BERC
GROUP
162
Strongly
Disagree
4%
4%
4%
4%
3%
2%
2%
2%
7%
6%
6%
6%
22%
21%
22%
18%
14%
13%
13%
11%
Disagree
Agree
26%
28%
28%
28%
10%
10%
18%
12%
27%
26%
26%
26%
50%
51%
49%
50%
37%
38%
39%
39%
49%
49%
49%
49%
54%
59%
57%
57%
53%
55%
53%
54%
20%
21%
22%
24%
35%
36%
35%
37%
Strongly
Agree
21%
19%
20%
20%
33%
28%
29%
28%
13%
13%
15%
14%
8%
7%
8%
8%
14%
13%
13%
13%
2010
2011
2012
2013
2010
2011
2012
2013
People at this school are like family to me.
I feel like an outsider at this school.
163
THE
BERC
GROUP
15%
13%
13%
12%
38%
34%
13%
12%
31%
31%
29%
31%
45%
46%
29%
31%
42%
45%
44%
45%
12%
13%
44%
45%
12%
14%
15%
13%
5%
7%
15%
13%
Table 58
Student Survey: High Expectations
High Expectations
Teachers at school believe all students can do well.
Teachers at school have given up on some students.
Teachers at school care only about smart students.
Teachers at school expect very little from students.
Teachers at school make sure all students are learning.
THE
BERC
GROUP
164
Year
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
2010
2011
2012
2013
2010
2011
2012
2013
2010
2011
2012
2013
2010
2011
2012
2013
2010
2011
2012
2013
6%
4%
4%
5%
17%
17%
19%
18%
27%
27%
28%
28%
30%
32%
33%
32%
5%
4%
5%
4%
18%
16%
16%
15%
41%
43%
43%
45%
48%
50%
48%
50%
50%
50%
50%
51%
16%
14%
14%
12%
49%
52%
52%
51%
34%
33%
31%
30%
19%
17%
18%
18%
15%
14%
13%
13%
48%
50%
48%
49%
27%
28%
28%
29%
8%
7%
7%
7%
6%
6%
7%
7%
5%
4%
4%
4%
31%
32%
34%
35%
Table 59
Student Survey: Satisfaction-1
Satisfaction-1
How well has your school taught you to be a good reader?
How well has your school taught you to speak clearly and effectively?
How well has your school taught you to write clearly and effectively?
How well has your school taught you to analyze and solve math problems?
How well has your school taught you to learn effectively on your own with little help from
others?
165
THE
BERC
GROUP
Year
Poor Job
OK Job
Excellent
Job
2010
2011
2012
2013
2010
2011
2012
2013
2010
2011
2012
2013
2010
2011
2012
2013
2010
2011
2012
2013
10%
8%
7%
7%
11%
9%
9%
8%
11%
10%
11%
9%
12%
10%
9%
9%
13%
12%
11%
9%
55%
52%
55%
54%
51%
50%
50%
49%
52%
43%
50%
48%
46%
43%
45%
45%
58%
55%
57%
57%
35%
40%
38%
39%
38%
41%
41%
43%
37%
47%
39%
43%
42%
47%
46%
47%
29%
33%
32%
35%
Table 60
Student Survey: Satisfaction-2
Satisfaction-2
How well has your school taught you to be a responsible member of your community?
How well has your school taught you to understand the rights and responsibilities of people
living in the United States?
How well has your school taught you to respect the opinions of people from different
backgrounds?
How well has your school taught you to prepare for the work world or attending college?
How well has your school taught you to think critically about ideas, problems, and current
events?
THE
BERC
GROUP
166
Year
Poor Job
OK Job
2010
2011
2012
2013
2010
2011
2012
2013
2010
2011
2012
2013
2010
2011
2012
2013
2010
2011
2012
2013
18%
18%
15%
13%
17%
16%
16%
14%
11%
10%
9%
7%
11%
12%
10%
9%
10%
10%
9%
8%
52%
49%
52%
51%
51%
47%
51%
49%
47%
43%
44%
43%
50%
46%
49%
48%
54%
52%
53%
53%
Excellent
Job
30%
33%
33%
36%
32%
37%
33%
37%
42%
47%
47%
50%
39%
39%
41%
43%
36%
38%
39%
39%
Table 61
Student Survey: Active Inquiry
Active Inquiry
This school year my teachers have encouraged us to find multiple solutions
to problems rather than just one.
This school year my teachers have let students decide on the projects or
research topics they will work on.
This school year my teachers have let students decide how to work on their
assignments or projects.
167
THE
BERC
Year
Never
Once in a
While
Half of
the Time
Most of
the Time
All of the
Time
2010
5%
16%
25%
34%
20%
2011
4%
13%
25%
37%
21%
2012
4%
14%
25%
37%
20%
2013
4%
12%
26%
36%
22%
2010
13%
29%
25%
24%
9%
2011
12%
27%
28%
25%
8%
2012
13%
29%
28%
23%
8%
2013
11%
27%
28%
26%
8%
2010
10%
25%
26%
27%
11%
2011
9%
24%
27%
27%
13%
2012
11%
24%
27%
26%
12%
2013
9%
23%
28%
28%
12%
GROUP
Table 62
Student Survey: In-Depth Learning
In-Depth Learning
When I work on a topic at school, I am able to spend enough time on it to
understand it really well.
My teachers expect me to learn some topics well enough to be able to
teach others about them.
This school year I have written a report of more than 5 pages about a topic
I researched.
This school year I have solved problems based on real life.
THE
BERC
Once in a
While
Half of
the Time
Most of
the Time
All of the
Time
19%
15%
16%
16%
17%
15%
13%
13%
A Few
Times
This Year
31%
31%
30%
32%
25%
23%
24%
24%
Once or
Twice a
Month
38%
42%
42%
43%
36%
38%
39%
41%
Once or
Twice a
Week
7%
8%
8%
8%
16%
19%
19%
18%
Almost
Every
Day
47%
34%
11%
4%
2%
2011
46%
34%
13%
5%
2%
2012
50%
31%
12%
5%
2%
2013
47%
33%
13%
5%
2%
2010
14%
32%
23%
17%
14%
2011
12%
29%
23%
21%
15%
2012
13%
31%
22%
20%
14%
2013
12%
29%
23%
21%
14%
Year
Never
2010
2011
2012
2013
2010
2011
2012
2013
5%
4%
4%
3%
6%
5%
4%
4%
Year
Never
2010
GROUP
168
Table 63
Student Survey: Performance Assessment
Performance Assessment
This school year my teachers have shown students examples of student
work that they consider to be good or poor.
This school year my teachers have made clear to us what we should know
and be able to do.
This school year my teachers have assigned projects or presentations that
let us show what we have learned.
169
THE
BERC
Year
Never
Once in a
While
Half of
the Time
Most of
the Time
All of the
Time
2010
7%
22%
24%
33%
14%
2011
6%
19%
25%
34%
16%
2012
7%
21%
26%
32%
15%
2013
6%
19%
27%
33%
16%
2010
3%
10%
22%
40%
26%
2011
2%
8%
20%
44%
26%
2012
2%
8%
21%
41%
29%
2013
2%
8%
20%
43%
28%
2010
4%
15%
23%
37%
21%
2011
3%
12%
22%
40%
23%
2012
3%
15%
23%
38%
21%
2013
3%
12%
23%
40%
22%
GROUP
APPENDIX D: AVID TEACHER PERSPECTIVES QUESTIONNAIRE
THE
BERC
GROUP
170
Table 64
Teacher Survey: Quality of Education
Quality of Education
All Students leave school prepared for success in work.
All students leave school prepared for further education.
The school is known for its academic excellence.
All students are engaged in a rigorous course of study.
171
THE
Year
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly
Agree
2010
4%
30%
33%
30%
3%
2011
5%
27%
34%
30%
4%
2012
2%
23%
36%
34%
4%
2013
3%
26%
36%
31%
4%
2010
4%
32%
30%
31%
3%
2011
5%
31%
32%
28%
4%
2012
3%
25%
34%
35%
3%
2013
3%
29%
35%
30%
3%
2010
7%
26%
30%
30%
7%
2011
7%
22%
33%
30%
8%
2012
4%
22%
34%
33%
7%
2013
6%
27%
28%
30%
9%
2010
3%
30%
22%
41%
5%
2011
2%
21%
25%
44%
8%
2012
2%
19%
19%
53%
8%
2013
2%
21%
19%
52%
6%
BERC
GROUP
Table 65
Teacher Survey: Partnerships
Partnerships
Parents have many opportunities to get involved with school programs.
The school engages the community in discussion about continuous
improvement.
Parents are recognized as partners in education.
The school makes learning results readily available to parents.
THE
BERC
Year
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly
Agree
2010
1%
10%
30%
48%
11%
2011
1%
11%
26%
48%
14%
2012
1%
8%
24%
52%
15%
2013
3%
13%
21%
50%
14%
2010
3%
16%
34%
40%
7%
2011
3%
17%
29%
44%
7%
2012
2%
15%
34%
39%
10%
2013
5%
20%
31%
36%
8%
2010
2%
15%
28%
49%
6%
2011
1%
12%
23%
54%
10%
2012
1%
9%
23%
56%
11%
2013
2%
11%
24%
55%
8%
2010
0%
5%
17%
57%
21%
2011
0%
4%
17%
56%
22%
2012
0%
4%
10%
61%
25%
2013
0%
4%
17%
58%
21%
GROUP
172
Partnerships are developed with businesses in order to create workbased learning opportunities.
Partnerships are developed with institutions of higher education to
improve teacher preparation and instruction.
173
THE
BERC
2010
4%
21%
32%
38%
5%
2011
7%
27%
34%
28%
4%
2012
5%
18%
36%
32%
9%
2013
9%
26%
34%
25%
6%
2010
1%
17%
26%
51%
6%
2011
1%
16%
29%
43%
10%
2012
1%
14%
27%
47%
11%
2013
3%
15%
26%
47%
9%
GROUP
Table 66
Teacher Survey: Standards-Based teaching
Standards-Based Teaching
The school has adopted a consistent research-based instructional
approach based on shared beliefs about teaching and learning.
The staff and students are focused on a few important goals.
The use of time, tools, materials, and professional development
activities are aligned with instruction.
Data-driven decisions shape structure and schedule.
THE
BERC
Year
Strongly
Disagree
2010
1%
2011
Strongly
Agree
Neutral
Agree
11%
28%
53%
7%
1%
9%
25%
54%
11%
2012
1%
9%
22%
55%
14%
2013
1%
10%
25%
51%
13%
2010
1%
13%
29%
52%
5%
2011
2%
13%
31%
48%
5%
2012
2%
10%
23%
55%
10%
2013
2%
14%
27%
51%
7%
2010
1%
7%
21%
62%
10%
2011
1%
6%
18%
64%
11%
2012
1%
4%
16%
63%
16%
2013
1%
7%
17%
61%
14%
2010
4%
14%
30%
45%
7%
2011
2%
10%
27%
49%
12%
2012
3%
9%
25%
49%
15%
2013
4%
16%
26%
45%
10%
GROUP
174
Disagree
Teachers design curricula linked to learning standards.
Staff members are dedicated to helping every student achieve state
and local standards.
175
THE
2010
1%
2%
10%
64%
23%
2011
1%
1%
9%
63%
26%
2012
1%
2%
7%
60%
31%
2013
0%
1%
8%
62%
29%
2010
1%
3%
11%
63%
22%
2011
1%
4%
9%
61%
25%
2012
0%
2%
8%
61%
28%
2013
1%
3%
8%
60%
28%
BERC
GROUP
Table 67
Teacher Survey: Personalization
Personalization
The school is designed so that every student has an adult advocate.
The size of this school allows staff and students to work closely
together.
Students have a personal plan for progress.
The school is designed to promote student relationships with
adults.
THE
BERC
Year
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly
Agree
2010
6%
22%
22%
40%
10%
2011
6%
23%
22%
36%
13%
2012
6%
18%
22%
39%
15%
2013
7%
21%
24%
36%
12%
2010
4%
26%
17%
35%
18%
2011
3%
22%
22%
39%
14%
2012
3%
21%
20%
42%
14%
2013
4%
16%
21%
41%
18%
2010
3%
19%
27%
44%
7%
2011
3%
17%
31%
41%
8%
2012
2%
16%
30%
43%
10%
2013
3%
20%
28%
43%
6%
2010
1%
9%
21%
55%
14%
2011
1%
8%
26%
51%
14%
2012
1%
8%
22%
52%
17%
2013
1%
8%
21%
52%
19%
GROUP
176
Table 68
Teacher Survey: Constructivist Teaching
Constructivist Teaching
Year
Student work shows evidence of understanding, not just recall.
Assessment tasks allow students to exhibit higher-order thinking.
Students apply knowledge in real world contexts.
Students are engaged in activities to develop understanding.
Teachers utilize the diverse experiences of students to build effective
learning experiences.
177
THE
BERC
2010
2011
2012
2013
2010
2011
2012
2013
2010
2011
2012
2013
2010
2011
2012
2013
2010
2011
2012
2013
GROUP
Strongly
Disagree
1%
1%
1%
0%
1%
1%
0%
1%
1%
1%
0%
0%
0%
1%
0%
1%
1%
1%
0%
1%
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
10%
8%
6%
6%
5%
5%
4%
5%
9%
8%
7%
9%
4%
3%
1%
3%
6%
5%
5%
7%
25%
20%
22%
22%
24%
21%
18%
20%
26%
30%
26%
28%
15%
13%
10%
12%
30%
27%
27%
28%
57%
65%
65%
65%
61%
63%
64%
63%
58%
55%
58%
57%
73%
71%
74%
73%
56%
59%
56%
56%
Strongly
Agree
7%
6%
7%
7%
9%
10%
13%
11%
6%
6%
8%
5%
8%
12%
15%
12%
7%
8%
12%
9%
2010
2011
2012
2013
2010
2011
2012
2013
2010
2011
2012
2013
2010
2011
2012
2013
2010
2011
2012
2013
2010
2011
2012
2013
Students present to real audiences.
The learning focus is competence, not coverage.
Students are engaged in active participation, exploration, and research.
Students produce quality work products.
Teachers and students set learning goals and monitor progress.
Clear expectations define what students should know and be able to do.
THE
BERC
GROUP
178
2%
2%
1%
2%
1%
2%
0%
2%
1%
2%
0%
1%
1%
1%
1%
0%
0%
1%
0%
0%
1%
1%
0%
0%
17%
17%
18%
18%
11%
10%
10%
10%
10%
11%
7%
8%
10%
8%
7%
6%
11%
7%
6%
7%
7%
5%
3%
4%
29%
27%
26%
33%
30%
22%
21%
25%
30%
25%
25%
27%
30%
29%
27%
34%
28%
20%
21%
24%
19%
17%
15%
17%
45%
45%
43%
38%
49%
55%
57%
53%
54%
55%
58%
58%
55%
56%
57%
54%
52%
60%
59%
56%
63%
63%
65%
62%
7%
9%
12%
9%
9%
11%
11%
11%
5%
7%
10%
6%
4%
6%
8%
5%
9%
12%
14%
13%
10%
14%
17%
16%
Table 69
Teacher Survey: Environment
Environment
The school is an ethical environment.
The staff teachers, models, and expects responsible behavior.
Relationships are based on mutual respect.
The school is a safe environment.
The school is a studious environment.
179
THE
Year
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly
Agree
2010
2011
2012
2013
2010
2011
2012
2013
2010
2011
2012
2013
2010
2011
2012
2013
2010
2011
2012
2013
2%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
0%
0%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
2%
3%
1%
2%
6%
5%
4%
5%
5%
5%
3%
3%
7%
8%
6%
6%
7%
7%
4%
6%
19%
15%
11%
12%
17%
16%
16%
14%
10%
8%
6%
8%
17%
17%
15%
20%
12%
15%
12%
12%
27%
25%
23%
28%
54%
55%
56%
57%
60%
57%
57%
57%
61%
58%
60%
53%
63%
59%
60%
62%
46%
50%
56%
51%
21%
23%
22%
24%
24%
29%
34%
32%
14%
16%
18%
20%
17%
18%
24%
19%
6%
7%
9%
8%
BERC
GROUP
Table 70
Teacher Survey: Technology
Technology
Every staff member and student has access to computer hardware.
Every staff member and student has access to basic software applications
(i.e., word processing, databases).
Every staff member and student has access to internet connection.
Every staff member and student has access to technical support.
Every staff member and student has access to training and instruction.
THE
BERC
Year
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly
Agree
2010
2011
2012
2013
2010
2011
2012
2013
2010
2011
2012
2013
2010
2011
2012
2013
2010
2011
2012
2013
1%
2%
2%
1%
1%
1%
2%
1%
1%
1%
2%
0%
1%
2%
1%
2%
1%
1%
1%
1%
7%
6%
6%
8%
6%
5%
4%
5%
4%
5%
4%
7%
6%
8%
6%
10%
9%
9%
6%
7%
10%
7%
8%
11%
7%
7%
8%
10%
7%
5%
6%
7%
16%
16%
12%
14%
19%
17%
15%
16%
53%
55%
50%
56%
55%
55%
51%
57%
56%
54%
50%
57%
60%
57%
59%
58%
58%
54%
58%
60%
29%
30%
35%
25%
31%
32%
36%
28%
31%
35%
38%
29%
17%
17%
22%
18%
13%
19%
20%
17%
GROUP
180
Table 71
Teacher Survey: Future Focus
Future Focus
Every student has an advisor who monitors and supports their college
and career readiness.
A professional development process is in place for building the capacity
of educators to provide college and career readiness guidance.
Quality curricular tools/resources are provided to teachers for college
and career readiness for all students.
The school has a clear vision that supports college and career readiness
for all students.
181
THE
BERC
Year
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly
Agree
2010
7%
18%
19%
40%
16%
2011
6%
21%
20%
37%
16%
2012
6%
17%
18%
41%
19%
2013
8%
18%
20%
38%
17%
2010
3%
17%
26%
47%
7%
2011
3%
19%
28%
41%
9%
2012
3%
15%
26%
44%
12%
2013
3%
17%
27%
43%
10%
2010
3%
17%
29%
44%
7%
2011
3%
20%
28%
42%
7%
2012
2%
15%
28%
46%
10%
2013
3%
18%
26%
42%
10%
2010
1%
15%
25%
49%
10%
2011
2%
14%
25%
48%
11%
2012
1%
9%
25%
48%
17%
2013
2%
13%
21%
51%
13%
GROUP
Students have easy access to quality career and college information
services.
A diversity of remediation services are in place to put 'of-track' students
back on track.
Students regularly report to parents regarding their college and career
readiness progress (e.g. through a student-led conference).
District policies are supportive of the school's college and career
readiness vision.
Student and teacher resources for college and career readiness are
continuously evaluated and improved.
THE
BERC
2010
1%
10%
18%
54%
17%
2011
1%
12%
22%
50%
15%
2012
1%
9%
20%
49%
22%
2013
2%
11%
22%
46%
20%
2010
4%
16%
18%
51%
11%
2011
4%
14%
19%
48%
15%
2012
4%
11%
20%
44%
14%
2013
5%
17%
20%
44%
15%
2010
5%
27%
29%
31%
8%
2011
6%
21%
26%
36%
11%
2012
6%
21%
29%
32%
13%
2013
4%
21%
28%
34%
13%
2010
2%
11%
29%
48%
10%
2011
3%
9%
30%
49%
9%
2012
2%
7%
25%
52%
14%
2013
3%
11%
27%
47%
13%
2010
2%
11%
41%
40%
6%
2011
2%
15%
43%
35%
5%
2012
2%
11%
37%
43%
8%
2013
2%
12%
39%
39%
9%
GROUP
182
APPENDIX E: NAVIGATION 101 TEACHER PERSPECTIVES QUESTIONNAIRE
183
THE
BERC
GROUP
Table 72
Teacher Survey: Quality of Education
Quality of Education
All Students leave school prepared for success in work.
All students leave school prepared for further education.
The school is known for its academic excellence.
All students are engaged in a rigorous course of study.
THE
BERC
Year
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly
Agree
2010
11%
30%
31%
25%
3%
2011
8%
31%
38%
21%
2%
2012
7%
29%
35%
27%
3%
2013
5%
27%
38%
26%
4%
2010
8%
37%
33%
21%
1%
2011
7%
35%
37%
19%
2%
2012
5%
30%
34%
29%
2%
2013
3%
32%
35%
27%
3%
2010
16%
38%
31%
14%
2%
2011
16%
39%
32%
11%
2%
2012
13%
35%
33%
17%
3%
2013
12%
33%
34%
19%
3%
2010
3%
29%
25%
37%
6%
2011
3%
26%
31%
42%
6%
2012
4%
21%
20%
48%
6%
2013
3%
21%
21%
49%
6%
GROUP
184
Table 73
Teacher Survey: Partnerships
Partnerships
Year
Parents have many opportunities to get involved with school programs.
The school engages the community in discussion about continuous
improvement.
Parents are recognized as partners in education.
The school makes learning results readily available to parents.
Partnerships are developed with businesses in order to create work-based
learning opportunities.
Partnerships are developed with institutions of higher education to
improve teacher preparation and instruction.
185
THE
BERC
2010
2011
2012
2013
2010
2011
2012
2013
2010
2011
2012
2013
2010
2011
2012
2013
2010
2011
2012
2013
2010
2011
2012
2013
GROUP
Strongly
Disagree
2%
3%
2%
3%
6%
6%
4%
3%
5%
5%
3%
4%
1%
1%
1%
1%
11%
12%
8%
9%
2%
4%
3%
3%
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
16%
15%
11%
13%
24%
22%
17%
21%
17%
16%
13%
11%
7%
9%
7%
9%
30%
36%
29%
31%
19%
21%
17%
20%
25%
25%
24%
27%
35%
31%
36%
33%
26%
25%
22%
25%
16%
19%
17%
17%
33%
32%
34%
35%
28%
29%
32%
22%
48%
46%
49%
49%
31%
35%
37%
34%
46%
46%
52%
51%
58%
54%
56%
53%
23%
19%
25%
20%
45%
39%
41%
47%
Strongly
Agree
9%
11%
14%
9%
4%
6%
6%
9%
6%
8%
10%
9%
18%
17%
20%
20%
3%
1%
5%
5%
6%
7%
7%
9%
Table 74
Teacher Survey: Standards-Based teaching
Standards-Based Teaching
The school has adopted a consistent research-based instructional
approach based on shared beliefs about teaching and learning.
The staff and students are focused on a few important goals.
The use of time, tools, materials, and professional development
activities are aligned with instruction.
Data-driven decisions shape structure and schedule.
THE
BERC
Year
Strongly
Disagree
2010
3%
2011
Strongly
Agree
Neutral
Agree
12%
30%
50%
5%
4%
11%
23%
52%
10%
2012
2%
8%
23%
55%
11%
2013
3%
12%
20%
51%
15%
2010
3%
15%
30%
48%
4%
2011
4%
19%
27%
45%
5%
2012
4%
15%
27%
49%
7%
2013
3%
20%
23%
47%
8%
2010
2%
8%
22%
58%
10%
2011
2%
10%
20%
58%
10%
2012
1%
7%
18%
59%
14%
2013
2%
7%
17%
61%
13%
2010
6%
14%
24%
47%
9%
2011
3%
13%
25%
48%
11%
2012
4%
9%
22%
51%
14%
2013
4%
14%
21%
47%
14%
GROUP
186
Disagree
Teachers design curricula linked to learning standards.
Staff members are dedicated to helping every student achieve state
and local standards.
187
THE
2010
2%
2%
12%
61%
23%
2011
1%
3%
10%
60%
26%
2012
1%
2%
5%
61%
31%
2013
0%
2%
6%
60%
32%
2010
2%
6%
11%
63%
19%
2011
1%
4%
11%
60%
24%
2012
0%
2%
8%
66%
23%
2013
1%
2%
6%
63%
29%
BERC
GROUP
Table 75
Teacher Survey: Personalization
Personalization
The school is designed so that every student has an adult advocate.
The size of this school allows staff and students to work closely
together.
Students have a personal plan for progress.
The school is designed to promote student relationships with
adults.
THE
BERC
Year
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly
Agree
2010
5%
17%
18%
46%
14%
2011
5%
16%
20%
44%
15%
2012
4%
10%
17%
52%
18%
2013
2%
9%
21%
50%
19%
2010
6%
24%
22%
37%
11%
2011
6%
19%
21%
44%
10%
2012
4%
21%
20%
46%
10%
2013
2%
16%
19%
50%
13%
2010
4%
16%
25%
48%
7%
2011
3%
18%
27%
45%
7%
2012
1%
13%
28%
47%
11%
2013
2%
13%
29%
47%
11%
2010
1%
12%
25%
50%
12%
2011
1%
10%
27%
48%
14%
2012
2%
9%
21%
51%
17%
2013
0%
9%
16%
55%
20%
GROUP
188
Table 76
Teacher Survey: Constructivist Teaching
Constructivist Teaching
Year
Student work shows evidence of understanding, not just recall.
Assessment tasks allow students to exhibit higher-order thinking.
Students apply knowledge in real world contexts.
Students are engaged in activities to develop understanding.
Teachers utilize the diverse experiences of students to build effective
learning experiences.
189
THE
BERC
2010
2011
2012
2013
2010
2011
2012
2013
2010
2011
2012
2013
2010
2011
2012
2013
2010
2011
2012
2013
GROUP
Strongly
Disagree
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
0%
2%
2%
1%
0%
1%
1%
1%
0%
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
12%
11%
8%
8%
8%
5%
4%
5%
17%
11%
8%
9%
5%
4%
2%
3%
9%
10%
6%
8%
26%
25%
24%
21%
22%
24%
21%
20%
32%
33%
32%
31%
21%
14%
16%
13%
34%
38%
28%
23%
55%
58%
62%
64%
60%
62%
60%
65%
47%
52%
53%
55%
67%
69%
69%
74%
50%
55%
58%
60%
Strongly
Agree
6%
5%
6%
6%
9%
8%
13%
9%
3%
3%
6%
4%
5%
11%
13%
11%
6%
6%
7%
10%
2010
2011
2012
2013
2010
2011
2012
2013
2010
2011
2012
2013
2010
2011
2012
2013
2010
2011
2012
2013
2010
2011
2012
2013
Students present to real audiences.
The learning focus is competence, not coverage.
Students are engaged in active participation, exploration, and research.
Students produce quality work products.
Teachers and students set learning goals and monitor progress.
Clear expectations define what students should know and be able to do.
THE
BERC
GROUP
190
5%
4%
4%
4%
4%
3%
2%
2%
3%
2%
2%
1%
2%
3%
2%
1%
1%
1%
0%
0%
2%
1%
1%
1%
23%
22%
20%
21%
14%
14%
11%
11%
17%
15%
12%
11%
19%
14%
11%
11%
10%
8%
6%
5%
7%
7%
5%
6%
33%
33%
26%
29%
28%
24%
25%
26%
31%
30%
26%
30%
33%
35%
36%
34%
27%
22%
22%
22%
15%
17%
14%
12%
35%
44%
42%
38%
46%
50%
55%
51%
45%
47%
54%
52%
44%
45%
48%
48%
52%
56%
62%
58%
64%
60%
64%
65%
4%
7%
9%
8%
8%
9%
9%
10%
4%
6%
7%
6%
2%
3%
4%
5%
10%
13%
11%
14%
12%
15%
16%
16%
Table 77
Teacher Survey: Environment
Environment
The school is an ethical environment.
The staff teachers, models, and expects responsible behavior.
Relationships are based on mutual respect.
The school is a safe environment.
The school is a studious environment.
191
THE
Year
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly
Agree
2010
2%
8%
20%
55%
15%
2011
2%
6%
18%
57%
17%
2012
2%
6%
17%
59%
15%
2013
1%
6%
12%
62%
19%
2010
2%
5%
13%
61%
20%
2011
1%
7%
13%
59%
20%
2012
1%
5%
10%
59%
26%
2013
0%
6%
8%
59%
26%
2010
2%
12%
20%
54%
12%
2011
2%
10%
22%
55%
11%
2012
1%
9%
21%
56%
14%
2013
2%
9%
18%
54%
17%
2010
2%
12%
16%
60%
10%
2011
2%
11%
19%
59%
9%
2012
5%
7%
17%
57%
14%
2013
2%
8%
12%
61%
17%
2010
4%
24%
28%
41%
3%
2011
4%
22%
29%
40%
5%
2012
5%
18%
26%
45%
7%
2013
3%
15%
27%
47%
7%
BERC
GROUP
Table 78
Teacher Survey: Technology
Technology
2010
Strongly
Disagree
2%
2011
4%
7%
8%
55%
26%
2012
2%
7%
8%
56%
27%
2013
1%
7%
12%
53%
27%
2010
2%
5%
11%
55%
27%
2011
3%
7%
8%
56%
26%
2012
2%
6%
7%
56%
29%
2013
1%
4%
11%
55%
30%
2010
3%
4%
10%
57%
26%
2011
2%
5%
6%
58%
29%
2012
2%
7%
6%
55%
30%
2013
1%
5%
10%
54%
30%
2010
2%
8%
15%
58%
17%
2011
2%
9%
14%
60%
15%
2012
2%
8%
13%
58%
19%
2013
1%
7%
17%
58%
17%
2010
2%
7%
21%
58%
12%
2011
2%
11%
17%
57%
13%
2012
2%
8%
15%
59%
16%
2013
2%
7%
14%
62%
15%
Year
Every staff member and student has access to computer hardware.
Every staff member and student has access to basic software applications
(i.e., word processing, databases).
Every staff member and student has access to internet connection.
Every staff member and student has access to technical support.
Every staff member and student has access to training and instruction.
THE
BERC
GROUP
192
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
8%
12%
52%
Strongly
Agree
26%
193
THE
BERC
GROUP
Table 79
Teacher Survey: Future Focus
Future Focus
Year
Every student has an advisor who monitors and supports their college and
career readiness.
A professional development process is in place for building the capacity of
educators to provide college and career readiness guidance.
Quality curricular tools/resources are provided to teachers for college
and career readiness for all students.
The school has a clear vision that supports college and career readiness for
all students.
Students have easy access to quality career and college information
services.
THE
BERC
2010
2011
2012
2013
2010
2011
2012
2013
2010
2011
2012
2013
2010
2011
2012
2013
2010
2011
2012
2013
GROUP
194
Strongly
Disagree
4%
4%
2%
2%
5%
5%
4%
4%
4%
5%
2%
2%
4%
4%
3%
2%
4%
3%
2%
2%
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
10%
13%
10%
10%
17%
19%
16%
20%
18%
20%
16%
17%
15%
17%
11%
13%
14%
17%
13%
13%
20%
18%
16%
18%
28%
30%
26%
23%
33%
26%
26%
28%
26%
27%
23%
24%
26%
27%
23%
23%
49%
47%
52%
47%
44%
37%
45%
42%
39%
42%
49%
44%
49%
44%
50%
49%
47%
44%
48%
46%
Strongly
Agree
17%
18%
20%
23%
6%
9%
8%
12%
6%
7%
7%
9%
6%
8%
12%
13%
9%
9%
15%
17%
A diversity of remediation services are in place to put 'of-track' students
back on track.
Students regularly report to parents regarding their college and career
readiness progress (e.g. through a student-led conference).
District policies are supportive of the school's college and career readiness
vision.
Student and teacher resources for college and career readiness are
continuously evaluated and improved.
195
THE
BERC
2010
2011
2012
2013
2010
2011
2012
2013
2010
2011
2012
2013
2010
2011
2012
2013
GROUP
7%
6%
5%
4%
3%
3%
3%
3%
5%
5%
5%
2%
4%
4%
3%
1%
22%
20%
14%
15%
9%
15%
13%
13%
11%
15%
9%
10%
14%
19%
14%
15%
16%
20%
18%
17%
32%
25%
21%
23%
35%
30%
31%
28%
42%
42%
38%
38%
46%
40%
43%
45%
46%
46%
47%
46%
43%
45%
48%
47%
34%
30%
40%
37%
9%
14%
20%
18%
11%
11%
16%
15%
6%
5%
9%
13%
6%
5%
6%
10%
Table 80
Teacher Survey: Navigation 101 Beliefs
Navigation 101 Beliefs
2010
Strongly
Disagree
6%
2011
11%
21%
28%
33%
7%
2012
8%
16%
29%
39%
8%
2013
7%
21%
28%
35%
9%
2010
4%
12%
22%
52%
10%
2011
7%
15%
23%
46%
9%
2012
5%
10%
23%
51%
11%
2013
5%
14%
22%
49%
11%
2010
5%
11%
27%
49%
9%
2011
10%
16%
30%
37%
7%
2012
5%
12%
27%
46%
9%
2013
6%
15%
27%
44%
9%
2010
6%
13%
44%
30%
7%
2011
10%
20%
38%
26%
5%
2012
7%
14%
38%
35%
6%
2013
7%
16%
41%
28%
8%
2010
7%
16%
41%
31%
5%
2011
10%
18%
41%
27%
4%
2012
7%
15%
36%
36%
6%
2013
8%
18%
37%
32%
6%
Year
I believe that Navigation 101 helps students become more engaged in their
learning.
The Navigation 101 program helps students see a connection between their
future goals and what they are doing in school today.
The Navigation 101 program has helped inspire students to set and achieve
future goals.
Students are more likely to attend a post-secondary program (4-year, 2-year,
apprenticeship, etc.) because of their involvement in Navigation 101.
Students are more likely to graduate on time as a result of Navigation 101.
THE
BERC
GROUP
196
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
17%
28%
38%
Strongly
Agree
11%
APPENDIX F: POWERFUL TEACHING AND LEARNINGTM
197
THE
BERC
GROUP
The Essential Components of Powerful Teaching and LearningTM, adapted from How People Learn:
Brain, Mind, Experience, and School (National Research Council, 1999a) and How People Learn: Bridging
Research and Practice (National Research Council, 1999b), reflect an approach to learning that has
been given considerable attention in the last decade (Baker, 1998; Marzano, Pickering & Pollack,
2001; Newman & Wehlage, 1993; Simpson 2001). Reference to Powerful Teaching and Learning
intends to describe what many refer to as student-centered teaching and constructivist learning. It is
also known as reform-like teaching. Powerful Teaching and Learning has a sound base in
instructional and learning theory, and research in Washington State supports the development of
such teaching practice (Abbott & Fouts, 2003).
Instructional Theory
It is a commonly held belief that the quality of teacher instruction is subject to the use of
performance-based, authentic tasks (Marzano, Pickering & McTighe, 1993; McTighe & Ferrara,
1995; Shepard, 1995; Stiggins, 1988, 1992, 1995, 1996; Wiggins, 1990, 1993). The nature of this
contemporary instruction is aligned with post-modern and constructivist philosophies.
Performance-based, authentic learning holds as a presupposition that the classroom is a learnercentered environment where the teacher is aware of the individual developmental needs of students
(Sutherland, 1992). The emphasis is on student engagement and teacher support. The teacher
exposes students to authentic problems, and students learn through hands-on involvement and
through real-life situations. Hyerle (1996) discussed the fundamental change that has taken place
regarding theories of cognition. Hyerle called this change a “cognitive revolution” (p. 13). He
claimed that we began a slow institutional transformation away from rote behaviorism, and closed
definitions of intelligence and the static structure of knowledge earlier in the 20th century. The
guiding term for this cognitive revolution is constructivism. These precepts are fundamentally postmodern in nature and lead to a cognitivist view of education.
Elkind (1997) described modernity as possessing the values of “progress, universality, and
regularity” (p. 27). By contrast, Elkind described post-modernity as possessing the qualities of
difference, particularity, and irregularity. Using these as guidelines, alternative assessments are,
indeed, fundamentally post-modern in their nature. In the post-modern world of education,
teachers and students approach knowledge from an active inquiry point of view rather than from a
learning for the sake of learning point of view. Utilitarian education dominates the classroom as
students seek to construct knowledge and show evidence of learning through an array of alternative
assessment options.
Clark and Clark (1997) recognized this shift in the view of knowledge. They encouraged educators
to consider three fundamental issues around assessment and instruction. First, the adoption of
authentic assessment reflects a significant shift in what schools value and carries with it far-reaching
implications for content organization and classroom instruction. Second, authentic assessment
involves teachers and administrators at virtually every stage of the process. Third, authentic
assessment legitimizes the widespread custom of teaching to the test.
Newmann and Wehlage (1993) provided five standards of authentic instruction, including (1)
higher-order thinking; (2) depth of knowledge; (3) connectedness to the world; (4) substantive
THE
BERC
GROUP
198
conversation; and (5) social support for student achievement. All of these require the use of
alternative assessments and require a fundamentally different approach to instruction in the
classroom. For example, the teaching methods related to cognitivism include the use of
manipulatives and real-life learning opportunities relevant to students’ prior experiences. Thus,
students construct meaningful knowledge through experience and interaction. The goal of such an
education is developing thinking skills for lifelong self-directed learning.
For Hyerle (1996), brainstorming webs are a primary vehicle for encouraging and developing metacognitive skills. Brainstorming webs allow students to visually display their thinking patterns using
circles and connected lines. This in turn allows them to discuss, change, correct, and reflect upon
their own thinking. Hyerle suggested the use of pre- and post-instruction brainstorm mapping to
allow students to reflect upon and assess their own thinking processes related to the authentic
learning task.
Learning Theory
The theories of learning that surround Powerful Teaching and Learning are very often those that
are cognitive in nature (Lu & Suen, 1995; Rudner & Boston, 1994). Cognitive researchers suggest
meaningful learning is reflective, constructive, and self-regulated (Bransford & Vye, 1989; Davis &
Maher, 1990; Marzano, et al, 1988). Studies in cognitive psychology have suggested that students
learn better from hands-on, holistic learning experiences (Dietel, Herman, & Knuth, 1991).
Structured drills are not effective if the goal is to move the students toward higher, analytic ways of
thinking. Researchers also suggest that “to know” something does not simply mean a student
receives the knowledge; it means the student is able to interpret it and relate it to other knowledge.
With these developments in cognitive theory, the use of hands-on, performance, authentic,
constructivist testing flourished in the early 1990s (Peterson & Knapp, 1993). The WASL is one
example. Although, assessment modalities changed, instructional practice aligned with the
assessment did not necessarily change (Baker, Gratama & Bachtler, 2002; Baker, Gratama &
Bachtler, 2003).
Although Jean Piaget initiated the work of cognitive development, other contributors to the field
included L.S. Vygotsky, J.P. Gilford, Benjamin Bloom, and Hilda Taba. The developments of these
researchers led to the “thinking skills” movement that has taken place over the last two decades.
This movement was led by the likes of Arthur Costa, David Perkins, Edward de Bono, Matthew
Lipton, Richard Paul, and others (Hyerle, 1996).
Our understanding of Powerful Teaching and Learning has been guided by the research of cognitive
science (Gardner, 1985). Neuro-psychological research has largely established and confirmed that
multiple, complex, and concrete experiences are essential for meaningful learning and teaching
(Caine & Caine, 1991). This element of multiplicity of learning style led to the consideration of
multiplicity in the types of learners that exist in schools. Mamchur (1996) went as far as to point
out eight distinctly different types of learners.
In their book, Making Connections: Teaching the Human Brain, Caine and Caine (1991) went into
detail as to how the brain learns. One of the important points made in their book has to do with
processing of information. To learn, they suggest, the brain must be involved with “active
199
THE
BERC
GROUP
processing” (p. 147). They describe active processing as “the consolidation and internalization of
information, by the learner, in a way that is both personally meaningful and conceptually coherent.
It is the path to understanding, rather than to simple memory” (p. 147). Active processing assumes
a person asks reflective questions about a learning experience: “What did I do? Why did I do it? or
What did I learn?”
Shepard (1989) summarized this shift in cognitive theory:
The notion that learning comes about by the accretion of little bits is outmoded learning
theory. Current models of learning based on cognitive psychology contend that learners
gain understanding when they construct their own knowledge and develop their own
cognitive maps of the interactions among facts and concepts.... Real learning cannot be
spoon-fed one skill at a time. (p. 5)
Put simply, Shepard argues the point that if we want students to be able to solve open-ended
problems and work cooperatively in groups, we should probably allow students to experience these
as part of routine instruction. According to Michaels (1988) “The clear message of second-wave
reform3 is that we need to examine our basic philosophical beliefs about teaching, learning, the
nature of human beings, and the kinds of environments that maximize growth for teachers and
students alike” (p. 3).
Although Newmann and Wehlage (1993) developed their five standards of authentic instruction,
they also pointed out that research at the time was not definitive about whether or not authentic
instruction improves student learning more than do traditional forms of instruction. They,
however, did encourage the continued exploration into whether authentic instruction produces
notable performance effects. Three studies in Washington State did just that and have indeed found
the links to academic achievement hypothesized by Newmann and Wehlage a decade earlier (Fouts
et al. 2002; Abbott & Fouts, 2003; Brown & Fouts, 2003).
In Washington State, several studies (Fouts et al., 2002; Abbott & Fouts, 2003; Brown & Fouts,
2003) have revealed strong correlations between student achievement and the presence of
Powerful Teaching and Learning in schools. These studies involved more than 1400 classroom
observations over a two-year period. Although Powerful Teaching and Learning was observed in
schools only 12-17% of the time (Fouts et al., 2002), there was a strong positive correlation
between Powerful Teaching and Learning and student achievement on the WASL. In addition,
students of poverty appeared to benefit most from Powerful Teaching and Learning as described in
the observation protocol (Abbott & Fouts, 2003). Details of the studies and the development of the
Teaching Attributes Observation Protocol (TAOP) are available on the Bill & Melinda Gates
Foundation website.4 The type of teaching identified as Powerful Teaching and Learning, and
3
See Baker (1998) The Implementation of Alternative Assessment Procedures and Washington State
Educational Reform
4
Fouts, J.T., Brown, C., & Thieman, G.Y. (2002). Classroom instruction in Gates grantee schools: A
baseline report. Seattle, WA: Fouts & Associates.
http://www.gatesfoundation.org/Education/ResearchandEvaluation/
THE
BERC
GROUP
200
correlated with student achievement in the state of Washington, was observed in approximately
17% of the lessons in the original Gates foundation and BERC Group STAR observation studies.
The presence of some aspects of Powerful Teaching and Learning observed within the MSP is a
positive finding, given that this is a baseline report. If aligned, instructional practices should possess
elements of cognitive and constructivist teaching and learning theories described earlier in this
report and represented in the STAR. These positive findings are often not the case around the state.
Other studies have shown similar findings.5 Fouts (Abbott & Fouts 2003) asserts:
Critics of American education have claimed that children living in poverty often receive an
inferior educational experience. Unfortunately, at least in this sample of schools, the
relatively strong negative correlation between school-level student family income and
constructivist teaching shows that students in schools with lower levels of student family
income receive less intellectually demanding instruction and less instruction of the type
that is a predictor of academic success than do students in schools with higher levels of
family income. This finding should be a concern to all of us as we work to improve
education in this state.
5
Between 2002 and 2004, members of The BERC Group conducted three separate studies around Powerful
Teaching and Learning, two involved the TAOP and the third involved the STAR. In 2004, The BERC
Group developed the STAR Classroom Observation Protocol and conducted 189 classroom observations
around the state. In that study Powerful Teaching and Learning was observed 17% of the time.
201
THE
BERC
GROUP
The BERC Group, Inc.
22232 17th Avenue SE, Suite 305
Bothell, WA 98021
Phone: 425-486-3100
Web: www.bercgroup.com
THE
BERC
GROUP
202