Introduction The purpose of this project is to develop an understanding of effective schools using the characteristics identified in Correlates of Effective Schools written by Lawrence Lezotte (Lexotte, 1991). To examine the characteristics, a survey developed from the writing of Lezotte was given to educators at my school. Likewise, data was collected using the most recent literacy test in Florida to compare economically disadvantaged and non-economically disadvantaged. The significance of this project is to gain a deeper understanding of the “effective school correlates and how they are indicators of an ethical school and an effective school.” (Holifield, 2015)
Instrumentation and Statistical Treatment
The instrument used to collect …show more content…
This data reveals the school is possibly not succeeding in all the correlates. The school does seem to have equality with students that are level 2 and level 3 of both groups. The discrepancy between level 1 and level 5 clearly indicates a failure in the mission “learning for all”. The data in level 1 represent 36% of the 8th grade class, and the majority is classified as economically disadvantage. This statistic reveals some possible opportunity for the staff and administrators to evaluate their use of the effective school correlates
Conclusion
This project and readings have provided me with insight into the framework necessary to operate an effective school. The school used in this project has a firm grasp on the first generation correlate standards. The small sampling used for the survey and grade level data collection has clarified how the staff and leadership should aspire to be a second generation school. According to Lexotte (1991), “second genreation correlates represent a developmental step beyond the first and, will move the school even closer to the the mission of Learning for All” (p. 1).
Viable conclusions based on the mean scores from the Effective School …show more content…
• The mastery level has an 11% difference from the non-economically disadvantaged to the economically disadvantaged. This statistic could possibly be the result of teachers not having high expectations for all students.
• The inadequate level of success has the most significant statistic. The non-economically disadvantaged has the lowest percentage of all the levels in this category. The economically disadvantaged is 16% higher than the non-economically disadvantaged. This statistic could possibly be turned around by teachers having higher expectations of students.
Viable conclusion based on the survey and the student achievement data.
• The correlate Time on Task, question 23 has a mean value score of 3, and a mean practice score of 1.2. The indicator is in reference to maintaining a high level of attendance. This low rating could directly relate to the high percentage of economically disadvantaged students that scored a level 1 inadequate level of success. If economically disadvantaged students aren’t encouraged to attend school, learning becomes
Instrumentation and Statistical Treatment
The instrument used to collect …show more content…
This data reveals the school is possibly not succeeding in all the correlates. The school does seem to have equality with students that are level 2 and level 3 of both groups. The discrepancy between level 1 and level 5 clearly indicates a failure in the mission “learning for all”. The data in level 1 represent 36% of the 8th grade class, and the majority is classified as economically disadvantage. This statistic reveals some possible opportunity for the staff and administrators to evaluate their use of the effective school correlates
Conclusion
This project and readings have provided me with insight into the framework necessary to operate an effective school. The school used in this project has a firm grasp on the first generation correlate standards. The small sampling used for the survey and grade level data collection has clarified how the staff and leadership should aspire to be a second generation school. According to Lexotte (1991), “second genreation correlates represent a developmental step beyond the first and, will move the school even closer to the the mission of Learning for All” (p. 1).
Viable conclusions based on the mean scores from the Effective School …show more content…
• The mastery level has an 11% difference from the non-economically disadvantaged to the economically disadvantaged. This statistic could possibly be the result of teachers not having high expectations for all students.
• The inadequate level of success has the most significant statistic. The non-economically disadvantaged has the lowest percentage of all the levels in this category. The economically disadvantaged is 16% higher than the non-economically disadvantaged. This statistic could possibly be turned around by teachers having higher expectations of students.
Viable conclusion based on the survey and the student achievement data.
• The correlate Time on Task, question 23 has a mean value score of 3, and a mean practice score of 1.2. The indicator is in reference to maintaining a high level of attendance. This low rating could directly relate to the high percentage of economically disadvantaged students that scored a level 1 inadequate level of success. If economically disadvantaged students aren’t encouraged to attend school, learning becomes