November 2006 | Volume 64 | Number 3 NCLB: Taking Stock, Looking Forward Pages 80-85 How a Strong School Faced “Failure” Lori Likis Rigid formulas for measuring adequate yearly progress threatened genuine improvement at this Boston-area charter school. When the Benjamin Banneker Charter Public School received its scores on the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) test three years ago, school leaders realized they had not one problem, but two. Not only did the 2002–03 results reflect continuing poor schoolwide math performance, but they also revealed that Banneker had failed to make adequate yearly progress in math for the fifth consecutive year, pushing the school into the “Corrective Action” category under No Child Left Behind (NCLB). Through an intense effort, Banneker successfully addressed the first problem—raising math scores and reaching its adequate yearly progress (AYP) target by 2004. But because of how AYP is measured in Massachusetts, the school continued to be labeled as failing. In Banneker's case, the rigidity of NCLB's formulas threatened the very reforms the legislation was designed to encourage. Banneker and Its Students Founded in 1995, Banneker is one of the oldest charter schools in Massachusetts. “The Banneker,” which enrolls K–6 students from across the greater Boston metropolitan area (and until this school year served 7th and 8th graders as well), focuses on math, science, and technology. More than 95 percent of students are children of color, approximately 75 percent receive free or reduced-price lunch, and half speak a language other than English at home. In other words, we teach largely the kind of at-risk students NCLB aims to help. On the whole, students leave Banneker with a drive to succeed, and many go on to excel at schools across the Boston area. But low achievement in math had plagued Banneker for years, and we had been pursuing a solution. But moving into the Corrective Action category shifted the picture. Although unsure of the consequences, school leaders realized that the label was a significant step on a course that, if not altered, might threaten the school's existence. “Math Everywhere” Although the impetus behind labels like Corrective Action may be to shake troubled schools out of complacency, complacent was not a word that described Banneker in 2003. The Corrective Action label only amplified the sense of urgency already working within the school. By the 2003–04 school year, Banneker's own internal restructuring process was already underway. Executive Director Lenora Jennings and the board had hired a strategic planner, and the Banneker November 2006 Page 1 of 5ASCD11/27/2006http://www.ascd.org/portal/site/ascd/template.MAXIMIZE/menuitem.459dee008f99653f...community was working together to set realistic improvement targets. When the MCAS scores arrived, Banneker responded immediately. Leaders and teachers assessedthe most probable causes for the school's continued low math performance and designed strategies to address them. As a community, we created “Math Everywhere,” an ambitious schoolwide plan to raise math achievement, making this our primary goal for 2003–04. We kicked off the campaign at the school's open house in October 2003. Jennings spoke openly with both parents and students about how Banneker's average math scores fell short of federal and state-set standards, how this reflected a historic achievement gap, and how we needed to unite to solve the problem. We asked students to commit to personal math goals and addressed how classroom behavior might influence learning. Math teachers tried new instructional practices, and teachers across the disciplines integrated math into their classes and supported the effort. Our top strategies were zIncreasing math instructional time by two periods a week. zHolding family math nights and math contests. zProviding math-focused professional development. zHiring a part-time math coach. zCreating an internal math assessment, administered in October, January, and May. zOrganizing math tutoring. (For details on our math improvement campaign, see “Meeting a Math Achievement Crisis,” Educational Leadership, March 2005.) Schools in Corrective Action are required to report regularly on steps they are taking to respond to their NCLB status. In January 2004, Banneker submitted the Math Everywhere plan to the Massachusetts Department of Education as the school's Corrective Action Plan. The Banneker community eagerly awaited the 2004 MCAS results. Success...But With a Twist The Good News... When the 2003–04 MCAS results arrived at the school, we celebrated: The school had reversed its downward mathematics performance trend during its Corrective Action year. Whereas 60 percent of students scored in the Warning category in math on the MCAS in 2003, 60 percent of Banneker students passed in 2004, scoring at either Needs Improvement, Proficient, or a higher level. We had moved a large percentage of students out of the failure range at all grade levels except 8th grade—and had moved a significant percentage of students into Proficient and Advanced at all grade levels tested (4th grade, 6th grade, and 8th grade). Specifically, for the 2003–04 school year, zThe percentage of students scoring as Proficient and Advanced rose by 11 points at the 4th grade level, 6 points at the 6th grade level, and 9 points at the 8th grade level. zThe percentage of students scoring at the Warning level decreased by 28 points at the 4th grade level and 42 points at the 6th grade level. The percentage of 8th grade students scoring in Warning remained about the same. ...And the Twist Not all our MCAS news was good news. The school still failed to make what the Massachusetts accountability system considers adequate yearly progress. Here's why. Adequate yearly progress is measured by subject area using a calculated schoolwide number known as the Composite Performance Index (CPI). The CPI for a particular academic subject in a Page 2 of 5ASCD11/27/2006http://www.ascd.org/portal/site/ascd/template.MAXIMIZE/menuitem.459dee008f99653f...given year reflects the cumulative performance of all students in the school who were tested in that subject that year. In 2003, the year before Banneker entered Corrective Action, the school's math CPI was 39.7. In 2004, after the implementation of Math Everywhere, Banneker's math CPI rose dramatically, to 52.2. The CPI range