1. MPS High School Evaluation Council of the Great City Schools Annual Fall Conference October, 2010 Deb Lindsey, Milwaukee Public Schools Bradley Carl, Wisconsin Center for Education Research

2. High School Evaluation: Purpose, Design, Methodology Evaluation designed as comparisons between high school types (Small vs. Large, Charter vs. Non-Charter, etc.) –Not designed as a comparison/ranking of individual high schools –Not all schools included in some comparisons –Small/Large cutoff: 400 students –“Selectivity” defined somewhat narrowly: admissions requirement (4 schools)

3. High School Evaluation: Purpose, Design, Methodology 2 context measures (enrollment & demographics) + 11 outcome metrics (completion rate, test scores, attendance, suspensions, etc.) Time period generally 2004-05 through 2008-09, corresponding to start of HS Redesign process Descriptive data + inferential (regression) analysis to account for differences in students served

4. High School Evaluation: Key Findings  Enrollment: distinct and purposeful shift toward smaller high schools  Corresponding increases in enrollment (numerical and “market share”) for several subsets of small high schools: small charters, small newly-created charters, etc.  Demographics: no evidence of any school types consistently under-serving student subgroups of interest (SpEd, ELL, etc.)

5. High School Evaluation: Key Findings WKCE Test Performance: –Stagnant rates of non-cohort proficiency on Grade 10 tests (% Proficient + Advanced); small increases in Grade 10 mean scale scores –Small schools appear to serve lower-performing students overall –Same-student gains (Grade 8-10; Fall 2005-Fall 2007 and Fall 2006-Fall 2008) for non-mobile students with matched tests: Most remain in same proficiency level, but more students drop 1+categories than increase No school types produce consistently superior gains for both Reading/Math for both growth cohorts; greater variation within school types than between

6. High School Evaluation: Key Findings  Mobility: higher rates of within-year mobility for Small sites, both descriptively (unadjusted) and inferentially (regression- adjusted):  Based on month-to-month changes in school of enrollment during 2005-06 and 2008-09  Regression controls for student/school demographics + prior (grade 8) attendance & mobility  Variation in mobility again higher within school types than across school types

7. High School Evaluation: Key Findings Within-Year (September-May) Grade 9 Reading & Math Benchmark Gains: –Similar pattern to WKCE: no school type produces consistently superior gains, either descriptively or regression-adjusted; lower prior achievement in Small sites –Again, greater variation within than between types –Low participation rates may bias results

8. High School Evaluation: Key Findings Retention rates for first-time 9 th graders: Small schools have higher rates descriptively (2005-06 through 2008-09), but lower regression-adjusted rate for 2008-09 –Controls used in regression: student and school-level demographics & prior retention history (past 5 years) –Again, substantial within-type variance

9. High School Evaluation: Key Findings Attendance: 75-80% for grades 9-12 across school types; no significant change for most school types over past 5 years –Descriptive data: higher attendance rates (grades 9-12) for Large sites –Regression-adjusted data: higher for first- time 9 th graders in Small sites after controlling for demographics + prior (grade 8) attendance history –Again, large variance within school types

10. High School Evaluation: Key Findings GPA (overall and core subject): –Low GPA for all school types (1.5 - 1.8); marginal (if any) improvement –GPA (both types) lower in Small sites; likely reflects lower ability levels upon entering high school

11. High School Evaluation: Key Findings High School Completion Rate: –Insufficient data to make meaningful comparisons (new schools/types + small student counts + high grade 9 retention rates) –“Total Quality Credits” (during Year 1 of H.S. and overall) used as proxy for progression through high school; higher TQC attainment in Large sites, but (again) substantial within-type variance

12. Conclusions Conclusion 1: very limited evidence of systemic improvement in high school outcomes studied Conclusion 2: some evidence that Small high schools overall serve different student populations (lower prior achievement, etc.) Conclusion 3: some high school types fare better on some outcomes, but very limited evidence of consistently superior outcomes for any school type across all years/metrics –Outcome variance generally greater within school types than across

13. Implications for HS Reform Change focus to a quality control/ performance management approach that encourages diversity of offerings + accountability for results –Select most valued/relevant outcomes, establish expectations, monitor results –MPS already taking steps in this direction: evaluating charters, EdStat, data warehouse reports, etc.