HomeMy WebLinkAbout031505 Work Session attachment 1Orange County /Chapel Hill- Carrboro
City Schools Study:
Description and Analysis of Educational
Resources
Madeleine Grumet, Rita O'Sullivan, George Noblit,
Amy Anderson, Martha Hudson, Kim Pyne
School of Education
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
March 2005
Acknowledgements
County Officers
John Link, Orange County Manager
Rod Visser, Orange County Assistant Manager
Commissioners
Barry Jacobs
Steve Halkiotis
Margaret Brown
Superintendents:
Neil Pedersen, Chapel Hill - Carrboro City Schools
Shirley Carraway, Orange County Schools
District Support
Anne D'Annunzio, OCS Public Information Officer
Kim Hoke, CHCCS Assistant to the Superintendent for Community Relations
Margaret Blackwell, CHCCS Executive Director, Exceptional Children and Student Services
Milinda Grenard, OCS Director of Exceptional Children Services
Orange County Schools Principals
Terry Rogers, Cameron Park Elementary School
Aliso McLean, Cedar Ridge High School
Sheila McDonald, Central Elementary School
Ron Roche', Efland- Cheeks Elementary School
Sherron Leplin, Grady Brown Elementary School
Mamie Jay, Hillsborough Elementary School
Barbara Chapman, New Hope Elementary School
Jeff Dishmon, Orange High School
Connie Brimmer, Pathways Elementary School
Clara Daniels, A.L. Stanback Middle School
Dave Ebert, C.W. Stanford Middle School
Chapel Hill- Carrboro City Schools Principals
Ibis Nunez, Carrboro Elementary School
Mary Ann Hadebeck, Chapel Hill High School
Jacqueline Ellis, Culbreth Middle School
Dave Thaden, East Chapel Hill High School
Susan Wells, Ephesus Elementary School
Dale Minge, Estes Hills Elementary School
Steve Greene, Frank Porter Graham Elementary School
Amy Lewis, Glenwood Elementary School
Sam Roman- Oertwig, McDougle Elementary School
Debra Scott, McDougle Middle School
Eileen Tulley, Phillips Middle School
CHCCS /OCS Final Report 2
Deshera Mack, Rashkis Elementary School
Paula McCarthy, Scroggs Elementary School
Susan Pegg, Seawell Elementary School
Valerie Reinhardt, Smith Middle School
Evaluation Assessment, & Policy Connections, UNC- Chapel Hill
Kellie Belton
Diane Talley
CHCCS /OCS Final Report 3
Table of Contents
Introduction 6
Study Design 8
Part A: Districts & School Profiles 11
a. Per Pupil Expenditure
12
b. District Size and Class Size
12
K -12 Enrollments
12
Pre - School Enrollments
15
c. Important Sub- groups
16
Economically Disadvantaged Students
16
Minority Students
17
English as a Second Language Students
18
Students with Disabilities
18
Academically Gifted Students
19
d. Teacher Profiles
20
Teacher Compensation /Retention /Qualifications
20
Teachers' Perceptions of Working Conditions
21
e. Achievement
26
Adequate Yearly Progress Targets
26
Elementary School Achievement
27
Overall Elementary School Achievement
27
Elementary Minority Student Achievement
29
Middle School Achievement
30
Overall Achievement
30
Achievement Growth 2003 -2003 to 2003 -2004
30
Middle School Minority School Achievement
31
Middle School Special Needs Students
32
High School Achievement
32
End of Course Performance
32
SAT Scores
33
Dropouts
33
Advanced Placement Courses
33
Post - Secondary Options
34
f. Resource Allocations
35
Personnel
35
Facilities
39
PTA
42
CHCCS/OCS Final Report 4
Part 6: Interpretation of District & School Profiles 43
a.
The Elementary Schools
44
Assistants
47
Reading Specialists
48
Foreign Language
50
Science Specialists
50
Arts Programs
50
After School Programs in the Elementary Schools
51
b.
The Middle Schools
52
Analysis of Middle School Findings
53
Literacy Achievement in the Middle Schools
54
English as a Second Language in the Middle School
56
Actualizing the Middle School Model
57
c.
High School Programs
58
Dropouts
60
Counselors and Social Workers at Middle Schools & High Schools
62
Post - Secondary Plans
64
d.
Equity Initiatives
65
Achievement by Groups
65
Heterogeneous Classrooms
66
Exceptional Children Services
68
Student Services
71
Curriculum Alignment and Leadership
72
e.
Resources
76
Teachers
76
PTA and Community Resources
77
f.
Limitations of the Study
78
Part C: Recommendations 79
Increasing OCS Resources Pre K -12 80
Communication and Collaboration between Districts 81
References 82
CHCCS /OCS Final Report 5
Introduction
Some time ago, when the Orange County Commissioners were studying the issues
surrounding the question of merger of the Orange and Chapel Hill - Carrboro school systems,
they asked the authors of this report if we could help them to understand and think about
the educational issues related to this topic. Lacking the expertise and time to advise the
commissioners on the subject of merger, per se, we agreed to study a related question;
What are the educational resources and opportunities available to the children of each
district? We were granted $25,000 to study this question in July 2004. We initiated our
work in the summer, meeting with the Educational Excellence Work Group comprised of the
superintendents of the two school districts, the County Manager and Assistant County
Manager, representatives of the Orange County Commissioners, and a representative of the
Public School Forum, to shape the scope of work, and develop the research questions.
Having reviewed the data gathered by both school districts for the Commissioners'
consideration, we recognized that in order to gauge how the resources listed in that data
affected the educational experiences of the county's K -12 students, we needed to interview
the principals of all the county schools. We suspected then, and our study confirmed our
intuition, that the differences among schools within each of the districts would be almost as
dramatic as differences revealed in the comparison of the aggregated data of the two
districts. We created an interview protocol that was approved by the two school
superintendents and then visited every school in the county at least twice, once to introduce
the study and then to conduct the interview. Aided by the staff of EvAP (Evaluation,
Assessment and Policy Connections, a center for evaluation research at the UNC- Chapel Hill
School of Education), we drew data from the interview protocols. We then reviewed NC
State Report Card Data for 2002 -2003, and when the 2003 -2004 data was released by the
state in November, we added that data to our considerations as well. We met with the
Educational Excellence Work Group again in November 2004 to indicate the general
direction of our findings and to hear their questions so that our work might directly
address important issues.
Everyone on our research team, Professors Madeleine Grumet, George Noblit and
Rita O'Sullivan, doctoral students Amy Anderson and Kim Pyne and consultant Martha
Hudson has been impressed with the intense effort, expertise, and enthusiasm of the
school personnel with whom we spoke. We also appreciate the kind and supportive responses
of the people who work in the district offices who worked to provide us with the data that
we requested.
Let us acknowledge the economic conditions that frame the educational situations
that we are studying. The Chapel Hill Carrboro City Schools (CHCC5) rank 5th (of 117
districts) in the state for per pupil expenditures and serve about 10,500 students; the
Orange County Schools (OCS) rank 17th and serve about 6,500 students. Per pupil
expenditures are comprised of federal, state and local monies. While OCS received slightly
more money than CHCCS from the state in 2003 -2004 ($4,573 compared with $4,447.91),
CHCCS clearly outpaced OCS in local per pupil funds ($4,173.84 compared with $2,915.42
for OCS); this due to a special CHCCS school tax levied on residents of Chapel Hill and
CHCCS/OCS Final Report 6
Carrboro. In fact, CHCCS ranks first in the state for local contributions to per pupil
expenditures. As CHCCS have more students than OCS, the difference in per pupil
expenditures translates into a CHCCS budget that is approximately 12 million dollars more
each year than the budget available to the Orange County Schools. In addition, judging from
the numbers of students qualifying for free and reduced lunch in each district, the majority
of students in the Chapel Hill- Carrboro City Schools come from families that are more
affluent than the families whose children attend the Orange County Schools. Nevertheless,
each district has diverse student bodies drawn from all socioeconomic groups, with complex
and specific needs and talents, and each is using its funds thoughtfully to offer educational
opportunities to every child in its schools. In the report that follows, we have tried to
indicate where the presence or absence of resources may have important repercussions for
students. We say mayto acknowledge the multiple factors that affect not only student
achievement but also student morale, identity, and aspiration.
CHCCS /OCS Final Report 7
Study Design
The purpose of this study was to describe the resources of the Chapel Hill- Carrboro
City Schools (CHCCS) and the Orange County Schools (OCS) with a mind to proposing areas
where some form of collaboration would enhance the education of all the children in the
schools of these towns and this county. In order to accomplish this project, Dr. Madeleine
Grumet from the School of Education at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
(UNC -CH) gathered a research team together to assist in the investigation.
The UNC -CH research team agreed to:
1. Review materials gathered by districts describing curriculum, extra-
curricular programs, teacher recruitment, development, and retention
2. Develop questions and secure more information as needed
3. Analyze and interpret data
4. Draft a report for the Orange County Commissioner's Educational
Excellence Work Group that requested the study, and
5. Revise the draft report and submit a final version.
The research study team, in consultation with the Educational Excellence Work
Group members, identified a preliminary set of themes and questions for the study. Those
questions are presented below. The original set of questions was then used to frame the
data gathering mechanisms to be used. After a review of available data in Summer 2004,
the study team believed that it was essential to compile data such that information would
allow for school comparisons within and between the two districts. This meant that
information needed to be available for individual schools. The study team made every
effort to use existing information sources to answer the research questions, rather than
collect additional data. To accomplish this, the study team proposed the following sequence
in data collection:
1 = Documents in hand
2 = Web data
3 = District data
4 = School site visit data
5 = Focus group data
6 = Individual Interviews
Steps one and two were completed in sequence, and then the study team drafted
protocols for data collection for school site visit and for central office inquiries. The two
school district superintendents reviewed the protocols and prepared their principals for the
site visits. Principals received copies of the site -visit protocols and the team visited each
of the schools in the two districts. The site visit data were summarized and reviewed by
each of the schools for accuracy. The research study team then began organizing the
information by thematic questions.
CHCCS /OCS Final Report 8
Proposed Evaluation Questions for the Research Study
Evaluation questions:
1.
How are districts preparing students for post- secondary education?
a. technically oriented students - including non- and community college
students, military
b. special needs students - including special education, ESL, low- achieving /at-
risk students
C. academically able students
d. academically very able students
2.
What are the characteristics of teachers and administrators in each district?
a. Who is hired? Education? Experience?
b. Retention?
C. What role does compensation play in retention?
d. Capacity for and access to additional funding sources - including grants,
etc.
3.
What do districts believe they are doing well?
a. Central administration /district
b. School administration
C. Teachers
d. Parents
4.
What characterizes the instructional environments?
a. Classroom environment: class size, team teaching
b. Parent and volunteer processes: involvement, communication
C. Connections to external resources
5.
How is the curriculum organized and delivered?
a. Subject area curricula; presentation strategies
b. Before school and after school programs
C. Other programs
d. Expertise and currency of pra ctices
6.
What is the organizational culture of each district?
a. Perceptions of stakeholders: critical needs
b. Visibility of procedures, issues of autonomy
7.
What is the nature of student support services?
a. Social work services
b. Psychological services
8.
How do the facilities support instruction?
a. Computer support
b. Physical plant
C. Teacher space and resources
d. Current/ projected enrollment needs
At this juncture the research study team reviewed preliminary findings to ascertain
what important stories were emerging about the two school districts and whether or not
additional information needed to be collected. The decision was made not to conduct focus
groups but to summarize the data in hand and supplement it as needed with assistance from
CHCCS/OCS Final Report 9
the school districts. One of the challenges faced by the research team was that the two
districts do not collect the some data. When they do collect the same information, they do
not always report it in the some way, making comparison difficult. Given time constraints
and the challenges surrounding the collection of consistent data for each of the schools,
the study team opted to concentrate on gathering and summarizing data in hand, rather
that directly collecting additional information.
The study timeline was as follows.
May - June 2004
0 Preliminary meeting to frame study
Identification of Study Team members
Preliminary review of documents
July - August 2004
9 Study teams meets to review available information and
draft research questions
• Meet with Superintendents to review plan and identify
operating procedures
• Meet with sub - committee to review plans
• Contact principals to notify them of the study
• Use current documents and web resources to begin
answering research questions
• Identify and request information still needed that
might be available through school districts central
offices
September -
Develop school site visit protocol
November 2004
• Engage additional team members as needed
• Conduct school site visits
• Continue gathering data from the central office
Summarize information collected
• Draft preliminary report and present to sub - committee
December 2004 -
Continue gathering data from the central office
January 2005
0 Further analyze data
• Meet with sub - committee to review report
• Revise report as needed
• Submit final report
This report is divided into three major sections. Part A compares information by
school district and school. These district and school profiles present what the evaluation
study team found about the two school districts and their schools in terms of: a) per pupil
expenditures, b) enrollments and class size, c) important student sub - groups, d) teachers, e)
students' achievement, and f) resource allocations. From this exploration of the various
district and school contexts, the study team identified important differences between the
two districts, which are discussed in Part B. Finally, Part C presents the study team's
preliminary recommendations about the potential for sharing and expanding resources to
meet the needs of all the students in Orange County.
CHCCS/OCS Final Report 10
Part A:
Districts and School Profiles
CHCCS /OCS Final Report 11
A. Districts & School Profiles
a. Per Pupil Expenditure
As shown in Table 1, both districts rank fairly high in per pupil expenditure in the
state. Chapel Hill - Carrboro City Schools (CHCCS) rank 5th and Orange County Schools
(OCS) rank 17th out of 117 districts in North Carolina. Overall, CHCCS spend almost $1,000
more per pupil than the OCS. The difference in local per pupil contributions comes from a
special property tax levied on residents of Chapel Hill and Carrboro.
Table 1. Per Pupil Expenditure and Ranking in the State by Funding Source
Source: *NCDPI School Report Gard ZUU6 -e_'vuz+
b. District Size and Class Size
K -12 Enrollments
As shown in Table 2, CHCCS enroll more than 1.6 times the number of children than
OCS.
Table 2. Enrollments by District by Level
State
Federal
Local
High Schools
TOTAL
Enrollment
Schools
Amount
Rank
Amount
Rank
Amount
Rank
CHCCS*
2003 -04
=$4448.
4,719
$301
116
$4174
1
$8922
5
OCS*
2003 -04
$4574
68
$435
102
$2915
4
$7924
17
Source: *NCDPI School Report Gard ZUU6 -e_'vuz+
b. District Size and Class Size
K -12 Enrollments
As shown in Table 2, CHCCS enroll more than 1.6 times the number of children than
OCS.
Table 2. Enrollments by District by Level
Source: *CHCCS and OGS District Uttices, uecemner cwt
As might be assumed, this difference in the number of students served, as shown in
Table 3, does not translate proportionally into 1.6 as many schools for CHCCS. CHCCS have
two more elementary schools and four more middle schools than OCS; both districts have
the same number of high schools.
CHCCS /OCS Final Report 12
Total
Elementary
Middle Schools
High Schools
Enrollment
Schools
CHCCS*
2003 -2004
10,698
4,719
2,568
3,411
OCS*
2003 -2004
6,668
3,028
1,598
2,042
Source: *CHCCS and OGS District Uttices, uecemner cwt
As might be assumed, this difference in the number of students served, as shown in
Table 3, does not translate proportionally into 1.6 as many schools for CHCCS. CHCCS have
two more elementary schools and four more middle schools than OCS; both districts have
the same number of high schools.
CHCCS /OCS Final Report 12
Table 3. Number of Schools per Level
Source: *CHCCS and OCS District Websites
Rather, as seen in Table 4, the enrollment differences between the districts
translate into more students per school for CHCCS at the elementary level, fewer at the
middle schools, and more at the high schools. Also of note is that the CHCCS elementary
schools are much closer to capacity than the OCS elementary schools. Even with the
addition of Rashkis Elementary School, the only school in the CHCCS that is not close to
capacity, the data demonstrate at the elementary level that OCS is not operating at the
same capacity levels as CHCCS.
Table 4. Number of Students per School and % School Capacity
CHCCS
Elementary
Schools
Middle Schools
High Schools
CHCCS*
%
Ca acit **
Elementary Schools
2004 -05
9
4
2
2003 -04
8
4
2
OCS*
Central
275
57
2004 -05
7
2
2
2003 -04
7
2
2
Source: *CHCCS and OCS District Websites
Rather, as seen in Table 4, the enrollment differences between the districts
translate into more students per school for CHCCS at the elementary level, fewer at the
middle schools, and more at the high schools. Also of note is that the CHCCS elementary
schools are much closer to capacity than the OCS elementary schools. Even with the
addition of Rashkis Elementary School, the only school in the CHCCS that is not close to
capacity, the data demonstrate at the elementary level that OCS is not operating at the
same capacity levels as CHCCS.
Table 4. Number of Students per School and % School Capacity
CHCCS
#
Students*
%
Ca acit **
OCS
#
Students*
%
Ca acit **
Elementary Schools
Carrboro
595
106
Cameron Park
418
70
E hesus
423
90
Central
275
57
Estes Hills
476
87
Efland- Cheeks
435
82
F.P. Graham
564
99
Grady Brown
496
86
Glenwood
426
96
Hillsborough
398
96
McDou le
591
99
New Hoe
459
74
Rashkis
459
74
Pathways
547
91
Scroggs
650
107
Seawell
535
107
Middle Schools
Culbreth
616
92
Stanback
731
99
McDou le
641
88
Stanford
867
119
Phillips
680
96
Smith
631
86
Schools
-High
Chapel Hill
1773
117
Cedar Ride
1035
104
East Chapel Hill
1638
108
Orange
1007
66
TOTAL CHCCS
TOTAL OCS
Sources: *CHCCS and OCS District Offices, December 2004; "District facilities Reports
CHCCS /OCS Final Report 13
OCS, in support of the district's philosophy that lower class size would help serve
students better, wrote a plan to add five teaching positions in 2003 -2004 in order to lower
class sizes for elementary students. This effort is reflected in Table 5, which shows that
OCS averaged 18 students in grades K -2 (following state teacher - student ratio guidelines of
1:18 for K -2) as compared with 21 for CHCCS students. This also is true for grades 3 -5 with
20 students for OCS and 23 for CHCCS. For middle schools, grades 6 -8, this trend is
reversed with 20 for CHCCS and 24 for OCS.
Table 5. Average Class Size K -8 by Grade Level (2003 - 2004)
Grade
Enrollment
Average Class Size
TOTAL K -8
CHCCS
7,298
--
OCS
4,492
Elementary Grades
Kindergarten
CHCCS
736
21
OCS
487
17
1St Grade
CHCCS
808
21
OCS
481
18
2" Grade
CHCCS
744
21
OCS
460
18
3rd Grade
CHCCS
803
24
OCS
469
19
4th Grade
CHCCS
786
23
OCS
540
21
5th Grade
CHCCS
795
23
OCS
490
21
Middle Grades
6th Grade
CHCCS
812
19
OCS
460
25
7th Grade
CHCC5
881
21
OCS
531
24
8th Grade
CHCC5
933
20
OCS
574
24
Sources: *2003 -2004 NC Report Card for CHCC5 d 005 and NCDPI5tatistical Profile 2004
CHCCS /OCS Final Report 14
According to 2003 -2004 NCOPI School Report Carddata, and Table 6, at the high
school level, both CHCCS and OCS average class size was approximately 19 students. Table 6
also shows average class sizes in a number of subjects, ranging from basic to advanced
placement courses. It is important to note that the reporting years are different for the
average class sizes given by subject (October 2004 for CHCCS, December 2003 for OCS).
Another important consideration in terms of average class size is that there are many
classes that exceed the average and many classes with fewer than the average; districts are
required to offer some of these courses, even at lower numbers, so that students meet
degree requirements. Additionally, districts commit to students being able to follow through
on a course of study (e.g., foreign language).
Table 6: High School Course Class Size Averages
Sources: * CHCCS Opening of School Report, October 2004, * *OCS District Data, December 2003
* * * 2003 -2004 NC Report Card for CHCCS d OC,S
Pre - School Enrollments*
(*Source: Rivest, M. (2204). Early Childhood Education in Orange County Chapel Hill, NC: Orange County
Partnership for Children)
Orange County has a total of 5,989 children ages 0 -5. Of these children, 902
(12.9 %) are living in poverty, which is the equivalent of a family of three earning less than
$15,000 /year. As of January 2004, 677 received child care subsidy with 51 eligible on the
waiting list. For all children 0 -5 in Orange County, 1,932 (32 %) are enrolled in
CHCCS /005 Final Report 15
CHCCS*
OCS **
Average class size * **
19.4
19.7
Subject
English
19.2
24.4
Foreign Language
21.3
22.5
Algebra
19.0
25.4
Geometry
21.0
24.3
Science
23.1
23.1
History
23.7
25.2
English - Honors
25.5
21.0
Algebra - Honors
25.6
27.0
Geometry - Honors
25.1
23.1
- Honors
25.8
27.0
-History
English - AP
24.1
20.0
Foreign Language - AP
16.2
1.5
Statistics - AP
23.3
22.5
Science - AP
22.7
21.0
History - AP
24.0
18.9
Sources: * CHCCS Opening of School Report, October 2004, * *OCS District Data, December 2003
* * * 2003 -2004 NC Report Card for CHCCS d OC,S
Pre - School Enrollments*
(*Source: Rivest, M. (2204). Early Childhood Education in Orange County Chapel Hill, NC: Orange County
Partnership for Children)
Orange County has a total of 5,989 children ages 0 -5. Of these children, 902
(12.9 %) are living in poverty, which is the equivalent of a family of three earning less than
$15,000 /year. As of January 2004, 677 received child care subsidy with 51 eligible on the
waiting list. For all children 0 -5 in Orange County, 1,932 (32 %) are enrolled in
CHCCS /005 Final Report 15
approximately 70 licensed child care centers. Among the county's 1,240 three- and four -
year -olds in care, 22% are being served in the public schools, and 78% in private care
settings; this leaves approximately 1,156 children who are not included in these programs.
CHCCS have participated in Head Start programs since 1985. In 1990, the district
added private paying parents and /or subsidized children to preschool enrollments. Most
recently in 2002 the district added the state's More at Four program. This program for
educationally at -risk pre- schoolers serves 210 three- and four - year -old students at 8
locations (Ephesus, Rashkis, Glenwood, Carrboro, Seawell, Chapel Hill High School Carr
Court, and Lincoln Center), blending Head Start, More at Four, child care subsidies, and
parent fees.
OCS started providing pre - school services in 2002 with combined Head Start and
More at Four classrooms. The district serves 68 four year olds at 4 locations (Pathways,
New Hope, Efland Cheeks, and Central), blending Head Start, local and More at Four
funding.
C. Important Student Sub - Groups
The North Carolina Department of Public Instruction (NCDPI) tracks the academic
performance of student subgroups within its total student populations. This information is
of interest as we consider educational equity issues and also is currently of importance to
tracking the Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) targets, consistent with federal legislation.
This section of the report looks at CHCCS and OCS in relation to these important student
sub - groups.
Economically Disadvantaged Students
A review of the median income data from the 2000 census data for Orange County
could lead to the conclusion that on average there is very little difference between the two
school district populations. CHCCS census tract data by income show an average median
income of $47,512 and OCS census tracts show an average median income of $47,440.
When the three census tracts covered by UNC -CH student housing are removed, however,
the CHCCS average rises to $52,030, which would predict more economically disadvantaged
students in OCS, which is corroborated by Table 7 below. In North Carolina economically
disadvantaged" students are those who apply and are eligible for free and reduced lunch.
For a family of three, this would indicate an annual income of $28,231 or less. The decline in
the percentages of economically disadvantaged students from elementary to middle to high
school reflects the fact that as students get older, though eligible, they are less likely to
apply for free and reduced lunch. The differences between the two school districts,
however, remain constant.
CHCCS/OCS Final Report 16
Table 7. Economically Disadvantaged Students by District and School
CHCCS*
# Economically
Disadvantaged
Students
OCS **
# Economically
Disadvantaged
Students
Schools
% Other
-Elementary
Carrboro
28.5%(150)
Cameron Park
47.5%(188)
Ephesus
24.2%(119)
Central
66.0%(206)
Estes Hills
13.8%(57)
Efland- Cheeks
57.6%(246)
Frank Porter Graham
27.5%(129)
Grady Brown
31.4%(148)
Glenwood
18.6%(73)
Hillsborough
12.6%(50)
McDou le
18.6%(94)
New Hoe
28.6%(133)
Rashkis
13.5%(51)
Pathways
28.1%(149)
Scroggs
12.3%(63)
Seawell
17.3%(91)
Middle Schools
Culbreth
16.0%(80)
Stanback
31.1%(251)
McDougle
11.6%(55)
Stanford
29.8%(260)
Phillips
12.0%(68)
Smith
20.9%(112)
High Schools
Chapel Hill
8.8%(137)
Cedar Ride
15.4%(145)
East Chapel Hill
6.5%(87)
Orange
17.5%(168)
TOTAL CHCCS
15.1% (1,369)
TOTAL OCS
29.6%(1,
Sources: *CHCCS Opening of School Report October 2004, ** 005 Central Office, December 2004
Minority Students
As seen in Table 8 below, overall OCS have proportionally fewer minority students
than CHCCS. However, the proportion of Black students to the total school population is
higher for OCS, while CHCCS have higher proportions of Hispanic and Asian students.
Table 8. Ethnic Distributions by District
Sources: *CHCCS Opening of 5choo /Report October 2004, ** 005 Central Office, December 2004
CHCCS /OCS Final Report 17
% White
% Black
% Asian
% Hispanic
% Other
CHCCS*
2004 -05
61.0
15.0
11.0
8.0
3.5
OCS **
2004 -05
69.6
21.7
0.9
5.1
2.7
Sources: *CHCCS Opening of 5choo /Report October 2004, ** 005 Central Office, December 2004
CHCCS /OCS Final Report 17
English as a Second Language (ESL) Students
The higher proportion of Hispanic and Asian students for CHCCS probably
contributes to the much higher proportion of ESL students shown in Table 9. Overall,
CHCCS have more than three times the numbers of ESL students than OCS. ESL students
`
are identified as those whose primarily language is other than English. Limited English
Proficient" (LEP) students are a sub -group within the ESL category.
Table 9. English as a Second Language Students by District and School
CHCCS*
# ESL Students
OCS **
# ESL Students
Elementary Schools
Carrboro 60
Cameron Park 26
s
Ephesus
28
Central
22
Estes Hills
Frank Porter Graham
59
88
Efland- Cheeks
Grady. Brown
43
Glenwood
74
Hillsborough
0
0
McDou le
49
New Hoe
18
Rashkis
49
Pathways
10
Scroggs
77
Seawell
76
Middle Schools
Culbreth
57
Stanback 11
McDougle
Phillips
28
33
Stanford
55
Smith
63
High Schools
Cha el Hill
63
Cedar Ride 8
East Chapel Hill
[TOTAL CHCCS
63
867
Oran e
TOTAL OCS
r,rr*
27
256
Anna
Sources: *CHCCS Central Office, Dec 2004; "" UG-) Cenrrai v] i
Students with Disabilities
Surprisingly, as shown in Table 10, CHCCS with 1.6 times as many students as OCS
have almost the some number of students with disabilities. This translates into 17.1% for
OCS as compared with 11% for CHCCS. For both CHCCS and OCS students with learning
disabilities, speech and language difficulties, and other health impairments are the most
common classifications. Table 11, which follows, shows that of all special needs students,
43% of OCS and 42% of CHCCS are classified as Learning Disabled.
CHCCS /OCS Final Report . 18
Table 10. Students with Disabilities by District and School
CHCCS*
# Students with
Disabilities
OCS **
# Students with
Disabilities
Schools
-Elementary
Carrboro
37
Cameron Park
79
E hesus
72
Central
50
Estes Hills
53
Efland- Cheeks
87
Frank Porter Graham
55
Grady Brown
73
Glenwood
38
Hillsborough
49
McDou le
75
New Hoe
81
Rashkis
45
Pathways
77
Scroggs
51
Seawell
33
Middle Schools
Culbreth
87
Stanback
149
McDougle
106
Stanford
180
Phillips
71
Smith
80
High Schools
Chapel Hill
231
Cedar Ridge
152
East Chapel Hill
136
Orange
161
TOTAL CHCCS
11%(1170)
TOTAL OCS
17.6% (1,138)
Sources: *CHCCS District Office, December 2004; ** OCS Central Office, December 2004
Table 11. Most Common Disability Categories by District
Sources: *CHCCS Opening of Schoo /Report October 2004, ** OCS Central Office, December 2004
Academically Gifted Students
As seen in Table 12, the proportion of academically gifted students in CHCCS is
substantially higher than for OCS among both elementary (19.1% compared with 10.5 %) and
middle (33.3% compared with 17.1 %) schools. The rise in percentages from elementary to
middle grades is due to the fact that very few students are identified before second grade.
(OCS does not collect data about academically gifted students in high school.)
CHCCS /OCS Final Report 19
Total Special
% Learning
% Other Health
% Speech &
Needs
Disabled
Impaired
Language
Impaired
CHCCS`
2004 -2005
1,248
42%
22%
8%
OCS **
2004-2005
1,138
43%
19%
18%
Sources: *CHCCS Opening of Schoo /Report October 2004, ** OCS Central Office, December 2004
Academically Gifted Students
As seen in Table 12, the proportion of academically gifted students in CHCCS is
substantially higher than for OCS among both elementary (19.1% compared with 10.5 %) and
middle (33.3% compared with 17.1 %) schools. The rise in percentages from elementary to
middle grades is due to the fact that very few students are identified before second grade.
(OCS does not collect data about academically gifted students in high school.)
CHCCS /OCS Final Report 19
Table 12. Academically Gifted Students by District by School
CHCCS*
# Academically
Gifted Students
OCS **
# Academically
Gifted Students
Elementary Schools
19.1%(897)
10.5% (318)
Carrboro
59
Cameron Park
54
Ephesus
76
Central
18
Estes Hills
Frank Porter Graham
118
121
Ef land- Cheeks
Grady Brown
19
40
Glenwood
McDougle
Rashkis
123
149
54
Hillsborough
New Hoe
Pathways
82
55
50
Scro s
98
Seawell
Middle Schools
99
33.5%(859)
17.7% (283)
Culbreth
214
Stanback
142
McDougle
Phillips.
185
298
Stanford
141
Smith
162
High Schools
(528)
Chapel-Hill
260
Cedar Ridge
--
East Chapel Hill
268
Oran e
b
--
2004
Source: *CHCC5 Central Office, January 2005; ** OCS Central Office, Decem er
d. Teacher Profiles
Teacher Compensation /Retention /Qualifications
A comparison of the two districts showed very little difference in compensation of
teachers with less than 20 years of experience, overall retention of teachers, and teachers'
qualifications. Both districts use the state salary schedule as a base and then add local
supplements (beginning teachers with a bachelor's degree start at $25,420 and then add
12% in CHCCS and 10% in OCS). Local supplements in OCS rise to 11.5% for tenured
teachers and then to 14% for tenured teachers with 10 or more years of experience. For
CHCCS, the initial 12% local salary supplement increases to 15% for those teachers with 15-
19 years of experience. Teachers in CHCCS with 20 or more years of experience receive 6-
9% more in local supplements than teachers in OCS.
The teacher turnover rate as reported in Table 13 uses the NCDPI School Report
Card definition: "percentage of teachers employed in a school last year who are no longer
employed in the some school this year." The teacher turnover figures may contain teacher
transfers within the same district. For CHCCS, the turnover percentage for elementary
teachers is 25 %, higher than the rate for OCS (20 %) or the state (20 %). For middle school
and high school, this is reversed with a smaller percentage of CHCCS teachers leaving
CHCC5 1005 Final Report 20
compared with OCS or the state (NC: Middle School = 23 %, High School = 20 %). Worth
noting is that the opening of new schools in each district (Rashkis Elementary in CHCCS and
Cedar Ridge High School in OCS) may have had an impact on teacher turnover statistics
given the transfer of teachers between schools.
As also shown in Table 13, OCS have slightly higher percentages of fully licensed
teachers at each level and equal or higher percentages of "Highly Qualified Teachers."
CHCCS teachers tend to have slightly more advanced degrees at all levels. While the
average number of National Board Certified teachers per school is greater for CHCCS, this
is probably due to the fact that the CHCCS have more teachers per school. Years of
teaching experience seem comparable at elementary and middle grade levels, while OCS
have more experienced teachers at the high school.
Table 13. Classroom Teacher Qualifications`
*Source: 2003 -2004 NC School Report Card
Teachers' Perceptions of Working Conditions
During the 2003 -2004 academic year, the NC Professional Teaching Standards
Commission (2004) conducted a survey of teachers in the state that asked their opinions of
teacher working conditions. Five sets of questions asked teachers about their perceptions
of 1) Empowerment, 2) Facilities and Resources, 3) Leadership, 4) Professional Development,
and 5) Time. Empowerment looks at how teachers are involved in decision - making, are
provided avenues to express concerns, and are shown mutual respect. Facilities and
Resources speak to current technology, access to copy machines, faxes, and phones,
adequate clerical help, and safe and clean schools. The Leadership section asks how
CHCC51005 Final Report 21
CHCCS
OCS
Teacher Characteristics
Elem.
School
Middle
School
High
School
Elem.
School
Middle
School
High
School
Teacher Turnover
25%
18%
18%
20%
22%
24%
Fully Licensed Teachers
90%
92%
90%
98%
94%
96%
"Highly Qualified"
Teachers
88%
92%
89%
97%
92%
100%
Emergency /Provisional
License
3%
1%
2%
1%
3%
2%
Lateral Entry
1%
2%
3%
1%
3%
3%
Advanced Degrees
41%
40%
46%
40%
33%
40%
National Board Certified
(average number /school)
8
8
15
6
3
8
Years Teaching
0 -3
22%
27%
32%
21%
27%
16%
4 -10
27%
26%
25%
29%
29%
22%
10+
51%
47%
43%
50%
45%
62%
*Source: 2003 -2004 NC School Report Card
Teachers' Perceptions of Working Conditions
During the 2003 -2004 academic year, the NC Professional Teaching Standards
Commission (2004) conducted a survey of teachers in the state that asked their opinions of
teacher working conditions. Five sets of questions asked teachers about their perceptions
of 1) Empowerment, 2) Facilities and Resources, 3) Leadership, 4) Professional Development,
and 5) Time. Empowerment looks at how teachers are involved in decision - making, are
provided avenues to express concerns, and are shown mutual respect. Facilities and
Resources speak to current technology, access to copy machines, faxes, and phones,
adequate clerical help, and safe and clean schools. The Leadership section asks how
CHCC51005 Final Report 21
teachers are shielded from disruptions, provided effective mentors, and believe a priority is
given to supporting teachers. Professional Development asks if enhancing teachers'
knowledge is a priority, and if they are provided adequate resources and professional
development that is based on school and teacher goals. Time refers to reasonable student
loads, protection from duties that interfere with teaching, time to work with mentors, and
quality professional development. Teachers were asked to provide their ratings on a scale
of 1 to 5.
Only schools with at least a 40% response rate were included in the data summaries.
Overall, results of this survey, as seen in Figure 1, show that teachers in CHCCS and OCS
share similar opinions with their colleagues throughout the state. Teachers in CHCC5 and
OCS were more satisfied with their Facilities and Resources than other teachers around
the state. They also reported that the area of Time is the most problematic of their
working conditions, followed by their sense of Empowerment.
\o
O�
.0
o�o� ova
Qt � Gam'
Co
Od-
Comparison by district
0 1 2 3 4 5
Figure 1. CHCCS and 005 Working Conditions Survey Results
❑ North Carolina
Orange
❑ CHC
As shown in Figures 2 through 5, when data from the Working Conditions Surveys
are disaggregated by school, within district variation is revealed for both CHCCS and OCS.
For elementary schools in CHCCS, teachers at newly opened Rashkis reported consistently
higher scores than the other schools, whereas teachers at Carrboro rated their working
conditions low relative to the other schools in the district. For OCS, teachers at Central
were consistently high in the ratings, while teachers at Pathways rated Time and
Empowerment lower than the other schools in the district and lower than their ratings for
Professional Development, Leadership, and Facilities and Resources. At the middle schools
CHCC5 10CS Final Report 22
.
,.
mak..
r a �:,°;.._ ,.
1- '
_- �=0�l��l�
0 1 2 3 4 5
Figure 1. CHCCS and 005 Working Conditions Survey Results
❑ North Carolina
Orange
❑ CHC
As shown in Figures 2 through 5, when data from the Working Conditions Surveys
are disaggregated by school, within district variation is revealed for both CHCCS and OCS.
For elementary schools in CHCCS, teachers at newly opened Rashkis reported consistently
higher scores than the other schools, whereas teachers at Carrboro rated their working
conditions low relative to the other schools in the district. For OCS, teachers at Central
were consistently high in the ratings, while teachers at Pathways rated Time and
Empowerment lower than the other schools in the district and lower than their ratings for
Professional Development, Leadership, and Facilities and Resources. At the middle schools
CHCC5 10CS Final Report 22
in CHCCS, McDougle faculty are consistently above the North Carolina average on all five
areas, whereas teachers at Phillips report lower working conditions ratings than the other
middle schools in the district. For OCS, faculty at Stanback Middle School are above state
numbers for Empowerment. High school comparisons for CHCCS show faculty at East
Chapel Hill High School more satisfied with their working conditions than those at Chapel
Hill High School.
CHCCS
Elementary Working Conditions
--
.95
I
2.05
91
1. 3
Time
2.7
2.47
=' s . =. cs.:p 2.64
2.69
2.1
3.7
3.09
4.1
Professional
3.43
3.71
Development
1
❑ North Carolina
, _ . 3.
3.7
El Estes Hills
2.99
3.22
El Rashkis
3
i
4.39
M F P G
2.7
Leadership
,
❑McDougle
E] Seawell
3 Scroggs
3.22
3.7
4.13
r -_ 4.17
.94
2.36
3.06
❑ Glenwood
3.71
3.19
❑ Carrboro
Facilities &
ED Ephesus
4.67
- 3.28
;74 55
1
Resources
4.53
4.28
i
I
3.56
3.4i
3.17
.96
4.13
pligg! 1! 3.31
Empowerment
3 . 24
3.5
3.7
3.63
I
2.46
3.29
1 2 3 4
0
5
Figure 2. CHCCS Elementary Working Conditions Survey Results
CHCCS /OCS Final Report 23
OCS Elementary Working Conditions
Time
Professional
Development
Leadership
Facilities &
Resources
Empowerment
'..95
3.43
6
.91
.
m
' 1
iffy, nw.
014
ir..
- .
U1...
M,9
3.24
r
4.43
0 1 2 3 4 5
Figure 3. OCS Elementary Working Conditions Survey Results
❑ North Carolina
❑ Central
❑ Hillsborough
0 New Hope
❑ Grady
❑ Efland Cheeks
Pathways
CHCCS /OCS Final Report 24
Comparison of CHCCS & OCS Middle Schools
2.95
2.98
F. 9
Time 2. 8 4
3.09
3.07
-77
377
3.5
Professional 3.73
3.35
Development 3.89 4
3.79
E
❑ North Carolina
3 78 ❑ Stanback
3.5z.
3.8 ( ❑ Smith
Leadership 89 ® Phillips
4.21 p
4.09 ❑ McDougle
❑Culbreth
13.71 I
13.68
Facilities & 4.38
Resources 115
4.39
.92
3.17 I
3.36
3.45
Empowerment 3.15
.87
77
E
3.93
0 1 2 3 4 5
Figure 4. Comparison of CHCCS and OCS Middle School Working Conditions Survey Results
CHCCS /OCS Final Report 25
High School Comparison
Time
Professional
Development
❑ North Carolina
❑ Cedar Ridge HS
Leadership ❑ Chapel Hill HS
® East CH HS
Facilities &
Resources
Empowerment
0 1 2 3 4 5
CHCCS /OCS Final
Figure 5. Comparison of CHCC5 and 005 High School Working Conditions survey kesu!Ts
e. Achievement
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Targets
In both districts, consistent with federal No Child Left Behind (NCLB) guidelines
for 2003 -2004, all schools but one met all their Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) targets.
With AYP, the number of targets per school varies depending on the various subgroup
populations within a school, such that the number of AYP targets within the CHCCS ranges
from 13 to 31, and for OCS ranges from 7 to 25. This year's results showed marked
improvement from the previous academic year, when only four CHCCS elementary schools
and two OCS elementary schools met all their AYP targets. While this improvement is
laudable, it must be observed that 2003 -2004 AYP targets reflected the first levels of
achievement standards to be met on the road to 100% student achievement in 2013 -2014.
For example, the 2003 -2004 NCLB target for elementary and middle school minority
students in both districts in reading required that 68.9% would be at or above grade level;
for 10t" grade high school students' performance on the NC High School Comprehensive
Tests of Reading and Mathematics, the goal was 52% (CHCCS Minority Student
Achievement Report, 2004). AYP standards for 2004 -2005 will rise, for example, to 76.7%
in elementary reading and 81.0% in elementary mathematics. There also is some discussion
about changing the high school assessment of AYP standards.
Report 26
�1
Figure 5. Comparison of CHCC5 and 005 High School Working Conditions survey kesu!Ts
e. Achievement
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Targets
In both districts, consistent with federal No Child Left Behind (NCLB) guidelines
for 2003 -2004, all schools but one met all their Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) targets.
With AYP, the number of targets per school varies depending on the various subgroup
populations within a school, such that the number of AYP targets within the CHCCS ranges
from 13 to 31, and for OCS ranges from 7 to 25. This year's results showed marked
improvement from the previous academic year, when only four CHCCS elementary schools
and two OCS elementary schools met all their AYP targets. While this improvement is
laudable, it must be observed that 2003 -2004 AYP targets reflected the first levels of
achievement standards to be met on the road to 100% student achievement in 2013 -2014.
For example, the 2003 -2004 NCLB target for elementary and middle school minority
students in both districts in reading required that 68.9% would be at or above grade level;
for 10t" grade high school students' performance on the NC High School Comprehensive
Tests of Reading and Mathematics, the goal was 52% (CHCCS Minority Student
Achievement Report, 2004). AYP standards for 2004 -2005 will rise, for example, to 76.7%
in elementary reading and 81.0% in elementary mathematics. There also is some discussion
about changing the high school assessment of AYP standards.
Report 26
Elementary School Achievement
Within district variation among schools is greater than the between district
variations in End -of -Grade (EOG) test scores for both districts. As clearly shown in Table
14, Carrboro and Ephesus Elementary School in CHCCS and Efland Cheeks in OCS are
substantially below the other schools in their respective districts. This also is true for
OCS's Central Elementary in reading.
Overall Elementary School Achievement
Table 14. Elementary End -of -Grade (EOG) Achievement Test Results by School (Percent of
Students at or Above Grade Level)
CHCCS*
3 "d Grade
4th Grade
5th Grade
Elementary Schools
Carrboro Reading
89.6
92.6
85.9
Math
92.5
>95
91.5
Ephesus Reading
85.3
892
93.6
Math
92.0
93.2
>95
Estes Hills Reading
90.4
91.4
>95
Math
94.7
>95
93.6
F.P. Graham Reading
>95
91.1
88.0
Math
>95
>95
94.6
Glenwood Reading
92.0
>95
>95
Math
94.0
>95
>95
McDougle Reading
90.7
92.2
>95
Math
92.5
94.2
>95
Scroggs Reading
94.7
93.6
>95
Math
>95
>95
94.9
5eawell Reading
>95
>95
>95
Math
>95
>95
>95
005*
3rd Grade
4th Grade
5th Grade
Cameron Park Reading
93.2
89.7
86.7
Math
93.2
>95
93.2
Central Reading
81.0
65.9
86.3
Math
>95
87.8
94.1
Efland- Cheeks Reading
70.7
88.2
85.1
Math
82.9
91.2
89.6
Grady Brown Reading
93.8
85.2
>95
Math
90.6
93.8
90.7
Hillsborough Reading
92.2
92.9
93.2
Math
>95
>95
92.2
New Hope Reading
92.9
82.0
>95
Math
91.4
93.3
>95
Pathways Reading
85.4 '
85.4
>95
Math
87.6
>95
89.4
Source: *NCDPI Report Card 2003 -2004
CHCCS /OCS Final Report 27
While combined elementary achievement levels for percentage of students at or
above grade level are ostensibly comparable (see Table 14), Table 15 provides achievement
data by school by level which demonstrates that more students in CHCCS are performing at
level IV.
Table 15. Elementary End -of -Grade (EOG) Reading and Math Scores by School and Level,
onn2gnnd
LVVaJ c..vv
Level I
Level II
Level III
Level IV
State Reading
<5
12.1
42.6
41.7
Math
<5
9.1
34.6
53.9
CHCCS*
Level I
Level II
Level III
Level IV
District Reading
<5
5.4
26.3
66.9
Math
<5
<5
18.7
75.6
Carrboro Reading
<5
6.6
27.6
62.1
Math
<5
<5
25.4
68.9
Ephesus Reading
<5
8.4
26.0
63.4
Math
<5
<5
24.2
70.5
Estes Hills Reading
<5
5.4
22.9
70.7
Math
<5
<5
17.8
78.8
F.P. Graham Reading
<5
6.0
31.0
60.8
Math
<5
<5
26.5
70.1
Glenwood Reading
<5
<5
21.4
75.1
Math
<5
<5
16.9
80.1
Mcbougle Reading
<5
5.0
24.0
68.8
Math
<5
<5
18.6
75.7
Rashkis Reading
<5
5.9
24.2
69.9
Math
<5
<5
19.4
78.5
5croggs Reading
<5
<5
24.8
70.1
Math
<5
<5
17.5
78.7
Seawell Reading
<5
<5
23.0
74.7
Math
<5
<5
12.3
86.2
OCS*
Level I
Level II
Level III
Level IV
District Reading
<5
9.9
41.3
46.3
Math
<5
7.4
31.7
59.3
Cameron Park Reading
<5
6.8
41.7
48.1
Math
<5
<5
25.2
68.9
Central Reading
<5
18.7
49.3
29.1
Math
<5
7.5
47.0
45.5
Efland- Cheeks Reading
<5
15.7
40.1
40.6
Math
<5
10.1
42.4
45.2
Grady Brown Reading
<5
7.1
32.4
58.2
Math
<5
<5
27.1
67.6
Hillsborough Reading
<5
6.7
29.5
62.7
Math
<5
<5
25.9
71.0
New Hope Reading
<5
7.9
40.8
48.8
Math
<5
6.3
31.3
62.1
Pathways Reading
<5
8.8
34.7
54.7
Math
<5
<5
28.5
66.4
Source: *NCDPI Report Card 2003 -2004
CHCC51OCS Final Report 28
Elementary Minority Student Achievement
In both districts, minority student achievement for Blacks and Hispanics seriously
lags behind achievement for White students. As seen in Table 16, both districts appear to
have made substantial progress from 2002 -2003 to 2003 -2004 in addressing these
disparities, such that they decreased the achievement gap, particularly for Black students
in four of the CHCCS and two of the OCS schools, as well as for Hispanic students in three
CHCCS schools and four of the OCS schools.
Further observation of data in Table 16 highlights within district differences as
measured in elementary school achievement results. While overall results generally tell a
story of achievement growth for each group of students from 2002 -2003 to 2003 -2004,
there are areas of concern for students who score lower than peers at other schools, and
below White students at all schools in each district. In CHCCS, scores for Hispanic
students at Carrboro, Frank Porter Graham and Scroggs, Black students at Estes Hills, and
Black and Hispanic students at McDougle Elementary point to students who are still
struggling. In OCS, scores for Black students at Central and New Hope, Hispanic students
at Grady Brown, and Black and Hispanic students at Efland Cheeks also merit continued
scrutiny.
Table 16. Elementary School End -of -Grade (EOG) Achievement Test Results by Minority
Group 2002 -03 and 2003 -04 (Percent of Students at or Above Grade Level)
Elementary
Schools*
White
Black
Hispanic
Asian
CHCCS*
'02-
'03
'03-
'04
'02-
'03
'03-
'04
'02-
'03
'03-
'04
'02-
'03
'03-
'04
Carrboro
>95
>95
62.5
80.0
49.0
66.7
88.9
93.8
Ephesus
>95
>95
55.6
75.0
70.0
70.6
84.0
84.0
Estes Hills
>95
>95
67.3
66.0
61.5
92.3
90.9
>95
F. P. Graham
>95
>95
61.5
84.0
62.2
68.3
85.7
<95
Glenwood
>95
>95
70.6
81.8
75.0
84.6
<95
>95
McDou le
>95
>95
68.1
67.3
64.7
52.9
<95
>95
Scroggs
95
>95
82.1
84
70.6
69.6
<95
>95
Seawell
>95
>95
82.1
91.7
1 77.3
75
81.5
1 <95
OCS*
'02-
'03
'03-
'04
'02-
'03
'03-
'04
'02-
'03
'03-
'04
102-
'03
'03-
'04
Cameron Park
88.5
90.2
73.2
74.4
75
88.8
--
--
Central
80.0
80.7
69.8
70.0
78.6
85.7
--
--
Ef land Cheeks
92.2
88.0
63.9
63.0
50.0
69.6
--
--
Grad Brown
86.0
92.5
62.8
84.8
42.9
64.3
--
-°
Hillsborough
93.8
91.4
76.9
86.1
--
--
--
New Hoe
84.7
90.2
71.9
63.3
--
90.0
--
Pathways
91.5
92.8
1 74.1
68.5
1 71.4
<95
1 --
--
Source; *NCDPI Report Cards 2002 -2003 and 2003 -2004
CHCCS /OCS Final Report 29
Middle School Achievement
Overall Achievement
Table 17 shows that achievement at the middle school level between the districts
has CHCCS pulling away from the OCS. At the elementary level, 2003 -2004 EOG scores for
CHCCS ranged from 92.5 to greater than 95 in Reading and Mathematics; for OCS they
ranged from 85.3 to greater than 95. At the middle school level, the ranges for CHCCS
drop to 89.3 to greater than 95 and for OCS to 83.3 to 92.9.
Table 17. Middle School End -of -Grade (EOG) Achievement Test Results by School (Percent
of Students at or Above Grade Level)
CHCCS*
6t" Grade
7" Grade
8t" Grade
Culbreth Reading
Math
85.5
90.9
>95
>95
>95
94.9
McDougle Reading
Math
89.4
90.9
94.6
92.1
94.1
92.2
Phillips Reading
Math
92.8
>95
>95
94.7
95.0
92.9
Smith Reading
Math
88
92.3
92.6
87.4
92.6
89.6
OCS*
6t" Grade
7t" Grade
8t" Grade
Stanback Reading
Math
83.2
93.4
88.6
85.2
88.5
83.9
Stanford Reading
Math
83.5
92.4
89.6
92.4
90.3
86.2
Source: *NCDPI Report Card 2003 -2004
Achievement Growth 2002 -2003 to 2003 -2004
Further investigation of two cohorts from 2002 -2003 to 2003 -2004, shown in Table
18 below, reveal that from 6t" to 7t" grade CHCCS and OCS middle school students generally
improved scores in reading. Comparable improvements were not seen for another cohort of
students from 7t" to 8t" grade. In terms of math, improvements appear negligible, except
for McDougle for the 7t" to 8t" grade cohort.
CHCCS /OCS Final Report 30
Table 18. Middle School End -of -Grade (EOG) Achievement Test Results by Cohort 2002-
2003 and 2003 -2004 (Percent of Students at or Above Grade Level)
Middle Schools*
6th (03)
7th (04)
Hispanic Asian
7th (03)
8th (04)
CHCC5
'03-
'04
'02-
'03
'03-
'04
'02-
'03
'03-
'04
Culbreth Reading
93.2
>95
>95
>95
>95
Math
>95
>95
94.4
>91.1
94.9
McDougle Reading
88.6
94.6
68.4
93.3
92.1
Math
93.4
92.1
>95
88.5
92.2
Phillips Reading
90.8
>95
89.3
92.2
>95
Math
>95
94.6
67.7
95
92.9
Smith Reading
87.8
92.6
90.0
87.4
Math
90.8
87.4
'02-
'03
87.4
89.6
005
Stanback
87.1
88.3
54.2
59.2
Stanback Reading
80.9
88.6
>95
83.9
88.5
Math
88.0
85.2
40.5
84.2
83.9
Stanford Reading
77.4
89.6
89.3
89.3
Math
91.0
92.4
92.4
1 86.2
Source: *NCDPI Report Cards 2002 -2003 and 2003 -2004
Middle School Minority Student Achievement
From the middle school achievement data for two cohorts of minority students from
2002 -2003 to 2003 -2004 that are presented in Table 19, substantial improvements can be
seen for Black and Hispanic OCS students at Stanford Middle School and for Hispanic
students at Stanback. In CHCCS, substantial improvements occurred for Hispanic and Asian
students at Phillips and Smith middle schools.
Table 19. Middle School End -of -Grade (EOG) Achievement Test Results by Minority Group
2002 -03 and 2003 -04 (Percent of Students at or Above Grade Level)
Middle Schools*
white
Black
Hispanic Asian
CHCC5
102-
'03
'03-
'04
'02-
'03
'03-
'04
'02-
'03
'03-
'04
'02-
'03
'03-
'04
Culbreth
>95
>95
73.8
68.1
67.6
81.0
94.4
>95
McDougle
>95
>95
63.5
68.4
60.5
66.0
>95
88.9
Phillips
>95
>95
63.8
66.7
83.3
92.3
89.3
>95
Smith
>95
>95
65.2
67.7
44.2
60.4
85.1
>95
OCS
'02-
'03
'03-
'04
'02-
'03
'03-
'04
'02-
'03
'03-
'04
'02-
'03
'03-
'04
Stanback
87.1
88.3
54.2
59.2
42.1
70.6
>95
>95
Stanford
87.2
88.4
66.7
74.2
40.5
1 66.7
--
--
Source: *NCDPI Report Cards 2002 -2003 and 2003 -2004
CHCCS /OCS Final Report 31
Middle School Special Needs Students
As shown in Table 20, for middle school students in both districts, economically
disadvantaged students, students with disabilities, and limited English proficient students
score substantially lower than not economically disadvantaged students. Between the two
school districts, CHCCS students with disabilities do appreciably better than OCS middle
school students in the same category.
Table 20. Middle School End -of -Grade (EOG) Achievement Test Results by Special Needs
1--r„im kxf C%rke)nI ( Perrent of Students at or Above Grade Level)
V I
--t' v
NOT
Economically
Disadvantaged
Economically
Disadvantaged
Students with
Disabilities
Limited English
Proficient
CHCC5*
ECHHS
CRHS
OHS
Culbreth
94.6
71.7
64.1
84.8
McDou le
94.9
63.4
68.2
35.0
Phillips
>95
70.9
63.8
81.8
Smith
>95
63.8
56.3
56.4
OCS*
74.6
79
Stanback
89.9
60.8
46.4
60.0
Stanford
89.9
70.7
52.4
65.7
Source: *NCDPI Report Card 2003 -2004
High School Achievement
End of Course (EOC) Performance
As shown in Table 21, CHCC5 students scored higher than 005 students on EOC
tests in English, the sciences, and social studies. 005 high school students scored higher in
Algebra I and Algebra II, however, 426 CHCCS middle school students took Algebra I
compared to 107 OCS middle school students (from 2002 -2003 NCDPI Report Cards).
Table 21: 2002 -2003 High School End -of- Course (EOC) Performance by School (Percent of
Students at or Above Grade Level)
Source; *2002 -2003 NC School Report Card
CHCCS /OCS Final Report 32
CHCC5*
OCS*
CHHS
ECHHS
CRHS
OHS
English I
93.5
>95
83.5
84.2
Algebra I
80.2
74.1
83.5
81.4
Algebra II
91.8
90.7
>95
87.2
Geometry
88.8
75.9
74.6
79
82.4
85.1
62.1
72.7
-Biology
Chemistry
89.3
93.5
54.8
84
Physical Sciences
81.5
>95
71.4
>95
64
n/a
44.5
78.8
-Physics
ELP5
85.8
87.2
69.7
82.7
US History
76.7
75.5
56
66.8
Source; *2002 -2003 NC School Report Card
CHCCS /OCS Final Report 32
SA T Scores
As shown in Table 22, SAT scores for high school students in CHCCS are markedly
higher than for OCS; participation rates are substantially higher as well, which would
underestimate the disparities in the scores between the two districts.
Table 22: SAT Scores
Source: *2003 -2004 High School Report Card Data
Dropouts
Table 23 below shows five years of dropout statistics for the two districts,
indicating the percentage of 9th - 12th graders who dropped out of school during that
academic year. As indicated in the table, CHCCS have a lower percentage of students
dropping out of high school than OCS.
Table 23. Dropout Rates by District*
CHCCS*
OCS*
2000 -2001
CHHS
ECHHS
CRHS
OHS
Total SAT
1174
1197
1005
1066
-Average
-Participation Rate
90%
96%
74%
75%
Source: *2003 -2004 High School Report Card Data
Dropouts
Table 23 below shows five years of dropout statistics for the two districts,
indicating the percentage of 9th - 12th graders who dropped out of school during that
academic year. As indicated in the table, CHCCS have a lower percentage of students
dropping out of high school than OCS.
Table 23. Dropout Rates by District*
Source: * OCS District Office, December 2004
Advanced Placement (AP) Courses
Both school districts offer a variety of Advanced Placement (AP) courses. Table 24
below reports AP course enrollments by each of the four high schools. CHCCS offer more
types of AP courses (e.g., world languages) and enroll proportionally more students than
OCS. Of note in the table below is that 005 have no AP courses in the arts. Districts have
begun reviewing AP course offerings at the high school level as a possible area for
collaboration.
CHCCS /OCS Final Report 33
1998 -1999
1999 -2000
2000 -2001
2001 -2002
2002 -2003
005
5.45
4.73
5.20
4.22
5.81
CHCCS
2.35
2.03
2.67
1.31
0.99
State
6.78
6.43
5.72
T 5.25
4.78
Source: * OCS District Office, December 2004
Advanced Placement (AP) Courses
Both school districts offer a variety of Advanced Placement (AP) courses. Table 24
below reports AP course enrollments by each of the four high schools. CHCCS offer more
types of AP courses (e.g., world languages) and enroll proportionally more students than
OCS. Of note in the table below is that 005 have no AP courses in the arts. Districts have
begun reviewing AP course offerings at the high school level as a possible area for
collaboration.
CHCCS /OCS Final Report 33
Table 24: AP Course Enrollments by District
Sources: * CHCCS District Office, December 2004, '"'OCS uisirid Ul I )Lt--, L /-- 1
In addition to the AP program, Cedar Ridge High School in OCS began offering
courses toward the International Baccalaureate (IB) diploma in the fall of 2004, a
challenging international course of study that confers distinction upon its participants. IB
course offerings at CRHS include English III, Math, US History, Chemistry, Theory of
Knowledge, advanced French, Spanish and Latin, Psychology, Music Theory, Theater, and Art
III. The IB program is based on criterion - referenced external and internal assessments.
There are 60 students enrolled in the IB program at Cedar Ridge. Students participating in
the IB program cannot take AP courses, contributing to lower AP enrollment in OCS.
Post - Secondary Options
Results of a spring survey completed by high school seniors are shown in Table 25.
Students' responses indicate that 82.4% of CHCCS students report that they will attend a
four -year institution, while 58.3% of OCS students report the same intention. A much
CHCCS /OCS Final Report 34
CHCCS*
005 **
CHHS
ECHHS
CRHS
OHS
American History
US History
European History
167
11
68
10
44
12
187
19
167
World History
Government & Politics
English Literature/
Composition
Biology
77
48
106
20
68
6
19
24
Earth /EnvironmentalScience
Calculus AB
64
99
253
93
19
22
38
33
Calculus BC
Statistics
66
93
46
122
30
33
Spanish Language
Spanish Literature
29
12
50
3
French Language
French Literature
19
4
49
15
22
2
German Language
10
11
Latin (Horace)
18
14
71
Latin (Virgil)
Psychology
28
51
4
5
Chemistry
21
9
9
Ph sics
Physics -.Mechanics
16
1
Art History - Ancient
25
Art History - Renaissance
Art History - Modern
Music Theory
10
14
998
1114
— ..,.,. � : _�._: _�
242
.,rr:..,. r,,,,.��,�,„r
232
Anna
Total (duplicated)
Sources: * CHCCS District Office, December 2004, '"'OCS uisirid Ul I )Lt--, L /-- 1
In addition to the AP program, Cedar Ridge High School in OCS began offering
courses toward the International Baccalaureate (IB) diploma in the fall of 2004, a
challenging international course of study that confers distinction upon its participants. IB
course offerings at CRHS include English III, Math, US History, Chemistry, Theory of
Knowledge, advanced French, Spanish and Latin, Psychology, Music Theory, Theater, and Art
III. The IB program is based on criterion - referenced external and internal assessments.
There are 60 students enrolled in the IB program at Cedar Ridge. Students participating in
the IB program cannot take AP courses, contributing to lower AP enrollment in OCS.
Post - Secondary Options
Results of a spring survey completed by high school seniors are shown in Table 25.
Students' responses indicate that 82.4% of CHCCS students report that they will attend a
four -year institution, while 58.3% of OCS students report the same intention. A much
CHCCS /OCS Final Report 34
larger proportion of 005 students expect to attend Community /Technical Colleges (30.5 %)
as compared with CHCCS (6.7 %)
Table 25: 2002 -2003 High School Graduate Intentions*
Source: *NCDPI Statistical Profile 2004
f. Resource Allocations
Personnel
Personnel allocations for the two districts are different. Data gathered in
December 2004 from the CHCC5 Opening School Report and the 005 Central Office were
used to construct Table 26. This table lists the various personnel by the terms used by
each district. It is important to remember that this table represents secondary synthesis
of data shared by each district. With CHCCS having 1.6 more students than 005, if the
number of personnel allocated were equal, CHCC5 would have fewer that two -times the
number in a given category. The table indicates that in many categories, CHCC5 have
proportionally more personnel than 005. (Abbreviations used: E5: 1 /school indicates 1
person per elementary school. 1eIE5 reads 1 position at 1 elementary school.) As a
reminder, CHCCS have 9 elementary schools, 5 middle schools, and 2 high schools for a total
of 15 schools. 005 have 7 elementary schools, 2 middle schools and 2 high schools for a
total of 11 schools.
CHCC5 /005 Final Report 35
CHCCS
OCS
Public Four -Year Institution
44.0
45.0
Private Four -Year Institution
38.4
13.3
community/Technical College
6.7
30.5
Private Junior College
0.7
0.0
Trade, Business
0.4
0.0
Military
0.9
3.6
Employment
3.1
3.0
Other (includes not available, marriage, etc)
1 5.7
4.5
Source: *NCDPI Statistical Profile 2004
f. Resource Allocations
Personnel
Personnel allocations for the two districts are different. Data gathered in
December 2004 from the CHCC5 Opening School Report and the 005 Central Office were
used to construct Table 26. This table lists the various personnel by the terms used by
each district. It is important to remember that this table represents secondary synthesis
of data shared by each district. With CHCCS having 1.6 more students than 005, if the
number of personnel allocated were equal, CHCC5 would have fewer that two -times the
number in a given category. The table indicates that in many categories, CHCC5 have
proportionally more personnel than 005. (Abbreviations used: E5: 1 /school indicates 1
person per elementary school. 1eIE5 reads 1 position at 1 elementary school.) As a
reminder, CHCCS have 9 elementary schools, 5 middle schools, and 2 high schools for a total
of 15 schools. 005 have 7 elementary schools, 2 middle schools and 2 high schools for a
total of 11 schools.
CHCC5 /005 Final Report 35
Table 26. Personnel Resources by District
Position
CHCCS*
OCS **
Total
CHCCS
OCS
Counselor
E5: 1 /school
E5: 1 /school
35
17
M5: 3 /school
M5: 2 /school
H5: 7 CHHS
H5: 3 /school
6 ECHHS
Family Specialist (CHCCS)/
ES: 1 /school
7 shared in district
17
7
Social Workers (OCS)
M5: 1 /school
(3 from D55 funds,
H5: 1 CHHS
1 on leave - not
2 ECHHS
replaced)
System: 1
Dual Language Teachers
ES: 8
0
8
0
Pre -K Teachers
9
4
14
4
3 Headstart
System: 2
Workforce Development
MS: 3 /school
M5: 3 /school
28.5
26
H5: 9 CHH5
H5: 9 CRHS
6.5 ECHHS
11 OHS
1 Phoenix
Career Development
H5: 3 /school
H5: 1 /school
8
2
Counselor
System: 2
Read i ng
Reading Resource
E5: .5 -2 /school
E5: 1 -2 /school
M5: 1 /school
Reading Recovery
E5: .5 -2 /school
E5: 1 -2 /school
Teacher Leader
System -wide: .5
System -wide: 1
Rending /Literacy Coach
E5: .5 -2 /school
M5: 2 /school
H5: 1 /school
Total Reading
45.5
26
Remedial - other
1 @ CRHS
1
Proficiency Specialist /PREP
M5: 0.5 /school 2
AG /Enrichment /IRT
E5: 1 - 2.5/ school
E5: 1 /school
21.5
9
(CHCCS)
(Glenwood E5: 4.5)
M5: 1 /school
M5: 1 /school
AG (005)
AVID /Minority Enrichment/
M5: 0.5 -1.5 /school
M5: 1 CIS at
6.6
1
CIS
H5: 0.8 /school
Stanback
System: 1
CHCCS /OCS Final Report 36
Position
CHCCS*
OCS **
Total
CHCC5
OCS
Math Science Education
M5: 1 /school
2
Network
Charger Academy
M5:.75 @ Stanford
.75
Media /Technology
2 /school
1 /school
30
11
Specialist
Instructional Technology
1 /school
11
Resource Teacher
Elementary Cultural Arts
2 /school
E5: 2 /school
18.6
14
(CHCC5)
(1 school: 2.6)
Music /Art /Dance (005)
Elementary Foreign
1 - 2 /school
1 /school
15
7
Language
Science Specialist
2 Certified
9
7 Assistants
E51-
E5: 1.4 - 2
E5: .3 - .7
28
5
M5:1 -2
M5:.5 -.7
H5:2 -2.5
H5:.3 -.5
System: 1
Speech /Visually Impaired
E5: 1 -2.5 /school
12.5 shared in
24.55
12.5
(CHCC5) Speech
M5: 0.5 -1.5 /school
district
Pathologists (005)
H5: CHHS: 0.5
ECHH5: 0.9
System: 6.05
Visually Impaired/
CHH5: 2
3
Transition Coordinator
ECHH5: 1
Psychologist
7.8 shared in district
5.5 shared in
7.8
5.5
district
Athletic Director
H5: 1 /school
H5: 1 /school
2
2
Special Population /504
HS: 2 /school
4
Specialist
I55/
E5: 0.5 @ 2schools
M5: 1 /school
6
4
Behavioral Specialist/
M5: 1 /school
H5: 1 /school
Advocacy
H5: CHH5: 1
ECHH5: 0
Nurse: district
E5: 1 /school
E5: 0.6 -1 /school
15.6
10.6
M5: 0.8 -1 /school
MS: 1 /school
H5: 1 /school
H5: 1 /school
System: 0.8
Nurse: County D55
CHH5: 1 full time;
.5 at 1 E5;
-1.3
-.8
.3 shared Hepatitis B
.3 shared Hepatitis
position with OCS
B position with
CHCCS
Occupational Therapy/
13.3 shared in district
4 shared in district
13.3
4
Physical Therapy
(1 PT, 3 OT)
CHCC5 /OCS Final Report 37
Position
CHCCS*
OCS **
Total
CHCCS
OCS
Alternative Education
H5: 1 /school
2
Facilitator
Program Facilitator
E5: 0.5 /school
9.5
M5: 0.5 /school
H5: 1 /school
System: 1
Student Assistance
H5: 1 /school
2
Central Office -
37
23
Administrative Personnel
School Secretary
ES: 1 /school
E5: 1 /school
17
15
MS: 1 /school
MS: 1 -2 /school
HS: 1 /school
HS: 2 /school
Headstart: 1
Alt. School: 1
Guidance Secretary
M5: 1 /school
H5: 1 /school
6
2
H5: 1 /school
SIMS (005)/
1 /school
E5: 0.5 /school
15
7.5
Data manager (CHCCS)
M5: 1 /school
H5: 1 /school
Bookkeeper
HS: 1 /school
E5: 0.5 /school
2
7.5
M5: 1 /school
HS: 1 /school
Other Clerical Assistance
E5: 0.5 -1 /school
H5: 1.5 /school
22.5
3
M5: 2 /school
H5: 3 /school
Rece tionist
H5: 1 /school
2
Business /Clerical
M5: 0.5 /school
2
Permanent Subs
M5: 1 /school
ES: 1.8 /school
9
25.8
H5: 2 /school.
MS: 2.8 /school
H5: 3.8 /school
Service Learning
H5: 0.5 /school
1
Theatre Arts
H5: 1 /school
HS: CRHS: 1
2
1.4
0H5: 0.4
Security
H5: CHHS: 3
H5: CRH5: 1
5
3
ECHH5: 2
OHS: 2
Custodians: district
E5: 2 -5 /school
ES: 3 -5 /school
65
55.3*
M5: 3 -8 /school
M5: 5 -6 /school
H5: 4.5 /school
H5: CRH5: 8
OHS: 2
Custodians: privatized
Rashkis: 2
OHS (number
11
5croggs: 2
unspecified)
Smith: 3
CRH5 & ECHH5: 4
each
Child Nutrition Manager
E5: 1.8 -3 /school
1 full- time /school;
52.82
44
(and Assistants)
M5: 3.1 -5.3 /school
3 part -time assts/
H5: 4.4 -5.6 /school
school
System: 4
CHCCS /OCS Final Report 38
Position
CHCCS*
OCS **
Total
CHCC5
OCS
District Tech Support
10
3
School Resource Officers
1 @ 1 ES (paid by Town
1 @ 1 E5
7
6
(SROs)
of Carrboro)
1/MS
Paid by district: 1 /M5
1 /HS
1 /H5
1 @ Alternative
School
Facilities
As shown in Tables 27 and 28, schools in the two districts are similar in age with the
schools built after 1990 containing more square footage than those constructed earlier. For
both districts, the elementary schools can serve from 450 to 600 students, the middle
schools around 700 students and the high school 1000 -1500 students.
CHCC5 /OCS Final Report 39
Table 27. CHCCS Facilities Report
Carrboro Elementary
1957
2 wings 1964
20.80
61,562
1 AG
563
554
0.98
Ephseus Elementary
1972
addition 1991
13.23
73,096
7 (1 music, 6
reg)
472
450
0.95
Estes Hills Elementary
1958
1 wing 1962; addition 1988
incl.
W /Phillips
57,029
1 Resource
549
527
0.96
Glenwood Elementary
1952
wings '54, '59; media ctr '96
10.05
54,412
4 (2 res., 1 sci,
1 re
445
391
0.88
FP Graham Elementary
1960
media bldg 1990
10.81
65,365
2 (1 spanish, 1
speech)
570
569
1.00
McDou le Elementary
1996
11.70
99,920
2
596
600
1.01
Rashkis Elementary
2003
22.04
95,729
0
619
--
--
Scroggs Elementary
1999
13.05
92,900
2
609
649
1.07
Seawell Elementary
1969
pod #4 1976, Lawlor Bldg
1989
10.95
58,682
6 (1 res, 2 sci,
4 re
498
508
1.02
Culbreth Middle
1969
additions '88, '89
35.66
108,058
0
670
610
0.91
McDou le Middle
1994
28.28
138,141
2
732
664
0.91
Phillips Middle
1962
auditorium '78, media ctr '90
33.00
109,498
0
706
713
1.10
Smith Middle
10.95
136,054
0
732
625
0.87
Chapel Hill High
1966
voc bldg '74, arts bldg '77,
gym '90, math /sci '91
35.66
254,551
14 (6 for. Lang,
? )
1,520
1,740
1.14
East Chapel Hill High
1996
phase 2 addition 1999
28.28
267,549
8
1,515
1,546
1.02
Transportation Center
1996
10.30
5,089
0
Lincoln Center
1950
1 maintenance bldg 1978
12.76
72,932
1 3
CHCCS/OCS Final Report 40
Table 28. OCS Facilities Report
Cameron Park Elem.
1956
1959 (22,798 sf); 1977 (2,720
sf); 1988 20,496 sf
19.00
70,812
1 (storage)
598
395
0.66
Central Elementary
1952
1965 (25,892 sf); 1975
18,700 sf); 1990 7,900 sf
22.00
61,382
0
483
288
0.60
Efland Cheeks Elem.
1952
1977 (40,067 sf); 1999 (768
sf)
31.00
65,084
1 (OT & PT
529
414
0.72
Grady Brown Elem.
1974
1996 1,000 sf
18.00
75,016
2
575
466
0.81
Hillsborough
1952
1958 (gym: 15,316 sf ))
10.00
28,796
0
414
395
0.95
New Hope Elementary
1991
26.00
100,164
0
621
460
0.74
Pathways Elementary
2000
18.10
85,282
0
600
517
0.86
AL Stanback Middle
1995
35.90
136,000
0
740
806
1.08
CW Stanford Middle
1968
1977 (4,840 sf); 1999 (gym:
1,350 sf
57.00
108,970
4
726
861
1.18
Cedar Ridge High
2002
71.01
206,900
0
1,000
899
0.90
Orange High
1962
65(49,140sf);'69(15,00sf);'71(
gym: 36,469sf);'79(17480sf);'8
6(45,612sf)
92.00
213,509
0
1,518
948
0.63
Transportation Center
1971
11,704
OCS Board of Education
1971
4.00
6,210
Hillsborough Support Svcs
1958
14,770
CHCCS/OCS Final Report 41
PTA
PTA income for CHCCS is higher than for OCS, primarily due to funds
(approximately $400,000 annually) generated through the CHCCS PTA Thrift Stores. PTA
fund disparities can be seen in Table 29 below. Interviews with high school principals in
OCS indicated that supplemental financial support at the high school level is through
booster clubs.
Table 29. PTA Incomes by School*
CHCCS
Approx.
Budget
OCS
Approx.
Budget
Elementary Schools
Carrboro
$49,719
Cameron Park
$15,000
Ephesus
$44,000
Central
$14,205
Estes Hills
$47,000
Efland- Cheeks
--
F.P. Graham
$75,000
Grady Brown
$23,725
Glenwood
$42,000
Hillsborough
$18,000
McDou le
$48,000
New Hoe
$26,000
Rashkis
0
Pathways
$20,000
5cro s
$67,000
Seawell
$86,000
Middle Schools
Culbreth
$61,284
Stanback
$4,500
McDou le
$38,159
Stanford
$20,000
Phillips
$48,000
Smith
$30,100
High Schools
Chapel H i l l
$61,000
Cedar Ridge
--
East Chapel H i l l
$ 87,000
Orange
$1,000
Source: *Research Team Site Visits and CHCCS and OCS District Offices, January 2005
CHCCS /OCS Final Report 42
Part B.
Interpretation of
Districts &School Profiles
CHCCS/OCS Final Report 43
B. Interpretation of Districts & School Profiles
As described in the district profiles in Part A, a comparison of the Chapel Hill -
Carrboro City Schools (CHCCS) and Orange County Schools (OCS) districts reveals a story
of apparent similarity in achievement at the elementary school level. This story of
similarity, however, is followed by examples of disparity that we find between the two
districts, which begin at the middle school and grow wider during high school, with CHCCS
students surpassing OCS students. In what follows we will explore the constraints on
resources and instructional supports that, we believe, may contribute to these disparities.
This section describes and discusses the disparities in terms of district resources,
instructional supports, and demographic characteristics. While significant differences
become measurable at the middle and high school levels, the story begins at the elementary
level in district decision- making regarding allocation of resources and personnel. The
discussion continues with an examination of the differences at the middle and high school
levels, followed by a look at other demographic characteristics between the districts.
Bulleted paragraphs in italics are excerpts taken from interviews of school
principals from both districts. They are included to convey the complexity and specificity
of the school programs as well as some of the opinions and concerns expressed in the
interviews.
a. The Elementary Schools
Both districts primarily use self- contained classrooms taught by grade level teams.
In CHCCS two schools currently use looping in limited cases. Looping brings a teacher along
with her class into the next grade; for example, after moving from first to second grade
with one group, she will return to pick up a new first grade. Two other schools have used
looping previously, but have discontinued it. In OCS one example of looping and team
teaching is cited. Two other OCS schools have used looping or multi -age grouping previously,
but have discontinued it.
Reference to the table of Economically Disadvantaged Students by District (see
Part A, Table 7) indicates that in all OCS elementary schools but Hillsborough (the only
year -round elementary school in either district), economically disadvantaged students
constitute over 25% of the student body. Two of the schools, Central and Efland Cheeks,
have percentages of economically disadvantaged students of over 50% (66% and 57.6%
respectively). In contrast, of the nine CHCCS elementary schools, only two schools,
Carrboro and Frank Porter Graham, have populations of economically disadvantaged students
of over 25% (28.5% and 27.5% respectively). Of the remaining seven, Ephesus has a
population of 24.2 %, but the others are all under 20 %.
There is considerable research to indicate that poor children start school at a
cognitive disadvantage compared to advantaged children and that very poor children are at
increased risk compared to children just under or above the poverty level (Inequality at the
CHCCS /OCS Final Report 44
Starting Gate, Initiatives in Educational Transformation, 2002). Family SES and early
language development are strongly correlated with later language development, academic
achievement and school success (Zorn & Noga, 2004). A recent Rand Corporation study for
the Carnegie Corporation of New York: Achieving State and National Literacy Goals: A Long
Uphill Road (McCombs et al, 2004), reported average differences of 22 -24 percentage
points between economically advantaged and economically disadvantaged students on both
state and NAEP assessments of literacy. (Note: There are significant differences between
literacy as assessed by the NAEP [National Assessment of Educational Progress] and state
achievement tests: "In the 8th grade level, 21 percent of students in South Carolina and 39
percent of students in Wyoming passed the state assessment, compared with 86 -88 percent
of 8th- graders in North Carolina and Texas. However, when one looks at the 8th grade NAEP
scores, 24 percent of students in South Carolina and 34 percent of the students in
Wyoming scored at the proficient level, compared with 26 percent of students in Texas and
29 percent of students in North Carolina" [p. xiv].)
Richard Rothstein (2004), asserting the strong relationship between social class
and literacy, reports this international comparison in his book, Class and Schools (Economic
Policy Institute, Washington, DC):
An international reading survey of 15 year olds, conducted in 2000, found a strong
relationship in almost every nation between parental occupations and student
literacy. The gap between the literacy of children of the highest status workers
(like doctors, professors, lawyers) and the lowest status workers (like waiters and
waitresses, taxi drivers, mechanics) was even greater in Germany and the United
Kingdom than it was in the United States. In France the gap was about the same as
in the United States, while in the Scandinavian countries and Korea it was smaller.
The gap between the literacy of children of middle class workers (like teachers,
accountants, and engineers) and of children of lower- status workers was about the
same in the United States and the United Kingdom, greater in Germany than in the
United States, and slightly smaller in France that in the United States (pp. 20 -21).
As shown in Table 30 below, CHCCS had substantially higher percentages of
students at Level IV (above grade level) across all three elementary grade levels for both
reading and mathematics EOG scores in 2003 -2004.
Table 30. Percent of Students' Scores on EOGs by Grade Level by District, 2003 - 2004`
Sources CHCCS and OCS District Offices, March 2005
CHCCS /OCS Final Report 45
3rd Grade
Levels
4th
Grade Levels
5th Grade Levels
I
II
III
IV
I
II
III
IV
I
II
III
IV
CHCCS - Reading
1.2
4.8
22.2
71.8
0.9
4.3
26.7
68.1
1.0
3.6
26.4
68.9
OCS - Reading
1.8
10.6
33.3
54.4
2.9
10.2
38.3
48.7
0.6
6.4
42.6
50.4
CHCCS - Math
0.4
3.6
26.0
70.1
0.3
1.6
16.8
81.4
0.1
2.4
15.7
81.8
005 - Math
0.7
8.3
39.0
52.0
0.2
3.3
30.2
66.6
.4
3.2
26.2
70.3
Sources CHCCS and OCS District Offices, March 2005
CHCCS /OCS Final Report 45
The data above demonstrates that the percentages of students in CHCCS who score
in the four different levels across the 3rd 41h and 5th grades remain fairly constant with
approximately 5% of the students below grade level, 25% of the students at grade level and
70% of the students above grade level for both reading and mathematics. Given the
greater degree of economic disadvantage in the OCS student population, it is not surprising
that the pattern for OCS students is somewhat different. OCS students' 3rd grade scores
are heavier in level III than 3rd grade scores in CHCCS but they take a more noticeable
shift upward. In 3rd grade 12% of OCS students are below grade level in Reading and 9%
are below grade level in mathematics; in 4th grade about one third of the students are at
grade level and half of them are above grade level. For the 5th grade OCS students, the
percentage of students below grade level is reduced by half and students above grade level
increased by almost 20 %. Given the larger proportion of economically disadvantaged
children in OCS, it is significant that the literacy proficiency among the elementary school
children of both districts is almost comparable.
Both districts mirror the national emphasis on early education and elementary
school literacy, investing extensive district resources in reading specialists in the
elementary schools. This parity in achievement at the elementary school level raises
the question of what further resources are necessary to support the learning of OCS
students as they make the transitions from elementary school to middle school and high
school.
In an attempt to support the learning of their elementary school students, OCS
used a portion of their Title II funds (Title II of NCLB: Preparing, Training, and Recruiting
High Quality Teachers and Principals) to hire five additional elementary school teachers in
2003 -2004 in order to reduce class size in grades 3 -5. Given full utilization of all
classrooms (except Rashkis), CHCCS did not consider this an option. The reduction of class
size to foster achievement in the elementary school is a strategy supported by research on
Project STAR (Student Teacher Achievement Ratio conducted in 1985 -1989 in Tennessee)
(Word et al, 1990) that showed higher achievement for K -3 students in smaller classes,
particularly in classes of 20 and under. STAR research also indicated that smaller class
size was much more important than the presence of an assistant in addition to the teacher.
Despite evidence from the STAR project that smaller class size makes a difference,
particularly for minority children, there has been no longitudinal research on the STAR
population to indicate whether the gains in elementary school are sustained in middle school
and high school.
As shown in Table 31 below, while OCS established classes of under 20 for early
elementary students, they were not able to sustain that average in later grades. In fact, by
middle school OCS class size averages exceed the CHCCS class size averages.
CHCC510CS Final Report 46
Table 31. 2003 -2004 Average Class Size*
*Source: 2003 -2004 NC School Report Card
As shown in Table 32, it is also important to recognize that the OCS middle schools have
larger populations than any of the CHCCS middle schools:
Table 32. 2003 -2004 Middle School Enrollments
CHCCS*
CHCCS
OCS
K -2
21
18
3 -5
23
20
6 -8
20
24
9 -12
19
19
*Source: 2003 -2004 NC School Report Card
As shown in Table 32, it is also important to recognize that the OCS middle schools have
larger populations than any of the CHCCS middle schools:
Table 32. 2003 -2004 Middle School Enrollments
CHCCS*
OCS*
Culbreth
616
CW Stanback
731
McDou le
641
AL Stanford
867
Phillips
680
Smith
631
Sources: *CHCCS and 005 District Offices, December 2004
Despite the larger population of the OCS middle schools, there are fewer specialists
available to work with students and class size is larger. These distinctions have some
import because it is also at this juncture that the achievement scores of OCS students
begin to dip below those of CHCCS students.
Here we will take some time to detail the personnel available to work with children in
each district, comparing these resources, for this provision may be the most significant in
noting the instructional advantages available to students in CHCCS. While the disparity in
any one or two areas may not have a signif icant effect on the educational experience of
students, the totality of these disparities may provide instructional settings where
classroom teachers are stressed, trying to provide support without specialists, and children
receive less individualized attention.
Assistants
CHCCS
All K -3 classrooms have fulltime assistants.
All 4 -5 classrooms have halftime assistants.
Two dual language schools (Carrboro and Glenwood) have 4 fulltime and 1 halftime assistants
each. Glenwood also has 1.5 assistants for its AG program.
In CHCCS two middle schools have 3 assistants each.
CHCCS /OCS Final Report 47
OCS
K - 3"d Grade
Most elementary schools link an assistant position to every teacher position, K -3. In
grades 4 and 5 there is often only one assistant for the entire grade. Provision of
assistants varies with each school. In one school, funding for assistants has been foregone
in order to provide another regular elementary teaching position. We can compare Cameron
Park Elementary School in Orange County and Estes Hills Elementary School in Chapel Hill -
Carrboro, for in 2003 -2004 they both had 42 classes. Cameron Park had 14 classroom
assistants and 1 media specialist; Estes Hills had 18.5 classroom assistants and 1 media
specialist.
4"d 5m Grade
In the 4th and 5th grades of CHCCS each classroom can count on the support of a
half time assistant. The 4th and 5th grades of each OCS school share two full time
assistants, but the numbers of the classrooms at the 4th and 5th grade levels vary such that
assistants are available to classrooms on a quarter or a third time basis. Some assistants
are assigned to work with learning or physically disabled students who require extra support
in the classroom.
Because classroom management is complex, the presence of assistants is important
to provide support for individual students, where appropriate, but also to take care of
administrative tasks and to free the teacher to spend more of her time with students. A
closer examination of the ways that assistants are used would be interesting. While the
instructional support assistants provide is helpful, it is also important that their instruction
to individual students does not separate underachieving students from classroom instruction
in core subjects when it is provided by the certified classroom teachers.
Reading Specialists
There is tremendous pressure on school districts around the country to ensure that
all students are reading at grade level. While many reading specialists may supply special
assistance to students who need it in one -on -one sessions, most work in classrooms with the
regular teachers, both supporting clusters of children through flexible grouping and
demonstrating special approaches that may be instructive for the general classroom
teacher.
Report card data show excellent reading scores for both districts. All but one OCS
school raised its scores beyond 2002 -2003 marks, and in CHCCS all schools raised the
scores of children in the elementary schools reading at or above grade level.
• OCS. Students at [X School) have 1 hour daily reading. Students
are grouped with three adults (teacher, assistant, reading specialist)
working in each class with different level book groups.
CHCCS /OCS Final Report 48
• OCS: If a student at [X School] is not on grade level, the school has
Exceptional Children services, including Reading Recovery and
Reading Resource. Per school board policy, a success plan is
developed for children not on level. Parents, teachers and
administration work together to look at areas of need and strength.
The meeting can serve as a wake -up call for parents. Teachers are
very proac ti ve and work early to deal with po ten tial re ten Lion
studen ts.
• CHCCS: Literacy Collaborative is a district -wide balanced literacy
program. It's a fantastic model, the District saying "here's what it
will look like" is agift to teachers. There area lot of collaborating
teachers who go into the regular literacy classrooms. One CHCCS
school is looking for funding to extend the program to 3- 5grades A
two to two and half hour block daily.
As Table 15 indicates in OCS schools students are more evenly distributed
between Level III and IV reading levels, with 41.3% of students at Level III and 46.3% at
Level IV Exceptions are noted at Grady Brown (32.4/58.2), Hillsborough (29.5/62.7),
Pathways (34.7/54.7), and Central (49.3/29.1). But in CHCCS, 66.9% of students move up to
Level IV while approximately 26.38% remain at Level III This distribution applies across
the district, with Glenwood and Seawell at the high end, 214/75.1 and 23/74.7 respectively,
and Frank Porter Graham dipping to 31/60.8 and Carrboro to 27.6/62.1. The difference in
the distributions of Level III readers and Level IV readers between the two districts is
sustained in middle school and may provide the foundation for the differences in
achievement in middle school and high school.
CHCCS
As a district CHCCS lists 45.5 reading specialists. Each elementary school has
between 2.5 and 5 reading specialists, with an average of 3.9 across nine schools. Reading
Recovery teachers (trained in a special strategy to work with struggling readers) work with
all first grade classes in the district. Literacy Collaborative specialists are working with
every school's 2nd grade classes.
Elementary school principals have high praise for the Literacy Collaborative Project
which has placed two specialists in every elementary school. These specialists teach
demonstration lessons in the second grade. The importance of their presence in classrooms
cannot be overstated. Even when teachers receive training for a curriculum innovation that
they deem relevant and important to their children, integrating that new way of doing
things into their classrooms may be difficult to accomplish and sustain. We know that the
sustained demonstration of a new practice within the context of instruction is critically
important to its adoption and continuing implementation.
Each middle school has two reading specialists and each high school one.
CHCCS /OCS Final Report 49
OCS
As a district OCS lists 26 reading specialists. Each elementary school has between
two and five reading specialists, with an average of three per elementary school. Reading
Resource teachers and Reading Recovery specialists constitute this cohort. New Hope,
Hillsborough, and Grady Brown each have one Reading Recovery Teacher; Efland Cheeks,
Cameron Park and Pathways each have two; and Central has three.
There is one reading resource teacher in each middle school and none in high
schools.
Foreign Language
Spanish classes have just recently been added to the program of OCS elementary
schools.
All CHCCS elementary schools offer a world language: Spanish is offered at six and
three offer French. Two dual language programs are offered; one in English /Chinese, and
the other in English /Spanish.
Science Specialists
OCS relies on an inquiry based science program, TASC (Teachers and Scientists
Collaborating), and has purchased science kits to support this Duke University generated
curriculum. CHCCS employs science specialists in each of its elementary schools. Of the
nine specialists, two are certified teachers. The others, hired as assistants, have their
undergraduate degrees in science. The state is planning to introduce science End of Grade
(EOG) tests in 2006.
• CHCCS: 5CO,5, science kits, a Discovery lab with a science specialist.
Classroom teachers typically teach science, but they can go to the lab once
every 3 weeks for enrichment, a challenge, process- science. It's really
exciting. The kids love it. They even do some things with robotics. The lab
is well- stocked with kits for everygrade level.
Arts Programs
Arts specialists are present in the schools in both districts. Elementary students go
to art and music generally once a week. In both districts there is some integration of the
arts with literacy instruction. In OCS, Cameron Park has worked closely with the Arts
Education project in UNC- Chapel Hill's School of Education, and New Hope has worked with
that institution's Curriculum, Music and Community project that integrates old time music
with instruction in the academic disciplines. Arts enrichment is prevalent and includes field
CHCCS /OCS Final Report 50
trips to performances, school residencies and school performances, often supported by PTA
funds.
• CHCCS: Music and Art at least once a week. The fifth grde music
teacher also allows students to elect to be in the Show Choir, with
before and after school practices. (Parents provide transport.)
C4CC5: Music, Art and Dance offered for all students and all levels.
• CHCCS: Music curriculum is based on Orff approach: holistic,
experiential, process- oriented, for all children not merely the
musically talented
• 005: Art, Music, PE, Technology and Media: 45 1min a week, and 1 -5
rotate for a second special (e.g., Zdgrade will have music twice a
week for one week, art twice a week the next.
• 005: Wonderful art teacher at [x school] Lots of parents
volunteer in arts classes and teacher sends assistant when students
go to art special. .
• 005: Music program in particular is outstanding and enjoys
siyni fi cant parent support. Teacher works to make sure all s tuden is
are successful; has a variety of equipment (e.g. boom whackers) and
fun songs. Teacher works will all levels of students, including Pre -K.
All specials teachers work with all students, including special needs
children.
After School Programs in the Elementary Schools
Programs are not formalized across the OCS or CHCCS districts. In OCS, if funding
is available programs are launched either in October or January to support students having
difficulty. Schools will use Title I funds to tutor Level I or II students. Title I funding is
sometimes available to pay for transportation for students receiving tutoring.
Although the programs differ in scheduling and style, there appears to be an after
school program for students experiencing difficulty in every CHCCS elementary school.
Some programs are run by Community in Schools, with parent fees and scholarships available
for students who can not afford to pay the fee. All Stars, part of the District's 21St
Century schools grant, provides funding. One school runs 3 four -week programs, one in the
fall, one in winter, and one before the EOGs. Another offers three sessions. Some are
staffed by teachers from the school. Schools provide late bus transportation for
participating students who need it.
CHCCS /OCS Final Report 51
b. The Middle Schools
The transition from elementary school to middle school is a life passage that shifts
responsibility for learning from school and family to the individual student. No longer
nestled in an enclosed classroom, with one teacher identified as a primary person, the shift
too more departmentalized curriculum requires something different from students. At the
middle school level, students must rely more on their own commitments to study and
academic achievement than the learning situation in the elementary schools requires of
them. In addition, gathered together with students from three other elementary schools,
students are required to adjust to a new social situation as well as a new academic one.
Organizing a school with teaching teams who know each other and the children well,
integrating instruction and creating smaller familiar learning communities within the school
has come to be known as the "middle school model." A Carnegie report on middle school
education, Turning Points (Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development, 1989), notes an
important distinction between the design and function of middle schools:
A small learning community does not exist if just the structural elements such as
common planning time, block scheduling, shared students, and common team areas
are provided in a building. Although these structural elements are necessaryto
create a small community for learning, they are not sufficient to define it. Not only
must the opportunity be provided, but also teachers have to believe in it and choose
to do it. Furthermore, they must have the professional development and skills to
make it happen. The climate of the school must be supportive of teaming, and
teachers must actually engage in teaming practices.
While the middle schools of both districts subscribe to the basic teaming structure
recommended by the Carnegie study, schools in CHCCS and OCS function differently. Four
factors, affected by resources, may influence the capacity of OCS middle schools to
provide the focused attention that supports the teaming model. Although items three and
four are systemic, affecting all district schools, they may have particular salience for the
realization of the middle school model.
1) Planning time: The middle school day in CHCCS is divided into nine periods, in
contrast to the blocked eight - period day in OCS middle schools. In addition,
CHCCS have more teachers for special programs, the arts, technology, and foreign
languages. The presence of these additional staff members accomplishes two
things: an enriched curriculum for students, and an extra planning period for grade
level teams. Our study revealed that middle school teachers in CHCCS have 150
minutes (the equivalence of three class periods) when they are free from
instruction. This time is used in different ways across the middle schools, but
generally it is described that one period is used for collaborative planning, one
period for parent conferences, and one period for individualized work with students
who need support. In contrast, OCS middle school teachers have 90 minutes (one
teaching block) a day that are free from instruction.
CHCCS /OCS Final Report 52
2) Accessibility of after school programs: Although OCS, like CHCCS, runs after -
school programs that offer tutoring as well as enrichment programs, OCS does not
supply (through the district) or have access (through city bus routes) to free bus
transportation for students who attend the program. Thus access for students who
may need after - school programs the most is limited.
3) Focused and programmatic professional development: OCS teacher and
administrative access to professional development opportunities is an ongoing need
cited by school principals in our conversations with them. This finding emerges at
the elementary school level and continues through middle and high schools.
4) Leadership and support from OCS curriculum specialists at the central office:
Establishing alignment and continuity in curriculum are significant factors in easing
the transitions between K -5 and middle school, and then again between middle
school and high school, but require considerable organization and follow through
from the district to be developed and sustained. Development of curriculum and
instruction in subject specialty areas flourishes if guided by program specialists at
the district level.
Analysis of Middle School Findings
While SES is significant in the early grades as children arrive at school with diverse
experiences of language - conversation, vocabulary, print literacy - transition to middle
school raises SES issues once again, with more affluent, academically focused families
providing greater support and attention to their children's academic responsibilities than
families less attached to academic achievement and cosmopolitan identification and
ambitions.
While the socio- economic status of families is a significant predictor of their
children's class aspirations, school success at the middle school level is also facilitated by
close student teacher relationships. The middle school focus on teaming has been a national
effort to recognize these needs and to provide a community of instruction that will balance
the trend to autonomy that middle school culture and curriculum initiate. Although the
middle schools of both districts are using instructional teams in the middle schools, the
degree of collaboration in planning and instruction varies widely. We would have to study the
instructional setting more intensely to judge whether the degree of team collaboration is a
factor in the achievement differences of the middle school children in the two districts.
Although personnel differences between the two districts also are marked at the
elementary level, as noted above, OCS elementary students' achievement is not significantly
different than their peers in CHCC5 on end of grade tests. The staff student ratios in
Table 33 indicate more instructional support staff for middle school students in CHCC5.
Differences in staffing and numbers of support personnel and specialists may be significant
in addressing the achievement differences that begin to appear between the middle
schoolers of these two school districts.
CHCC5 /OCS Final Report 53
Table 33. Staff Ratios for Middle Schools
Source: *CHCCS and OCS District Data, December LUU4
While not anyone of the differences appears to be critical in and of itself, the
aggregate of the personnel disparities may diminish the individualized attention 005
students receive and add stress and distraction to the work experiences of 005 teachers
and administrators.
Literacy Achievement in the Middle Schools
Despite comparable proficiency reading scores in the CHCCS and OCS elementary
schools, in middle schools the district scores dip and diverge. As shown in Figure 6, greater
than 95% of CHCCS 5th grade students and 91.6% of OCS students are at or above grade
level in reading on the EOG. By the end of 6th grade, that number has dipped to 89.3% for
CHCC5 students and 83.3% for OCS students. This pattern of scores dipping at the
transition from elementary to middle school and then rebounding is typical nationally.
Nevertheless, it is interesting to note that the dip is greater for OCS than CHCCS and that
the rebound remains considerably lower as well.
CHCCS/OCS Final Report 54
Reading Comparison
100
95 7a_._ --- I
85 - State
80
75
-- --- CHCCS
%- 70 OCS
° .. Chatham
0
'�b � ��� ��� ��� — Durham
9� 9�
e� Wake
e�' e� e� �� —.— Q)1\0 Q�O\' Grade Level
Figure 6. Comparison of Middle School Reading Scores
Compared to the intense support of literacy that both districts provide in the
elementary grades, middle schools and high schools have few specialists to support students
who are struggling. As seen in Part A of this report in Table 20 (Middle School EOG
Achievement Test Results by Special Needs Group by School), the scores of Economically
Disadvantaged students are 20 -30 points below the scores of their peers who are not
economically disadvantaged. While some support for struggling readers and writers may
also be provided by AVID or Proficiency Specialists in CHCCS, there appear to be few
resources for struggling readers in OCS high schools. Dr. Jill Fitzgerald, a reading
specialist in the School of Education at UNC- Chapel Hill maintains that we continue to
underestimate the disadvantage that accrues to students who have difficulty reading. She
points to position statements from the International Reading Association
(http: / /www.reading.org /resources /issues /positions adolescent.html) as well as the special
national panel working on adolescent literacy to note that this is a national problem that is
just beginning to get attention.
CHCCS /OCS Final Report 55
English as Second Language in the Middle School
As noted in Table 9, Part A, OCS have 256 English as a Second Language (ESL)
students, and their ratio of ESL specialists (n =5) to ESL students is 1:51. The ESL student
population of CHCCS is 867, and the ratio of specialists (n =28) to ESL students is 1:31. As
shown in Table 34 the percent of ESL students at or above grade level on the EOGs varies
greatly.
Table 34. Number of ESL Middle School Students at or above Grade Level on the EOGs*
Source: * NC School Report Card 2003 -2004
As shown in Table 35, the make -up of the ESL populations at these schools varies.
In Phillips, almost all the Limited English Proficient (LEP) students are Asian, and at
Culbreth the population is half Asian and half Hispanic. At Smith the population is two -
thirds Hispanic, and at McDougle it is almost entirely Hispanic. OCS LEP students are
predominantly Hispanic. Table 36 shows the proportion of CHCCS Hispanic LEP students by
percent pass rates on the EOG. It appears that some Hispanic LEP students are having
difficulty with the acquisition of English literacy than some other sub - groups.
Table 35. Middle School Limited English Proficient (LEP) Students by Ethnicity*
Middle Schools
Culbreth (n =53)
McDou le (n =48)
Phillips (n =59)
Asian
Black
Hisp.
White
Asian
Black
Hisp
White
20
3
27
3
Stanback (n =5)
5
2
1
42
3
Stanford (n =35)
35
46
1
8
4
20
1
38
1
Smith (n =60)
Source: *Office of Testing & Program Evaluation, CHCCS, January 2005 Report
CHCCS /OCS Final Report 56
Table 36. Proportion of Hispanic ESL Population by % at or above Grade Level on EOGs in
CHCCS*
Middle Schools
Proportion Hispanic
Limited English
Proficiency Students
% Limited English
Students at or Above
Grade Level
McDougle (n =48)
.88
35
Smith (n =60)
.63
56
Culbreth (n =53)
.51
84
Phillips (n =59)
.14
82
Source: *CHCCS District Office, December 2004
Actualizing the Middle School Model
Stanford Middle School
Stanford Middle School in OCS has just received the Lighthouse Award from the
North Carolina Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (NC ASCD),
recognizing its excellence in test scores, innovative curriculum and teacher retention. Its
principal for the last 2 years, Dave Ebert, describes a school with a very strong middle
school model: very stable middle school teams who have worked together over a number of
years, knowing students, their families, and integrating their disciplines in instruction.
Stanford draws its students from rural areas. About 29% of its students are
African American, 1% Hispanic. Twenty -two percent of the students are classified
Exceptional Children (EC), and 30% of the students qualify for free or reduced lunch.
Ebert attributes the success of the Stanford students on the EOG tests to the
school's ongoing focus on reading; the 61h grade cohort that tested 77.4 proficient in 2003
tested 89.6 proficient in the 71h grade (in 2004) and retained that gain through 8th grade.
Supported by a district grant for Corrective Reading, teachers have been trained in a
direct instruction reading program throughout 6th 7th and 8th grades. Students have
improved two to two and a half grade levels in reading. Ebert hopes to get the program in
the elementary schools that are feeder schools for Stanford. Reading support is also
provided in electives where students receive ongoing support: Charger Academy and
remedial reading. These are not "pull- outs;" scheduled during blocks when students are
taking electives, these intensive reading /support sessions are elected by students who need
them. In addition, using 69/72 funds, Ebert has hired eight tutors (retired teachers or
principals) who come to the school twice a week to work with students on math and reading.
These very focused efforts to bring support for struggling readers into the middle school
recognize that efforts to support the literacy curriculum cannot be contained in the
elementary grades if students are to flourish as the curriculum and the world they must
deal with becomes more complex and demanding. The after- school program enrolls 100
children with 60 or 70 showing up on any given day. However, attendance has dropped since
funding was cut and free bus transportation was cut from four days to two.
CHCCS /OCS Final Report 57
Two weeks before the EOGs Stanford holds Saturday school, offering free
transportation and breakfast and review for test preparation. Ebert indicates that the
Stanford's Exceptional Children (EC), many of whom transfer in from Alamance and Durham
counties, require a great deal of support. Some enter the 6th grade reading at second grade
level. To work with this population in inclusive settings, whenever possible, Stanford has 8.5
EC teachers, three of whom work in self - contained resource settings.
c Hiqh School Programs
A review of high school class size data for the two districts (see Table 37) reveals
that basic English, Algebra, Foreign Language, Geometry, and History courses have higher
class sizes in OCS than in CHCCS. Basic Science courses in both districts average 23.1
students. At the level of Honors and AP courses in these subjects, however, CHCCS high
schools have higher course averages. This trend suggests both higher enrollments in
advanced courses in CHCCS and higher student - teacher ratio for basic courses in OCS.
Table 37. High School Average Course Enrollments
Subject
CHCCS*
OCS **
English
19.2
24.4
Foreign Language
Algebra
21.3
19.0
22.5
25.4
Geometry
21.0
24.3
Science
23.1
23.1
History
23.7
25.2
English - Honors
25.5
21.0
Algebra - Honors
Geometry - Honors
25.6
25.1
27.0
23.1
Honors
25.8
27.0
-History
- AP
24.1
20.0
-English
Language - AP
16.2
1.5
-Foreign
Statistics - AP
23.3
22.5
Science - AP
22.7
21.0
History - AP
24.0
18.9
Source: * CHCCS Upening of ,5cnool Keporr, vci outer-'- _Uv-r, LVVJ 'J li aJ .
Comparing the performance of high school students from the four high schools on
end of course examinations (see Part A, Table 21) shows some interesting differences: OCS
students score approximately 10 points lower on the English I exams. Scores in Geometry
are similar across the schools except for Chapel Hill High School students who score about
10 points higher than any of the others. OCS students score almost 20 points lower in
Biology, Physical Sciences and Physics, and Cedar Ridge students score below the others on
Chemistry, ELP5, and US History.
CHCCS /OCS Final Report 58
We have not had an opportunity to sufficiently explore instruction in the high
schools to comment on differences in instruction, but can point to the lower OCS
mathematics achievement in the middle school, which may account for the lower scores in
science courses that are heavily mathematics based.
A variety of AP courses are offered in both districts. In OCS, Cedar Ridge High
School began offering the International Baccalaureate diploma in 2004. Sixty tenth -grade
students are enrolled in that three -year program. The most significant AP difference is
that CHCCS offers more world language courses (i.e., German, Japanese) and AP arts
courses. In OCS in 2004 -2005, 232 Orange High School students are enrolled in AP
courses (duplicated), while Cedar Ridge High School enrolls 242 students in AP courses and
60 students in the International Baccalaureate (IB) program, for a total of 534 students
(see Table 38). In 2003 -2004 CHCCS reported 2,112 (duplicated) AP course enrollments
(998 at CHHS, 1114 at ECHHS. CHCCS offer environmental science as well as ancient,
renaissance, and modern art history courses at the AP level. Although OCS lists no arts
courses at the AP level, it does offer Music Theory, Theater, and Art III in the
International Baccalaureate Program.
Table 38: Advanced Course Enrollments*
Source: CHCCS and OCS District Offices, December 2004
Table 39 below indicates the percentage of students who scored at 3 or above (on a
scale from 1 -5) on the AP tests that they took. OCS students were encouraged but not
required to take the test in 2003 -2004, the year for which this data is compiled. Beginning
2004 -2005, OCS students must take the AP test for AP courses in which they are enrolled.
Decisions about what score is required to indicate college level proficiency varies by college
and academic discipline. At UNC- Chapel Hill a score of 4 is generally required for college
credit.
Table 39: Percentage of Students Scoring 3 or above on AP Tests*
CHCCS
OCS
CHCCS
CHHS
ECHHS
CRHS
OHS
AP Enrollments (duplicated)
998
1,114
242
.232
IB Enrollments
OHS
60
161
Total Advanced Course Enrollments
2,112
534
Source: CHCCS and OCS District Offices, December 2004
Table 39 below indicates the percentage of students who scored at 3 or above (on a
scale from 1 -5) on the AP tests that they took. OCS students were encouraged but not
required to take the test in 2003 -2004, the year for which this data is compiled. Beginning
2004 -2005, OCS students must take the AP test for AP courses in which they are enrolled.
Decisions about what score is required to indicate college level proficiency varies by college
and academic discipline. At UNC- Chapel Hill a score of 4 is generally required for college
credit.
Table 39: Percentage of Students Scoring 3 or above on AP Tests*
Source: *CHCCS and OCS District Offices, December 2004
CHCCS /OCS Final Report 59
Percentage at Level 3 or above
# of tests
CHCCS
ECHHS
77%
1112
CHHS
77%
954
OCS
OHS
78%
161
CRHS
54%
168
Source: *CHCCS and OCS District Offices, December 2004
CHCCS /OCS Final Report 59
Each year at both OCS high schools, one out of four AP courses is combined with
another course. Each year 2 to 3 are not offered because of staffing demands when
student numbers are low. It is not cost effective to offer courses to three or four
students.
A significant number of vocational and technical courses are offered in both
districts, although both districts report that few students pursue the Career /Tech
pathway (e.g., 18 OHS graduates in 2004; 20 in CHCCS and ECHHS). In CHCCS, courses are
offered in the areas of Marketing and Business (e.g., Business Law, Computerized
Accounting), Technology (e.g., Network Engineering, Web Page Design), and Family /Career
(e.g., Clothing Design, Teen Living, Woodworking). In OCS, courses are offered in eight
career and technical education programs. Programs and courses include: Agro- science and
Natural Resources Technologies (e.g., agriculture mechanics, horticulture); Business
Technologies (e.g., accounting, e- commerce); Commercial and Artistic Production (e.g.,
apparel development, drafting); Construction Technologies (e.g., drafting, furniture &
cabinetmaking); Engineering Technologies (e.g., computer applications, networking); Health
Sciences (e.g., allied health sciences); Public Services Technologies (e.g., early childhood
education, cosmetology); and Transportation System Technologies (e.g., auto technology).
Schools in CHCCS and OCS partner with Durham Technical Community College for additional
technical course offerings.
In CHCCS, partnerships with the National Academy Foundation (a nonprofit 502(c)3
intermediary organization) provides "school within a school" academies in finance and
information technology. These three -year academies provide specialized curricula and
work -based experiences (i.e., six -week paid summer internship between junior and senior
years) for interested students. East Chapel Hill High School hosts the Academy of
Information Technology (AOIT), and Chapel Hill High School hosts the Academy of Finance
(AOF).
Even though this is a brief description of the rich and varied high school offerings
available in each district's high school program, it is clear that both districts provide many
and varied educational opportunities to students whose interests and abilities vary and grow
more distinct and differentiated as they mature.
Dropouts
As indicated in Table 40, 2002 -03 dropout figures for 9th -12th graders show 5.81%
for OCS and .99 for CHCCS. Across the state the percentage is 4.78. The chart shows the
state and CHCCS percentages diminishing every year; whereas the OCS rate fluctuates:
5.2% in 2001, 4.22% in 2002, and 5.81% in 2003.
CHCCS /OCS Final Report 60
Table 40. Dropout Data for CHCCS and OCS*
Source: * OCS District Office
OCS Dropouts
The higher drop out rate in OCS is a matter of concern and raises questions about
the district's capacity to provide intensive support to students who are having difficulty.
The district summaries analyzing the population of students who dropped out in 2002 -2003
are shown in Tables 41 and 42 below.
Table 41. Stated Reasons for Dropping Out
1998 -1999
1999 -2000
2000-
2001
2001-
2002
2002-
2003
OCS
5.45
4.73
5.20
4.22
5.81
CHCCS
2.35
2.03
2.67
1.31
0.99
State
6.78
6.43
5.72
5.25
4.78
Source: * OCS District Office
OCS Dropouts
The higher drop out rate in OCS is a matter of concern and raises questions about
the district's capacity to provide intensive support to students who are having difficulty.
The district summaries analyzing the population of students who dropped out in 2002 -2003
are shown in Tables 41 and 42 below.
Table 41. Stated Reasons for Dropping Out
Source: OCS District Office, January 2005
CHCCS/OCS Final Report 61
CRHS
OHS
Attendance problem
7
30
Moved, school status
unknown
5
Community college
3
31
Attendance (personal issues)
3
1
Discipline problem
4
Attendance (family)
1
10
Unstable home environment
1
1
Need to care for children
1
Attendance school
2
Suspected substance abuse
1
Failure to return after long-
term suspension
3
3
Work
3
Academic problems
1
4
Total dropouts
35
80
Source: OCS District Office, January 2005
CHCCS/OCS Final Report 61
Table 42, 2004 -2005 OCS Dropout Demographics
Source: OCS District uttice, ,i anuary auu�)
In addition, A.L. Stanback Middle School had two dropouts, both female, who went to
attendance school. C.W. Stanford Middle School had one dropout, a black female, who cited
"unstable home environment" as her reason for leaving.
• OCS: We are doing a magnificent job, having a significant impact on the
community. Nevertheless staff struggles with how to reach those students that
are not being reached. There are significant community issues related to drugs,
alcohol, neglect, gang activity and absent parents that impact students and this
school wants to work with all students to make sure none fall through the
cracks.... Our school is also looking for guidance on drop -out prevention. For
example, how can school convince students to persist when parents encourage
drop -out.2 EC programs also at issue. We have extremely large EC caseloads and
our staff works hard to handle students individually to meet their needs. We
would like to see more alternatives for students in need /crisis....Some students
aren't ready /able to stay mentally healthy in the high school setting given its
demands. We would like to see successful alternatives and options other schools
and communities embrace. Given that D55 at the county level has had funding
drastically cut, our schools aren't able to get as much assistance from them. A
cut in mental health funds has not helped this issue for this puts significant onus
on the school to provide support for students in need. Financial needs are great
in this area.
A deeper analysis of the reasons for dropping out as well as a follow -up study to
discover what has happened to these students after dropping out would provide more
information about whether additional or improved school programs and personnel might have
kept them in school.
Counselors and Social Workers at the Middle Schools and High Schools
Despite the larger population of the OCS middle schools, each OCS middle school
has two counselors, whereas each CHCCS middle school has three. Each CHCCS middle
school (and every other school in CHCCS) has its own social worker (called family specialist)
whereas OCS currently have only seven for the whole system. It may not seem obvious why
CHCCS /OCS Final Report 62
CRHS
OHS
Male
Female
27
38
8
43
White
24
51
Black
-Hispanic
Other
7
25
4
2
2
Total
35
80
Source: OCS District uttice, ,i anuary auu�)
In addition, A.L. Stanback Middle School had two dropouts, both female, who went to
attendance school. C.W. Stanford Middle School had one dropout, a black female, who cited
"unstable home environment" as her reason for leaving.
• OCS: We are doing a magnificent job, having a significant impact on the
community. Nevertheless staff struggles with how to reach those students that
are not being reached. There are significant community issues related to drugs,
alcohol, neglect, gang activity and absent parents that impact students and this
school wants to work with all students to make sure none fall through the
cracks.... Our school is also looking for guidance on drop -out prevention. For
example, how can school convince students to persist when parents encourage
drop -out.2 EC programs also at issue. We have extremely large EC caseloads and
our staff works hard to handle students individually to meet their needs. We
would like to see more alternatives for students in need /crisis....Some students
aren't ready /able to stay mentally healthy in the high school setting given its
demands. We would like to see successful alternatives and options other schools
and communities embrace. Given that D55 at the county level has had funding
drastically cut, our schools aren't able to get as much assistance from them. A
cut in mental health funds has not helped this issue for this puts significant onus
on the school to provide support for students in need. Financial needs are great
in this area.
A deeper analysis of the reasons for dropping out as well as a follow -up study to
discover what has happened to these students after dropping out would provide more
information about whether additional or improved school programs and personnel might have
kept them in school.
Counselors and Social Workers at the Middle Schools and High Schools
Despite the larger population of the OCS middle schools, each OCS middle school
has two counselors, whereas each CHCCS middle school has three. Each CHCCS middle
school (and every other school in CHCCS) has its own social worker (called family specialist)
whereas OCS currently have only seven for the whole system. It may not seem obvious why
CHCCS /OCS Final Report 62
the provision of social workers is important, but the problems they address and the
arrangements and meetings that they convene are important and very time consuming. High
school principals report that family attitudes and decisions are critical to a student's
decision to drop out, and working with families is the particular focus of the school social
workers. When that support is not available on a daily basis, these tasks are assumed by
administrators, teachers and counselors, draining their time and attention from their work
and instruction of students.
Even though high schools in CHCC5 have larger populations than in OCS (1740 and
1546, to OCS populations of 899 and 948), nevertheless, the ratios of counselors to
students in CHCCS (1:250 and 1:258) are lower than they are in OCS (where they are 1:300
and 1:316).
Personnel differences between the two districts are seen at the high school level in
relation to academic and career counseling staff (see Table 43). While high schools in both
districts have counselors and offer professionally staffed Career Development Centers with
information on career and college opportunities, numbers of professional staff differ
between the two districts. Chapel Hill High School has 7 counselors, 9 workforce
development staff, and 3 career development counselors. East Chapel Hill High School has
6 counselors, 6.5 Workforce Development staff, and 3 career development counselors. In
OCS, Cedar Ridge High School has 3 counselors, 9 Workforce Development staff, and a
career development counselor shared with Orange High School. Orange High School has 3
counselors, 11 Workforce Development staff, and a career development counselor shared
with Cedar Ridge High School.
Trnhlo 4� Pink .Srknnl SnPCinlists by Srhool
Source: CHCCS and OCS District Offices, December 2004
CHCCS /OCS Final Report 63
CHCCS
OCS
CHHS
ECCHS
CRHS
OHS
Enrollment
1773
1638
1035
1007
Counselor
7
6
3
3
Workforce Development
9
6.5
9
11
Career Development Counselor
3
3
.5
.5
Remedial S ecialist
1
EC Teachers
4
6
EC Teaching Assistant
11
9
1
3
Alternative Education Facilitator
1
Special Populations/504 specialist
2
2
.5
.5
ISS Coordinator
1
0
1
1
Reading/Literacy Reading/Literacy Coach
1
1
0
0
AVID /Minorit Enrichment /CIS
0.8
0.8
0
0
Facilitator
1
1
0
0
-Program
Student Assistance
1
1
0
0
Teaching Assistant
2
2
0
0
Service Learning
0.5
0.5
0
0
Source: CHCCS and OCS District Offices, December 2004
CHCCS /OCS Final Report 63
In addition, the numbers of other specialists available to work with high school
students differs significantly between the two districts. In OCS, specialists at the high
school level include one remedial specialist at CRHS; 10 EC specialists and four exceptional
children's teaching assistants between the two high schools; one alternative education
facilitator at OHS; and one I55 coordinator at each high school. In CHCCS, additional
specialists include: one reading /literacy coach at each high school; 0.8 AVID /Minority
Enrichment /CIS person at each school; two special populations /504 specialists at each
school; an ISS coordinator at CRHS; 3.5 LD /MD /BED /AU self - contained specialists at each
school; 16 LD/BED /Autistic Resource people between the two high schools; one program
facilitator at each school; one student assistance person at each school; two teaching
assistants at each school; a shared service learning coordinator between the two schools;
and 20 exceptional education /inclusion assistants between the two high schools. This
description does not exhaust the list of adults other than classroom teachers at the high
school level, but it does represent the significant differences between the two districts
(see Table 26, presented in Part A, for a more comprehensive list of personnel at all levels).
Post - Secondary Plans
According to self- reported post - graduation plans gathered from graduating high
school students in CHCCS and OCS shown in Table 44, students in both districts plan to
attend four -year public institutions at similar rates: 44% in CHCCS and 45% in OCS.
Differences appear in relation to the choice between private four -year college /university
attendance and community /technical college attendance. In CHCCS, 38.4% of students plan
to attend private four -year colleges while only 13.3% of OCS students report similar plans.
In terms of community college attendance, only 6.7% of CHCCS students plan to attend
community college compared with 30.5% of OCS students. Military service is the choice of
0.9% of CHCCS students and 3.6% of OCS students.
Table 44. 2002 -2003 High School Graduate Intentions
Source: * NCDPI Statistical f'ror11e wv4
The choice of 30.5% of OCS students to attend community colleges instead of four -
year institutions, as opposed to the 6.7% of CHCCS students making that choice, does not
present itself as an educational problem, so long as that choice is made within a context of
educational opportunities that make both the ambition and the qualification for a
CHCCS /OCS Final Report 64
CHCCS
OCS
Public Four -Year Institution
44.0
45.0
Private Four -Year Institution
38.4
13.3
-Community/Technical College
6.7
30.5
Private Junior College
0.7
0.0
Trade, Business
0.4
0.0
Military
0.9
3.6
3.1
3.0
-Employment
Other (includes not available, marriage, etc)
5.7
4.5
Source: * NCDPI Statistical f'ror11e wv4
The choice of 30.5% of OCS students to attend community colleges instead of four -
year institutions, as opposed to the 6.7% of CHCCS students making that choice, does not
present itself as an educational problem, so long as that choice is made within a context of
educational opportunities that make both the ambition and the qualification for a
CHCCS /OCS Final Report 64
baccalaureate experience available to all students. At this point we can ask whether the
strikingly lower number of support staff available to OCS high school students suggests
that they are not receiving the ongoing advice and support they might need to stay in school
instead of dropping out, or to persist in choosing and qualifying for the academic program
that might lead them to a four -year college. Choices between two -year or four -year
colleges are rarely made late in the high school experience. These choices are layered in
when students choose pathways, enroll in particular courses, decide to struggle through a
subject when they find it dif ficult. The lower numbers of support for OCS students
throughout the middle school and high school experiences may suggest that they are not
receiving the strong, focused and personal attention they might need in order to formulate
their most ambitious possibilities.
d. Equity Initiatives
Achievement by Groups
Both CHCCS and OCS usually out perform the state on End of Grade achievement
test scores across important educational sub - groups (i.e., Male, Female, White, Black,
Hispanic, American Indian, Asian /Pacif is Islander, Multi- racial, Economically Disadvantaged,
Not Economically Disadvantaged, Limited English Proficient, and Students with Disabilities).
Both districts have exhibited marked improvement in the EOG scores of their Black and
Economically Disadvantaged students. The two figures below show consistent improvement
for these students and an improvement rate greater than the NC rate from 2002 -2003 to
2003 -2004.
72
70
68
66
64
62
60
58
EOG Performance for Economically Disadvantaged
Students
Econ. Dis '01 -02 Econ. Disadv '02 -03 Econ. Disadv '03 -04
Figure 7. EOG Performance for Economically Disadvantaged Students 2001 -2004
* CHCCS
--0- -- OCS
NC
CHCC5 1005 Final Report 65
EOG Performance for Black Students
75
73 I
I
71
69
67 - CHCCS
OCS
65 NC
63
61
59
R
57
55
Black '01 -02 Black '02 -03 Black '03 -04
Academic Year
Figure 8. EOG Performance for Black Students 2001 -2004
Both districts have made steady progress in improving the academic achievement of
their minority students. This process is not merely an issue of test scores. It encompasses
decisions about individualization and grouping, about access to enrichment activities, after -
school programs, teams and cultural activities, and finally community commitment and
morale. Inclusion in heterogeneous classrooms may well provide children of all groups with
educational experiences that recognize them as competent and promising participants in
their schools.
Heterogeneous Classrooms
Both districts have shaped environments to support the achievement of all children
in heterogeneous, inclusive classes. Responding to research and the national consensus that
tracking undermines weak students without sufficiently strengthening students who are
already strong, the districts have, in most cases, created classroom environments that mix
children of various abilities, genders, races and ethnicities. The move to classroom
heterogeneity involves placing clusters of students with particular learning needs in classes
across grade levels. It is clear that in both districts the process of student placement is
accomplished with great care, balancing for diversity in gender, race, ethnicity,
exceptionality, and clustering children so that each child finds peers in the classroom who
constitute both a social and an instructional cohort.
Heterogeneous classrooms, however, require teachers and specialists working
together to address the needs of diverse students (e.g., gifted students, learning disabled
students, second language students, or students having difficulty with mathematics or
reading) in one classroom. In addition to the regular classroom teacher, these specialists
visit all the classes in a grade, working side by side with the regular classroom teacher to
maintain quality instruction for all students. While more extensive in CHCCS than in OCS -
where there are still pull -out sessions for academically gifted students - the heterogeneous
CHCCS /OCS Final Report 66
approach promises improved student achievement over time, for it avoids the denigrating
labels and identities that undermine students. Furthermore, services to exceptional
children are best supplied when the special educators, social workers, and classroom
teachers and administrators have time set aside to consult with each other in student
support teams. The resources of CHCCS allow a more extensive program and preparation
for support team collaboration than the resources of OCS.
Exceptions to the trend toward heterogeneity may be found in CHCCS classes for
exceptionally advanced (two or three levels beyond their grade level) students at Glenwood
Elementary, designated "Tier V' In OCS, elementary schools' provisions for AG students
varies, including pullout classes in reading and accelerated mathematics, as well as "push -in"
instruction where specialists come in to work with AG students in their general classrooms.
Each district maintains some advanced mathematics classes for very able students in the
later elementary and middle school grades.
Heterogeneous classes that also include children with mild to moderate learning
disabilities challenge teachers and administrators to offer a common curriculum, aligned
with standards, shaped, interpreted and extended in ways that make it accessible to
children who need to approach content and learning in different ways. Channeling the
curriculum into various streams that all flow toward the same destination is complex
intellectual and instructional work. Each district has made its own decision about how to
distribute its resources to achieve this curriculum standard of differentiated instruction,
aligned with standards, for heterogeneous classes. This is an area which benefits from
extensive professional development as it takes teams of teachers working together to
construct lessons that offer multiple versions of the same conceptual material, and it is
here that the CHCCS resources are abundant compared to OCS resources.
• CHCCS: Differentiation Is public education. While some p /aces
might talk specifically about gifted education or special needs
education, public education is about assessing and providing for
individual needs. Differentiation for all groups.
• OCS: We need time. Time to plan, time to assess individuals, to
assess where kids are so that you know where to take them.
Making sure that students do engaging and authentic work
requires differentiation. It's a challenge for newer teachers,
especiolly, because they're still trying to get everything else down
from behavior plans to curriculum.
• CHCCS. Adequate assessment is the greatest barrier: efficient
and accurate assessment. A /so staff development and follow
through. Most important for teachers are peer co- learning
opportunities Elementary schools, however, have little
flexibility /time to plan, talk and train.
CHCCS /OCS Final Report 67
Exceptional Children (EC) Services
One of the greatest differences between the school districts is the percentage of
their students who are categorized as exceptional because of a learning disability, emotional
or behavioral problems. As noted earlier, although the total student population of OCS is
40% fewer than CHCCS, its population of students with disabilities is 12% larger: 1,138 (or
17.6% of the total student population) in OCS; and 1,333 (or 11.7% of the total student
population) in CHCCS. As shown in Table 11 (Part A), the area of greatest divergence
between the two districts is in the area of Speech and Language Impaired (2004 -2005:
CHCCS: 8 %; OCS: 18 %). It is interesting to note that the OCS EC numbers of 17.6% are
well above the national average which usually runs about 12% of the school population. This
is a finding that invites further scrutiny in order to determine whether this larger
proportion of children identified as having special needs reflects over classifying or
underserving these students.
The most striking achievement disparity that we have observed is the significantly
lower achievement of OCS students with disabilities compared to the achievement of
CHCCS students with disabilities (see Table 20, Part A). The percent of middle school
special needs students at or above grade level on EOG Achievement Tests in CHCCS is
63.1 %; in OCS it is 49.4 %. We may assume that the number of exceptional children's
teachers and assistants in Chapel Hill working with these students as well as the personnel
available to coordinate this work in the schools and central office may play a factor in the
achievement of these children in CHCCS.
There are many different programs and personnel employed both districts to
address the needs of this population, and in some cases comparison is difficult because the
job titles may differ from district to district or the job functions may be distributed
differently. In CHCCS an executive director supervises both the areas of student services
and exceptional children. In OCS those two areas are supervised by two separate directors.
The EC director in OCS is new to this position. It is customary for her and the CHCCS
director to meet monthly.
Inclusion is the preferred placement for children with exceptionalities. This means
that for much of the day children with learning, emotional or physical disabilities spend time
in regular heterogeneous classrooms. EC specialists called Resource or Collaborative
Teachers spend time in regular classrooms modifying curriculum, helping to set
accommodations, and providing instruction for exceptional children.
CHCCS OCS
Resource /Collaborative Teachers 55.5 18.5
And they are supported by these aides:
CHCCS OCS
Resource assistants 51 30.5
CHCCS /OCS Final Report 68
In addition to these certified teachers, CHCCS employs 41 Inclusion Assistants,
providing at least 2 Inclusion Assistants to every school in the district, a significant
resource for exceptional children that is not available in OCS. These assistants are
available to spend time assisting individual students who are mainstreamed in heterogenous
classes when their help is needed. In CHCC5 Inclusion assistants took the place of the old
1:1 model from many years ago. The funding for the 1:1's was channeled into the new
positions which could serve the entire EC population in a given school rather than just one
student.
CHCCS OCS
Inclusion Assistants 41 0
Students with disabilities, must, by law, have individualized educational programs
written for them to document the particular ways that teachers and counselors plan to work
with each student to support his or her learning. It is important to note that the processes
and documentation required to establish IEPs (individual educational programs) for students
with exceptionalities is time consuming, especially if they are done carefully and well.
CHCCS employs a half time program facilitator in each elementary and middle school to
support this work, and 1 full time facilitator in each high school. Additionally CHCC5 funds
one 504 facilitator in each high school, specialists who coordinate particular
accommodations that need to be made for students who may have some special needs but
are not connected to one of the special education categories.
CHCCS OCS
Program Facilitators .5 for each elementary and .5 program facilitator for
middle school, 1 for each entire district.
high school, one central
office person
In the absence of program facilitators and 504 coordinators, OCS teachers and
student support teams must develop IEPs for each exceptional student. These student
support teams play a significant role in the identification of exceptional children and in
planning for the particular attention they require. Depending on the particular needs of the
child, a team may be comprised of classroom teachers, curriculum specialists, school
counselors, school administrators, school safety officers, special educators, or social
workers. The work of a team involves a 6 -8 week process during which a case manager is
selected and interventions are planned. This process is required for every child before any
referral for evaluation to an exceptional category is initiated. This past October, every
OCS school sent a team for a two day training program that CHCCS schools had focused on
three years ago. There is interesting data to suggest that during these past three years,
the operation of these Student Support Teams in CHCCS has helped to diminish the number
of children identified as exceptional in that district from 13% to the current level of 11 %.
Each district employs one specialist for students who are visually impaired and one
specialist for students who are hearing impaired. CHCCS employs a half -time Braillist.
CHCC5 /OCS Final Report 69
Each district has self- contained classes for students with severe disabilities. There
are 23 of these classrooms in CHCCS (plus 2 for students in the Occupational Course of
Study) and 19 in OCS (plus five for students in the Occupational Course of Study) (see
Table 45). CHCCS work with 116 autistic children (about 1/3 served in separate class while
2/3 are served by a combination of resource teachers in the schools and 4 itinerant autism
support teachers), OCS work with 36 autistic children. Certified teachers as well as aides
are assigned to work with these specialized classes.
Table 45. Comparison of Specialists for Students with Special Needs
Sources: `CHCC5 and Uc,S UisrricT UTTices, uecernuui C_VV-r
CHCCS employ an EC teacher for children with emotional and /or behavioral
disabilities at two elementary schools, as well as one designated teacher in every middle
school and in each high school. They also use Sliver Grant money to employ a behavior
specialist who serves the entire district. OCS employ 1.5 specialists who work part time
across the middle and high schools.
In CHCCS students with speech and language impairment comprise 8% of the
districts students with special needs, and there are 19 full time and two half time Speech
Pathologists available to work with them. In OCS students with speech and language
impairment comprise 18% of the district's students with special needs and there are 11.5
speech pathologists available to work with them
It is estimated that the caseload for a teacher of exceptional children in CHCCS is
1 :20. In 005 it is 1:33. The state standard is 1 :35. Let us say at this point that the
provision of this support should not be seen as excessive. By providing this assistance
CHCCS frees up its teachers and administrators to focus on instruction and to work with
individual students, emphases that may well contribute to the achievement of CHCC5
students that distinguishes the district in the state.
CHCCS/OCS Final Report 70
CHCCS*
OCS*
Autism Teachers
10 classroom,
4 itinerant
2.5
Focal /Life Skills Teachers
16
5
Behavioral /Emotional Teachers
8
3
Behavior /Emotional Specialist
1
1.5
Speech Therapists
20.2
12.5
Occupational Therapists
10.5
3.5
Physical Therapists
Visual Impairment Teacher + Assistants
2
1 +2
1
1 +1
Psychologists
_ ^^ 7.8
5.5
Sources: `CHCC5 and Uc,S UisrricT UTTices, uecernuui C_VV-r
CHCCS employ an EC teacher for children with emotional and /or behavioral
disabilities at two elementary schools, as well as one designated teacher in every middle
school and in each high school. They also use Sliver Grant money to employ a behavior
specialist who serves the entire district. OCS employ 1.5 specialists who work part time
across the middle and high schools.
In CHCCS students with speech and language impairment comprise 8% of the
districts students with special needs, and there are 19 full time and two half time Speech
Pathologists available to work with them. In OCS students with speech and language
impairment comprise 18% of the district's students with special needs and there are 11.5
speech pathologists available to work with them
It is estimated that the caseload for a teacher of exceptional children in CHCCS is
1 :20. In 005 it is 1:33. The state standard is 1 :35. Let us say at this point that the
provision of this support should not be seen as excessive. By providing this assistance
CHCCS frees up its teachers and administrators to focus on instruction and to work with
individual students, emphases that may well contribute to the achievement of CHCC5
students that distinguishes the district in the state.
CHCCS/OCS Final Report 70
• OCS: Twenty p /us teachers at [X School] are trained by Schools
Attuned. The school works closely with Michael Toronto to
increasingly implement Schools Attuned, which provides binders of
ideas to assist teachers in preparation.
• OCS: We have a challenge this year; 25 EC children in 5th grade;
inclusion and pull -out are used 2 EC teachers at this [X School]
serve 55 EC students. While within the state limits, this has proven
difficult. Our school would benefit from district initiative to
study /compare numbers of EC students served. Principal would like
to provide lower loads for EC teachers.
• CHCCS: We follow federal procedures. Also have an SST (Student
Support Team) which handles teacher of parent concerns with
academic, behavioral, social or emotional issues in order to increase
students' success The team meets every other week; students are
assigned a case manager who follows up on the understanding their
needs and situation. The team brainstorms with the teachers to find
new approaches for that student. If things are blatant, then the
student is referred to the IEP team. Now there are also DEPs
(Differentiated Education Plans) for gifted children and PEP
(Personal Education Plans) for students who need to take an EOG two
or three times to pass.
• OCS: Principal worked closely with EC teachers to restructure the SA T
(which had turned into a rubber stamp for the IEP). Focus now is to
brainstorm solutions and consider all of child's potential needs using Comer's
Six Developmental Pathways mode% SA T watches for issues K -1; at 2 -3 on
alert for kids who might hit the wall -then consider LEPpiece. Big need for
SA T training at district level regarding what works,' needs a shot in the arm
from district.
• OCS: Greatest area of need is for extreme behavior needs and
extreme learning disabilities; school needs more state crisis
assistance. Would like to see a cohort of well trained folks to work
in schools with children. Crisis assistant is only paid for days when
students are in school, but when can she get training and work with
teachers.2
Student Services
In this section we will also review the number of persons employed under the
category of student services. Obviously there is a continuum of care and instruction that
responds to students experiencing difficulties. It is possible that early identification of
difficulties accompanied with appropriate intervention may sufficiently effective to
CHCCS /OCS Final Report 71
preclude the later identification of that student as exceptional and belonging to one of the
EC categories. It is also possible that the provision of assistance at the middle and high
school levels may be significant in supporting students who are struggling so they do not
drop out.
CHCCS employ proficiency specialists who create and oversee a portfolio of learning
tasks for students who have not achieved proficiency on end of grade tests. There is a half
time person in each CHCCS middle school. In OCS teachers perform these functions.
CHCCS employ transition facilitators at each high school who set up job placements
for students; positions that are not available to OCS students. CHCCS employ two
counselors who focus on substance abuse, and one social worker funded by a grant through
the Department of Social Services that has continued for four years, who specializes in the
issues associated with adolescent pregnancy. APP is also in OCS. These positions are not
found in OCS schools.
Both districts employ career counselors, one in each high school. In CHCCS they are
titled Career Development Counselors, serving in the Career Information Center; in OCS,
Career /Technical Educators. CHCCS report 35 counselors in total, and 005 report 17. It is
important to note that in many schools counselors assume the responsibility for the
scheduling, oversight, and implementation of testing, administrative tasks that take up time
that they might be spending with students.
Curriculum Alignment and Leadership
In an era of high- stakes testing, No Child Left Behind (NCLB), and district
accountability, determination of the curriculum is a complex and delicate negotiation. Both
districts have a history of school -based and classroom -based curriculum decision - making.
Respecting the judgment of highly experienced and knowledgeable teachers, the central
system offices have not, historically, provided strong scrutiny nor required conformity. The
NCLB demand that achievement data be disaggregated, revealing the achievement progress
of specified groups of children and of individual schools, however, has generated attention
within each district to the learning needs of their most challenged students.
• 005: Principal works hard to match teacher strengths with
where the school needs them. Strong grade -level teams are the
goal, and principal will move teachers for team strength and
stability. Strong teams especially important at 4th grade as so
much is required with the testing that you want someone familiar
with demands of the test. Teachers need experience and to learn
the testing system - they must anticipate the rigors of testing.
CHCCS /OCS Final Report 72
• CHCCS: Teachers use Atlas mapping, a web -based program that
allows them to design their lessons within the .SCOS. The district
is working hard to articulate the SCOS across the district
Curriculum alignment that coordinates what is taught with what is tested is one
method of protecting students, teachers and schools from the consequences of poor test
performance. Badly administered, alignment can collapse the curriculum into the test,
impoverishing it. Well done, alignment can engage teachers in discussions of best practice,
the selection of curriculum and texts, and provide a sense of confidence that encourages
the provision of a rich, interesting and varied curriculum as well as one that provides test
preparation.
• CHCCS: Each school has representatives on the District
curriculum committee making broad decisions about curriculum.
The district provides continuity across grades and schools, but
the individual teachers can decide how to teach within that
framework, They choose their unit plans and specifics [X
Schooljgave up part of a science position and part of clerical
position to fund a position: Instructional Resource Teacher. She
helps the textbook committee, finds teacher resources, helps
with planning and pacing.
As seen in Table 46 below, CHCCS have resources that permit the central system to
employ specialists who can provide the leadership that enriched alignment requires.
Whereas the OCS system employs an Associate Superintendent of Curriculum and
Instruction, and a Director of Elementary Instruction and a Director of Secondary
Instruction, CHCCS employs an Executive Director of Curriculum and Instruction in addition
to the Assistant Superintendent, who also coordinates Social Studies. She is assisted by
subject or program area specialists.
CHCCS /OCS Final Report 73
Table 46. Central Office Curriculum Specialists and Support
Sources: *CHCCS and OCS District Offices, December 2004
Mathematics: A Subject Matter Example
Recent research in mathematics learning has generated new approaches to
instruction that emphasize student thinking and understanding of mathematical problems
and concepts. Recognizing these developments, CHCCS hired a coordinator for math and
sciences in 2004 -2005. In Figure 9 below, comparison of state, CHCCS and OCS student
performance data on EOGs reveal that both CHCCS and OCS students' performance drops
after grade 5, when both districts register 95% of their students performing at or above
grade level. CHCCS students level off in the sixth grade at about 93 %, a level sustained
through middle school, while OCS students decline steadily in middle school, meeting the
statewide level of 85% at the end of eighth grade. Curriculum leadership in mathematics
might be one approach to OCS student drop in mathematics achievement after grade 5.
CHCCS /OCS Final Report 74
CHCCS*
OCS*
Asst. /Assoc. Superintendent for Curriculum & Instruction
1
1
Executive Director for Curriculum & Instruction
1 Also social
studies & AG
0
Director Elementary Instruction (Planning)
1 Also staff
develo ment
1
Director Secondary Instruction (Planning)
1 also driver
ed.
1
Coordinator Language Arts and English
1
0
Coordinator, Mathematics and Science
1
0
Coordinator CTE Curriculum
1
1
Career Coordinator
1
1
VoCATS Coordinator
1
1
Coordinator Gifted Services
1
0
Coordinator AVID
1
0
Coordinator ESL
1
0
Director ECSS
1
1
Coordinator ECSS
1
0
Coordinator Health Services
1
1
Coordinator Pre School Disabilities
1
0
Director Pre -K /Headstart
1
0
Coordinator Migrant Education
0
1
Director of Inst. Technology and Media
1
1
Sources: *CHCCS and OCS District Offices, December 2004
Mathematics: A Subject Matter Example
Recent research in mathematics learning has generated new approaches to
instruction that emphasize student thinking and understanding of mathematical problems
and concepts. Recognizing these developments, CHCCS hired a coordinator for math and
sciences in 2004 -2005. In Figure 9 below, comparison of state, CHCCS and OCS student
performance data on EOGs reveal that both CHCCS and OCS students' performance drops
after grade 5, when both districts register 95% of their students performing at or above
grade level. CHCCS students level off in the sixth grade at about 93 %, a level sustained
through middle school, while OCS students decline steadily in middle school, meeting the
statewide level of 85% at the end of eighth grade. Curriculum leadership in mathematics
might be one approach to OCS student drop in mathematics achievement after grade 5.
CHCCS /OCS Final Report 74
Math Comparison
100 ..�.�_..�.�. --
95
CD
cc 90 —State
L
> ; 85 CHCCS
80
cc
,
OCS
0 75
Cz
70
Chatham
°
Cn Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade --- Durham
3 4 5 6 7 8 Wake
Math Math Math Math Math Math
Grade Level
Source: NC School Report Cards, 2003 -2004
Figure 9. Middle School Mathematics Performance (Percent at or above Grade Level on
EOGs)
Schools across OCS use different mathematics texts, some use Hartcourt Brace,
others Houghton Mifflin, most Saxon Math. While the district is moving to single text
adoption this year, chosen by committees of teachers and central office curriculum staff,
choice and implementation of a successful mathematics curriculum is difficult and
challenging. Saxon Math, for example, a highly scripted program, while successful in
preparing students for the EOGs, allows little differentiation, and may not provide the
mathematical thinking skills needed for continuing proficiency as mathematics becomes
more complicated. A recent study (McNeil et al, 2004) has argued that scripted arithmetic
curriculum, such as Saxon, undermine students' ability to make the transition from
arithmetic to algebra. CHCCS had until recently also relied on school and teacher text
choice, with some schools using Saxon, others an inquiry based model, and still others
preparing their own materials. They have recently adopted one text, Macmillan, to be used
across the grades. It is important to balance district curriculum leadership with teacher
autonomy and creativity. A "top down" imposition of text or method will only depress
CHCCS/OCS Final Report 75
instruction. Nevertheless, curriculum alignment and coherence can facilitate professional
development to address issues of instructional depth, conceptual understanding and
differentiation, and might greatly smooth the transition from elementary school to middle
school, providing a continuous process and substance that might diminish the decline in
mathematics performance in middle school.
We focus on this example of mathematics curriculum to indicate that decisions
about text adoption, curriculum and professional development are very complicated.
Preparation in the early grades in literacy as well as mathematics that represents skill
acquisition very simply and repetitively may support performance on early EOGs but
undermine later understandings and achievement. We do not make this point to second -
guess either district's choices or decisions, but to point out that central office leadership in
the disciplines is important if districts are to be apprised of the latest research, make
strategic and thoughtful curriculum decisions, and have the leadership to provide follow
through for classroom teachers.
e. Resources
Teachers
It is interesting to note that despite disparities in specialist support within the
school building and curriculum support emanating from the central office, responses of
teachers in both districts are quite similar on the Working Conditions survey conducted by
the state. We did not have time to interview teachers, nevertheless, our impression was
one of high morale across the two systems.
There is, however, a difference between the resources available for professional
development across the two districts. With adequate funding and central office leadership,
there are abundant opportunities for teachers in CHCCS. OCS teachers have both less time
and less funding to support their work.
OCS teachers receive $150 a year to spend on their classrooms. In some schools
the PTA provides another $100 -$150 to that amount. In some CHCCS middle schools PTA
provides $1,500 to each instructional team (usually 4 teachers.)
• OCS: District planned staff development is open to [X School)
staff. At the school level, we plan around issues, but moneygoes
fast. Beyond financial constraints is the issue of time: only so
many teacher work days. Y can make a penny a dollar, "but time is
hard to facilitate.
• OCS: Might as well say we have no money. Limited funds from
the state. Grade levels will choose opportunities,• send requests
through site based team. Sometimes teachers share a conference
(e.g. 2 g one day, Z the next.) Principal would love to be able to
CHCCS /OCS Final Report 76
offer 2 -3 day conferences, but school can only pay for
registration (transportation and meals at teachers' expense).
Sees this as failure to treat teachers as professionals.
PTA and Community Resources
The CHCCS Thrift Shop generates significant funds for CHCCS. These funds are
typically used by schools to support cultural events, performances and residencies, funds
for classroom teachers, and funds for field trips.
But it varies:
CHCCS: PTA /District /Parent donations provide funds for these
opportunities, including trips to Grandfather mountain, science
camps, sending individual students to diabetes camp or basketball
camp, Chapel Hill Museum, Morehead, the local newspaper, NC
History museum, 9 T Center for Performing Arts to hear the NC
Symphony. Secondgrade visits the hospital. Typically, second grade
does neighborhood trips thirdgrade does larger community trips;
fourth grade does NC historical trips, and fifth grade has in the
past taken national trips. They used to go to Washington DC, but
after 9111 parents were worried about safety issues and the school
has backed off from such trips.
CHCCS: Parents help to defray the costs Each class gets $125
from the budget for field trips, and parents are expected to pay, as
well. They are also invited to add extra for "scholarships" for
students who don't have funding. We will not deny any child.
CHCCS: District provides funds, specialists are looking to findgrants, an
assistant teacher is in search for funds to send interested students to
science camp next year. PTA has a line item for field trips.
And it varies in OCS schools as well:
OCS: There is not district money for field trips. School can use general
fund (supported by money from school pictures.) Teacher grants and
scholarship moneygoes to general fund. [School X] students often go to
other schools in the districts for performances, etc, (coordinated through
the district.) [X Familyjgives money to the school Coalition of six local
churches will shore resources and donate offerings that go to the school
Any extra money availab le is used to address instructional needs (vs. wants)
first. For example to buy books, education software, guided reading texts.
After instructional materials, funds used to buy other supplies /materials for
teachers.
CHCCS /OCS Final Report 77
And
• 005: All field trips are curriculum based,- work to prioritize and be
reasonable. Opportunities include pumpkin patch for Kindergartners,
Washington DC for fifth graders. School figures per -child cost and PTSA
contributes for any child to enable their participation,' e.g. every 5t17 grader
goes to DC. There is an issue with field trips: minibuses for special needs
children don't alwaysget to school in time. They need to be here the entire
day and on time.
Co`n`nunity Volunteers
Parents are a resource for schools. They can help out in classrooms, help supervise
lunchrooms, provide additional supervision for field trips, and make presentations to classes.
Availability of this support varies with schools and with SES of the school community.
Proximity to the UNC- Chapel Hill campus brings many more university students into
the CHCCS than into OCS schools.
f. Limitations of the Study
Given the time and funding available to us, we have had to focus our work on
personnel and achievement data. We recognize that there are important qualities of the
school experience that greatly influence how students see themselves as learners and
appreciated members of a school community that we have not been able to assess. Neither
have we interviewed parents or teachers or observed instruction. Without this degree of
scrutiny we are not able to comment on how well resources are being used, or how well
professional development is established and sustained.
We have appreciated the hospitality of the school principals and the central office
personnel who have worked so diligently to produce the information that we have requested.
CHCCS /OCS Final Report 78
Part C.
Recommendations
CHCCS /OCS Final Report 79
C. Recommendations
Our study does not provide an answer to the question of merger. Whether these
two school systems remain separate is a decision that goes beyond an analysis of educational
resources. It is also a political, economic, cultural, and ethical question that needs to be
resolved by the citizens of this community and their elected representatives.
The dilemma that the Commissioners face is common to many communities across
this country. Given the relationship of economic advantage and academic success, it is no
surprise that school systems serving students who are most oriented to academic work and
aspiration have also the most money to spend on their education. Efforts to address this
irony spring from a recognition that public schooling is responsible for the education of all
the children in our communities and the conviction that every group in society benefits when
all our citizens participate fully in our civic, cultural, and productive life.
Our recommendations address the processes of schooling where we have found
educators struggling to provide opportunities for students within these two excellent school
systems. We have relied on achievement data to identify those areas of curriculum and
schooling where the disparity in resources may be correlated with disparities in
achievement. And so our recommendations point to areas where resources for OCS might
be increased, both through provision of County funding and through more collaboration with
CHCCS. These recommendations suggest targeting investments, sharing information and
planning more collaboratively
Increasinq OCS Resources Pre K -12
1. Increased Provision of Social Workers
Given the individualized instruction and support that children with special needs
require, OCS needs more specialists to work with students at every level of the system.
Acknowledging the difficulty of finding resources to increase the number of certified EC
teachers to work with students, we recommend that the county explore how to increase the
number of social workers for every Orange County school. Perhaps the County can use some
portion of social service funding to provide this support for students_.
2. Increased Resources for Exceptional Children (EC) Specialists in OCS
Social workers will alleviate some of the strain that OCS schools deal with as they
work to support students in crisis. But at every level of OCS this system needs to be
buttressed. Student Assistance Teams need training, crisis intervention counselors need to
be present. Analysis of the referral system is needed to ensure that there is not a process
of over - identification. Support for students still struggling with literacy needs to be
extended into middle schools and high schools.
CHCCS /OCS Final Report 80
3. Improved Transportation for A f ter - School Programs for OCS
In families where both parents are working it is often difficult to provide the
private transportation needed for attendance at after school programs. Often the children
who need the extra support and enrichment of the after school programs are those least
able to get access to it. Whereas CHCCS use their busses to provide transportation to
after - school programs at all their middle schools and have access to free public
transportation, OCS lacks similarly reliable resources.
4. District Resources for Grants and Data
An investment in an OCS central office staff research position for someone who will
provide and analyze data will also make it possible for district leadership to better assess
resources and needs.
5. Subject Area Specialists
Although schools in both districts experience drops in achievement scores as
students move from 5th to 6th grades, there is insufficient staff at the OCS central office
to facilitate curriculum alignment, a process that could diminish the inconsistencies in
preparation that undermine students' success as they make that transition. Furthermore,
OCS district leadership needs to be available to share the exemplary work at Stanford
Middle School with its feeder schools and with other schools in the area of reading. It also
needs to provide additional support to elementary and middle school teachers in the
development and implementation of mathematics curriculum to improve the achievement of
OCS students. Curriculum development and leadership is also an area where asking CHCCS
specialists to work with OCS schools, sharing professional development resources, and best
practices among schools in both districts could be mutually beneficial.
6. Increased Resources for Pre - School Services
By blending federally supported preschool programs with a tuition based program,
CHCCS not only makes its programs available to more families it also provides a cohort
experience for all children that is culturally diverse. We encourage OCS to increase its
programs with this option.
Communication and Collaboration Between Districts
7 Increased Access to High School Courses Across Districts
OCS students should have access to CHCCS Advanced Placement (AP) courses that
may be different from OCS offerings, or that may be available when OCS courses are not
offered. Reciprocally, CHCCS students interested in OCS courses that are not offered in
CHCCS should have access to them, notably AP and Honors courses as well as courses in the
CHCCS /OCS Final Report 81
Career Tech Program area of the OCS curriculum. In addition, CHCCS should have access
to OCS programs that offer certificates that qualify students for employment directly
after graduation.
8. Development of Shared Nomenclature
Collaboration between the two school districts to arrive at a similar nomenclature
for personnel positions would greatly clarify efforts to study and compare resources.
9. Increased Collaborative Professional Development Across Districts
The UNC- Chapel Hill School of Education's Center for Educational Excellence may
provide a place as well as facilitation for collaborative professional development ventures
between the districts, extending some of the collaboration that already takes place under
the auspices of the Research Triangle Schools Partnership. We recommend that this
proposal be explored by the CHCCS, OCS, the UNC - Chapel Hill School of Education, and the
Center.
CHCCS /OCS Final Report 82
References
Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development. (1989). Turning points: Preparing American
youth for the 21St century: the report of the Task Force on Education of Young
Adolescents. Washington, DC: Carnegie Council of Adolescent Development.
Chapel Hill - Carrboro City Schools: http: / /www.chccs.kl2.nc.us/
CHCCS Minority Student Achievement Report (2004). Retrieved December 2004 from
http:/ /www chccs kl2 nc us/ Minority5tudentAchievement lminoritystudentachievem
ent.htm
Initiatives in Educational Transformation (2002). Inequality at the Starting Gate.
Retrieved January 2005 from http: / /www.gmu.edu /iet /.
International Reading Association. Issues in Literacy position statements. Retrieved
January 2005 from
ttp-://www.reading.org/re5ource5/issues/positions adolescent.html
McCombs, J.S., Kirby, S.N., Barney, H., Darilek, H., & Magee, S. (2004). Achieving state and
national literacygoals: Along uphill road. Retrieved January 2005 from
http://lwww.rand.org/pubs/technicaI reports /2004 /RAND TR180.sum.pdf
McNeil, N.M., Grandau, L., Stephens, A.C., Krill, D.E., Alibali, M.W., & Knuth, E.J. (2004).
Middle- school students' experience with the equal sign: Saxon Moth, Connected
Mathematics In D. McDougall (Ed.), Proceedings of the XXVI Annual Conference of
the North American Chapter of the International6roup for the Psychology of
Mathematics Education (PME -NA), Toronto, Canada (Vol. 1, pp. 271 -6). Columbus,
OH: ERIC.
CHCCS /OCS Final Report 83
NC Professional Teaching Standards Commission (2004). Teacher working conditions
survey: http'//twc.learnnc.org/gov/twc.nsf
NCDPI Statistical Profile 2004: http://www.ncpublicschools.org/fbs/stats/
NC School Report Cards: 2003 -2004. http: / /www.ncrePortcards.org
NC School Report Cards: 2002 -2003. http: / /www.ncreportcards.or!
Opening of School Report (October 2004). Chapel Hill - Carrboro City Schools;
http-://www.chccs.kl2.nc.us/board/10072004boardagendo/oofsr.pdf
Orange County Schools: http:/ /www.orange.kl2.nc.us/
Rothstein, R. (2004). Class and schools: Using social, economic, and educational reform to
close the Black -White achievementgap. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute.
Word, E., Achilles, C.M., Bain, H., Folger, J., Johnston, J., & Lintz, N. (1990). Project STAR
Final Executive Summary Report: Kindergarten through Third Grade (1985- 1989).
Nashville, TN: Tennessee State Department of Education.
Zorn, D., & Noga, J. (2004, March). Family poverty and its implications for school success.
Cincinnati, OH: University of Cincinnati Evaluation Services Center. Retrieved
January 2005 from
http://www.uc.edu/evaluctionservices/comiDleted/Fami ly%20Poverty%20and20%Sch
ool %205uccess %20June %209 %20final %20version.pdf.
CHCCS /OCS Final Report 84