Summary Report of the School Conditions and Climate Work Group

Summary Report of the School Conditions and Climate Work Group

November 28, 2016, Stakeholder Engagement Session

On November 28, 2016, the CCWG held its first face-to-face meeting that included time for the CCWG to both meet in person in the morning and engage with stakeholders in the afternoon at the Sacramento County Office of Education. This document summarizes the process utilized and outputs of the afternoon session, which engaged approximately 60 stakeholders.

The objectives for this session were to:

Provide an update on accountability and continuous improvement work-to-date for LCFF priorities in the areas of school conditions and climate; and

Provide stakeholders an opportunity to provide input and feedback about this work.

Stakeholder Engagement Session Design – The World Café

Stakeholders had the opportunity to interact with members of the CCWG to provide input and feedback that would be used to support the work of the CCWG utilizing the World Café format (see:

Questions for the conversation were organized in the following stations: (1) CCWG definition of “school conditions and climate,” (2) Framework for recommendations, (3) Validity, (4) Equity, and (5) Connections to other LCFF priorities.

Format

Ten tables were set-up with two tables dedicated to each station topic; one member of the CCWG served as a host for each station. Large placemats made of chart paper for participants to use to capture their thoughts were placed on each table. The CCWG host ensured that the conversation flowed and that stakeholders were able to capture their thoughts. Participants spent approximately ten minutes at each table discussing each category of questions before rotating to the next table of their choosing. Following all of the rotations, the station host provided a brief summary to the whole group of the discussion at each table.

A summary of the stakeholder feedback for each station is provided below, organized by station topic and the focus question for each station.

Station 1: CCWG definition of school conditions and climate—Focus Question: Please share your thoughts about the current version of the definition of school conditions and climate (see below). What do you like/not like about it? Is there anything else that should be included?

Current Version of the School Conditions and Climate Definition Provided for Discussion

“School Conditions and Climate’ refers to the character and quality of school life. It includes the values, expectations, interpersonal relationships, critical resources, supports, and practices that foster a welcoming, inclusive, and academically challenging environment. Positive school climate and conditions ensure people in the school community feel socially, emotionally, and physically safe, supported, connected to the school, and engaged in learning and teaching.

Some features that promote a positive school climate and affect the attitudes, behaviors, and performance of both students and staff include, but are not limited to:

An intentional student-centric commitment to meeting the basic cognitive, social, emotional, and physical health needs of youth and fostering the competencies and mindsets that contribute to success in school, career, and life;

Caring, trusting, respectful relationships exist among and between students, staff, parents, and families;

High expectations for academic achievement and behavior and the social-emotional and pedagogical supports youth need to meet those expectations;

The presence of meaningful stakeholder participation that fosters a sense of contribution, empowerment, and ownership; and

A sense of order and safety grounded in clearly communicated rules and expectations, fair and equitable discipline, and well-maintained resources and facilities.

Discussion Results

What do you like about it?

“student-centric commitment” is key
Focus on supportive environment for students and staff
Robust bullet points
There is a connection to the LCFF priorities

What do you not like about it?

It is lengthy and should be streamlined for stakeholders so that the content of the definition and examples of features clearly delineated

Staff care about more than academic success including issues such as clean, safe facilities

The definition does not seem quantifiable. Schools need tools they can use now to improve school conditions and climate, which could be rectified with the elevation of school climate to a statewide LCFF indicator, and robust data collection and analysis support

Is there anything else that should be included?

Highlight “student-centric commitment” to a place of prominence
Define school conditions and climate in a tangible and measurable way
Include terms such as effective teaching, clean and safe facilities
Be consistent with the use of the term “school conditions and climate.”

Station 2: Framework of potential options for recommendations—Focus Question: As we move forward with the development of a framework of recommendations for measuring progress with school conditions and climate, what is the range of potential options that should be included?

Discussion Results

Stakeholders provided input regarding a range of potential options with five ideas/themes emerging from the discussion. These are:

Surveys are a good way to measure school conditions and climate especially if there were a core set of questions aligned to the LCFF Priority 6: School Climate from which local educational agencies (LEAs) and schools could choose. Surveys should be customizable and, if possible, include social-emotional learning and connectedness questions. The California Healthy Kids Survey (CHKS) was mentioned. The CCWG should also consider survey fatigue.

Provide LEAs and schools with additional options to measure school conditions and climate such as focus groups, interviews, observation tools, rubrics, and self-reflection tools.

Consider the size and capacity of school districts to measure school conditions and climate when making the recommendations. Varying and balancing the state’s approach to measuring school conditions and climate could support both local customization needs and state needs.

Ensure that Continuous Improvement is built in so that the data collected is purposeful and causes reflection and engagement with school stakeholders. Connect the data collection to the annual Local Control Accountability Plan (LCAP) development process.

School conditions and climate is the foundation upon which all school achievement success is built.

Station 3: Validity—Focus Question: What questions do you think we should ask about validity in relation to measuring school conditions and climate?

Discussion Results

A myriad of questions and concerns were raised regarding validity, and it’s relation to measuring school conditions and climate. Major themes from the validity discussion included:

How often does the measure have to be given in order to gather enough data for rich analysis and use? Annually? Bi-annually?

LEAs need a clearinghouse or centralized location to share and evaluate (validity and reliability) quality measures of school conditions and climate.

Acknowledgment of the tension between measuring school conditions and climate statewide and locally. Locally defined measures could have validity issues, but the statewide measure may be at odds with local control. The need for comparability between LEAs to support continuous improvement could help ease the tension.

What guidance can be provided for the use of the data concerning the generation of new/revised LEA and school actions for continuous improvement? Confidentiality was called out specifically as a concern.

What is the validity and reliability evidence for the different potential uses (e.g., formative, summative, benchmark) of CHKS or other instruments?

Station 4: Equity—Focus Question: What questions do you think we should ask about achieving equity in relation to measuring school conditions and climate?

Discussion Results

Stakeholders shared that the equity lens for school conditions and climate can take many shapes and needs to be carefully considered. The following themes highlight the major substance of the recommendations for parameters shared:

How will equity be defined in the context of school conditions and climate?

Equity is not synonymous with Equality, especially about the conditions of school facilities, implementation of discipline policies, access to quality teachers, and promoting a welcoming environment.

What will happen to the collected data? Disaggregated? Shared internally or publically? Acted on?

Provide tools for LEAs and schools to use so that large and small LEAs can gather useful data.

The absence of a statewide measure for school conditions and climate is inherently inequitable because small LEAs and schools are at a disadvantage when compared to large LEAs with more capacity and resources.

Ensure that populations that are typically engaged the least are reflected in the measure recommendation. For example, think about response rates, outreach, and sharing of the data.

Station 5: Connections to other LCFF priorities—Focus Question: Please share your thoughts about how school conditions and climate connects to the other LCFF priorities.

Discussion Results

Stakeholders felt that school conditions and climate is an important foundational element to be addressed because a positive school climate affects many other elements/priorities. In particular, stakeholders felt that:

There needs to be a linkage between school conditions and climate measures and student achievement.

Consideration should be given to the personal, social, academic, and physical aspects of school conditions and climate measures in relation to all LCFF priorities, especially 3, 4, and 5.

All voices (students, parents, teachers, administration) should be included in the measure. They must be heard and appreciated.

It is important to consider that the culture is site-based, but the LCAP is district based. What impact will this have on the measure recommended?

General Comments

Following the report out by the station facilitators, several participants made overarching comments to the whole group, including:

We should not start from the assumption that all work must be done by vendors; the state needs to invest in public institutions that can carry out this work; and

Need to clarify when the recommendations being discussed, if adopted, would go into effect. (It was further clarified that for the 2017-18 LCAP year, LEAs would utilize the Priority 6 local performance indicator system as adopted by the State Board of Education in September 2016, see: http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/ag/ag/yr16/documents/sep16item01.doc)