Single Gender Program Evaluation Report
Richland County School District One
AARE
Accountability, Assessment, Research and Evaluation
Richland One 1616 Richland St., Columbia, SC 29201 (803) 231-7450
Single Gender Program Evaluation Report
Richland County School District One Single Gender Program Evaluation Report
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
3
REVIEW OF PERTINENT LITERATURE
5
PART 1: RICHLAND ONE SINGLE GENDER OVERVIEW
6
PARTICIPATING SCHOOLS, GRADE LEVEL AND SUBJECT AREAS OFFERED CLASS SELECTION PROCESS STUDENT DEMOGRAPHICS (ALL)
6 7 7
PART 2: EVALUATION PLAN
8
COHORT SELECTION PROCESS ACHIEVEMENT DATA MAP OVERVIEW
8 8 9
PART 3: EVALUATION FINDINGS
10
STUDENT AND TEACHER DEMOGRAPHICS (LIMITED TO STUDY) MAP GROWTH TARGET ANALYSIS MAP TO PACT CONVERSION ANALYSIS
10 11 14
APPENDIX
17
Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix
A: Contact Information B: Evaluation Plan C: Single Gender Classes in Richland One November 2006 Study D: SDE Single Gender Proposal Form and Newsletter E: SDE Federal Regulations Summary and State Guidance on Data Coding F: A Study of the Alignment of the NWEA RIT Scale with the South Carolina Assessment System
Richland County School District One Single Gender Program Evaluation Report
3
Executive Summary, Findings and Recommendations The following is a summary of the Richland One School District Single Gender program evaluation conducted by the Office of Accountability, Assessment, Research and Evaluation (AARE). The purpose of this study was to understand the demographics of participating students and educators and to determine if the single gender program had an impact on student academic achievement performance. Questions used to Guide the Study Student and Teacher Characteristics: What are the student and teacher demographics of Single Gender program participants? FINDINGS: Overall, single gender programs were offered almost evenly (50/50) to both male and female students. The majority of those students were black (over 80%) and receiving either free or reduced lunch assistance (over 75%). The educators teaching the single gender classes were black represented by 85% and female (55%). The majority, 68%, of these educators held a bachelor’s level degree. Note: Demographic figures are limited to the students and teachers included in the MAP/PACT analysis. See Part 3: Evaluation Findings for more details. Student Academic Performance: Based on Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) data, are Single Gender program participants making improvements in pre/post testing? FINDINGS: Considering all single gender programs, 44% of students met MAP reading percent growth targets and 50% met targets for mathematics. This is 3% lower than coeducation classes for reading and 2% higher than coeducation classes for mathematics. Of the nine schools used in the analysis, only four (i.e., CA Johnson, Hand, Hyatt Park and Webber) showed higher performance in at least one of the two areas than coeducation students. C.A. Johnson and Hyatt Park made growth target gains above their coeducation conterparts in both reading and mathematics. For more information, see part 3: Evaluation Findings.
Richland County School District One Single Gender Program Evaluation Report
4
RECOMMENDATIONS: If the district continues to offer single gender programs, the following recommendations are provided in an effort to improve the data collection, monitoring, and accountability of the single gender programs. SASI Sections Atom Coding: Currently, the majority of the single gender class sections have been identifiable by selecting classes with only one gender count. Hence one gender has zero enrollment. See image below.
However, South Carolina State Department of Education (SDE) is requesting that schools also utilize the Gender tag and select either Male or Female (see Appendix E). This would allow SDE to extract data directly. See image below.
Federal Compliance: Prior to this analysis, Richland One Legal Services department sent correspondence to schools inquiring about whether or not programs were in full compliance with the required Federal regulations. Upon that inquiry, a few schools withdrew from stating that they offered single gender classes. It is strongly recommended that prior to the 20092010 school year that schools again are made fully aware of the federal regulations and SDE requirements for data coding. Additionally, it is recommended that the Curriculum and Instruction department conduct classroom observations throughout the year to ensure that schools and teachers are applying the single gender curriculum and practices and not just merely separating boys from girls. The following pages provide a summary of a) single gender student and teacher demographics, b) student academic achievement gains utilizing fall 2008 (pretest) and spring 2009 (post test) assessment scores, and c) a Palmetto Achievement Challenge Test (PACT) conversion analysis.
Richland County School District One Single Gender Program Evaluation Report
5
Review of Pertinent Literature District The Office of AARE evaluated the Single Gender program in November 2006. The study was limited to the two participating schools at that time: Forest Heights Elementary and Sanders Middle. Overall, the analysis included a review of attendance, suspension and the PACT performance data. To review the complete report and its finding see Appendix C. State The South Carolina Department of Education, Office of Public School Choice assists and supports schools and districts in their efforts to create (e.g. Single Gender proposal Form – See Appendix D) , implement, and evaluate a single-gender program. Statewide workshops and meetings are also conducted throughout the year, and monthly newsletters (see Appendix D) are sent to single gender teachers. For more information on the State services and resources offered, visit: http://ed.sc.gov/agency/Innovation-and-Support/Public-SchoolChoice/SingleGender/Index.html. Federal All single gender programs must adhere to Federal regulations that were established October 25, 2006 and took effect on November 24, 2006. Regulations include program adherence to educational objectives and periodic evaluations (i.e. every two years) just to name a few. To review the complete federal regulations visit the following website: http://www.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister/finrule/2006-4/102506a.pdf For a summary of the Federal regulations, prepared by David Chadwell, SDE Single Gender Initiatives Coordinator, see Appendix E.
Richland County School District One Single Gender Program Evaluation Report
6
Part 1: Richland One Single Gender Overview Single Gender education aims to teach boys and girls the same high standards, albeit, within different classrooms and with different teaching methods. Federal regulations (issued October 2006) authorize school districts to use single gender classrooms, programs, and schools as a way to meet the educational needs of their students. Within the state of South Carolina, there are over 200 schools offering some form of single gender program. As of 200809 school year, Richland One offered single gender programs in six elementary schools, three middle schools, and one high school.
Participating Schools Participating Schools and Grade Levels Offered: School
Year Started
Burnside Gadsden Hopkins ES Hyatt Park Greenview Webber
2008-09 2008-09 2005-06 2007-08 2008-09 2008-09
Gibbes Hand Hopkins MS
2008-09 2007-08 2008-09
Johnson
2007-08
Grade Level
Subject Area ELA
ELEMENTARY 3rd 5th th 5 th th 4 ,5 th th 4 ,5 5th MIDDLE 6th th th 6 ,7 th 8 HIGH 9th
Math
Science
Soc. Studies
Note: Based on data submitted by the participating schools.
It should be noted that Caughman Road Elementary school attempted the single gender program but did not finish the full year and therefore was eliminated from the analysis.
Richland County School District One Single Gender Program Evaluation Report
7
Class Section Process Currently, Richland One schools do not use the single gender class section identifier within the SASI data system. As a result, AARE staff had to request a list of single gender classes from participating schools for 2007-08 and 200809 school years. Once received, the AARE office verified within SASI that the class sections reflected single gender enrollment (i.e. one gender was zero). It should be noted that Gadsden Elementary is a participating school, however, SASI course sections were not distinguishable by the male/female enrollment and therefore eliminated from the analysis. This was also true for two class sections (ELA and Math) for Hyatt Park.
Students Demographics (All) Of the district’s 2008-09 participating students (N=599), the majority (83.47%) are black with Hand Middle and Burnside Elementary school serving the fewest blacks represented by 47.30% and 76.67%, respectively. Additionally, schools served females and males almost equally, 48.58% and 51.42%, respectively. The following chart illustrates the gender participant breakdown by school.
Richland County School District One Single Gender Program Evaluation Report
8
Part 2: Richland One Single Gender Evaluation Plan Cohort Selection Process: The Single Gender program evaluation is limited to the 2008-09 participants. This was desirable in an effort to evaluate all currently participating schools as seven of the 10 schools began in the 2008-09 program year. The study is also working under the assumption that the participating students are 1st year single gender participants. Based on the limited student data, 2008-09 participants were checked against 2007-08 single gender participant list and omitted from the study if they had prior participation with the program. This however does not guarantee that, for instance, a Hopkins Elementary 5th grade single gender student that started in 2005-06 didn’t feed into Hopkins Middle School and received additional intervention as an 8th grader and was still included in the analysis.
Achievement Data: Why Not PACT? After careful review of the available achievement data sources (e.g., PACT and MAP) it was determined that MAP scores should be used for the analysis. If PACT had been selected as the pre/post data choice, only three of the ten schools would be included in the study due to the terms and grade levels in which pre/post scores were available. However, there is a MAP to PACT alignment study that will be used to facilitate a PACT analysis for the fall 2008 and spring 2009 terms (see page 14 for the analysis). Why MAP? In an effort to evaluate all 10 schools, AARE staff decided to use MAP data because the fall 2008 and spring 2009 data was available. However, using MAP limits the analysis to only accessing two of the four core subject areas taught (i.e., ELA and Math) thereby omitting the science and social studies subjects. It should also be noted that MAP fall 2008 test administration occurred in September and/or October 2008. Therefore, pre test scores may have been impacted by a few months of single gender intervention received from August to September/October of 2008. To review the evaluation plan project scope, questions and timeline, see Appendix B.
Richland County School District One Single Gender Program Evaluation Report
9
MAP Overview: MAP is a state-aligned computerized adaptive assessment system. With a computerized adaptive test, the difficulty of the test is adjusted to the student’s performance. MAP tests have the ability to identify skills and concepts individual students have learned, monitor academic growth over time independent of grade level, and provide teachers with information they can use to enhance teaching and learning. Currently (2008-09), Richland One students in grades 3-10 may be tested in the content areas of Mathematics, Language Usage, and Reading. Each test takes students about one hour to complete, and detailed test data is available to teachers within 24 hours after the test session has been completed. District Participation Rates: More than 11,000 Richland One 2nd through 10th grade students took the MAP in the fall of 2008 (11,433) and spring 2009 (11,355). After the students take the test, the system reports the students’ RIT (Rasch unIT) scores. A RIT score in a given subject shows the student’s achievement level in that subject. A RIT score should show growth from administration to administration. MAP Cohort Selection Process: The evaluation plan identified a list of 2008-09 single gender participants. Of those identified (N=599), the list was reduced in order to: Omit Prior Year Participants: 2008-09 participants were checked against a list of 2007-08 participants and omitted to ensure the analysis was limited to first year single gender participants only. Include Math and English Language Arts (ELA) Participants Only: The 2008-09 student listing was further reduced to include only those students that received single gender intervention services during either an ELA or mathematics course. Include Students with Both Pre and Post MAP Scores: In order to measure whether students met their growth targets, both pre and post scores were necessary. Therefore, the 2008-09 students list was further reduced to include only those students that had both fall 2008 and spring 2009 MAP scores.
Richland County School District One Single Gender Program Evaluation Report
10
Part 3: Evaluation Findings Student Demographics (Study Only) As a result of the data streamlining (see MAP cohort selection process on page 10), the pre and post MAP analysis resulted in the inclusion of 235 students for math and 321 students for English. It should be noted that this is a duplicated list as roughly 200 students took both math and English assessments. The following table provides the demographic breakdown of the students included in the study by subject area. Characteristics Gender Race Free/Reduced Lunch
Participating Schools
English Language Arts (N=321) Female 42.37% Male 57.63% Black 84.42% White 11.84% Other 3.73% Free/Reduced 76.32% Full Pay 23.68% Burnside N/A CA Johnson 21.50% Gibbes 8.72% Greenview 21.18% Hand 22.74% Hopkins ES 6.54% Hopkins MS 4.36% Hyatt Park 5.30% Webber 9.66%
Mathematics (N=235) Female 48.94% Male 51.06% Black 94.47% White 1.28% Other 4.26% Free/Reduced 89.79% Full Pay 10.21% Burnside 11.06% CA Johnson 22.98% Gibbes 12.77% Greenview 23.40% Hand N/A Hopkins ES 9.79% Hopkins MS N/A Hyatt Park 7.23% Webber 12.77%
Teacher Characteristics (Study Only) When evaluating the administering educators of single gender programs as a whole (ELA and math educators only), a total of 54 teachers assisted with the teaching and learning of single gender curriculum/methods. Of these teachers, the majority (85%) was black and 55% was female. Considering the educational level attained, roughly 4% held a certificate, 69% a bachelor’s, 19% a master’s, and 9% were unknown.
Richland County School District One Single Gender Program Evaluation Report
11
MAP Growth Target Analysis: The MAP assessment provides individualized fall to spring growth targets based on a national norming study. Students are expected to make a certain level of yearly growth based on where they began in the fall. The chart below illustrates the percent of students in both reading and math subject areas by school that met those established growth targets.
Overall, the data reveals that Hyatt Park had the highest percent of students meeting their fall to spring growth targets in both reading and mathematics. Hopkins ES and Webber had the second and third highest percent met growth targets in mathematics with 65% and 60%, respectively. Hand demonstrated the second highest in reading percent met with 66%. It should be noted that Hand offered single gender courses to 6th and 7th grade Language Arts AAP students. Considering all single gender programs (All category), 44% of students met reading percent growth targets and 50% for mathematics.
Richland County School District One Single Gender Program Evaluation Report
12
MAP Growth Target Analysis: Single Gender vs. Coeducation In an effort to have a comparative look at how single gender classes performed against regular coeducational classes, the MAP scores for the remaining students in coeducation classes corresponding to the school and grade level were extracted and analyzed. For example, students in non-single gender classes (including special education students) that took a fall and spring MAP test for reading and/or math subject areas were selected. The following two charts show by school the percent that met growth targets in single gender classes and in coeducation classes.
As a whole, coeducation classes outperformed single gender classes by roughly three percent in reading. Of the eight schools with a comparative group, single gender students outperformed coeducation students in three schools, C.A. Johnson (+1%), Hand (24%), and Hyatt Park (8%). The remaining single gender students lagged behind coeducation students with differences ranging from -5% (Gibbes) to -26% (Hopkins MS).
Richland County School District One Single Gender Program Evaluation Report
13
The chart below illustrates the percent met growth targets for mathematics. As a whole, single gender classes out performed coeducation students by roughly two percent. Of the seven schools with a comparative group, single gender students outperformed coeducation students in four schools, C.A. Johnson (+6%), Hopkins ES (3%), Hyatt Park (18%) and Webber (22%). The remaining three schools lagged behind coeducation students in mathematics with differences ranging from -1% (Greenview) to -42% (Burnside).
It should be noted that C.A. Johnson (9th grade) and Hyatt Park (4th grade) made growth target gains above their coeducation conterparts in both reading and mathematics. Both schools started offering single gender classes in 200708.
Richland County School District One Single Gender Program Evaluation Report
14
MAP to PACT Conversion Analysis: In March 2007, the Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA) completed a study to correlate the Palmetto Achievement Challenge Test (PACT) reading and mathematics assessments to the NWEA’s RIT scale used for the MAP assessment. Utilizing this conversion study, the AARE staff used the fall 2008 and spring 2009 MAP reading and mathematics scores and converted them to the PACT performance levels (i.e., Below Basic (BB), Basic (B), Proficient (P), and Advanced (A)). The following tables show side-by-side comparisons between the “converted” performance on the PACT assessment for single gender classes and coeducation classes. Note: The NWEA alignment study did not convert MAP to PACT performance scores for 9th graders and therefore C.A. Johnson High School has been omitted from this analysis. Mathematics Summary District Level: Single gender classes improved the performance for 8% of the BB students to B (6%) and P (2%). Coeducation classes moved 6% of its students from both BB and B to P (2%) and A (4%). Overall, single gender classes moved more students out of BB. School Level: Of the six applicable schools, five schools made improvements for single gender students from BB with Hyatt Park making the most movement with 47%. Greenview, for both single gender and coeducation classes, had students to digress back to BB status. With the exception of Hopkins ES and Hyatt Park, single gender and coeducation classes faired similarly with movement of BB students.
Reading Summary District Level: Single gender classes made no improvements for BB students. Three percent of the students moved from B and P to A. On the other hand, coeducation students moved 24% of students from both BB to B (19%) and P (4%). Overall, only coeducation classes moved students out of BB. School Level: Of the seven applicable single gender schools, 4 schools (Gibbes, Greenview, Hand and Hopkins ES) showed negative improvements increasing the number of BB students.
Richland County School District One Single Gender Program Evaluation Report
MAP to PACT Conversion: Mathematics
*Note: MAP to PACT conversion based on NWEA alignment study. For more information see Appendix F.
15
Richland County School District One Single Gender Program Evaluation Report
MAP to PACT Conversion: Reading
*Note: MAP to PACT conversion based on NWEA alignment study. For more information see Appendix F.
16
Richland County School District One Single Gender Program Evaluation Report
Appendix A-F
17
Appendix A: Contact Information
Contact Information School Level: School
Contact
Phone
Burnside C.A. Johnson Gadsden Elementary Gibbes Middle Greenview Elementary Hand Middle Hopkins Elementary Hopkins Middle Hyatt Park Webber
Felicia Butler Kathie Greer Charles DeLaughter Rick Coleman Delores Gilliard Canisha Fletcher Angela Brown Goler Collins Liz Eason Dorthy Ham
803.783.5530 803.253.7092 803.353.2231 803.343.2942 803.735.3417 803.343.2947 803.783.5541 803.695.3331 803.735.3421 803.353.8771
District Office: Office of Accountability, Assessment, Research and Evaluation (AARE) Dr. Jennifer Coleman Executive Director Phone: 803.231.7451 Email: [email protected] Jocelyn B. Ross Research Specialist Phone; 803.231.7552 Email: [email protected]
Appendix B: Evaluation Plan
Single Gender Program Review: Evaluation Plan (Summer 2009) Project Scope: The following evaluation plan is designed to provide upper management and participating single gender schools with information useful in understanding the impact of the program on MAP achievement data. Additionally, the evaluation plan should provide information that can aid upper management in understanding the characteristics / demographics of participating students and teachers. This information will be collected using the following methods: Evaluation Questions: 1. What are the student and teacher demographics of participating Single Gender programs? Data Source/Collection Method: Utilize SASI data to retrieve student and teacher demographics of participants. 2. Based on MAP achievement data, are Single Gender programs making any significant differences in pre/post test analysis? Data Source/Collection Method: Utilizing MAP fall and spring test data as a pre/post study to determine if Single Gender practices impacted post scores. Special Considerations: Assumptions: Assuming no prior single gender intervention. 2008-2009 cohorts will be checked against previous year participants (07-08). Limitations: Study limited to 2008-2009 cohort years and analysis conducted on ELA and math data only. MAP does not assess science or social studies subject areas. Timeline: June
Literature review of Single Gender programs and verify RCSD1 participating schools.
July
Request class section data verification from participating schools (Data cleaning).
August
Descriptive statistics and perform MAP analysis utilizing fall and spring data for ELA and MATH only.
September
Draft and finalize program review report submitted.
AARE Office Contacts Dr. Jennifer Coleman, Executive Director of Accountability, Assessment, Research & Evaluation (P) 803-231-7450; (E) [email protected] Jocelyn B. Ross, Research Specialist (P) 803-231-7552; (E) [email protected]
Richland County School District One . 1616 Richland Street ~ Columbia, South Carolina 29201
Appendix C: Single Gender 2006 Study
Single-Gender Classes in Richland One Research and Evaluation, November 2006 Currently Forest Heights and Sanders Middles are the only two schools in Richland One that implement single-gender classes. Brief description of the single-gender class(es) is provided below. I.
Sanders Middle School
Sanders started a class of 25 boys in the 7th grade under homeroom Teacher K who teaches science in the beginning of this school year (2006-07). No end-of-year achievement data is available at the time of research; attendance and suspension records were collected for the first 45 days of 2006-07 and the same period of time for 2005-06 when single-gender class was not implemented. Of these 25 students, 22 were enrolled at Sanders in 2005-06 (Table 1). Table 1. Attendance and Suspension Records for Teacher K’s All-Boy Class Student
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Total
Attendance 2005-06* (6th Grade)
Attendance 2006-07 (7th Grade)
97.8% 100% 97.8% 100% 100% 97.6% 100% 100.0 97.8% 91.1% 91.1% 100% 97.8% 100% 100% 88.9% 93.3% 86.4% 100% 100% 97.8% 100% NA NA NA 97.1%
100.0% 97.8% 100% 95.6% 93.3% 97.8% 100% 84.4% 97.8% 97.8% 100% 93.3% 88.9% 100% 100% 95.6% 100% 100% 97.8% 95.6% 100% 100% 100% 87.8% 100% 97.1%
Attendance Difference
07-06 +2.2% -2.2% +2.2% -4.4% -6.7% +0.2% 0.0% -15.6% 0.0% +6.7% +8.9% -6.7% -8.9% 0.0% 0.0% +6.7% +6.7% +13.6% -2.2% -4.4% +2.2% 0.0% NA NA NA 0.0%
Suspension 2005-06
Suspension 2006-07
Suspension Difference 07-06
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 5 0 0 1 0 NA NA NA 16 (#6)
0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 (#4)
-1 0 0 0 +3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 +3 0 0 -2 -3 -5 0 0 -1 0 NA NA NA -6
*Single-gender class was not implemented. Despite that the average attendance rates for both years remained the same (97.1%), about two-thirds (64%; 14) of the students either maintained or had better attendance than they did in 2005-06. Suspension was reduced from 16 days for a total of 6 students in 2005-06 to 10 days for 4 students in 2006-07. II.
Forest Heights Elementary School
The first all-boy class of 17 for 3rd grade Teacher L was established in 2004-05 at Forest Heights Elementary School. In 2005-06, Teacher L continued to work with the same class which moved up to 4th grade. In addition to Teacher L’s class, another 4th grade allboy class was established for Teacher G and two (also 4th grade) all-girl classes were started for Teacher N and Teacher C in 2005-06. In 2006-07, two single-gender classes (one class of all girls and another class of all boys) were added in third grade. A total of ten single-gender classes are being implemented in 2006-07: two in the third grade, four in the fourth grade, and four in the fifth grade (Table 2). Table 2. Single-Gender Classes in Forest Heights Elementary School Student Grade Grade Grade Teacher Gender Class Size 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 L Male 17 3 4 NA N Female 16 NA 4 NA G Male 25 NA 4 4 C Female 17 NA 4 4 Y Male 20 NA NA 4 A Female 20 NA NA 4 X Male 19 NA NA 5 D Male 19 NA NA 5 F Female 21 NA NA 5 H Female 22 NA NA 5 E Male 17 NA NA 3 T Female 23 NA NA 3 Achievement data and attendance or suspension records for the single-gender classes in 2006-07 will be collected at a later date. In this report, the focus was placed on the single-gender classes that were implemented before 2006-07. The comparison of attendance rates before and after the implementation of single-gender classes is provided in Table 3. Except for Teacher C’s class, attendance rate decreased after the implementation of the single-gender class for all classes.
Table 3. Attendance Rates of Single-Gender Classes at Forest Heights Teacher
L N G C
Attendance Attendance Attendance Attendance Attendance Attendance Matched 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 Difference Difference Difference Students (2nd Grade) (3rd Grade) (4th Grade) 05-04 06-05 06-04
13 97.1%* 96.6% 14 NA 97.7%* 16 NA 96.9%* 15 NA 97.6%* *Single-gender class was not implemented.
95.8% 96.1% 95.5% 98.0%
-0.5% NA NA NA
-0.8% -1.6% -1.4% +0.4%
-1.3% NA NA NA
Table 4 shows that Teacher L’s class increased from 14 suspended days for 3 students in 2004-05 to 36 days for 4 students in 2005-06, although it decreased from 15 days in 2003-04 to 14 days in 2004-05. Teacher N’s class increased from no one being suspended in 2004-05 to 14 days for 3 students in 2005-06. Similar situation occurred for Teacher G’s Class. Teacher C’s class remained suspension-free for two years. Table 4. Suspension Records of Single-Gender Classes at Forest Heights Teacher
Suspension 2003-04 (2nd Grade)
Suspension 2004-05 (3rd Grade)
Suspension 2005-06 (4th Grade)
L 15* (#3) 14 (#3) 36 (#4) N NA 0* 14 (#3) G NA 3* (#2) 19 (#6) C NA 0* 0 *Single-gender class was not implemented.
Suspension Difference 05-04
Suspension Difference 06-05
Suspension Difference 06-04
-1 NA NA NA
+22 +14 +16 0
+21 NA NA NA
Tables 5 through 8 provide the PACT performance in each of the four core areas for students who had test scores for both years. Two measures were reported: (1) the percent of the students performing Basic or above for both years (Basic & + 2005; Basic & + 2006) and their difference ( Basic & + DIFFERENCE), and (2) the percent of the students performing Proficient or Advanced for both years (PRF/ADV 2005; PRF/ADV 2006) and their difference (PRF/ADV DIFFERENCE). In ELA, all teachers who taught single-gender classes in 2005-06 showed decline in ELA in both measures (Table 5). Classes of Teachers N and C showed significant decrease in the percent of students performing Proficient or Advanced level. Table 5. Matched 2005 and 2006 PACT ELA Performance Teacher
Matched Students
Basic & + 2005
L 7 71.4% N 10 100% G 10 70% C 11 100% *Significant at .01 level
Basic & + 2006
Basic & + Difference
PRF/ADV 2005
PRF/ADV 2006
PRF/ADV Difference
42.9% 90% 40% 90.9%
-28.6% -10.0% -30.0% -9.1%
28.6% 90.0% 20.0% 63.6%
0.0% 30% 0.0% 27.3%
-28.6% -60.0%(*) -20.0% -36.4%(*)
Table 6 provides the PACT performance on Math for students who had test scores for both years. Teacher G’s class was the only class that showed increased in both measures (+16.7% each), although the gain or difference for each measure did not reach the significant level. Table 6. Matched 2005 and 2006 PACT Math Performance Teacher
L N G C
Matched Students
Basic & + 2005
Basic & + 2006
Basic & + Difference
PRF/ADV 2005
PRF/ADV 2006
PRF/ADV Difference
12 10 12 11
83.3% 80.0% 58.3% 100%
83.3% 60.0% 75.0% 72.7%
0.0% -20.0% +16.7% -27.3%
16.7% 10.0% 0.0% 18.2%
25.0% 10.0% 16.7% 9.1%
+8.3% 0.0% +16.7% --9.1%
Table 7 provides the PACT performance on Science for students who had test scores for both years. Three out of four teachers who taught single-gender classes showed decrease in both measures. Teachers L and N showed significant decline in their students performing Basic or better in 2006. Table 7. Matched 2005 and 2006 PACT Science Performance Teacher
Matched Students
L 17 N 13 G 17 C 14 *Significant at .01 level
Basic & + 2005
Basic & + 2006
Basic & + Difference
PRF/ADV 2005
PRF/ADV 2006
PRF/ADV Difference
88.2% 92.3% 58.8% 64.3%
58.8% 30.8% 47.1% 42.9%
-29.4%(*) -61.5%(*) -11.8% -21.4%
35.3% 23.1% 11.8% 7.1%
5.9% 15.4% 0.0% 7.1%
-29.4% -7.7% -11.8% 0.0%
Table 8 provides the PACT performance on Social Studies for students who had test scores for both years. Three out of four teachers who taught single-gender classes showed significant decrease in at least one measure. Teachers N showed significant decline in both measures (-46.2% and -38.5%), Teacher L showed significant decline in the measure of percent of the students performing Proficient or Advanced level (-29.4%), and Teacher C showed significant decrease in the measure of percent of the students performing Basic or better (-57.1%). Table 8. Matched 2005 and 2006 PACT Social Studies Performance Teacher
Matched Students
L 17 N 13 G 17 C 14 *Significant at .01 level
Basic & + 2005
Basic & + 2006
Basic & + Difference
PRF/ADV 2005
PRF/ADV 2006
PRF/ADV Difference
76.5% 92.3% 58.8% 100%
70.6% 46.2% 47.1% 42.9%
-5.9% -46.2%(*) -11.8% -57.1%(*)
41.2% 38.5% 11.8% 14.3%
11.8% 0.0% 5.9% 7.1%
-29.4%(*) -38.5%(*) -5.9% -7.1%
III.
Discussion
Teacher K’s class at Sanders remained the same attendance level (97.1%) for the first 45 days for both 2006 and 2007 school years. There is a need to look at the attendance rate at mid year or the end of year to have full picture of the attendance pattern. However, the single-gender class only occurs when students receive science instruction from Teacher K. Students are mixed in with female students when they receive instruction of other courses. It presents challenges to obtain the precise attendance information since middle schools do not take attendance by period. Although the suspension days were slightly reduced and the number of students who were suspended was also reduced, when compared to the same period in 2004-05, it is immature to draw any conclusion at this time that single-gender has positive effect on student attendance or disciplines without further evidence. It is feasible to compare the science achievement for students in single-gender class and those who are in traditional classes and it will be conducted when data becomes available (e.g., grades, PACT). As far as the performance of the single-gender classes at Forest Heights, it was not very positive in terms of attendance, suspension, and the PACT achievement. The attendance was decreased for three of the four classes but the suspension was increased for the same classes. When reviewing the growth that students made from 2005 to 2006, three of the four single-gender classes showed significant decline in student performance. Class N significantly declined in three areas: ELA, Science, and Social Studies, Class L in Science and Social Studies, and Class C in ELA and Social Studies. In fact, Class N showed significant decline in ELA and Social Studies from 2004 to 2005, as well. Although some research reports that the number of dropouts was reduced, the general academic performance of urban males and the math and science achievement of females were improved, or students were more motivated and less distracted in single-gender classes or schools, single-gender education is not necessarily better than coeducation, according to “Separated by Sex: A Critical Look at Sing-Sex Education for Girls” published in 1998 by the American Association of University Woman, Both girls and boys thrive on a good education, regardless of whether the class is single-gender or coeducational. Single-gender classes may improve student disciplines or create classroom environments that are more conducive to learning, but when it comes to student achievement, teacher or quality of teaching plays most important role than any other elements do (e.g., parental involvement, heterogeneous/homogeneous grouping, singe-gender or coeducational, traditional or year-round calendar, etc.). One of the most essential tasks of the administrators is to recruit the best teachers, provide them with targeted professional development, and maximize their capacity as educators.
Appendix D1: SDE Proposal Form
South Carolina Department of Education, Single-Gender Initiatives District Level Single-Gender Proposal Form (February 22, 2008) Please complete information below if you are considering a single-gender program for the 08-09 school year. Please send this form back to the district office as well as David Chadwell at the State Department of Education ([email protected]). GENERAL INFORMATION School Name: District: Contact Person for Program: Email for Contact Person: RATIONALE Rationale for Single-Gender (cite specific data): PROGRAM DETAILS Single-Gender Grade Levels: Single-Gender Subject Areas: Specifics of the Structure: SELECTION OF STUDENTS Will students Opt-in or Opt-out? If you are having students Opt-In, what will your criteria be for placement (lottery or objective criteria – please explain) If you are having students Opt-Out, how will you identify students: How will you communicate with parents that they have the option to Opt-out: What is the minimum number of students you need in each class to make a single-gender class: What is the maximum number of students that you will allow in a single-gender class: Anticipated number of students participating: Anticipated number of teachers participating: COED OPTION What is your plan for offering a coed option: COMMUNICATION Date of discussion with PTO/SIC (should have been done or will be done ASAP): Date of discussion with faculty (should have been done or will be done ASAP): Date of Initial training of faculty members (should be by the end of the school year): Date of parent meeting regarding gender differences and program specifics (should be before spring break): PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPOMENT Proposed professional development during the year: DATA COLLECTION Planned data collection throughout the year:
Appendix D2: SDE Newsletter May 2009 Single-Gender Initiatives Office of Public School Choice South Carolina Department of Education
Welcome to the End of the Year! Thank you all for your continued professionalism with single-gender education, willingness to learn from one another, openness to having us visit your classrooms, and participation in multiple ways. Your dedication is making a difference in the lives of students across the state! I am happy to say that the 2009 Single-Gender Spring Survey was a success. We had a dramatic increase in participation. • Administrators: 105 • Students: 5400 • Parents: 720 • Teachers: 480 We are sorting the data and will send your school information back to you shortly. A report for the state will be issued during the summer before the start of school. Thank you to all of you who participated or encouraged others to participate. Only through looking at multiple sources of data will we be able to determine the impact of single-gender education and how to improve. Next year, Gender Matters will focus more on teachers. Each issue will feature an article from a classroom teacher. In addition, focus questions will be posted for gathering of information and feedback. Next year, I will also be hosting several on-line Webinars through Elluminate. This will allow educators to communicate about specific issues without travel expenses. Have a great summer. The next issue of Gender Matters will be out in August 2009. Enjoy, David
Focus on Legal Issues Federal Regulation: Review your single-gender program every two years. The SCDE Single-Gender Initiatives created a Review Application. We require that all schools with singlegender classes this year (08-09) complete the Review. • Completion of the Review Application will be done on-line via the Member Center of the SCDE webpage (www.ed.sc.gov and click on Log In) • Principals and Single-Gender Contacts have access to the Review Application. • Deadline for completion of the Review Application is June 19. • The Review has three parts: Rationale and Data for creating a program; Current Judgment about Program and Data to support; Future Plans. • Data Templates are available if needed.
Texts to Use We have included ALL texts featured over the last two years in Gender Matters. See pages 7—9. Let us know other texts to feature!
THANK YOU MARRIAH
Many of you have met Marriah Schwallier during this year. She has traveled the state working with teachers. She also coordinated the very successful Teacher-to-Teacher Conference. Marriah will be returning to Richland School District 2 as a science teacher. She will be greatly missed by all and her contribution is immeasurable. Thank you for your all you have done to support and strengthen single-gender education in South Carolina! The purpose of this newsletter is to inform educators about singlegender updates in the state, provide best-practice advice, spur collaboration, and announce professional development opportunities. I welcome your information and comments. David Chadwell Single-Gender Initiatives Tel: (803) 734-6261 Email: [email protected] Web: http://ed.sc.gov/sgi
Appendix E1: SDE Federal Regulations Summary
Summary of the Federal Regulations on SingleGender Schools and Classes Prepared by David Chadwell, SingleGender Initiatives Coordinator Office of Public School Choice, South Carolina Department of Education Final federal regulations were announced October 25, 2006 and took effect on November 24, 2006. This summary is meant as a guide to the Federal Guidelines. You should consult your own school district attorney to confirm legal status of your school’s program. 1. You must have a rationale that addresses an important educational objective. An educational objective can include academic performance, attendance, and discipline referrals. The rationale would guide the creation of the program including the grade level where it will be offered, the subject areas where it will be offered, and the gender to which it will be offered. If you offer singlegender classes to just one gender, then your rationale MUST reflect this and that you are able to meet the educational needs of the other gender through coeducational means. 2. The program is implemented in an “evenhanded manner”. Treat males and females in a similar manner in terms of expectations, policies, and procedures, including: grading procedures and disciplinary codes. 3. Enrollment is “completely voluntary”. Parents must have a choice about being a part of a singlegender program. Parents can OptIn to a program, this is clearly the most legal. Students can also be assigned to a program and parents given the option to OptOut, this is very common and successful. In this case, you must make sure that you take all reasonable steps to inform parents of their right to OptOut. 4. A “substantially equal coeducational class” is offered to students not enrolled in the singlegender classes. “Substantially equal” includes but is not limited to similar: admissions criteria, quality of curriculum, availability of texts, technology, resources, qualification of faculty, and geographic accessibility. 5. If you offer singlegender classes for just one gender, then you “may” have to provide a singlesex class for students of the excluded sex. This follows from your rationale. 6. Conduct periodic evaluations of the rationale every two years. You must gather data to determine if your program is meeting the needs as stated in the rationale AND that the program is not based on overly broad stereotypes. At this time, a report does NOT have to be submitted to the federal or state government.
Appendix E2: SDE Guidance on Data Coding
March 25, 2008 Dear District Level Curriculum Officers Involved with Single-Gender Initiatives: We are at a very exciting time with regard to single-gender initiatives. There are approximately 300 schools that are considering single-gender classes or programs for the 2008 – 2009 school year. That is wonderful! As I travel the state, parents, teachers, and administrators ask for data and more data. While many principals are sending in bits and pieces of data, I am now trying to help facilitate this process. SASI has a Section Atom that contains a Gender tag already. See below. Sections Atom
1429 Senate Street Columbia, SC 29201 Phone 803.734.8500 Fax 803.734.3389 Web www.ed.sc.gov
This tag allows the district and school personnel to tag a class section as gender restricted, meaning single-gender for females or males. See below.
I am requesting that the SASI people in your schools begin using this tag for gender within the Sections Atom. This would allow you and me to pull important data directly from SASI including: Number of students involved in single-gender classes Performance on PACT within single-gender classes and as compared to similar coed classes Discipline data for students within single-gender classes and as compared to students in coed classes Attendance data for students within single-gender classes and as compared to students in coed classes. Schools could also be able to pull additional data by single-gender classes, such as: average grades, MAP data, etc. Please distribute this memo to all principals and SASI people who will be involved with singlegender classes as soon as possible so that they will be able to include this tag as they begin scheduling for next year. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Thank you for your assistance and continued support. Enjoy, David Chadwell Coordinator for Single-Gender Initiatives [email protected] or 803-734-6261
Appendix F: NWEA MAP to PACT Alignment Study (short)
A Study of the Alignment of the NWEA RIT Scale with the South Carolina Assessment System
John Cronin, Ph.D. March, 2007
Copyright © 2007 Northwest Evaluation Association All rights reserved. No part of this document may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without written permission from NWEA.
Northwest Evaluation Association 5885 SW Meadows Road, Suite 200 Lake Oswego, OR 97035-3526 www.nwea.org Tel 503-624-1951 Fax 503-639-7873
A Study of the Alignment of the NWEA RIT Scale with the South Carolina Assessment System John Cronin, Ph.D.– Northwest Evaluation Association March, 2007 ! " # $ ! % ! "
$
" $
"
&'(
) *'(
! !+
,
, $ $ !+ $
, $ , $ .*
.*( $ .*
!+ "
/ " 0 1 ! " , $
" "
! 2
" "
)
" "
) * $
"
" #
"
!
, $ 0
1
#
0 1
!
" ! ) )
3*
$
$
$ " "
!
"
% ""
$
"
!
NWEA
Page 3
4/19/2007
Table 1 # Recommended same-season (spring) RIT cut scores for South Carolina performance levels # Reading Grade
Below Basic
Basic
Proficient
Advanced
Cut score
Cut score
Percentile
Cut score
Percentile
Cut score
Percentile
3
AARE
Accountability, Assessment, Research and Evaluation
Richland One 1616 Richland St., Columbia, SC 29201 (803) 231-7450
Single Gender Program Evaluation Report
Richland County School District One Single Gender Program Evaluation Report
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
3
REVIEW OF PERTINENT LITERATURE
5
PART 1: RICHLAND ONE SINGLE GENDER OVERVIEW
6
PARTICIPATING SCHOOLS, GRADE LEVEL AND SUBJECT AREAS OFFERED CLASS SELECTION PROCESS STUDENT DEMOGRAPHICS (ALL)
6 7 7
PART 2: EVALUATION PLAN
8
COHORT SELECTION PROCESS ACHIEVEMENT DATA MAP OVERVIEW
8 8 9
PART 3: EVALUATION FINDINGS
10
STUDENT AND TEACHER DEMOGRAPHICS (LIMITED TO STUDY) MAP GROWTH TARGET ANALYSIS MAP TO PACT CONVERSION ANALYSIS
10 11 14
APPENDIX
17
Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix
A: Contact Information B: Evaluation Plan C: Single Gender Classes in Richland One November 2006 Study D: SDE Single Gender Proposal Form and Newsletter E: SDE Federal Regulations Summary and State Guidance on Data Coding F: A Study of the Alignment of the NWEA RIT Scale with the South Carolina Assessment System
Richland County School District One Single Gender Program Evaluation Report
3
Executive Summary, Findings and Recommendations The following is a summary of the Richland One School District Single Gender program evaluation conducted by the Office of Accountability, Assessment, Research and Evaluation (AARE). The purpose of this study was to understand the demographics of participating students and educators and to determine if the single gender program had an impact on student academic achievement performance. Questions used to Guide the Study Student and Teacher Characteristics: What are the student and teacher demographics of Single Gender program participants? FINDINGS: Overall, single gender programs were offered almost evenly (50/50) to both male and female students. The majority of those students were black (over 80%) and receiving either free or reduced lunch assistance (over 75%). The educators teaching the single gender classes were black represented by 85% and female (55%). The majority, 68%, of these educators held a bachelor’s level degree. Note: Demographic figures are limited to the students and teachers included in the MAP/PACT analysis. See Part 3: Evaluation Findings for more details. Student Academic Performance: Based on Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) data, are Single Gender program participants making improvements in pre/post testing? FINDINGS: Considering all single gender programs, 44% of students met MAP reading percent growth targets and 50% met targets for mathematics. This is 3% lower than coeducation classes for reading and 2% higher than coeducation classes for mathematics. Of the nine schools used in the analysis, only four (i.e., CA Johnson, Hand, Hyatt Park and Webber) showed higher performance in at least one of the two areas than coeducation students. C.A. Johnson and Hyatt Park made growth target gains above their coeducation conterparts in both reading and mathematics. For more information, see part 3: Evaluation Findings.
Richland County School District One Single Gender Program Evaluation Report
4
RECOMMENDATIONS: If the district continues to offer single gender programs, the following recommendations are provided in an effort to improve the data collection, monitoring, and accountability of the single gender programs. SASI Sections Atom Coding: Currently, the majority of the single gender class sections have been identifiable by selecting classes with only one gender count. Hence one gender has zero enrollment. See image below.
However, South Carolina State Department of Education (SDE) is requesting that schools also utilize the Gender tag and select either Male or Female (see Appendix E). This would allow SDE to extract data directly. See image below.
Federal Compliance: Prior to this analysis, Richland One Legal Services department sent correspondence to schools inquiring about whether or not programs were in full compliance with the required Federal regulations. Upon that inquiry, a few schools withdrew from stating that they offered single gender classes. It is strongly recommended that prior to the 20092010 school year that schools again are made fully aware of the federal regulations and SDE requirements for data coding. Additionally, it is recommended that the Curriculum and Instruction department conduct classroom observations throughout the year to ensure that schools and teachers are applying the single gender curriculum and practices and not just merely separating boys from girls. The following pages provide a summary of a) single gender student and teacher demographics, b) student academic achievement gains utilizing fall 2008 (pretest) and spring 2009 (post test) assessment scores, and c) a Palmetto Achievement Challenge Test (PACT) conversion analysis.
Richland County School District One Single Gender Program Evaluation Report
5
Review of Pertinent Literature District The Office of AARE evaluated the Single Gender program in November 2006. The study was limited to the two participating schools at that time: Forest Heights Elementary and Sanders Middle. Overall, the analysis included a review of attendance, suspension and the PACT performance data. To review the complete report and its finding see Appendix C. State The South Carolina Department of Education, Office of Public School Choice assists and supports schools and districts in their efforts to create (e.g. Single Gender proposal Form – See Appendix D) , implement, and evaluate a single-gender program. Statewide workshops and meetings are also conducted throughout the year, and monthly newsletters (see Appendix D) are sent to single gender teachers. For more information on the State services and resources offered, visit: http://ed.sc.gov/agency/Innovation-and-Support/Public-SchoolChoice/SingleGender/Index.html. Federal All single gender programs must adhere to Federal regulations that were established October 25, 2006 and took effect on November 24, 2006. Regulations include program adherence to educational objectives and periodic evaluations (i.e. every two years) just to name a few. To review the complete federal regulations visit the following website: http://www.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister/finrule/2006-4/102506a.pdf For a summary of the Federal regulations, prepared by David Chadwell, SDE Single Gender Initiatives Coordinator, see Appendix E.
Richland County School District One Single Gender Program Evaluation Report
6
Part 1: Richland One Single Gender Overview Single Gender education aims to teach boys and girls the same high standards, albeit, within different classrooms and with different teaching methods. Federal regulations (issued October 2006) authorize school districts to use single gender classrooms, programs, and schools as a way to meet the educational needs of their students. Within the state of South Carolina, there are over 200 schools offering some form of single gender program. As of 200809 school year, Richland One offered single gender programs in six elementary schools, three middle schools, and one high school.
Participating Schools Participating Schools and Grade Levels Offered: School
Year Started
Burnside Gadsden Hopkins ES Hyatt Park Greenview Webber
2008-09 2008-09 2005-06 2007-08 2008-09 2008-09
Gibbes Hand Hopkins MS
2008-09 2007-08 2008-09
Johnson
2007-08
Grade Level
Subject Area ELA
ELEMENTARY 3rd 5th th 5 th th 4 ,5 th th 4 ,5 5th MIDDLE 6th th th 6 ,7 th 8 HIGH 9th
Math
Science
Soc. Studies
Note: Based on data submitted by the participating schools.
It should be noted that Caughman Road Elementary school attempted the single gender program but did not finish the full year and therefore was eliminated from the analysis.
Richland County School District One Single Gender Program Evaluation Report
7
Class Section Process Currently, Richland One schools do not use the single gender class section identifier within the SASI data system. As a result, AARE staff had to request a list of single gender classes from participating schools for 2007-08 and 200809 school years. Once received, the AARE office verified within SASI that the class sections reflected single gender enrollment (i.e. one gender was zero). It should be noted that Gadsden Elementary is a participating school, however, SASI course sections were not distinguishable by the male/female enrollment and therefore eliminated from the analysis. This was also true for two class sections (ELA and Math) for Hyatt Park.
Students Demographics (All) Of the district’s 2008-09 participating students (N=599), the majority (83.47%) are black with Hand Middle and Burnside Elementary school serving the fewest blacks represented by 47.30% and 76.67%, respectively. Additionally, schools served females and males almost equally, 48.58% and 51.42%, respectively. The following chart illustrates the gender participant breakdown by school.
Richland County School District One Single Gender Program Evaluation Report
8
Part 2: Richland One Single Gender Evaluation Plan Cohort Selection Process: The Single Gender program evaluation is limited to the 2008-09 participants. This was desirable in an effort to evaluate all currently participating schools as seven of the 10 schools began in the 2008-09 program year. The study is also working under the assumption that the participating students are 1st year single gender participants. Based on the limited student data, 2008-09 participants were checked against 2007-08 single gender participant list and omitted from the study if they had prior participation with the program. This however does not guarantee that, for instance, a Hopkins Elementary 5th grade single gender student that started in 2005-06 didn’t feed into Hopkins Middle School and received additional intervention as an 8th grader and was still included in the analysis.
Achievement Data: Why Not PACT? After careful review of the available achievement data sources (e.g., PACT and MAP) it was determined that MAP scores should be used for the analysis. If PACT had been selected as the pre/post data choice, only three of the ten schools would be included in the study due to the terms and grade levels in which pre/post scores were available. However, there is a MAP to PACT alignment study that will be used to facilitate a PACT analysis for the fall 2008 and spring 2009 terms (see page 14 for the analysis). Why MAP? In an effort to evaluate all 10 schools, AARE staff decided to use MAP data because the fall 2008 and spring 2009 data was available. However, using MAP limits the analysis to only accessing two of the four core subject areas taught (i.e., ELA and Math) thereby omitting the science and social studies subjects. It should also be noted that MAP fall 2008 test administration occurred in September and/or October 2008. Therefore, pre test scores may have been impacted by a few months of single gender intervention received from August to September/October of 2008. To review the evaluation plan project scope, questions and timeline, see Appendix B.
Richland County School District One Single Gender Program Evaluation Report
9
MAP Overview: MAP is a state-aligned computerized adaptive assessment system. With a computerized adaptive test, the difficulty of the test is adjusted to the student’s performance. MAP tests have the ability to identify skills and concepts individual students have learned, monitor academic growth over time independent of grade level, and provide teachers with information they can use to enhance teaching and learning. Currently (2008-09), Richland One students in grades 3-10 may be tested in the content areas of Mathematics, Language Usage, and Reading. Each test takes students about one hour to complete, and detailed test data is available to teachers within 24 hours after the test session has been completed. District Participation Rates: More than 11,000 Richland One 2nd through 10th grade students took the MAP in the fall of 2008 (11,433) and spring 2009 (11,355). After the students take the test, the system reports the students’ RIT (Rasch unIT) scores. A RIT score in a given subject shows the student’s achievement level in that subject. A RIT score should show growth from administration to administration. MAP Cohort Selection Process: The evaluation plan identified a list of 2008-09 single gender participants. Of those identified (N=599), the list was reduced in order to: Omit Prior Year Participants: 2008-09 participants were checked against a list of 2007-08 participants and omitted to ensure the analysis was limited to first year single gender participants only. Include Math and English Language Arts (ELA) Participants Only: The 2008-09 student listing was further reduced to include only those students that received single gender intervention services during either an ELA or mathematics course. Include Students with Both Pre and Post MAP Scores: In order to measure whether students met their growth targets, both pre and post scores were necessary. Therefore, the 2008-09 students list was further reduced to include only those students that had both fall 2008 and spring 2009 MAP scores.
Richland County School District One Single Gender Program Evaluation Report
10
Part 3: Evaluation Findings Student Demographics (Study Only) As a result of the data streamlining (see MAP cohort selection process on page 10), the pre and post MAP analysis resulted in the inclusion of 235 students for math and 321 students for English. It should be noted that this is a duplicated list as roughly 200 students took both math and English assessments. The following table provides the demographic breakdown of the students included in the study by subject area. Characteristics Gender Race Free/Reduced Lunch
Participating Schools
English Language Arts (N=321) Female 42.37% Male 57.63% Black 84.42% White 11.84% Other 3.73% Free/Reduced 76.32% Full Pay 23.68% Burnside N/A CA Johnson 21.50% Gibbes 8.72% Greenview 21.18% Hand 22.74% Hopkins ES 6.54% Hopkins MS 4.36% Hyatt Park 5.30% Webber 9.66%
Mathematics (N=235) Female 48.94% Male 51.06% Black 94.47% White 1.28% Other 4.26% Free/Reduced 89.79% Full Pay 10.21% Burnside 11.06% CA Johnson 22.98% Gibbes 12.77% Greenview 23.40% Hand N/A Hopkins ES 9.79% Hopkins MS N/A Hyatt Park 7.23% Webber 12.77%
Teacher Characteristics (Study Only) When evaluating the administering educators of single gender programs as a whole (ELA and math educators only), a total of 54 teachers assisted with the teaching and learning of single gender curriculum/methods. Of these teachers, the majority (85%) was black and 55% was female. Considering the educational level attained, roughly 4% held a certificate, 69% a bachelor’s, 19% a master’s, and 9% were unknown.
Richland County School District One Single Gender Program Evaluation Report
11
MAP Growth Target Analysis: The MAP assessment provides individualized fall to spring growth targets based on a national norming study. Students are expected to make a certain level of yearly growth based on where they began in the fall. The chart below illustrates the percent of students in both reading and math subject areas by school that met those established growth targets.
Overall, the data reveals that Hyatt Park had the highest percent of students meeting their fall to spring growth targets in both reading and mathematics. Hopkins ES and Webber had the second and third highest percent met growth targets in mathematics with 65% and 60%, respectively. Hand demonstrated the second highest in reading percent met with 66%. It should be noted that Hand offered single gender courses to 6th and 7th grade Language Arts AAP students. Considering all single gender programs (All category), 44% of students met reading percent growth targets and 50% for mathematics.
Richland County School District One Single Gender Program Evaluation Report
12
MAP Growth Target Analysis: Single Gender vs. Coeducation In an effort to have a comparative look at how single gender classes performed against regular coeducational classes, the MAP scores for the remaining students in coeducation classes corresponding to the school and grade level were extracted and analyzed. For example, students in non-single gender classes (including special education students) that took a fall and spring MAP test for reading and/or math subject areas were selected. The following two charts show by school the percent that met growth targets in single gender classes and in coeducation classes.
As a whole, coeducation classes outperformed single gender classes by roughly three percent in reading. Of the eight schools with a comparative group, single gender students outperformed coeducation students in three schools, C.A. Johnson (+1%), Hand (24%), and Hyatt Park (8%). The remaining single gender students lagged behind coeducation students with differences ranging from -5% (Gibbes) to -26% (Hopkins MS).
Richland County School District One Single Gender Program Evaluation Report
13
The chart below illustrates the percent met growth targets for mathematics. As a whole, single gender classes out performed coeducation students by roughly two percent. Of the seven schools with a comparative group, single gender students outperformed coeducation students in four schools, C.A. Johnson (+6%), Hopkins ES (3%), Hyatt Park (18%) and Webber (22%). The remaining three schools lagged behind coeducation students in mathematics with differences ranging from -1% (Greenview) to -42% (Burnside).
It should be noted that C.A. Johnson (9th grade) and Hyatt Park (4th grade) made growth target gains above their coeducation conterparts in both reading and mathematics. Both schools started offering single gender classes in 200708.
Richland County School District One Single Gender Program Evaluation Report
14
MAP to PACT Conversion Analysis: In March 2007, the Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA) completed a study to correlate the Palmetto Achievement Challenge Test (PACT) reading and mathematics assessments to the NWEA’s RIT scale used for the MAP assessment. Utilizing this conversion study, the AARE staff used the fall 2008 and spring 2009 MAP reading and mathematics scores and converted them to the PACT performance levels (i.e., Below Basic (BB), Basic (B), Proficient (P), and Advanced (A)). The following tables show side-by-side comparisons between the “converted” performance on the PACT assessment for single gender classes and coeducation classes. Note: The NWEA alignment study did not convert MAP to PACT performance scores for 9th graders and therefore C.A. Johnson High School has been omitted from this analysis. Mathematics Summary District Level: Single gender classes improved the performance for 8% of the BB students to B (6%) and P (2%). Coeducation classes moved 6% of its students from both BB and B to P (2%) and A (4%). Overall, single gender classes moved more students out of BB. School Level: Of the six applicable schools, five schools made improvements for single gender students from BB with Hyatt Park making the most movement with 47%. Greenview, for both single gender and coeducation classes, had students to digress back to BB status. With the exception of Hopkins ES and Hyatt Park, single gender and coeducation classes faired similarly with movement of BB students.
Reading Summary District Level: Single gender classes made no improvements for BB students. Three percent of the students moved from B and P to A. On the other hand, coeducation students moved 24% of students from both BB to B (19%) and P (4%). Overall, only coeducation classes moved students out of BB. School Level: Of the seven applicable single gender schools, 4 schools (Gibbes, Greenview, Hand and Hopkins ES) showed negative improvements increasing the number of BB students.
Richland County School District One Single Gender Program Evaluation Report
MAP to PACT Conversion: Mathematics
*Note: MAP to PACT conversion based on NWEA alignment study. For more information see Appendix F.
15
Richland County School District One Single Gender Program Evaluation Report
MAP to PACT Conversion: Reading
*Note: MAP to PACT conversion based on NWEA alignment study. For more information see Appendix F.
16
Richland County School District One Single Gender Program Evaluation Report
Appendix A-F
17
Appendix A: Contact Information
Contact Information School Level: School
Contact
Phone
Burnside C.A. Johnson Gadsden Elementary Gibbes Middle Greenview Elementary Hand Middle Hopkins Elementary Hopkins Middle Hyatt Park Webber
Felicia Butler Kathie Greer Charles DeLaughter Rick Coleman Delores Gilliard Canisha Fletcher Angela Brown Goler Collins Liz Eason Dorthy Ham
803.783.5530 803.253.7092 803.353.2231 803.343.2942 803.735.3417 803.343.2947 803.783.5541 803.695.3331 803.735.3421 803.353.8771
District Office: Office of Accountability, Assessment, Research and Evaluation (AARE) Dr. Jennifer Coleman Executive Director Phone: 803.231.7451 Email: [email protected] Jocelyn B. Ross Research Specialist Phone; 803.231.7552 Email: [email protected]
Appendix B: Evaluation Plan
Single Gender Program Review: Evaluation Plan (Summer 2009) Project Scope: The following evaluation plan is designed to provide upper management and participating single gender schools with information useful in understanding the impact of the program on MAP achievement data. Additionally, the evaluation plan should provide information that can aid upper management in understanding the characteristics / demographics of participating students and teachers. This information will be collected using the following methods: Evaluation Questions: 1. What are the student and teacher demographics of participating Single Gender programs? Data Source/Collection Method: Utilize SASI data to retrieve student and teacher demographics of participants. 2. Based on MAP achievement data, are Single Gender programs making any significant differences in pre/post test analysis? Data Source/Collection Method: Utilizing MAP fall and spring test data as a pre/post study to determine if Single Gender practices impacted post scores. Special Considerations: Assumptions: Assuming no prior single gender intervention. 2008-2009 cohorts will be checked against previous year participants (07-08). Limitations: Study limited to 2008-2009 cohort years and analysis conducted on ELA and math data only. MAP does not assess science or social studies subject areas. Timeline: June
Literature review of Single Gender programs and verify RCSD1 participating schools.
July
Request class section data verification from participating schools (Data cleaning).
August
Descriptive statistics and perform MAP analysis utilizing fall and spring data for ELA and MATH only.
September
Draft and finalize program review report submitted.
AARE Office Contacts Dr. Jennifer Coleman, Executive Director of Accountability, Assessment, Research & Evaluation (P) 803-231-7450; (E) [email protected] Jocelyn B. Ross, Research Specialist (P) 803-231-7552; (E) [email protected]
Richland County School District One . 1616 Richland Street ~ Columbia, South Carolina 29201
Appendix C: Single Gender 2006 Study
Single-Gender Classes in Richland One Research and Evaluation, November 2006 Currently Forest Heights and Sanders Middles are the only two schools in Richland One that implement single-gender classes. Brief description of the single-gender class(es) is provided below. I.
Sanders Middle School
Sanders started a class of 25 boys in the 7th grade under homeroom Teacher K who teaches science in the beginning of this school year (2006-07). No end-of-year achievement data is available at the time of research; attendance and suspension records were collected for the first 45 days of 2006-07 and the same period of time for 2005-06 when single-gender class was not implemented. Of these 25 students, 22 were enrolled at Sanders in 2005-06 (Table 1). Table 1. Attendance and Suspension Records for Teacher K’s All-Boy Class Student
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Total
Attendance 2005-06* (6th Grade)
Attendance 2006-07 (7th Grade)
97.8% 100% 97.8% 100% 100% 97.6% 100% 100.0 97.8% 91.1% 91.1% 100% 97.8% 100% 100% 88.9% 93.3% 86.4% 100% 100% 97.8% 100% NA NA NA 97.1%
100.0% 97.8% 100% 95.6% 93.3% 97.8% 100% 84.4% 97.8% 97.8% 100% 93.3% 88.9% 100% 100% 95.6% 100% 100% 97.8% 95.6% 100% 100% 100% 87.8% 100% 97.1%
Attendance Difference
07-06 +2.2% -2.2% +2.2% -4.4% -6.7% +0.2% 0.0% -15.6% 0.0% +6.7% +8.9% -6.7% -8.9% 0.0% 0.0% +6.7% +6.7% +13.6% -2.2% -4.4% +2.2% 0.0% NA NA NA 0.0%
Suspension 2005-06
Suspension 2006-07
Suspension Difference 07-06
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 5 0 0 1 0 NA NA NA 16 (#6)
0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 (#4)
-1 0 0 0 +3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 +3 0 0 -2 -3 -5 0 0 -1 0 NA NA NA -6
*Single-gender class was not implemented. Despite that the average attendance rates for both years remained the same (97.1%), about two-thirds (64%; 14) of the students either maintained or had better attendance than they did in 2005-06. Suspension was reduced from 16 days for a total of 6 students in 2005-06 to 10 days for 4 students in 2006-07. II.
Forest Heights Elementary School
The first all-boy class of 17 for 3rd grade Teacher L was established in 2004-05 at Forest Heights Elementary School. In 2005-06, Teacher L continued to work with the same class which moved up to 4th grade. In addition to Teacher L’s class, another 4th grade allboy class was established for Teacher G and two (also 4th grade) all-girl classes were started for Teacher N and Teacher C in 2005-06. In 2006-07, two single-gender classes (one class of all girls and another class of all boys) were added in third grade. A total of ten single-gender classes are being implemented in 2006-07: two in the third grade, four in the fourth grade, and four in the fifth grade (Table 2). Table 2. Single-Gender Classes in Forest Heights Elementary School Student Grade Grade Grade Teacher Gender Class Size 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 L Male 17 3 4 NA N Female 16 NA 4 NA G Male 25 NA 4 4 C Female 17 NA 4 4 Y Male 20 NA NA 4 A Female 20 NA NA 4 X Male 19 NA NA 5 D Male 19 NA NA 5 F Female 21 NA NA 5 H Female 22 NA NA 5 E Male 17 NA NA 3 T Female 23 NA NA 3 Achievement data and attendance or suspension records for the single-gender classes in 2006-07 will be collected at a later date. In this report, the focus was placed on the single-gender classes that were implemented before 2006-07. The comparison of attendance rates before and after the implementation of single-gender classes is provided in Table 3. Except for Teacher C’s class, attendance rate decreased after the implementation of the single-gender class for all classes.
Table 3. Attendance Rates of Single-Gender Classes at Forest Heights Teacher
L N G C
Attendance Attendance Attendance Attendance Attendance Attendance Matched 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 Difference Difference Difference Students (2nd Grade) (3rd Grade) (4th Grade) 05-04 06-05 06-04
13 97.1%* 96.6% 14 NA 97.7%* 16 NA 96.9%* 15 NA 97.6%* *Single-gender class was not implemented.
95.8% 96.1% 95.5% 98.0%
-0.5% NA NA NA
-0.8% -1.6% -1.4% +0.4%
-1.3% NA NA NA
Table 4 shows that Teacher L’s class increased from 14 suspended days for 3 students in 2004-05 to 36 days for 4 students in 2005-06, although it decreased from 15 days in 2003-04 to 14 days in 2004-05. Teacher N’s class increased from no one being suspended in 2004-05 to 14 days for 3 students in 2005-06. Similar situation occurred for Teacher G’s Class. Teacher C’s class remained suspension-free for two years. Table 4. Suspension Records of Single-Gender Classes at Forest Heights Teacher
Suspension 2003-04 (2nd Grade)
Suspension 2004-05 (3rd Grade)
Suspension 2005-06 (4th Grade)
L 15* (#3) 14 (#3) 36 (#4) N NA 0* 14 (#3) G NA 3* (#2) 19 (#6) C NA 0* 0 *Single-gender class was not implemented.
Suspension Difference 05-04
Suspension Difference 06-05
Suspension Difference 06-04
-1 NA NA NA
+22 +14 +16 0
+21 NA NA NA
Tables 5 through 8 provide the PACT performance in each of the four core areas for students who had test scores for both years. Two measures were reported: (1) the percent of the students performing Basic or above for both years (Basic & + 2005; Basic & + 2006) and their difference ( Basic & + DIFFERENCE), and (2) the percent of the students performing Proficient or Advanced for both years (PRF/ADV 2005; PRF/ADV 2006) and their difference (PRF/ADV DIFFERENCE). In ELA, all teachers who taught single-gender classes in 2005-06 showed decline in ELA in both measures (Table 5). Classes of Teachers N and C showed significant decrease in the percent of students performing Proficient or Advanced level. Table 5. Matched 2005 and 2006 PACT ELA Performance Teacher
Matched Students
Basic & + 2005
L 7 71.4% N 10 100% G 10 70% C 11 100% *Significant at .01 level
Basic & + 2006
Basic & + Difference
PRF/ADV 2005
PRF/ADV 2006
PRF/ADV Difference
42.9% 90% 40% 90.9%
-28.6% -10.0% -30.0% -9.1%
28.6% 90.0% 20.0% 63.6%
0.0% 30% 0.0% 27.3%
-28.6% -60.0%(*) -20.0% -36.4%(*)
Table 6 provides the PACT performance on Math for students who had test scores for both years. Teacher G’s class was the only class that showed increased in both measures (+16.7% each), although the gain or difference for each measure did not reach the significant level. Table 6. Matched 2005 and 2006 PACT Math Performance Teacher
L N G C
Matched Students
Basic & + 2005
Basic & + 2006
Basic & + Difference
PRF/ADV 2005
PRF/ADV 2006
PRF/ADV Difference
12 10 12 11
83.3% 80.0% 58.3% 100%
83.3% 60.0% 75.0% 72.7%
0.0% -20.0% +16.7% -27.3%
16.7% 10.0% 0.0% 18.2%
25.0% 10.0% 16.7% 9.1%
+8.3% 0.0% +16.7% --9.1%
Table 7 provides the PACT performance on Science for students who had test scores for both years. Three out of four teachers who taught single-gender classes showed decrease in both measures. Teachers L and N showed significant decline in their students performing Basic or better in 2006. Table 7. Matched 2005 and 2006 PACT Science Performance Teacher
Matched Students
L 17 N 13 G 17 C 14 *Significant at .01 level
Basic & + 2005
Basic & + 2006
Basic & + Difference
PRF/ADV 2005
PRF/ADV 2006
PRF/ADV Difference
88.2% 92.3% 58.8% 64.3%
58.8% 30.8% 47.1% 42.9%
-29.4%(*) -61.5%(*) -11.8% -21.4%
35.3% 23.1% 11.8% 7.1%
5.9% 15.4% 0.0% 7.1%
-29.4% -7.7% -11.8% 0.0%
Table 8 provides the PACT performance on Social Studies for students who had test scores for both years. Three out of four teachers who taught single-gender classes showed significant decrease in at least one measure. Teachers N showed significant decline in both measures (-46.2% and -38.5%), Teacher L showed significant decline in the measure of percent of the students performing Proficient or Advanced level (-29.4%), and Teacher C showed significant decrease in the measure of percent of the students performing Basic or better (-57.1%). Table 8. Matched 2005 and 2006 PACT Social Studies Performance Teacher
Matched Students
L 17 N 13 G 17 C 14 *Significant at .01 level
Basic & + 2005
Basic & + 2006
Basic & + Difference
PRF/ADV 2005
PRF/ADV 2006
PRF/ADV Difference
76.5% 92.3% 58.8% 100%
70.6% 46.2% 47.1% 42.9%
-5.9% -46.2%(*) -11.8% -57.1%(*)
41.2% 38.5% 11.8% 14.3%
11.8% 0.0% 5.9% 7.1%
-29.4%(*) -38.5%(*) -5.9% -7.1%
III.
Discussion
Teacher K’s class at Sanders remained the same attendance level (97.1%) for the first 45 days for both 2006 and 2007 school years. There is a need to look at the attendance rate at mid year or the end of year to have full picture of the attendance pattern. However, the single-gender class only occurs when students receive science instruction from Teacher K. Students are mixed in with female students when they receive instruction of other courses. It presents challenges to obtain the precise attendance information since middle schools do not take attendance by period. Although the suspension days were slightly reduced and the number of students who were suspended was also reduced, when compared to the same period in 2004-05, it is immature to draw any conclusion at this time that single-gender has positive effect on student attendance or disciplines without further evidence. It is feasible to compare the science achievement for students in single-gender class and those who are in traditional classes and it will be conducted when data becomes available (e.g., grades, PACT). As far as the performance of the single-gender classes at Forest Heights, it was not very positive in terms of attendance, suspension, and the PACT achievement. The attendance was decreased for three of the four classes but the suspension was increased for the same classes. When reviewing the growth that students made from 2005 to 2006, three of the four single-gender classes showed significant decline in student performance. Class N significantly declined in three areas: ELA, Science, and Social Studies, Class L in Science and Social Studies, and Class C in ELA and Social Studies. In fact, Class N showed significant decline in ELA and Social Studies from 2004 to 2005, as well. Although some research reports that the number of dropouts was reduced, the general academic performance of urban males and the math and science achievement of females were improved, or students were more motivated and less distracted in single-gender classes or schools, single-gender education is not necessarily better than coeducation, according to “Separated by Sex: A Critical Look at Sing-Sex Education for Girls” published in 1998 by the American Association of University Woman, Both girls and boys thrive on a good education, regardless of whether the class is single-gender or coeducational. Single-gender classes may improve student disciplines or create classroom environments that are more conducive to learning, but when it comes to student achievement, teacher or quality of teaching plays most important role than any other elements do (e.g., parental involvement, heterogeneous/homogeneous grouping, singe-gender or coeducational, traditional or year-round calendar, etc.). One of the most essential tasks of the administrators is to recruit the best teachers, provide them with targeted professional development, and maximize their capacity as educators.
Appendix D1: SDE Proposal Form
South Carolina Department of Education, Single-Gender Initiatives District Level Single-Gender Proposal Form (February 22, 2008) Please complete information below if you are considering a single-gender program for the 08-09 school year. Please send this form back to the district office as well as David Chadwell at the State Department of Education ([email protected]). GENERAL INFORMATION School Name: District: Contact Person for Program: Email for Contact Person: RATIONALE Rationale for Single-Gender (cite specific data): PROGRAM DETAILS Single-Gender Grade Levels: Single-Gender Subject Areas: Specifics of the Structure: SELECTION OF STUDENTS Will students Opt-in or Opt-out? If you are having students Opt-In, what will your criteria be for placement (lottery or objective criteria – please explain) If you are having students Opt-Out, how will you identify students: How will you communicate with parents that they have the option to Opt-out: What is the minimum number of students you need in each class to make a single-gender class: What is the maximum number of students that you will allow in a single-gender class: Anticipated number of students participating: Anticipated number of teachers participating: COED OPTION What is your plan for offering a coed option: COMMUNICATION Date of discussion with PTO/SIC (should have been done or will be done ASAP): Date of discussion with faculty (should have been done or will be done ASAP): Date of Initial training of faculty members (should be by the end of the school year): Date of parent meeting regarding gender differences and program specifics (should be before spring break): PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPOMENT Proposed professional development during the year: DATA COLLECTION Planned data collection throughout the year:
Appendix D2: SDE Newsletter May 2009 Single-Gender Initiatives Office of Public School Choice South Carolina Department of Education
Welcome to the End of the Year! Thank you all for your continued professionalism with single-gender education, willingness to learn from one another, openness to having us visit your classrooms, and participation in multiple ways. Your dedication is making a difference in the lives of students across the state! I am happy to say that the 2009 Single-Gender Spring Survey was a success. We had a dramatic increase in participation. • Administrators: 105 • Students: 5400 • Parents: 720 • Teachers: 480 We are sorting the data and will send your school information back to you shortly. A report for the state will be issued during the summer before the start of school. Thank you to all of you who participated or encouraged others to participate. Only through looking at multiple sources of data will we be able to determine the impact of single-gender education and how to improve. Next year, Gender Matters will focus more on teachers. Each issue will feature an article from a classroom teacher. In addition, focus questions will be posted for gathering of information and feedback. Next year, I will also be hosting several on-line Webinars through Elluminate. This will allow educators to communicate about specific issues without travel expenses. Have a great summer. The next issue of Gender Matters will be out in August 2009. Enjoy, David
Focus on Legal Issues Federal Regulation: Review your single-gender program every two years. The SCDE Single-Gender Initiatives created a Review Application. We require that all schools with singlegender classes this year (08-09) complete the Review. • Completion of the Review Application will be done on-line via the Member Center of the SCDE webpage (www.ed.sc.gov and click on Log In) • Principals and Single-Gender Contacts have access to the Review Application. • Deadline for completion of the Review Application is June 19. • The Review has three parts: Rationale and Data for creating a program; Current Judgment about Program and Data to support; Future Plans. • Data Templates are available if needed.
Texts to Use We have included ALL texts featured over the last two years in Gender Matters. See pages 7—9. Let us know other texts to feature!
THANK YOU MARRIAH
Many of you have met Marriah Schwallier during this year. She has traveled the state working with teachers. She also coordinated the very successful Teacher-to-Teacher Conference. Marriah will be returning to Richland School District 2 as a science teacher. She will be greatly missed by all and her contribution is immeasurable. Thank you for your all you have done to support and strengthen single-gender education in South Carolina! The purpose of this newsletter is to inform educators about singlegender updates in the state, provide best-practice advice, spur collaboration, and announce professional development opportunities. I welcome your information and comments. David Chadwell Single-Gender Initiatives Tel: (803) 734-6261 Email: [email protected] Web: http://ed.sc.gov/sgi
Appendix E1: SDE Federal Regulations Summary
Summary of the Federal Regulations on SingleGender Schools and Classes Prepared by David Chadwell, SingleGender Initiatives Coordinator Office of Public School Choice, South Carolina Department of Education Final federal regulations were announced October 25, 2006 and took effect on November 24, 2006. This summary is meant as a guide to the Federal Guidelines. You should consult your own school district attorney to confirm legal status of your school’s program. 1. You must have a rationale that addresses an important educational objective. An educational objective can include academic performance, attendance, and discipline referrals. The rationale would guide the creation of the program including the grade level where it will be offered, the subject areas where it will be offered, and the gender to which it will be offered. If you offer singlegender classes to just one gender, then your rationale MUST reflect this and that you are able to meet the educational needs of the other gender through coeducational means. 2. The program is implemented in an “evenhanded manner”. Treat males and females in a similar manner in terms of expectations, policies, and procedures, including: grading procedures and disciplinary codes. 3. Enrollment is “completely voluntary”. Parents must have a choice about being a part of a singlegender program. Parents can OptIn to a program, this is clearly the most legal. Students can also be assigned to a program and parents given the option to OptOut, this is very common and successful. In this case, you must make sure that you take all reasonable steps to inform parents of their right to OptOut. 4. A “substantially equal coeducational class” is offered to students not enrolled in the singlegender classes. “Substantially equal” includes but is not limited to similar: admissions criteria, quality of curriculum, availability of texts, technology, resources, qualification of faculty, and geographic accessibility. 5. If you offer singlegender classes for just one gender, then you “may” have to provide a singlesex class for students of the excluded sex. This follows from your rationale. 6. Conduct periodic evaluations of the rationale every two years. You must gather data to determine if your program is meeting the needs as stated in the rationale AND that the program is not based on overly broad stereotypes. At this time, a report does NOT have to be submitted to the federal or state government.
Appendix E2: SDE Guidance on Data Coding
March 25, 2008 Dear District Level Curriculum Officers Involved with Single-Gender Initiatives: We are at a very exciting time with regard to single-gender initiatives. There are approximately 300 schools that are considering single-gender classes or programs for the 2008 – 2009 school year. That is wonderful! As I travel the state, parents, teachers, and administrators ask for data and more data. While many principals are sending in bits and pieces of data, I am now trying to help facilitate this process. SASI has a Section Atom that contains a Gender tag already. See below. Sections Atom
1429 Senate Street Columbia, SC 29201 Phone 803.734.8500 Fax 803.734.3389 Web www.ed.sc.gov
This tag allows the district and school personnel to tag a class section as gender restricted, meaning single-gender for females or males. See below.
I am requesting that the SASI people in your schools begin using this tag for gender within the Sections Atom. This would allow you and me to pull important data directly from SASI including: Number of students involved in single-gender classes Performance on PACT within single-gender classes and as compared to similar coed classes Discipline data for students within single-gender classes and as compared to students in coed classes Attendance data for students within single-gender classes and as compared to students in coed classes. Schools could also be able to pull additional data by single-gender classes, such as: average grades, MAP data, etc. Please distribute this memo to all principals and SASI people who will be involved with singlegender classes as soon as possible so that they will be able to include this tag as they begin scheduling for next year. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Thank you for your assistance and continued support. Enjoy, David Chadwell Coordinator for Single-Gender Initiatives [email protected] or 803-734-6261
Appendix F: NWEA MAP to PACT Alignment Study (short)
A Study of the Alignment of the NWEA RIT Scale with the South Carolina Assessment System
John Cronin, Ph.D. March, 2007
Copyright © 2007 Northwest Evaluation Association All rights reserved. No part of this document may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without written permission from NWEA.
Northwest Evaluation Association 5885 SW Meadows Road, Suite 200 Lake Oswego, OR 97035-3526 www.nwea.org Tel 503-624-1951 Fax 503-639-7873
A Study of the Alignment of the NWEA RIT Scale with the South Carolina Assessment System John Cronin, Ph.D.– Northwest Evaluation Association March, 2007 ! " # $ ! % ! "
$
" $
"
&'(
) *'(
! !+
,
, $ $ !+ $
, $ , $ .*
.*( $ .*
!+ "
/ " 0 1 ! " , $
" "
! 2
" "
)
" "
) * $
"
" #
"
!
, $ 0
1
#
0 1
!
" ! ) )
3*
$
$
$ " "
!
"
% ""
$
"
!
NWEA
Page 3
4/19/2007
Table 1 # Recommended same-season (spring) RIT cut scores for South Carolina performance levels # Reading Grade
Below Basic
Basic
Proficient
Advanced
Cut score
Cut score
Percentile
Cut score
Percentile
Cut score
Percentile
3
