System-Building in Charter School District

• In Event: System-Building to Improve Access, Quality, and Equity in Elementary Science

Abstract

Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to analyze system-building for elementary science instruction in a charter school district that is part of a large, multi-state charter network.

Perspective(s) or theoretical framework
As with Paper 2, this paper leverages the analytic framework detailed in the symposium overview, which focuses on five domains of work in central offices and schools aimed at improving instructional quality and reducing disparities.

Modes of Inquiry
As with Paper 2, this paper was developed within the embedded, comparative case study design detailed in the symposium overview.

Data/Analysis
This paper focuses on Charter School District (CSD): a charter school district that serves over 5,000 students, more than 90% of whom are students of color and more than 90% of whom are low-income.

Within the comprehensive dataset and analysis plan described in the overview, this paper draws on:

● Observations of two district-level professional development sessions; one supporting teachers in using its curriculum; one supporting central office leaders to organize teacher professional development.
● 6 interviews with the science director (n=1), elementary education director (n=1), and other district-level content area and supplemental service leads (n=4).
● A sample of artifacts that included documents detailing district demographics and priorities; curriculum materials; and associated professional development materials.

Results
Operating in an active and competitive charter environment, prioritizing elementary science in CSD sits at the intersection of pressures to demonstrate student achievement on state assessments and the network’s long-standing commitment to providing high-quality educational experiences to historically underserved communities.

Like USD, CSD’s system-building efforts are anchored by its centrally-established educational infrastructure. Whereas USD’s infrastructure-building is primarily done in-house, CSD draws on a combination of commercial and centrally-developed resources. This infrastructure also includes a formal schedule for science instruction, as well as a social structure for instruction rooted in a commitment to anti-racist teaching.

As described above, managing environmental relationships has CSD highly-sensitive to state accountability and the educational resource market. Yet, it goes further to involve differentiating itself among educational alternatives in the competitive charter environment in which it is located.

To support the use of this extensive, externally-aligned infrastructure in practice, CSD relies on two primary approaches: monthly professional learning complemented with ongoing, school-based coaching.

These approaches to support use, in turn, have CSD developing and distributing additional instructional leadership capabilities beyond the central office, with a particular focus on school principals, instructional coaches, and science specialists supporting teachers in elementary science.

With pressures to improve achievement, CSD monitors performance using both standards- and curriculum-aligned assessments. These assessments, in turn, inform and drive continuous improvement processes in the central office aimed at improving the quality and use of its educational infrastructure.

Significance
In addition to further evidencing the usefulness of this analytic framework generally, the specific added value of this case is that it provides keen insight on the work of managing environmental relationships. In CSD, this involved not only aligning instruction with state standards, but also aligning with market competition and drawing on external resource providers for support.

Author

• Angela Lyle, University of Michigan - Ann Arbor